MichaelC wrote:
> Just wow!
Thank you. And sharp eyes may have caught which camera/lens was used
for the photo. :)
So, it's really fascinating taking a glance at photos from last year
and this year of the same subjects. With rare exceptions, I think I've
found a clear favorite camera/lens combination for Alaska that has
just a few minor shortcomings.
The E-3 with the SWD lenses is probably the best all-around camera
system in my kit. It's fast, comfortable, solid, has great
color/tones, and is sharp. The only areas of significance where the
camera falls down is weight/size, pixel-count, sometimes ineffective
IBIS, and limited dynamic range. Skintones will sometimes go wonky,
but that's not an Alaska landscape issue. But with rare exception, the
E-3 nails white-balance and has better out-of-camera colors and
contrast than most everything else. I can pull the files into
Lightroom and not do much of anything to them. If I wrangle the files
too much, they do fall apart, but I really don't have to wrangle them
very much. First pass with the files is closer to final than what I
have to do with the other more modern cameras.
I rented the Sony G Master 16-35 and 100-400 lenses for the trip this
year. The 16-35 is a lovely lens and is exceptionally sharp and very
well behaved. The 100-400 is less so. It's sharp 100-300, but from
300-400 it does struggle a bit. The ergonomics are just off too. I
shot with my nephew's Canon kit a little bit and the difference in
ergonomic refinement between the two systems was stunning. Anyway, I
got to carry $5000 worth of glass with me for about $40 per day (first
day free). Well worth it. I'm sure to rent some more G Master glass
off and on. The 70-200/2.8 is obviously a very good lens and I will
probably try that one next.
The ZD 50-200 SWD lens has the same fall-off at the very far end like
the 100-400, but the ergonomics of the SWD are, again, worlds better
than the GM 100-400. In all honesty, with more pixels (16mp vs 24mp),
and slightly lower noise-floor in the Olympus, I didn't find much
advantage with the Sony kit than the E-M5ii with 50-200. Obviously,
focus performance of the E-M5ii is atrocious. Oh, speaking of, the GM
100-400 at the 350-400mm range really struggled at focusing on the
A7ii.
But after a week of shooting around 6000 pictures, I had the E3 with
50-200 lens with me when I dropped my nephew off at the airport and
really enjoyed the fact that I had a camera that just got the job done
without any drama.
AK Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|