On 12/26/2023 2:17 PM, Steve Goss wrote:
Hi, Y'all-
I'm currently using an E-520 with a 14 - 54. I also have a 40-150 and an OM 200 f4 with adapter, but I don't use them
much. Most of my photography is informal portraits, getting shots of people whitewater kayaking, or rappelling, or
pictures of whatever looks photogenic on vacation trips.
I've grown dissatisfied with the pictures I'm getting. The focus is mostly correct, but sometimes it just doesn't happen.
Which version of the 14-54? The first one is somewhat slow to focus. Same for
the 40-150, I believe.
Even when it does focus the pictures are not always sharp. Image stabilization kind of works but has limitations.
The E-520 is pretty primitive, with much poorer stabilization than newer models.
It sometimes picks the wrong thing to stabilize.
That's not actually possible. It is stabilization for camera movement, not subject movement. So if only one part is OoF,
it's likely subject movement faster than shutter speed can stop and/or insufficient focus/DoF. Again, faster focus and
better higher ISO performance of newer bodies should largely fix that.
I dropped by a local camera store recently, and they suggested the C... EOS Rebel R7 with a kit lens that does the
35mm equivalent of 28 to 250. The salesman said he could sell me another Olympus, but it would be significantly more
expensive and he didn't know how much longer Olympus would be around.
If they do fail, it'll be because of this kind of talk. They have up to the minute or beyond features and performance, a
broad endless supply of lenses and are coming out with new models. The OM-1 is an almost spectacularly capable camera.
Yes, I have two.
The store also stocked Sony and Nikon, but he didn't try to push either of
those on me.
I assume the practice of "spiffs" continues. This is cash bonuses to camera store sales people for certain
brands/models. At a guess, Canon is spiffing for this kit and others aren't or are giving less. Camera store salespeople
aren't reliable as knowledgeable and/or unbiased by money.
So, my main question is whether this would be a good successor to the E-520, or whether there's something else out
there that would fit the bill better.
Kit lenses aren't awful these days, but not great, either. The 14-54 is an optically excellent lens. If you have been
happy with the quality of pix from the 14-54, when things are right, you may not be so happy with such a cheap kit lens.
Your 14-54 and 40-150, with adapter, would work fine on any of the E-M1 series or an OM-1 or 5. Faster than on E-520, in
any case and a whole lot faster if second versions. And the stabilization will be Waaaaay better. OM has been offering
sales, including big discounts on the last E-M1 body, the Mark III.
The store wants $1800 for the camera and lens. I'm sure I could get it for less on line, but the store includes a
class explaining all the features of the camera.
I suspect you would be impressed with the results of your existing lenses, via an adapter, on an E-M1 Mark III or OM-5.
(You don't need the pricey OM adapter. It's just a tube with contacts to connect camera to lens.) I really don't know
the differences between them, but for the kind of photography you describe, there should be little feature/performance
difference. The OM-5 is smaller, and at list price, quite a bit cheaper.
The Oly 12-200 (24-400 eq.) lens is better than kit lenses, esp. up to about 150 mm But it's $900, often on sale for
$800. When serious, I carry one body with it and another with 100-400, plus 1.4x tele-extender.
O. M. Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|