Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Considering OMD 1; couple of questions  (Read 15084 times)
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2014, 03:56:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I have the 1240mm, Pana/Leica 25/1.4 and Oly 75mm in my E-M1 bag (a Domke F803 satchel). That's all I need for travel. (At least I'll finally be putting this to the test in the near future.) Substitute the E-M5 for the E-M1 if you like...I keep going back & forth.

-Dave-

I can understand the lure of a zoom and the beauty of m43 is the lenses seem larger than the sensor so you have good sharpness edge to edge if that's what your looking for.

The thing with me and zooms are they send me crazy.   The only way I can work a zoom properly is to decide on what prime lens I want it to be, let's say a 35mm (17 in 43 terms) and leave it as a 35mm which doesn't do me much good given the zooms are slower.   Remember a 2.8 in this format gives the same wide open look as f4 in full frame 35mm terms.

The only zoom I use with regularity is the 35 to 100 pana (70 to 200 in 35mm terms) and I keep it set on 100 so if they made a 100mm f2 lens I'd buy it now.

But with the other oly primes from 12 to 74 and one pana 24 the total size and weight isn't much more than a single zoom and they seem sharper and obviously are faster.

____________________

Slightly off topic but I've mentioned I've shot the em-5 next to my 1dx.  It shows more noise, maybe very slightly less resolution, (though that's debatable), but today processing out a series of images in lightroom I had 4 selects of the same scene with the 1dx and 4 selects of the same scene with the em-5.  Same point of view, virtually same shot, except when I processed out the 1dx files the windows were blown out white, even when I tried to process a second image for blending and dropped the exposure 4 stops in lightroom the windows were still white.

When I started on the em-5 images, I noticed detail in the windows and moving the light setting to dark which didn't effect the main subject total detail came through the window.

Now this blows me away.  I can't believe a little camera like this can produce more lattitude than the 1dx.  

I really think olympus is on to something and these little cameras shoot way above their fighting weight.

Now maybe it's lightroom, but as I've been working this set of 357 images for the last few days, when I look down and see the .orf prefix I kind of smile because in lightroom hitting specific color and getting a film like look takes me 1/3 of the time that it does the 1dx.  Now I know the 1dx processed in dpp will make a better file, but I'm under deadline and working back and forth between processors is a pain and let's be honest lightroom has a very detailed and comprehensive interface.

But back to your original posters question of the omd em-1.  It's a good camera and any sharp lens will give great results, but if you get the chance try an em-5 next to the em-1.   The em-5 really produces an amazingly good file andI kind of think olympus knows this because they keep selling the em-5.

Adding a ev-4 viewfinder makes the both cameras a lot more usable.

IMO

BC
Logged

ned
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2014, 10:35:54 AM »
ReplyReply

These are the two Oly repair centers listed at bottom of PDF - Oly doesn't send cams to El Paso as far as I know??...

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/repair_pdfs/checklist.pdf

I  just had a rather lengthy service experience with Olympus that involved a lost product and a hole in their process. The end result was a brand new unit to replace one that was misplaced but eventually found. Turned out well in the end. The New York and California centers have been closed for awhile. Regarding Presision Camera, when I checked my repair status the screen said Olympus but the url went to Presision Camera.
Logged

Shutter speed is crucial in photography somehow.
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2014, 12:23:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I think the 12-40 makes prime lenses in that range redundant.  The edge-to-edge sharpness is well documented but the whole look is really nice (colour, contrast, highlight control, rendition of out of focus areas etc).  F2.8 is absolutely ample for most needs but there are those people who want extreme out of focus blur, who will maybe only be satisfied by the 75/1.8!  Actually, out-of-focus rendition is really nice with the 12-40 and, surprisingly, the other lens in my "travel kit", the 75-300 zoom.  An EM1, the 12-40 zoom and a longer lens to taste make an excellent, portable, high quality travel kit.  If you want a second body, for whatever reason, there are now many cheap m4/3 bodies to choose from, some of which are tiny.

Don

Hi Don - I agree the 2.8 zoom is good and probably a suitable choice for most people.  But remember the effective depth of field is more like f4 or 5.6 on a full frame camera, so those wanting faster lenses are not necessarily wanting "extreme out of focus blur", but just something more akin to the old 2.8 lens.  I photograph people mostly and 2.8 is not great at isolating subjects with Micro 43, especially at the 12-40 focal lengths.  With the longer lenses I agree 2.8 is possibly okay.

Jim
Logged
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2014, 01:59:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Don - I agree the 2.8 zoom is good and probably a suitable choice for most people.  But remember the effective depth of field is more like f4 or 5.6 on a full frame camera, so those wanting faster lenses are not necessarily wanting "extreme out of focus blur", but just something more akin to the old 2.8 lens.  I photograph people mostly and 2.8 is not great at isolating subjects with Micro 43, especially at the 12-40 focal lengths.  With the longer lenses I agree 2.8 is possibly okay.

Jim

Jim, you say that like it's a disadvantage to m4/3.  The fact that I can get the same depth of field without having to stop down is a huge advantage!  I spent decades in film days wanting more depth of field without losing shutter speed or having to use a fast, grainy film.  With digital, I still don't like bumping up the sensitivity because no camera does better when you do that. 

Conversely, I have absolutely no trouble whatsoever isolating subject from background whenever I want to.  I just don't see the problem.  It's always been way more about good technique than small differences in gear.
Logged

Don
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938



« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2014, 03:43:21 PM »
ReplyReply

BC, the 1240mm is mainly for when I'm not necessarily in a locale to photograph but would like to have the option anyway. One lens that covers a useful range fits that bill for me. I'm also not a trombone player with zooms (though as a teenager I did play trombone in a marching band!)...I think of this particular lens as a 17mm with variable framing options when needed. I've also got the 25/1.4 for speed and its overall pleasing look and the 75mm for more reach and a sharp w/ shallow DOF look when desired. I've actually got enough room in my bag for the Oly 17/1.8...might take it along too on my next excursion.

Deep, it's still a "full frame" world despite the fact that only a small percentage of cameras sold during the past decade + use that format. We've adopted 135 as our frame of reference, for better and for worse. People who've never used a 35mm camera in their life dream of the day they'll own an SLR that lets them use their lenses at their "true focal lengths."   Roll Eyes  (I've actually read that phrase in multiple photo magazines over the past two weeks...WTF!) The advantages of having deeper DOF at large apertures are lost on folks who equate speedy lenses with bokeh bounty. Now I like spatial/focal separation in photographs as much as anyone but IMO recently it's become more fetish than genuine creative expression or need.

The attached pic was taken by my dad in 1974. Faded Ektachrome.  Wink

-Dave-
Logged
lensjack
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #25 on: January 24, 2014, 05:08:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally, I think the 12-40 makes prime lenses in that range redundant.  The edge-to-edge sharpness is well documented but the whole look is really nice (colour, contrast, highlight control, rendition of out of focus areas etc).  F2.8 is absolutely ample for most needs but there are those people who want extreme out of focus blur, who will maybe only be satisfied by the 75/1.8!  Actually, out-of-focus rendition is really nice with the 12-40 and, surprisingly, the other lens in my "travel kit", the 75-300 zoom.  An EM1, the 12-40 zoom and a longer lens to taste make an excellent, portable, high quality travel kit.  If you want a second body, for whatever reason, there are now many cheap m4/3 bodies to choose from, some of which are tiny.

Don

All good to know, Don. Thanks much. How fortunate are we to be making photographs in an era of unprecedented innovation, information-sharing and opportunity? There's gear for virtually every need, taste and shooting style, with upgrades always in the pipeline, plus a world of generous people like you (and everyone else in this thread) willing to offer their knowledge. I've read countless reviews and opinions on Oly (and other MFT) lenses. For some folks, the 12-40 PRO zoom is like a gift from above. Others say a small, light prime makes the E-M 1 feel like a whole different camera. I'm psyched to experiment and find what I like. Having spent many a day toting a Canon 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x extender on a 1-series body, I'm guessing I'd need to hang a cinderblock off an Oly to even notice it.  Grin If I fall in like with the 12-40, I could imagine picking up the forthcoming 40-150, adding a wide-angle prime, and closing out my travel wants. But I could also easily imagine getting hooked on primes for all the reasons BC mentions. Scott Bourne, for one, was blown away by the 75:  http://photofocus.com/2012/12/16/olympus-m-zukio-75mm-f1-8-ed-lens-for-micro-four-thirds-cameras-mini-review/

Anyway, my fate is now in the hands of UPS. Let the games begin!

And thanks again to all who are contributing to this hugely helpful discussion.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2014, 04:01:13 PM by lensjack » Logged
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 309


« Reply #26 on: January 24, 2014, 09:02:33 PM »
ReplyReply


The thing with me and zooms are they send me crazy.   The only way I can work a zoom properly is to decide on what prime lens I want it to be, let's say a 35mm (17 in 43 terms) and leave it as a 35mm which doesn't do me much good given the zooms are slower.   Remember a 2.8 in this format gives the same wide open look as f4 in full frame 35mm terms.

BC

That's very interesting - I think it comes from what we're accustomed to doing.  I shot with a Canon A-1 from 1980 until 2006 and all I had was a zooms lens (took the kit lens off and never used it again).

A prime lens actually drives me nuts - I have to move to change the framing - really a nuisance with flower macros on a tripod.  My perfect lens would be a 100 - 200 true macro.  I'd shell out big money for one if it existed.

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 872


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2014, 01:25:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Jim, you say that like it's a disadvantage to m4/3.  The fact that I can get the same depth of field without having to stop down is a huge advantage!  I spent decades in film days wanting more depth of field without losing shutter speed or having to use a fast, grainy film.  With digital, I still don't like bumping up the sensitivity because no camera does better when you do that. 

Conversely, I have absolutely no trouble whatsoever isolating subject from background whenever I want to.  I just don't see the problem.  It's always been way more about good technique than small differences in gear.

Well as I said - it all depends on what you're shooting. Technique will not make much difference if I'm trying to isolate my subject from a background with the equivalent of f5.6 on a 50mm lens (e.g. f2.8 on 25mm M4/3). With my Canon camera I'm usually shooting f2 - f2.8 so of course I cannot replicate that with a 2.8 on the M4/3 cameras. 

If you like plenty of depth of field to work with the advantage is the other way round.  I was just responding to your point that about "extreme out of focus blur" and saying that 1.8 is not extreme on a 12-40 lens, - F1 is more like extreme.  Your style of shooting is facilitated by the greater DOF of M4/3, mine is made a bit more problematic, hence the need for apparently much faster lenses like F1 - f2 range. I love the ability to isolate subjects from the background even with standard focal lengths like 50mm equivalent.  Not a style liked by everyone I know.  And of course they still stop down if I need deeper DOF too.  The other beauty of say an f1 lens is that I can be shooting it stopped down to 1.2 (better quality) and still be using a lowish ISO like 400 for indoor or night shooting handheld.  I think we can all agree these are amazing little cameras with relatively few compromises.

Jim
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2014, 03:57:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Technique will not make much difference if I'm trying to isolate my subject from a background with the equivalent of f5.6 on a 50mm lens (e.g. f2.8 on 25mm M4/3). With my Canon camera I'm usually shooting f2 - f2.8 so of course I cannot replicate that with a 2.8 on the M4/3 cameras. 


Of course, like most things in photography, it depends. If you have the option of moving the subject further from the background, f2.8 on m43 may be OK, even at 50mm equivalent.
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
Deep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #29 on: January 25, 2014, 04:08:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Well as I said - it all depends on what you're shooting. Technique will not make much difference if I'm trying to isolate my subject from a background with the equivalent of f5.6 on a 50mm lens (e.g. f2.8 on 25mm M4/3). With my Canon camera I'm usually shooting f2 - f2.8 so of course I cannot replicate that with a 2.8 on the M4/3 cameras. 

If you like plenty of depth of field to work with the advantage is the other way round.  I was just responding to your point that about "extreme out of focus blur" and saying that 1.8 is not extreme on a 12-40 lens, - F1 is more like extreme.  Your style of shooting is facilitated by the greater DOF of M4/3, mine is made a bit more problematic, hence the need for apparently much faster lenses like F1 - f2 range. I love the ability to isolate subjects from the background even with standard focal lengths like 50mm equivalent.  Not a style liked by everyone I know.  And of course they still stop down if I need deeper DOF too.  The other beauty of say an f1 lens is that I can be shooting it stopped down to 1.2 (better quality) and still be using a lowish ISO like 400 for indoor or night shooting handheld.  I think we can all agree these are amazing little cameras with relatively few compromises.

Jim
Horses for courses.  My point rests.
Logged

Don
Mjollnir
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 309


« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2014, 09:17:00 AM »
ReplyReply

All good to know, Don. Thanks much. How fortunate are we to be making photographs in an era of unprecedented innovation, information-sharing and opportunity? There's gear for virtually every need, taste and shooting style, with upgrades always in the pipeline, plus a world of generous people like you (and everyone else in this thread) willing to offer their knowledge. I've read countless reviews and opinions on Oly (and other MFT) lenses. For some folks, the 12-40 PRO zoom is like a gift from above. Others say a small, light prime makes the E-M 1 feel like a whole different camera. I'm psyched to experiment and find what I like. Having spent many a day toting a Canon 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x extender on a 1-series body, I'm guessing I'd need to hang a cinderblock off an Oly to even notice it.  Grin If I fall in like with the 12-40, I could imagine picking up the forthcoming 40-150, adding a wide-angle prime, and closing out my travel wants. But I could also easily imagine getting hooked on primes for all the reasons BC mentions. Scott Bourne, for one, was blown away by the 75:  http://photofocus.com/2012/12/16/olympus-m-zukio-75mm-f1-8-ed-lens-for-micro-four-thirds-cameras-mini-review/

Anyway, my fate is now in the hands of UPS. Let the games begin!

And thanks again to all who are contributing to this hugely helpful discussion.


Indeed.  My black 75mm gets here tomorrow morning.

Gleefully rubbing my hands together until that box arrives.
Logged
gerafotografija
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2014, 10:42:50 AM »
ReplyReply

...2) I'm looking at the (back-ordered) 12-40 f/2.8 as my primary travel lens, with maybe the 75mm f/1.8 as a companion. Traveling light is key, so it's unlikely I'd want more than two lenses. Has anyone traveled extensively with this combo? Thoughts?

One thing no one has mentioned in this thread so far is that one of the nice things about the OMD (EM5 or EM1) is the weatherproofing, which comes in handy traveling.

Although the higher quality (and expensive) zooms will have drip and dust seals, there is only one prime that does. The Oly 60mm f/2.8 ED macro. This is my go to lens for skiing, windy beaches, desert, rain, snow, etc.

Considering the price point, and its excellent optical properties, I would recommend it as an alternative prime to either the 75/1.8 or 45/1.8 if you don't need the extra brightness or those particular FOVs.

My favorite combo right now when I am on the move is the EM5 with 60/2.8 and 25/1.4 in a sling bag, plus a Ricoh GR in my pocket. IMO, this makes no practical compromises on image quality vs. any other similarly lightweight setup for street or travel photography. An OMD with 12-35 or 12-40 would be good, but I'm not sure it would be as good.

Plus, having a leaf shutter compact in my pocket is handy when flashes are needed.

Good luck on the decision!
Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1207


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2014, 01:10:12 PM »
ReplyReply

The two camera companies to me that are very impressive are Olympus and Fuji, in the fact they have gone back to past models and improved them with firmware upgrades.

The em-5 now has the focusing points of the em-1 (smaller and more defined) and faster focusing.  It also allows for the ev-4 viewfinder and if you've used this finder you'll fall in love as it works straight on or as a waist level finder with 2 million dots.

The new Fuji is also impressive and the only thing it lacks is a full set of lenses on the shelf, ready to go.

Both Fuji and Olympus only lack two things for professional use.  They need some longer lenses, in the 200, 300 and 400 (35mm equivalent range) a fast wide at 9mm or so and the ability to tether.

Other than that they are both very impressive companies.


One thing no one has mentioned in this thread so far is that one of the nice things about the OMD (EM5 or EM1) is the weatherproofing, which comes in handy traveling.

Logged

Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2014, 06:41:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Both Fuji and Olympus only lack two things for professional use.  They need some longer lenses, in the 200, 300 and 400 (35mm equivalent range) a fast wide at 9mm or so and the ability to tether.

I agree, both Olympus and Fuji are doing good things. And things that Canon and Nikon seem to be ignoring.

One other thing needed for professional use: a professional service network with fast repairs and loaners as Canon and Nikon have.
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
Dan Wells
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 376


WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 06, 2014, 05:32:00 PM »
ReplyReply

       The weatherproofing really is impressive - I took an om-d 5 on a monthlong hike in vermont(most of the long trail), and it rode on my shoulder essentially the whole way (only ending up in its holster in the heaviest rain), 3000 images on that trip, and the little guy still works just fine! I now have that camera plus an om-d1 and a bunch of lenses including the stunning 12-40 (shortening Olympus' unwieldy names a bit), because I was so impressed with the om-d5 on the hike. I had the om-d1 out in a serious snowstorm for three hours yesterday, and the poor camera looked like a snowball (the hood was keeping snow off the front element, but I had to keep blowing off the viewfinder), but it kept right on shooting! It works fine today, too... Olympus claims that the weatherproofing is up to Nikon D4 or Canon 1dx standards, and i have no reason to doubt them, and quite a few to believe them...
        That's roughly the range on the image quality, too - really good 16mp camera ( 1dsII, D4, D700, although it doesn't have the high ISO of the D4). No, it's not a 36 mp camera, but it offers darned good quality up to 20 x 27", and is wholly acceptable at 24x30". Sure, if you have a printer the size of a piano, you can get extra resolution out of a D800e ( there is no question in a huge print, although I will be darned if I can tell in a 16x20 of most subjects, including high - detail landscape).
    There are two basic schools of landscape and nature photography - the perfectionist who will accept serious limits on where they can shoot ( the older Ansel Adams), or is exceptionally strong and agile, plus has help to carry gear ( the younger Ansel Adams, whose wife ended up with the tent and food many times - fortunately, both of them were really strong), and the photographer who says the best shot may not be somewhere the biggest camera is going (Galen Rowell).
     If you're doing fast and light backcountry landscape, the Om-d series is one of only two really viable travel companions (the new, weatherproof Fuji X-t1 looks awfully intriguing as well). You won't always have a tripod, so the superb stabilization on the Olympus bodies (and several of the Fuji lenses) will save your bacon on a frequent basis. The cameras can take anything the Weather God can dish out, and both systems have some superb optics (although we haven't yet seen Fuji's weather sealed lenses, I'm confident they'll be great, having shot extensively with a variety of X-series lenses). I can carry an Olympus body, the 12-40, the superb 60mm macro lens and the Panasonic 100-300 ( a surprisingly decent, although not great, super telephoto) in a small waist pack! What other system offers a 600mm equivalent wildlife lens in a package the size of a soda can? Even if it's a merely decent lens, it goes places a 600mm Nikkor can't dream of, and doesn't cost as much as a decent used car.
      The obvious question is "what about the Sony A7 and A7r - they're not much bigger than the Olympus"? First of all , the Sony bodies have FOUR native lenses (two zooms with pretty much the same range, and two primes with focal lengths within the range of the zooms, none of them a macro lens). The Zeiss zoom looks like an awfully nice lens, but it makes every other lens for the system redundant (in a real sense, they have one native lens...). I would almost guarantee that there is enough slop in adapters that my om-d bodies with the native 12-40 (or an x-t1 with a good Fujinon) will out-resolve any adapted lens on a Sony, with the possible exception of a Leica lens on a very expensive adapter - critical focus is a matter of fractions of a mm, and the tolerances of most adapters aren't great. The Olympus or Fuji shooter will have the choice of excellent autofocus or manual focus with automatic focusing aids, plus image stabilization, while the Sony shooter has to focus the adapted lens manually, turning focus aids on and off by hand, and has no stabilizer. The weather sealing on the Sonys is dubious - look at Roger Cicala's recent tear down - he couldn't find any gaskets, although there are quite a few flanges, which are better than nothing. Sony might yet do wonderful things with the A7 range, but I don't think they're there yet.
    An exciting time to be a backcountry landscape shooter, with two options Galen Rowell would have killed for...

Dan
Logged
scooby70
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 233


« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2014, 07:13:40 PM »
ReplyReply


The obvious question is "what about the Sony A7 and A7r - they're not much bigger than the Olympus"? First of all , the Sony bodies have FOUR native lenses (two zooms with pretty much the same range, and two primes with focal lengths within the range of the zooms, none of them a macro lens). The Zeiss zoom looks like an awfully nice lens, but it makes every other lens for the system redundant (in a real sense, they have one native lens...).

I would almost guarantee that there is enough slop in adapters that my om-d bodies with the native 12-40 (or an x-t1 with a good Fujinon) will out-resolve any adapted lens on a Sony, with the possible exception of a Leica lens on a very expensive adapter - critical focus is a matter of fractions of a mm, and the tolerances of most adapters aren't great.
Dan


I think you're making a few leaps there. I just don't see the point about there only being one lens but if that's your view then that's your view. The two 24/28-70mm-ish zooms cover pretty much the same range but one is a kit zoom with variable aperture and the other is AFAIK a "better" lens with a constant aperture.

This shouldn't surprise too much as pretty much every other camera/lens manufacturer does the same thing.

I bought the kit zoom. Not because it's a fantastic performer but because it'll be good enough for occasional use and that'll be good enough for me as I mostly use primes and only use zooms very occasionally. This is early days though and I'm pretty sure that more lenses will come sooner or later and in the meantime there is the other lenses and adapters issue...

I have an A7 and I use old Zuiko and Rokkor lenses and they seem to work well via Novoflex adapters which cost under 100. Whether that's expensive or not is open to debate but they also work well with a 10 adapter I bought off ebay, all except my 24mm as the adapter is APS-C and the 24mm shows vignetting whilst my 28mm and anything longer doesn't. Both adapters seem to be well enough made and there doesn't seem to be any play in them or differences between image sides or corners.

I didn't really buy the A7 believing it was better than the alternative MFT and APS-C CSC's. I bought it because the spec suited me and how I want to shoot and because it enables me to use my legacy lenses without a crop factor.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 07:15:50 PM by scooby70 » Logged
MikeWhitten
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2014, 05:06:31 PM »
ReplyReply


Now this blows me away.  I can't believe a little camera like this can produce more lattitude than the 1dx.  
I really think olympus is on to something and these little cameras shoot way above their fighting weight.


FWIW, I completely agree. The orf files from the EM-5 (and EM-1) are just addictive. The impression you quote has held up with me for about a year and a half now.
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1377


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2014, 07:39:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I have had the Panasonic 12-35 and now the Olympus 12-40. It is my subjective opinion that the Olympus resists flare better. I also like the pull for manual focus feature.

I have had a moderately crummy experience with turnaround times with Olympus since moving to Precision camera. On the bright side, they comped me the service fee, so that was okay.

One complaint I have about the75mm is that it's flare around bright objects is really ugly.

The 12-40 has almost made my 12mm f/2 obsolete except for size and nighttime.  I would still probably use the 12mm for street photography.

I currently travel with the 12-40, the Panasonic 25 f/1.4 and the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye.  Depending on my plans I may add the 75mm or the 60mm Olympus lenses.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1102


« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2014, 09:05:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Pixel for pixel, I think the Oly EM-1 is the best camera I've ever used. The files look great. The noise above 800 has a nice aesthetic and, if so desired, it is a cinch to clean up in ACR with the luminance noise reduction tool. I haven't seen color noise in any files under ISO 3200. The Oly primes--12mm, 17mm, 45mm, and 75mm are excellent. Nice bokeh, contrast, well-corrected, and more flare resistant than I'd have expected. I use an EPL-5 with the VF2 as a backup.
Logged
Speedy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2014, 10:50:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I had the OMD E-5 with the handgrip and was very satisfied for travel purposes using prime lenses.  I just sold the E-5 and acquired the OMD E-1.  I travel with a Tilley Vest and the Panasonic 20mm 1.7, Olympus 45mm 1.7, Olympus 12 mm F2, and the Panasonic 100-300 zoom.  The primes fit in the vest with other accessories, but I tend to hang the zoom on my belt, when I carry same.  I find this works exceptionally well and results from Prime lenses are very good indeed.  It is my subjective impression that the images from the E-5 were sharper than the E-1.  Also an unexpected problem is moire from the E-1 (anyone else encountered this???), so I have to shoot both raw and Jpeg files, as Oly processing eliminates moire in the jpeg files (or most of it).

Allan in BC
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad