>
> It's nice that you've got something to wiggle the hyperbole bone in
> your noggin once again now that the 3Ti is gathering the dust of
> boredom. ;^)
>
Six rolls of film in two weeks. Not the worlds most, but not too shabby.
Boredom? Surely you jest. :)
> Enjoy! And do explain what you mean by the "flattened CMOS look"
> sometime. That's a new one on me.
>
Compared to the E-1, everything is a little flat. :) I think the best way
to describe it is that the CCD sensors tend to have noise throughout the
entire dynamic range, whereas in CMOS the image tends to be clean down to
the lower ranks of brightness values.
Just ran a little test suite on the lens. On one hand I'm not so sure what
all the hype is about. The 14-50 is a terrific lens--no doubt, but it's not
a runaway compared to the 14-54. I suppose I was thinking the difference
would be more dramatic.
But there is a difference that I can't desribe yet. The 14-50 has a
different "look" to it which I can't quantify. The contrasting is different.
The bokeh is both better and worse than the 14-54. What I think is happening
though is that the bokeh is consistant on the 14-50 whereas it seems to vary
with the 14-54 depending on distance.
The in-lens stabilization is no great shakes.
ba da boom
Seriously, I'm a little underwelmed by it. 2-stops is probably true. The
problem that I see is the maximum amount of correction is rather limited and
it easily runs up against the limits of it's movement. Mode-2 is the
recommended one where it only kicks in during the exposure itself. If you
have it on during the half-press (or always on when mounted on an Oly body),
it just seems to bounce back and forth against the limits. But I am being a
bit mean and unreasanable...
I'm most certainly going to keep the Leica lens no matter what, but I am
amazed how well the 14-54 hangs in there. In fact I'd say that under certain
circumstances the 14-54 is slightly sharper. I've got to sell it to fund
this purchase along with a few other items.
It's wierd--but the 50mm setting on the 14-50 seems a touch shorter than
50mm, but is the same. I think the optical correction is more aggressive to
correct for barrell. The angle-of-view is the same, but the center of the
image seems more distant. The 14-54 does have straighter horizons in
wide-angle view when the horizon is at the top/bottom of the image.
I'm running into a few minor glitches with the RAW files. There are
workarounds and software upgrades to do... No major biggies, just the
irritations of a new camera brand to implement.
Switching lenses around and also using OMZ lenses on the L1 is a revelation.
Where we have to fight things with the E-thingies, this camera just seems to
act more natural with these legacy lenses. The viewfinder is, of course,
dismal, but even at that, focus confirmation is bloody accurate so I can
just go into framing mode. BTW, speaking of such, with the 24/2.8 mounted, I
can zone-focus it and stop it down to F5.8 or so and I've got my close-in
camera. Works great.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|