> I've never used live view since the only camera I have that does it is
> the Minolta A1. But if you tell me that you can *crisply* delineate
> focus at 5 meters vs. 5.5 or even 6 meters using live view I'll agree
> that the focusing part of my objection is moot. But that still leaves
> the performance of the lenses at f/4.
Absolutely! But between 4.95m and 5.05m it's a little tough. The
problem with the "fly by wire" focusing of the Leica lens as well as
DZ lenses is the resolution of the steps.
For example, at 5m, the focus resolution is probably around 3cm. With
the OM-Z lenses I can tweak focus in between the steps. Just a slight
nudge of the focus ring on most OM-Z lenses will result in a visible
focus shift when viewed zoomed in on live-view. I don't know the exact
granularity of these fly-by-wire lenses, but it is problematic at
times when your desired focus point seems to land right between the
steps. And then when you take a picture or two you have to verify
focus because the step may have changed to an adjacent setting.
As to the performance of the lenses at F4.0, you do have a valid
point. The OM-Z 24/2.8 isn't the sharpest talon on the hawk when
wide-open, but isn't a dog either. In fact, when used with the E-1
there is essentially no difference using the lens F4 through F11. On
the L1, which has MUCH more resolution, there definitely are
differences.
We did a test of the 12-60 compared to the 14-54mk1, various 50mm
lenses (and zooms at 50mm) and also the Leica lens on an E-3. The
Leica and the 12-60 are very close in performance--maybe even giving a
resolution nod to the 12-60, but the Leica has a more even performance
corner to corner. The 12-60 does have a more classical OM Zuiko look
to it in contrast. The tonal curve of the Leica is NOT interchangeable
with the Zuikos. These are different lenses with entirely different
looks. The Leica 25mm F1.4 lens is even more stark. You can shoot the
two Leicas interchangeably, but the 25mm lens then kicks in the
turbocharger and makes you just drool at the images because they are
unlike anything else you can get this side of an M9. I avoid my
buddy's 25mm like the plague. I shot it extensively at an event but
realized that I should never do that again.
BTW, when push comes to shove, and we are pulling every resolution
trick in the book, the 7.5mp L1 is pretty much a match to the E-3 in
spite of having fewer pixels. The AA filter is definitely different.
The processing engines in the cameras are quite different too, but
that's where Olympus rules the roost! Panasonic's processing engine is
kinda gut-wrench and it smears everything--even in the raw files. And
the sensor/chipset has a horribly strong color shift in warmer light.
Sunsets go all "Disney" on you. There's a lot to like about the
camera, but an equal amount of things to drive you to drink.
To answer the one unasked question: Why the 24mm lens? Because it's a
"normal" focal length on FourThirds. When traveling light (small,
low-impact), the 24mm on the L1 has a very nice rangefinder camera
gestalt. For that kind of shooting, though, I'm at F8 and
zone-focusing and using the viewfinder for elementary framing.
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/
|