This OM-D thingie has me seriously tempted. I just saw an ISO 3200 photo
on getdpi, taken by Jono Slack in a dimly-lit pub. It's sharp, and at
100% the image looks like it has Kodachrome 25 grain. 1/100 at f/1.8 ISO
3200, which would be 1/30 at f/1.4 on Tri-X. Such shots are not doing my
sales resistance any good at all.
Here's the thread I'm referring to:
<http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/4-3rds-cameras/36866-fun-olympus-omd-2.html>
My main camera is a Leica M8. My long lens camera is an Oly E-30. My
"good enough" generalist camera is the original Panny G1. Up until now,
the only reason to upgrade from the G1 was maybe the GH2. But the OMD
looks like it is playing in the same field as the K-5 and D7000. And
it's small and light, so I'd probably reach for it more often than
either the E-30 (size/weight) or the G1 (IQ and high ISO limitations).
I'm not a pro, so unlike AG and Mrs. AG, I can put convenience and fun
factor higher than what monetary return on investment I'm going to get
(forgive me for assuming Ken, but I have a feeling that this was a major
factor in The Discussion). Nor do I feel I *must* support my old OM
lenses full-frame. It would be nice, but its a secondary consideration,
and if they end up seeming twice as long as they were back in the day,
I'll live.
This OM-D and a 45/1.8 could probably replace the Leica for classical
concert shooting--it has three stop advantage vs. the M8 at 800 and a 90
Summicron. It's a leap ahead of the G1 as a generalist camera. I could
still use OM Zuikos and Leica lenses on it for special purposes.
I suspect the Leica M8 would still be a better decisive-moment camera,
and its low-to-medium IQ is probably still better. With fast lenses, the
ISO 640 (really 800) quality limit is often enough for where I play. I
really like the E-30, the controls make it feel like a "real" camera,
but I usually don't take it out unless I know I'm going to be shooting
long. Like the G1, it is not really an available-light camera.
Unfortunately, my original 40-150 f/3.5-4.5 DigiZuiko is (which I love
on the E-30) doesn't do contrast autofocus, so I believe would be manual
focus on the OM-D. And it would be awfully big.
Still To Be Determined: Shutter/autofocus lag and dynamic range. Both
would need to be good enough *for me* before I'd leap. But I gotta tell
ya, an OM-D with a 45/1.8, combined with the 20/1.7 and the original
Panny 14-45 kit zoom--is sounding like a very sweet "go-everywhere do
most things well" outfit.
So, fellow Zuiks, am I making sense, or do you feel compelled to inform
me of the error of my ways?
--Peter
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|