I had a look at the OM-D in Campkins in Cambridge yesterday. I understood what
people have been saying about how attractive it is to handle, and it felt so to
me. I have small hands so the size is about right for my grip, including the
switchery etc . . .
But the EVF . . . it looks like the one I had for my PEN camera, nice and
detailed, but unreal in appearance. And when you move the camera to change
view the picture seems to freeze or blur, I couldn't decide. I prefer even the
funny little optical viewfinder on my X10.
But I rather like the functions on the 12-50: power zoom or "mechanical", with
a macro setting.
Chris
On 14 Jul 2012, at 04:47, Moose wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 2:23 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Maybe they'll make me a full-frame mirrorless camera.
>
> From a pure IQ standpoint, I'm not sure FF buys anything much anymore. I've
> been looking closely at the studio samples
> from the OM-D. Definitely a step up from not only Oly's previous efforts, but
> compared to the 4/3 and APS-C competition.
>
> If I could figure out a lens combination that suits me, and find a little
> extra kale, I'd be sorely tempted. I do have a
> little problem with 4/3 for real WA. The 2x multiplier approximation doesn't
> quite work the same for horizontal wide AOVs.
>
> I'm currently using a two lens combination, 10-22 and 28-300, that covers
> 16-480 mm eq. It would take three µ4/3 lenses
> to do that.
>
> Anybody with any experience of the m.14-140mm ? Yeah, I know all the cool
> kids are going with primes, but that's not how
> I roll. :-)
>
> Pondering Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|