OM-D vs FF http://jkeller.com/OM-D_vs_FF.jpg
The Domke bag holds the OM-D, 9-18, 12-50, 40-150, and 75-300. It actually
feels lighter than the Canon 5Dii next to it.
I don't think I've gotten proficient with the controls/menus on any digital
camera I've owned. The touch screen does make many settings very easy to
find and change. I like the two control wheels on the top of the camera.
The lens quality? ... The images as currently converted by Adobe CS5 tend
to show more fringing than Canon L or the Nikon shown in the snapshot. I
haven't spent any effort trying to remove it.
Being careful not to imply something I don't want to - the 75-300 doesn't
fall into an easy point and shoot lens category. Online reviews have
described the main problem - shutter shock. With the first tests I did with
it I got a better image hand-holding it than I did mounting it on a tripod.
Hand holding a 600mm eq is at the limit of my abilities.
Jeff Keller
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Chuck Norcutt <
chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, I've begun to think very hard about my quest for another full frame
> camera... as in: why do I still need one? The OM-D already has more
> pixels than my 5D. I've wanted ISO with 2 stops beyond the 5D's 3200
> and the OM-D gives me 3. I've wanted in-body IS. It's there. I
> haven't wanted to spend money on a new set of lenses but the price of
> the body alone puts me $2,000 ahead which could be spent on lenses.
>
> When I bought the 5D its primary purpose was to be able to focus and
> take good photos in dark, wedding reception dance halls and the like. I
> don't do that stuff any more. I'm much more concerned about landscape
> photos these days and maybe some macro. I need depth of field. You get
> it with short focal lengths.
>
> I'm slowly talking myself into it. The problem is I've never seen one
> and am unlikely to see one without making a 100 mile (or longer) trip to
> some place where there's an actual camera store. Then I read unnerving
> reviews such as this from the TOP link you posted on Ctein's review of
> the X-Pro-1.
> <
> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/07/x-pro1-sucks.html
> >
> About 1/3 of the way down the page is this from Bill O'Brien
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...Be careful of the OM-5, I have one and am kinda sorry I spent the
> money, files are great, getting there is not. Things you really want to
> do are buried in a menu structure designed by a team of people that
> never used a camera for anything but "snapshots".
> Even if you stay with the present selections a much better navigation
> system is needed. Nothing gets done fast and the path to the desired
> function is not obvious. UI is not good.
> Kinda reminds me of the government, they will do anything for you if you
> know how the find you way thru the web, people that design the system
> never have to use it to do any real work.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'll have to re-read DPReview's comments again. I hurried across them
> the first time and don't recall comments such as those. But it does fit
> my pre-conceived notions (from reading user's manuals) of Oly E-system
> menu structures and general difficulty reading and following the manual.
>
> ps: The true horizontal field of view multiplier for 4:3 vs 3:2 isn't
> that bad. Use 2.08 rather than 2 (or the inverse, 0.48) and you'll be
> very close. But it does take a 10mm lens to equal 21mm. Truly wide
> angle lenses are a bit of a problem but I take a lot of panos these days.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
