On 11/5/2012 2:38 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> I thought it worked ok for me when I tried one a few months ago - size
>> seems similar to any OM-x, but doesn't seem to weigh as much.
> Without a comparative, I think the OM-D is a fine camera. In fact, more
> than fine. It is a brilliant camera. But brilliant does not equate to that
> intangible bit of unexplainable nuance that tells you that something is
> slightly amiss. I know that I'm not the only one who has detected it. Not
> that I'm putting either one up on a pedestal, but both Kirk Tuck and Mike
> Johnson both have said as much. In both cases, they're letting their
> wallets vote.
Well, not really. They both gave their money to Oly, even if they sell the
cameras on. I probably would have forgotten
to reply to this, but for something Mike said today:
"Cutting to the chase: all things considered, the Nikon D800E and Nikkor AF-S
35mm ƒ/1.4G lens is the best overall
photographic device of any description I have used thus far in my life.
That said, I'm not entirely certain that it's the best camera out there now, or
even that it's actually appreciably
better than the Olympus OM-D E-M5 for image quality in the small to
medium-sized prints I make."
------- and
"I've decided to keep just two digital cameras (one DSLR and one mirrorless)
and one film camera" and -
The only mirrorless he has is the E-M5. so he may not be selling it on. ;-)
> The viewfinder of the OM-D is quite good. Perfect? Nope. I was pretty pleased
> until I put the 5DMk3 up to my eye and
> realized that we're not just in a different league, we're in a different
> sport.
Yeah, I know I'm weird about viewfinders. It seems that as long as I can see
and frame what I'm shooting, I'm fine.
Compare OM-1 and 300D, and clearly the 300D viewfinder sux, a tiny tunnel. But
when I look at a subject through it to
take pics, it's great.
I was disconcerted by the lack of color/saturation of fall foliage in Maine in
the E-M5 viewfinder. But once I knew the
images were fine, I didn't care.
> ...
>
> I will be very specific in expressing my concern with the OM-D. My right
> hand measurements are thus:
>
> 4.75 inches across the widest part of the hand
> 2.75 inches from knuckle to end of thumb
> 3.75 inches from center of knuckle to end of pointer finger
> 4.33 inches from center of knuckle to end of middle finger
> 4.75 inches from center of knuckle to end of ring finger
> 3.33 inches from center of knuckle to end of pinkie
> 8.75 inches from tip of pinkie to tip of thumb of wide-spread hand
>
> "No, Judge, the glove doesn't fit!"
I understand that the camera isn't comfortable for you, but I don't entirely
buy the size argument.
On 11/13/2012 7:43 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> I packed only
> one camera and one lens. The OM-3Ti and 35-80 zoom. There really is
> joy in using this near perfect camera-lens combination. What a
> pleasure it is to use. Total joy. Total peace. Perfection at its best.
The OM-3 and E-M5 are the same size!
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusEM5/images/compared-OM4.jpg>
Well, OK, the E-M5 is a tiny bit smaller, and a bit lighter.
Again, I get it that you don't find the camera comfortable. My following
comments are just in the nature of a
counterpoint from someone with different hands.
> ...
>
> The closeness of the shutter release to the right edge (photographer's
> view) dictates how much surface area the other fingers have in gripping the
> body. The less surface area, the more the fingers have to squeeze. The more
> squeezing, the more pain.
I just wanted to say somewhere how much my hands find the curved rubber grip on
the back of the E-M5 for my thumb to be
a piece of genius. I thought I would need a hand grip, such as I used on 5D and
60D. Once I had the camera in my hand,
though, I realized it was light enough and comfortable enough to hold that I
didn't need one. So far, 47 days on two
trips, many hours in the field and 3,000 shots later, I still find it
comfortable to hold.
> Add the weight of a heavy lens and the camera is almost unbearable to hold.
> Especially considering how thin the camera is.
This is again a different issue for you than for me. I'm almost exclusively
using the amazingly small and light
M.Zuikos. I'll never be mounting the 35-80/2.8
> ... the OM-D just
> seemed to leave me cold. I can just tell that it's one of those cameras
> that would need to grow on me because the controls were not where my
> fingers wanted them to be.
The only oddity for me is the control wheels. I like having the second one on
top better than the one on the lower back
of the Canons. But I have occasionally reached my right index finger over the
front one and turned the rear one - a
consequence of the size.
> The point is that I do like the OM-D, but not enough. I can understand why
> it is relatively popular, but I can also see why there are a handful of
> others that aren't happy with it, either. My money, my choice.
You bet!
O. M. D. Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
