On 4/15/2013 6:35 PM, Don Holbrook wrote:
> Nothing but hope.
Thanks for your comments on the images.
I'm curious. What sort of improvements might you be hoping for? Particularly
for the lenses you would plan to use?
I have my own, rather short, list, but I am an avid user, so I know what comes
out of the E-M5 rather well.
From your comments, it would appear that you think/thought that the E-M5
somehow makes unsharp images? I find that to
be untrue. Most unsharpness I've encountered, as with film and previous
digicams, is the result of the limitations of
physics and of operator compromises.
Inadequate shutter speeds and DOF are common problems that have nothing to do
with camera design/performance.
As to the camera itself, shutter shock is a very real problem, but the
Anti-Shock setting makes it a non-issue for
someone like me. But it does add 1/8 sec. to shutter response, which is not
ideal. An electronic first curtain or new
shutter design is no. 1 on my list. Still, I didn't feel it intruded on taking
these shots.
As to sharpness, all but a couple of DSLR/ILCs use an anti-alias filter and ALL
digital sampling softens edges*. Those
who want the best sharpness their lenses are capable of in Raw files right out
of the camera might as well also take up
the practice of levitation using mind power.
> I refuse to buy another set of lenses. With an OMD, I would use nothing but
> Zuikos.
As all Oly lenses are Zuikos, I presume you mean manual focus, OM mount Zuikos.
If that's your intent, I really see no
point either in buying an E-M5 or in looking forward to its successor. It's
best qualities are really found in
conjunction with µ4/3 lenses, both Zuikos and some others. It's qualities of
small size and weight and fast AF are
wasted on large, heavy, MF lenses, and, as many have noted, the balance is off
with the larger OM Zuikos.
If you like WA, the OM Zuikos are disappointing. Even the lovely, little 18/3.5
is 36 mm eq. on 4/3. At the long end,
the 300/4.5 is vastly larger and heavier than the 75-300 zoom. For those very
reasons, I've not tried it, but I'm
willing to bet it's no better optically, and likely a bit worse, than the
µzoom. The 50/1.4 (or, I suppose, f1.2) is
nice on an E-M5, for leisurely work.
If you want a digital back for OM Zuikos, I don't think you can do better than
a Canon FF body. If you don't need live
view, the original 5D is wonderful, else 5DII or III or 6D. The lenses are
designed for FF. Why throw away half the
image circle you paid for and receive the compromises in central performance
made by the designers for outer zone
performance?
BTW, the bokeh you admire in these shots is entirely a function of the M.ZD
75-300 lens, not the camera.
M.Z.D. Moose
* Digital sampling ALWAYS softens edges - ALWAYS. The original capture of a
subject, scanning an analog source and
resizing an image are all cases of this. I wrote at some length about this,
with a thought experiment and examples, on
Zone-10 over five years ago. If you read this and the following three pages,
perhaps you will understand what is
happening.
<http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=1>
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Don Holbrook wrote:
> the detail and bokeh.........wow. Was waiting for an E-5 upgrade....may
> have to reconsider.
--
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/
|