An alternate report.
On 6/24/2013 7:38 AM, Ian Manners wrote:
> ... So at the start of the month with the AU$ still high, and
> the price for the E-M5 with 12-50mm lens low I thought
> I'd buy one, this normally means that Oly will release a
> new model in the next 1-2 months :o)
>
> I upgraded the firmware on the E-M5, and put the
> E-450 away for a few weeks.
>
> The E-M5 does have some nice points but it need's
> a grip, it just not the right shape for someone with
> hands like mine.
Ah, we are all so different. I quite like the way it fits/works in my hands.
> So I went and bought a Jeep, oops, sorry, I mean
> a HLD-6 PBH, makes all the difference with grip
> but it sucks that you have to remove it to get to the
> battery, I dont want the battery part, just the grip.
So different again. I have no interest at all in a grip, let alone one that
costs the earth, considering what it is -
and defeats a major attraction of the E-M5 -for me.
> The E-Zoom/M-Zoom ring gets me all the time,
> I prefer manual zoom but everytime I touch the
> lens the zoom ring push's out to the E-Zoom position.
That almost never tricks me anymore. I think I may unconsciously apply slight
backwards pressure when I grab the zoom
ring. I could do entirely without the power zoom, but am able to ignore it.
> It will take a while to get use to that, I do like the
> macro but in hindsight I think I should have got the
> 14-42mm lense.
In addition to the lack of both long and short FL range and close focus, it's
not that much smaller than the 12-50 -
when extended. It is lighter. After the first use of the day or place, I'd have
it extended all the time.
> ... The over/under exposure
> blotchs make the electronic viewfinder worth it but it
> would still be nice if the viewfinder was higher
> resolution, livable though.
I have found that I can generally focus manually accurately with it, and that's
all I really need. Higher res would be
nice, but isn't necessary for me.
>
> This morning I went and picked up a MMF-3 adapter
> because I miss using the 12-60mm.
>
> I put the 12-60mm on the MMF-3, on the E-M5, nope,
> that is not a good combo, the focusing hunts up, past, down,
> swings around the focus point, then after a good 5-7 seconds
> it finally focus's on a point, I now understand what others
> have said about a 43's lense hunting on the E-M5, different
> focusing. Generally 43's lense on the E-M5 body doesnt
> seem like a good idea,
As Frank has pointed out, and illustrated so well, it works for some people and
not for others. I think it would drive
me crazy, but I never had and 4/3 gear, so it doesn't matter. Even the original
µ4/3 14-42 lens focused pretty slowly.
The later ones are fine.
> so now I think I'll have to get
> something around a 25mm lense for the E-M5 as the
> 12-50mm is to long for a small camera,
Again, different strokes ... My casual lens for the E-PM2 is a Panny 14-42 Z,
which has powered extension and
retraction. I know there have been mixed reviews about sharpness/IQ, which may
be why there are lots available stripped
from kits. I've found mine excellent, with a 3D ish quality with some subjects.
But I often have the 12-50 on the E-PM2,
and it's smaller then the E-M5.
I use the E-M5 with a 75-300 on it quite a lot. Makes the 12-50 seem rather
small.
My one prime is the Panny 20/1.7, for speed.
> makes me think I might as well stick with the E-450.
>
> I might experiment with menu settings first as the 12-60
> does look impressive on the E-M5 but I'm really after
> usability at present.
>
> Hint, I glued a rubber tab onto the USB cover so I
> nolonger have to keep moving the screen out to open
> the rubber cover.
Long, strong thumbnail here. :-) And I seldom have occasion to open it.
> I got the E-450 out and used it this afternoon with the
> 12-60mm. The E-M5 will be staying on the shelf, it's
> just not my type of camera, its almost there but just not
> good enough. It also has a Sony feel about it, I dont
> mind Sony but I thought I was getting an Olympus :)
An interesting report, with no mention of IQ. Obviously that's not an issue for
your use, as even the E-1 is fine for
flowers, etc.
Just a few days ago, I was shooting wildflowers in a mixed large conifer
forest. Even on a bright, sunny day, it gets
dark in there, and some flowers prefer the shadiest areas. Many shots were at
ISO 3200. It's either that, sacrifice too
much DOF for my taste or use a tripod endlessly, which is just too time
consuming for this kind of hike. With a little
care, ISO 3200 on the E-M5 gives great results. Excellent IS doesn't hurt,
either. ;-)
Although the E-5 holds almost holds up to the E-M5 at low ISOs, it's noticeably
poorer at ISO 800 falls apart about
1600. The E-450 and all the earlier 4/3 cameras you have are, I assume,
slightly worse. The PENs until the latest ones
are also quite good in good light, but fall apart when it gets dim.
> My daughter doesnt know it yet but I think she wants a new camera :o)
Lucky!
> Anyone here anything from Olympus about something being released for 43's
> lenses ?
If you mean a new body, that seems highly unlikely to me. I'd bet there has
been no new 4/3 body (or lens) construction
for years, with new old stock still serving the modest sales. Oly has enough
financial troubles without wasting R&D,
tooling, etc. on a camera that would sell very few copies.
Time to try an E-620?
> I believe an Oly rep made a vague hint about a year ago
> but I've heard nothing since. Sigh, maybe I should have
> gone fuji.
What do you want in performance that what you have doesn't deliver? It sounds
sorta like what you have fills your actual
needs, but you want a new/shiny toy? How about one of the cool, new, high end
compacts?
E-M5 Lover 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/
|