On 6/25/2013 11:08 AM, Ian Manners wrote:
> ...
> An alternate attachment :)
>
> <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=6243>
Looks very nice. Same diameter, but much heavier than the M.Z 75-300. Probably
about the same length, with the adapters.
>
>> Ah, we are all so different. I quite like the way it fits/works in my hands.
> I have long fingers, designed for ...um, other things :)
Mine aren't short, and quite sufficient to the purpose. ;-)
> I agree with not wanting to get the grip but I wasnt expecting it to be so
> bad to keep a hold of. Without the grip I
> can see myself dropping it, to many times :(
Interesting. I never use it without strap, usually a neck strap - but don't
recall dropping it and having the strap save it.
> I'm sure I'll get use to it as well, just not sure if I'll give
> it the time. Apart from the zoom switching and the length
> it's a lense I could certainly get to like but not for something
> I want to keep handy while I'm out and about.
I have different modes for different situations. My casual, out and about, kit
is E-PM-2 with Panny 14-42 Z. Small
enough to fit in many coat pockets, but with E-M5 IQ.
>
>>> 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.
> ok, think I'd have to compare them in a shop, it looks suitably
> smaller on the oly site.
That's because they show it in collapsed position, in which one may not take
pictures, and without a hood. The 12-50
with hood is indeed quite larger looking in that comparison. Here's a Q 'n D
comparison.
<http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=6257>
The 14-42 varies in length with focal length. In the pic, it's at full length,
42 mm. It gets shorter as you zoom down
to 25 mm, then longer again by 14 mm. It's only ~0.8 mm shorter at 14 mm as at
42.
Yes, I always have the hood on the 12-50. The front trim ring of the 14-42
bayonets on, and they have a hood (and
close-up, tele and macro adapters) that fit that bayonet mount. I don't have
the hood, as I am going to sell the 14-42
II R.
I only bought it to get a great price on the E-PM2 in a kit (and a tiny bit for
curiosity) on a one day special. If
anyone wants one, unused but for one test shot to make sure it works, plastic
wrap still on the trim ring, etc. drop me
a line.
> ... 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.
> IQ's not the be all and end all, I do miss using just a couple if
> film bodies, and swapping the film for what suites at the time.
>
> Thats why I have different digital bodies for different
> reasons. The E-450 shots of flowers doesnt stand up to what
> I get with the E-1. Saw an E400 pop up on the bay but I
> lost the bid, I think someone on the list here said it was the
> E with a kodak sensor.
>
>> 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. ;-)
>>
> I'd have to go down south here to the jarra forrests before I
> started having serious light problems in the day but then the
> flowers drop off anyway down that way as it gets darker.
> Most of the colorful stuff around Western Australia is well lit :)
>
>> 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.
> The E-450 is bad in low light, far too much noise, and yes,
> as you go backwards in time the low light quality gets worse.
>
>>> My daughter doesnt know it yet but I think she wants a new camera :o)
>> Lucky!
> or maybe not..
:-)
>
>> Time to try an E-620?
> Thought about it a couple of times, I've never seen one in
> the flesh, probably the only thing that saved me buying one.
>
>>> 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?
> I think its part wanting a 'new' shiny toy, as I've not had one
> for a while, a new toy that is, and wanting something that I'll
> actually take out with me, what I currently have normally stays
> home unless I think I'll need it.
My shiny new toy is the E-PM2. :-) Reasonable compromise between body and
sensor size, with excellent IQ. And when
it's not doing casual duty, all my menagerie of µ4/3 lenses fit.
There are a lot of compact and semi-compact fixed lens cameras out there, and
some look mighty nice.
Bayonet Hooded 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/
|