On 9/10/2017 5:04 AM, Mike Bloor wrote:
Hey, welcome back!
Up until 2008 I was using my beloved OM2ns and my, almost as much loved, OM4. I had been keen to go digital, as long
as I could still use my large collection of OM mount lenses. However, when I looked at the newly released E1 in 2003
it was a great disappointment, especially the viewfinder. One reason for reaching for an OM2n instead of the OM4 was
the slightly bigger and close to life-size viewfinder image - one that seemed just as bright as the OM4 despite that
having a 2-13 screen.
In 2008 I had a series of eye operations that all went wrong. Curiously enough all the problems were "1in 5,000
chances". As a result I lost the use of my left eye, the one I had always used with cameras. When I tried to take
photographs with my right eye, I discovered that I just could not "see" images the way I had before. Eventually I just
gave up and the cameras have sat in drawers ever since.
Yow! Sorry to hear that.
Now I am going to have another try. It has to be digital this time, if only because of the rise in the cost of film
since I stopped.
So the first question is, "what to buy?" I have a bias towards Olympus (there are at least 16 of them in my office),
but I'm not fixated on them.
It fascinates me that everyone act as though brand and format size makes no difference - some cameras make better images
than others, but all make the same basic images. This is not true. Over the last few years, Olympus has introduced
photographic features that allow one to capture images that other brands and format sizes simply won't.
The High Res Mode, while as yet requiring a tripod and static subject, is very powerful. I could go on, and have, at
length. Briefly, it allows more accurate colors and much better resolution. Even downsized to 16 MP, it's sharper.
In camera Focus Bracketing is just plain F-ing Magic. It makes easily possible images of 3D subjects that were simply
impossible before. I've posted many examples, mostly at or close to spectacular, at least to me and some others here. At
the framing place Friday, both manager and framer separately asked something like "How did you DO that?".
I'm not keen on Panasonic, as everything I have bought of that brand has broken down and their support of cameras
(from the UK) could only be described as hostile.
I have and have had several Panny cameras. I too am a two camera body guy in the field. I used a GX7 together with E-M5
for some time. After 2400 shots on the GX7, I replaced both with E-M5 IIs. I was quite happy with the GX7, but the new
capabilities of the "5 II" made it obsolete. I never had a lick of trouble with it or the GM1, GM5 and ZSxx bodies. I'm
not recommending a Panny for your goals, just saying that anecdotal evidence doesn't predict very well. I freely mix and
match Oly and Panny lenses on µ4/3, and have had no trouble.
My first priority is the best viewfinder I can get.
Searching online for "best DSLR viewfinder", up pops the OM-D E-5 II.
As far as I can tell, the actual VF display LCD in the two E-M1 and two E-M5 and E-M10 II and III is the same. However,
as with the OM-2n and OM4, both with the same size/resolution focusing screen, (my models of choice in film days, too),
the magnification of that image is different.
Published specs for VF magnification are confusing. Before crop format digital, a standard was established, comparing
the visual size of the image in the VF with the object seen with naked eye. Unfortunately, this standard specified a 50
mm lens, rather than a 54° Angle of View. Many makers, including Oly, have continued to use a 50 mm lens for this spec.,
where 25 mm would be meaningful for comparison to FF cameras. So, one may see the E-M5 II specified as 0.74x or as
1.48x, in various sources.
Comparing apples to apples:
Base line - OM1 and 2 bodies: 97% of the frame, magnified to 0.92x. so those of us blessed with two working eyes may
look directly and through VF at the same time - and find the subject to be essentially the same size.
With the OM-3 & 4 bodies, magnification was reduced to 0.84x.
Both E-M1 and both E-M5 bodies, 100% of frame, magnification of 0.74x.
Pen-F and E-M10 II and III bodies are 0.62x
It may be useful to know that all of these, and all the other mirrorless cameras, allow one to greatly increase this
magnification, 10x and more, with the press of a button. Magnification for fine focus is far better than with an OM,
even with Varimagni.
Everything I have read about this seems positive. It looks like a fitting replacement for the film OM range.
I certainly agree. I have two, can't see where the E-M1 II adds anything of
value to me and await with hope an E-M5 III.
I don't want a heavy/bulky camera. When I used my Nikon F Photomic, I was always conscious of the weight around my neck.
No kidding! Been there.
I do want interchangeable lenses. I will probably end up using primes rather than zooms.
Another area where the truths of MF film era lenses aren't so true any more. Contemporary zooms are often just as good,
or better, than primes. The old rules about best aperture are gone, too. Many lenses are at their best much nearer wide
open than in the old days. At 1:2, the Tamron 60/2.8 Macro I used on my old 5D was sharpest at f2.8 and f4. As sharp as
the Oly 50/3.5 @ f8, and sharper, center and edge, than it and all my other MF macro lenses @ 1:1.
With the OM film cameras I tended to travel with two bodies and 21, 28, 50 and 100mm lenses. I have seen that the
12-40mm lens for the OM-D gets great reviews, but it looks huge.
OK, another change. With digital cameras that maintain better noise/grain performance than film at much higher ISO/ASA
speeds, fast is far more about shallow DoF than to keep reasonable shutter speeds in all but very dark situations. The
Pro F2.8 zooms are of no interest to me. Not fast enough for shallow DoF on the smaller sensor, or existing darkness,
yet bigger and heavier than alternatives. Want shallow DoF/subject separation? It's primes or Photoshop chops.
The Oly 12-50/3.5-6.3 is a decent lens with an excellent "macro" mode. I've taken a great many images I love with it.
12-100/4 Pro is optically significantly better, but awfully big and heavy for a 'normal' range zoom. It's close-up
performance is also crummy. Yes, it goes to 0.3x, almost as close as the 12-50, (with good optical performance, I think)
but only @ 12 mm, which gets the front of the lens so close to the subject that avoiding shading is tough, let alone not
startling bugs. Useless for real close-up work for me without achromatic C-U lens or extension tube, to get some working
distance with a longer FL. (Another change; C-U lenses may out perform tubes.)
I also have the Leica (made by Panny) 12-60/2.8-4. Significantly smaller and lighter than the 12-100, and also optically
wonderful, it's the one that wins my heart, while my head says it should be the 12-100. Official close focus of 0.3x
(sort of eq. to 0.6x on FF) is the same as the Oly, but is at 60 mm, and thus very useful.
So is the OM-D E-5 II a good choice, or can you suggest something better?
I personally have two, and can't think of another camera, by anyone, that would
be better for me.
One alternative is the digital Pen-F (I already have the film equivalent Pen FT), but it seems that the viewfinder is
not as good as the OM-D. Any comments?
As above, the image is smaller. It also doesn't have the HR and focus
bracketing.
I have also seen that an OM-D E-M10 Mark III is on the way. Does anyone know anything about a possible OM-D E-M5 Mark
III?
Oly has said they are slowing the pace of new model introductions. I'm hoping for an E-M5 III mid to late next year.
Don't hold your breath.
Finally, this might not all work out. I might find that I am still frustrated with not being able to imagine the end
result using the wrong eye. Rather than reach that conclusion after a month or so with a perhaps a thousand or more
Euro down the drain
Buy used or refurbed, sell if it doesn't work out. Not a big loss. Yet another change from MF days, kit lenses are
actually good lenses, at least Olys, and I believe most. If you are really uncertain, you can get an E-M5 II with 14-42
rather inexpensively. It's a good lens, with a wide enough range, 28-84 mm eq., compared to your MF primes, to get an
idea how one eyed will work for you.
If you find it works for you now, and the 21 mm was important, the Oly 9-18 is a darn good lens, small, light and
relatively inexpensive. If you are really reinventing photography for yourself, and find your right eye now "sees" well,
you might even consider the Oly 14-150 with the 9-18. Another darn good lens for a reasonable price. I happily used one
as my 'casual' lens for years. I only switched to the Panny 14-140 for the OIS, for use on the diminutive, but IBIS-less
GM5.
I'm not saying no primes; I have a whole menagerie, from 7.5 to 75 mm, but that's for later, if you find photography fun
and rewarding again. Truth is, my conventional get little work.
Two lenses, 18-300 mm eq. Light and simple is really freeing. Of course, I'm a macro and long tele guy, so I carry
around two bodies with 12-60/100 and 100-400 mm lenses and achromatic C-U lenses.
, I would like to buy a fairly cheap DSLR or mirrorless camera to experiment with. Any suggestions? It must have at
least a half-way decent viewfinder though.
E-M5 II kit with 14-42 would be a good way to test is out, then branch out in
lenses.
Moose D'Opinion(s)
--
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/
|