On 1/17/2018 8:33 PM, Bill Barber via olympus wrote:
Part of what I would like is to have the opportunity to use some of my OM glass
on a full frame digital. If I go with the Sony, I will get some of their glass.
In my OM prime stable reside the 16mm, 18mm, 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm,
85mm, 90mm, 100mm, 135mm and 200mm (all of them f2 where available.)
Similar here, sans 16mm, +400, but three aren't the fastest model.
Most of my long lenses are Tamron SP adaptall 2, each of which is faster than
the Zuiko of the same focal length. So using many of these with an Olympus body
tends to miss point.
I came to that conclusion long, long ago, on a Canon 300D. For me, it's native AF lenses for ordinary photography, first
Canon, then µ4/3 when the E-M5 came out. Then a FF body for legacy glass (and weird glass/stuff).
Mike has mentioned the problem with WA MF glass on the Sonys. Another thing not mentioned yet is IBIS. E-M1 II IBIS is
spectacular, really. The E-M5 II is exceptional, and the E-M1 II better. Oly claim they started running into problems
with the turning of the Earth. A7rIII IBIS is middling. Some FE lenses do have lens IS.
Did I mention focus stacking??? Where's the super bold italic font? :-) We're just hanging some 11x14 prints of big
dahlias that simply could not have been made with any other cameras, and are stunning in showing the whole depth clearly
in focus. Not the same, bit take a look here. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=20456>
and here. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=20456>
I've never gotten even close to dahlia, rhodo, iris, cactus and other flowers shot like these. Workds for middle and
landscape distances, too.
Dragon flies are never all in focus unless shot from directly above, but . . .
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/ap4RnBQCvtOa6EBw1>
There's also a size /weight thing; not sure how it falls. The Sony body is smaller and lighter than E-3 and 5. But the
lenses are bigger and heavier.
If I go to Sony, I'll probably sell the Olympus e-thingys and their glass and
try to get a Sony and maybe three lens or so.
If you go Sony, that makes sense.
I shoot both the original A7, sans IBIS and thus smaller/lighter than later models, a pair of E-M5 IIs and various Pens.
I could never be happy with Sony alone.
One Man's Vision Moose
-----Original Message-----
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: olympus <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Jan 17, 2018 5:19 pm
Subject: Re: [OM] OM-D E-M1 Mark II or?
. . . then after a few years on the fence to the e-1, e-3 and finally e-5
cameras. At this point I felt Olympus had basically deserted the folks in the
trenches. I was heavily invested in there system, both from the standpoint of
bodies but also glass.
I think this is probably unfair. I believe the market was abandoning 4/3. It was move on or sink. By stepping forward
into mirrorless, they saved their company - and incidentally made me a very happy photographer.
Having sat on the sidelines for several years watching Sony and am close to pulling the trigger
(that means sometime this year) on the Sony a7r III. I'm at the point where lighter is better.
Just got a mailer from Olympus promoting their OM-D E-M1 III as a good transition for the
e-thingy users. two questions? Is anybody really seriously satisfied with using their e-glass
with this 20 megapixel camera?I am not a real user, but have read many reviews and user comments.
The e-glass was designed to work with Phase Detect AF. All the other µ4/3 camera bodies are
Contrast Detect AF only and e-glass used on them is slow to glacial in AF. In my recent silliness
of acquiring an E-1 with 14-54 lens and comparing it to an E-M5 II with the same lens on and
adapter, I found it to be far from glacial, but too slow for me to be happy with it normal
use.The E-M1 introduced PDAF in addition to CDAF, continued in the Mark II (and in the Mark III
you apparently have access to.) User reports and reviews all say that AF for most lenses is as
fast or faster as on the e-bodies. I'm no expert, but do recall there is/are an original lens or
two that are still pretty slow on the E-M1 bodies. I believe the original 40-150, the lens that
sold me on Canon, rather than an E-1, is one of those.> Is there any compelling reason to not
go with the Sony.It really depends on what you want. If you like your e-glass and the 4/3 format,
why not try an E-M1 and see how the AF is for you?The switch from 4/3 to µ4/3 didn't make
any big shift in sensors and image making. All the early models had the same size sensors as the
E-5, later went to 16, and now 20 MP. If you liked what you got from the e-bodies, you will
probably like what you get from the new ones.If, like me, you want hand holdable long tele, it's
µ4/3. If you want/need more Megapickles for other than static subjects, it's the Sony. The
Oly HR Mode does great High Res on static subjects. Wonderful for lens testing, for example.I
wouldn't trade for Sony for my regular work if only because of the focus bracketing of the Olys,
which I consider Magic.I have the original A7, and quite like it for my legacy/weird lens work,
but have no native/AF lenses for it.Both Ways Moose-- What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all
about?-- _________________________________________________________________Options:
http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympusArchives:
http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition:
http://www.tope.nl/
--
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/
|