> An odd parallel here, Chris, but substitute "E-M1" for "E-M1 ii" - I didn't
> need the features the newer camera(s) had .... and it was MUCH MUCH less
> expensive. I echo your words about the vertical grip, but cannot speak for
> the balance with the m4/3 Pro lenses, as I have no m4/3 lenses at all. But it
> sits very nicely indeed with the 4/3 14-42 and 40-150 ED lenses, as also with
> 50-250 and 70-300. I have yet to get to grips (!) with 14-35 and 35-100 on
> this diminutive body - but I hope you can see why I have no m4/3 lenses!
That it does. At minimum, I'd get the E-M1 mk2 with the grip. I find
it does balance well in the hand and is resizeable for those times
when I go hiking. But the grip is the game changer and really gives
the camera a much better balance with any lens longer than, say, the
17mm pancake.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|