aleksanderpolo wrote:
Doug, this discussion about the size difference between m4/3 and APSC obviously extend to the even larger size difference between APSC and FF on your other thread, right?
I'm not complaining about format difference. I was simply commenting on how bad dpreview tests are, and how DXO tests will be interesting. Someone else drug me into talking about the format size difference. m4/3 is already pretty close to aps-c in lowlight performance, and, if the DR at low ISO is improved, it'll be even closer.
Bifurcator wrote:
I just picked up the M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6, L, ED for about $75 and while it's a little on the dark side it rocks pretty hard in terms of IQ. It has a 2.5 pixel red-blue (CA) shift and a little distortion - both of which will be completely corrected for automatically in-camera on your new OM-D or by selecting all shots and applying the corrections in ACR or LR. The build quality is the total pits but it only weighs 129 grams without caps according to my triple-beam and if you don't bump it on anything it should last for about 10 years anyway. I can recommend it for it's IQ and extreme close focusing tho! I guess it's reproduction is around 1:2 or maybe a little less(?). Pretty nice! And maybe even exceptional for an all plastic zoom!
I got the kit lens on my OM-D to get me started and it's a pretty decent lens for a kit lens and does focus surprisingly close. Certainly good enough for my wife. I wish they would offer something like the 14-35 f/2 or 12-60 f/2.8-4 of the 4/3 cameras.
olyacme wrote:
Lots of people seem to believe that, but the formats aren't actually that far apart: 39% smaller in area than DX and 28% smaller than Canon APS.
/Acme
Actually for APS-C the difference is a bit larger, 33%, not that'll make any difference.
looking at ISO 400 shadow noise, OM-D is certainly not as good as my 7D from first impressions, but blue skies looked actually cleaner IMO. I need to do direct tests against my DSLR's.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
400mm macro, now that sounds nice!
How well do Canon EF lenses adapt to the m4/3 mount, as I have already some great glass, such as Sigma 150 macro and Canon 100L macro?
Thanks for the suggestions by others too for alt glass ideas.
Not very well, there's only adapters with no aperture control, or a built-in aperture. If you want good adaptation for EF lenses to mirrorless you want a NEX with the Metabones/Conurus adapter, which is the only adapter to offer control of the lens aperture (it also offers IS with Canon IS lenses).
mawz wrote:
Not very well, there's only adapters with no aperture control, or a built-in aperture. If you want good adaptation for EF lenses to mirrorless you want a NEX with the Metabones/Conurus adapter, which is the only adapter to offer control of the lens aperture (it also offers IS with Canon IS lenses).
Ah, oh well. I might see what price I can get the Zuiko 50 f/3.5 macro then.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I got the kit lens on my OM-D to get me started and it's a pretty decent lens for a kit lens and does focus surprisingly close. Certainly good enough for my wife. I wish they would offer something like the 14-35 f/2 or 12-60 f/2.8-4 of the 4/3 cameras.
Nice looking but priced way too high IMO. If it were f/2 I'd buy it in a heartbeat, as it is I'll have to think long at hard at that price. Maybe it'll drop well below $1K and I'll reconsider it. For now I'll get the excellent 45 f/1.8 which is a relative bargain. Can get them new on ebay for $360 shipped.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
400mm macro, now that sounds nice!
How well do Canon EF lenses adapt to the m4/3 mount, as I have already some great glass, such as Sigma 150 macro and Canon 100L macro?
Thanks for the suggestions by others too for alt glass ideas.
Canon FD (and FL) lenses adapt really easy. Several manufacturers of adapters are out there. I have a few Fotodiox adapters, but cheap ones exist on Ebay. As someone else said already, EF lenses are problematic as there is no aperture ring. On the old manual focus lenses, the aperture ring is there.
Got the grip for the E-M5. I will likely leave the horizontal grip on most of the time, using the vertical grip only for extended portrait sessions or for large lens work when needed. The grip makes the camera handle a lot more like the GH2, though even a little better. It's very, very solid, even with it being a two piece grip...no flex at all. Very well made and comfortable.
Of course, with both grips on, it makes it a larger camera...almost approaching DSLR size (though, still with much smaller lenses). I mean, it's still a lot smaller than FF pro DSLR, especially in thickness and in weight...but it is bigger with the grip:
Nice! The OM-D EM-5 with grips looks serious even next to the largest DSLR with an effectively 2 stops faster lens, and even a lens oversized at that aperture.
I am starting to look at the OM-D as I really like the small form factor and the range of fast primes, especially the f1.8 primes ... and their 75-300mm (150-600mm) zoom lens. I didn't think that the noise was bad compared to the 7D when I look at the sample photos on this link:
Can anyone else weigh in on the noise? Also, on the battery life and ergonomics of the camera - as these issues could be a deal breaker for me. I apologize if these topics were covered in the previous pages as I have not looked at them.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
looking at ISO 400 shadow noise, OM-D is certainly not as good as my 7D from first impressions, but blue skies looked actually cleaner IMO. I need to do direct tests against my DSLR's.
@bobbytan: Be aware than any MILC/EVIL camera - NEX, m43, whatever - is going to have about half the battery life of any SLR. You can do some things to bridge the gap with some cameras - turn off the LCD and use the EVF eye detector to only turn on the EVF when you are using it on the OM-D for example - but expect to need more spare batteries than you would with a DSLR.
High ISO noise performance is getting to be really good. Maybe not equal to APS-C high ISO, but very close (within one stop) - so much so you start to have to obsess about the camera tone curve, RAW bias point, highlight headroom and what not to accurately tease out the difference (but the difference is there, if small).
If you like extremely clean skies then the available lowest base ISO can also inject a small difference between m43 and APS-C. Few people worry about this, but if you do say landscapes and use strong tone curves or B&W conversions you might also notice a small difference between APS-C and m43 sensors because of the combination of a slightly smaller sensor and slightly higher base ISO.
Ergonomics - that's a hard one. I've enjoyed my G1, GH2 and OM-D controls far more than I ever liked the Canon Rebel series interface. However, your feelings about size are important to consider. The cameras are small, so of course the controls are smaller and closer as well. Most folks seem very happy, but for some the cramped conditions on the bodies proves to be very annoying.
One nice thing about the E-M5 from an ergonomic standpoint...if you don't mind shelling out an extra $300...is that the grip really does allow for cusomizing your ergonomic experience. I think the E-M5 feels fine bare, but some people want more grip. I got the grip, and I have to say, the horizontal grip only does add a nice bit of extra handling. Like I said, I'm fine with it bare, but with the grip it's even better. The vertical grip can then be added if you are going to be shooting a lot of verticals or if you'll be shooting all day for some extra comfort. It handles beautifully with the grips.
The GH2 is probably the best camera I've owned from a pure ergonomic experience, just because all the controls were so readily accessible. The improvements the E-M5 made over the GH2 from a stills perspective have made me switch without any regret (the extra DR and the amazing IBIS are reason enough), but the GH2 is a great handling camera.
