bobbytan wrote:
How do you assign Magnify View to Fn1? I just can't seem to do this. I pressed the OK button while holding down Fn1 ... and when I tried to use it by pressing Fn1 and spinning the control dial, nothing happens! What am I doing wrong?
Custom menu B (button/dial) - button function - Fn1 - Magnify - ok
Has anyone tried the VF-3? What significant advantage does it have over the OM-D's VF? If this is a hybrid OVF/EVF I would get it in a heartbeat, but I don't know what the VF-3 does better, aside from the tilt feature which I have no need for. If the VF-3 greatly enhances MF when you mount a legacy glass it might be worth the $100 investment ... sort off like getting a nice Brightscreen to assist manual focussing.
It has no advantage over the EVF in the OM-D. The viewfinder in the OM-D is an improved version of the VF-2. The VF-3 is a cheaper viewfinder for those who don't want to pony up for the better VF-2.
It can tilt, so you can use a viewfinder from the top down, but given you have a tilting screen on the E-M5, it'd be a pretty silly reason to get a second viewfinder (though it will work).
Has anyone tried the VF-3? What significant advantage does it have over the OM-D's VF? If this is a hybrid OVF/EVF I would get it in a heartbeat, but I don't know what the VF-3 does better, aside from the tilt feature which I have no need for. If the VF-3 greatly enhances MF when you mount a legacy glass it might be worth the $100 investment ... sort off like getting a nice Brightscreen to assist manual focussing.
That is not a OMD combo offer. That EVF is designed to work with the other Pen cameras.
For those who don't follow 43rumors.com or the DPR forum you might like to know Olympus has apparently said the E-M5 sensor is made by Sony. This from a short Yahoo Japan article quoting the Olympus president. Besides the bad Google translation at least one Japanese speaker posted on DPR a better translation confirming at least that is what the article says.
This makes some sense as the very earliest RAW files posted many months ago showed lower read noise than even the GH2 which seemed to nullify the initial assumptions that it was just a GX1 sensor in there (which was what I had assumed until I ran the read noise numbers on said files).
Smart move to use Sony sensors. That explains the DR improvement. It also indicates that the camera is probably a little less than a stop behind current Nex cameras, assuming the sensors are of similar technology. Good news for m4/3 users.
FlyPenFly wrote:
It would be interesting to see the comparative difference in AA filter strength between this an the gx1.
DPR has its studio comparison shots in RAW and there appears to be no visible or measurable difference between the GX1, G3 and E-M5 as far as resolution/AA strength goes. They don't have a resolution test page on their GX1 review, but they do for the G3 and E-M5 and the resolution in RAW is identical between them.
For anyone who may be interested, these Op/Tech neoprene wrist and neck loop straps work great with each other or by itself. With the 3/8" mini quick disconnects you can quickly and easily switch from a wrist strap to a neck strap ... or take them both off so they don't get in the way when you are using a tripod. I took the split triangular strap rings out and attach the mini loops directly to the camera body.
kwalsh wrote:
DPR has its studio comparison shots in RAW and there appears to be no visible or measurable difference between the GX1, G3 and E-M5 as far as resolution/AA strength goes. They don't have a resolution test page on their GX1 review, but they do for the G3 and E-M5 and the resolution in RAW is identical between them.
Ken
Just a guess, but, I'd imagine that much of the sensor topping spec for all of the m4/3 cameras is pretty similar, since they'd want consistent lens performance, especially at the edges, but who knows?
douglasf13 wrote:
Just a guess, but, I'd imagine that much of the sensor topping spec for all of the m4/3 cameras is pretty similar, since they'd want consistent lens performance, especially at the edges, but who knows?
Well that probably makes sense to you or me, but it hasn't been the case so far. The G1 and E-P1 had different AA filters for sure (weaker on the G1).
One might guess that as in camera demosaicing algorithms have started to reach the limits of acceptable trade offs in moire and detail, that is to say we are no longer processing power limited by the in camera JPEG engines, that AA filters are more similar to each other today. That's probably just over speculation on my part though!
I'm also noticing more frequent moire in the GH2 than I previously noticed. I'm thinking that it may have something to do with LR4's demosaicing vs. that in LR3.
httivals wrote:
I'm also noticing more frequent moire in the GH2 than I previously noticed. I'm thinking that it may have something to do with LR4's demosaicing vs. that in LR3.
The various LR authors seem to say the LR3 and LR4 demosaicing is the same with the big changes being in the basic control panel - so post demosaicing tonal changes. That said I'm sure such statements are a bit generalized and "dumbed down" so there could be tweaks in PV2012 that affect moire. Thinking about it more, perhaps since they added the local moire adjustment controls they went ahead and tweaked the demosaicing for more detail at the risk of moire since there is now a tool to deal with it?
I suppose it is easy to test, you could process and image with moire in both PV2012 and PV2010 and see if there is a difference.
When I was testing D800 and D800E raw files, ACR/LR produced moire in certain cases where none was produced by the native Nikon software. I recall seeing a similar propensity for ACR to produce moire back when I owned the Canon 5Dc and I also recall - I believe - theSuede saying something about ACR having a tendency to produce moire.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
When I was testing D800 and D800E raw files, ACR/LR produced moire in certain cases where none was produced by the native Nikon software. I recall seeing a similar propensity for ACR to produce moire back when I owned the Canon 5Dc and I also recall - I believe - theSuede saying something about ACR having a tendency to produce moire.
This is a pretty interesting article in regards to moire and demosaicing algorithms.
What am I doing wrong?