I'm sorry flypenfly but this is getting a bit silly.
Yes, it is a well known fact, known and discussed since November 2008, that PP is part of the recipe for most µ4/3 lenses. That has nothing to do with "heavy internal processing even for raw files" but with PP. (Something which, btw does not cause banding.) There are no "special RAW modifications" needed - the raw files are simply tagged with some raw converter settings.
I'm not sure you are spreading FUD or just don't know better.
1) The AF speed is decent. I don't know what other systems you're familiar with (and I've never shot the Fuji), but if you know Canon I'd say it's about the same as any of the kit lenses, or slow USM lenses such as the Canon 50/1.4 or 100/2.8 macro. I will say that it changes direction quickly, so if it starts hunting it usually reacquires pretty quickly.
2) I've kind of given up on pixel peeping, so others could help more, but I'm not unhappy with the 20/1.7's image quality. It definitely gets sharper down to f/4. There's a bit of mush in the extreme corners wide open. There's a bit of purple CA in the corners, too. Not bad, but visible if left uncorrected at 10x15". The EM5 can correct the light falloff but it does not correct CA. If you shoot RAW it's trivial to fix this with Lightroom.
3) I've been shooting with the 20/1.7 for a while now and I've never seen flare marks. Shooting point light sources in dark you'll get a soft (and pleasant IMHO) bloom around the light source. Shooting a severely contra lit subject you'll get a bit of contrast loss from veiling, but IMHO it has an inoffensive look as well. I'd rate it pretty darn good for flare control overall, and that's without a hood.
Overall the lens is very nice, but not a lens to wow you. If you're familiar with Canon's 85mm primes I'd draw a parallel there. The 85/1.8 is a very nice lens. Sharp, focuses quickly, has few faults. But the 85/1.2 has a certain special quality to its images that makes even boring images look beautiful. The 20/1.7 is like the 85/1.8. You'll get lots of great images and it won't let you down optically. But it's not one of those lustful lenses that will make your jaw drop.
EVF) The EM5 is not as good as a 5D2. It's smaller, dimmer, and just isn't as pleasing to shoot with as the 5D2's viewfinder. That said, it's very usable. The highlight/shadow overlay is very useful, the info displayed is adequate, and it's big and bright enough to not be a problem. Think 40D, not 5D.
FYI, some people have reported the EM5 and 20/1.7 used together band at high ISO. I tried mine out and I could see the banding at ISO12800 but only if I really looked for it. At ISO6400 and below I had to know where to look to even guess what the banding might be. I'd call it a non-problem because I won't be using ISO12800 much, if at all. (It has a bit of a color shift at that ISO and the chroma noise starts to pick up, whereas ISO6400 has no such flaws.)
CKrueger wrote:
(...)
EVF) The EM5 is not as good as a 5D2.
Isn't it the other way round? The 5D2 lack an EVF and all the advantages and (very few for me) drawbacks offered by those compared to an OVF. Which is better? You decide.
I'm an E-M5 user but the day a LIVE FF camera surfaces I'll line up for one.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Maybe you missed this part of the post:
If you mean particular to this case, I think the "hmmm, I wonder if" should be a big tip off
Look, I appreciate that English probably isn't your first language, but the structure of your sentence takes as a given that the second half is a fact (which it isn't).
Jonas B wrote:
Isn't it the other way round? The 5D2 lack an EVF and all the advantages and (very few for me) drawbacks offered by those compared to an OVF. Which is better? You decide.
I'm an E-M5 user but the day a LIVE FF camera surfaces I'll line up for one.
As a 5D2 and EM5 shooter, I'd say:
5D's OVF:
+ Big
+ Bright
+ Refresh rate? What's that? It's the speed of light!
+ Less viewfinder blackout time
EM5's EVF:
+ Can preview the exposure in the viewfinder
+ Can boost the brightness in dim light
+ Lots of great optional instrumentation (ie: highlight/shadow blinkies, histogram, JPEG styles if you're into that kind of thing)
+ Highly configurable
+ Can review photos in the viewfinder if you like
If I could put one viewfinder into the other camera, which would I take? Tough call. I think I'd put the 5D's viewfinder into the EM5, on the technicality that I could always use the EM5's rear LCD to get the same features as the EVF, but with the added (EXTREMELY useful) touch screen. Best of both worlds.
Don't get me going on the touch screen. Canon's castle joystick for AF selection is crap compared to touch-screen AF and shutter control. The touch screen is like a version of Canon's old eye control focus that actually works. It's VERY useful, and I didn't appreciate how much so until I used it for a couple days.
