dkmiles1 wrote:
Picked up the OM-D about 4 days ago and took it to a real shoot last night. Under continuous lighting, OLY 45mm f/1.8 at f/1.8.... This little thing amazes me!
Superb image.
Great shots Israel!! I just love a beautiful sunset! God is such a master painter!
The 45/1.8 is WOW as you have just shown Juju...But it is so close I hardly have it on. The second shot of the face is awesome in what it captures/shows - sometimes more than one can pick up with the naked eye! I am going to go put it on right now and go out!!
Thank you, Cal. Just wanted to see if I can get some decent pictures with the Canon 100L. I generally have a dislike for MF lenses. Can't wait to have a lens like the M. Zuiko 60/2.8 macro.
CalW wrote:
Bobby, these are beautiful Nice work on the MF and DOF.
Bobby, those look doggone good. I just got an OM-D, and I have Canon stuff, including the 100L. Do you consider that that lens on the OM-D gives you an image superior to what you could get by using it with a 5D II or a 1D IV? I've wondered if there'd be any point for me to get an adapter to use EF lenses on the OM-D...aperture control would not be available, right? What about AF?
Thank you, Ernie. It does work with EOS lenses, but you can only shoot it wide open because there is no aperture ring on these lenses. You do get auto exposure but no auto focus.
Ernie Aubert wrote:
Bobby, those look doggone good. I just got an OM-D, and I have Canon stuff, including the 100L. Do you consider that that lens on the OM-D gives you an image superior to what you could get by using it with a 5D II or a 1D IV? I've wondered if there'd be any point for me to get an adapter to use EF lenses on the OM-D...aperture control would not be available, right? What about AF?
Thanks, both of you... but I still wonder whether, from an IQ point of view as opposed to a bulk and weight point of view, is there really any point to attaching an OM-D to say a 135L or 200L (either) instead of attaching a 5D II or 1D IV? I'd suspect not, but many have reported that the dynamic range provided by the OM-D's sensor exceeds that of any Canon sensor, so have you found that, or any other characteristic, to be a factor?
Ernie Aubert wrote:
Thanks, both of you... but I still wonder whether, from an IQ point of view as opposed to a bulk and weight point of view, is there really any point to attaching an OM-D to say a 135L or 200L (either) instead of attaching a 5D II or 1D IV? I'd suspect not, but many have reported that the dynamic range provided by the OM-D's sensor exceeds that of any Canon sensor, so have you found that, or any other characteristic, to be a factor?
First, I have to say, I almost forgot that I can adapt my Zeiss ZE lenses to the OM-D even if shooting wide open. The 50mm and 100mm makro-planars are great wide open. Then, stupid me, I nearly forgot I already have an adapter for my 58mm MC Rokkor which has been adapted to Canon EOS! So I quickly slapped the Zeiss Makro-Planar on the OM-D and took some nothing shots. I love the sharpness but I'll have to take some more serios shots to see if the Zeiss rendering holds true on the OM-D.
I have to say No. I have never owned a 1D IV but the IQ from the 5D II is better than the OM-D ... if you are able to nail focus. What the OM-D has is good DR and extremely fast and accurate focus. The files from the OM-D may be as good as a 7D but it will not match FF.
Ernie Aubert wrote:
Thanks, both of you... but I still wonder whether, from an IQ point of view as opposed to a bulk and weight point of view, is there really any point to attaching an OM-D to say a 135L or 200L (either) instead of attaching a 5D II or 1D IV? I'd suspect not, but many have reported that the dynamic range provided by the OM-D's sensor exceeds that of any Canon sensor, so have you found that, or any other characteristic, to be a factor?
Nice work on the MF and DOF.
