I still look at ( probably foolishly) the price of the 5DMK3 to upgrade from Mk2 but have used the MK2 once since getting the E-M5 which tells me a lot. More m4/3 lenses me thinks, instead.
I hear you Julian. I have the Mark III but found myself glued to the OM-D. Fast AF, great glass, lightweight, etc. But this past weekend, I purposefully took the Canon and my Zeiss ZE lenses and I can honestly say that I will NOT be getting rid of my Canon gear any time soon. There's a clarity and sharpness of the full frame with that Zeiss glass that is just superior to me. Don't get me wrong, I love my OM-D and m43 glass but I don't think it's quite up to par with full frame with Zeiss. Just my humble opinion . . .
rji2goleez wrote:
I hear you Julian. I have the Mark III but found myself glued to the OM-D. Fast AF, great glass, lightweight, etc. But this past weekend, I purposefully took the Canon and my Zeiss ZE lenses and I can honestly say that I will NOT be getting rid of my Canon gear any time soon. There's a clarity and sharpness of the full frame with that Zeiss glass that is just superior to me. Don't get me wrong, I love my OM-D and m43 glass but I don't think it's quite up to par with full frame with Zeiss. Just my humble opinion . . .
Hard to suppose the opposite, but please don't ask me to check it by those small samples... To say the truth, clarity and sharpness, @ web size, look better to me on OMD samples.
Uh, I right own an OMD as well a 5D3 outfit, so no matter of preference here
ultrapix wrote:
Hard to suppose the opposite, but please don't ask me to check it by those small samples... To say the truth, clarity and sharpness, @ web size, look better to me on OMD samples.
Uh, I right own an OMD as well a 5D3 outfit, so no matter of preference here
I hear you, Bob ... and I do appreciate that there is a difference when you use good glass on the 5D Mk III.
I have no hesitation (okay, I lie ... I hesitated for quite a bit) in getting rid of my 5D II and L-lenses because the 5D II + Canon lenses (other than TS-E) is not that special. I would say the OM-D + 75/1.8 lens is approx 80% as good as a 5D II + 85L in terms of IQ. The 5D III with a Zeiss or Leica lens, maybe 70%. Would you agree with this?
rji2goleez wrote:
I hear you Julian. I have the Mark III but found myself glued to the OM-D. Fast AF, great glass, lightweight, etc. But this past weekend, I purposefully took the Canon and my Zeiss ZE lenses and I can honestly say that I will NOT be getting rid of my Canon gear any time soon. There's a clarity and sharpness of the full frame with that Zeiss glass that is just superior to me. Don't get me wrong, I love my OM-D and m43 glass but I don't think it's quite up to par with full frame with Zeiss. Just my humble opinion . . .
You're probably right. It's hard to put a number on something like that but the OM-D with good primes is a kick-a$$ system. I just like what the 'more' I get out of the Canon/Zeiss combo.
rji2goleez wrote:
I hear you Julian. I have the Mark III but found myself glued to the OM-D. Fast AF, great glass, lightweight, etc. But this past weekend, I purposefully took the Canon and my Zeiss ZE lenses and I can honestly say that I will NOT be getting rid of my Canon gear any time soon. There's a clarity and sharpness of the full frame with that Zeiss glass that is just superior to me. Don't get me wrong, I love my OM-D and m43 glass but I don't think it's quite up to par with full frame with Zeiss. Just my humble opinion . . .
I hear you also Bob and am in total agreement. Your humble opinion is as my own humble opinion and I know what I see for me is what I can see and I an't going to kid myself. Least anyone else. I am though hard to please and discerning of what I know. What I get from the MK2 is more to my liking in image qualities.
rji2goleez wrote:
I hear you Julian. I have the Mark III but found myself glued to the OM-D. Fast AF, great glass, lightweight, etc. But this past weekend, I purposefully took the Canon and my Zeiss ZE lenses and I can honestly say that I will NOT be getting rid of my Canon gear any time soon. There's a clarity and sharpness of the full frame with that Zeiss glass that is just superior to me. Don't get me wrong, I love my OM-D and m43 glass but I don't think it's quite up to par with full frame with Zeiss. Just my humble opinion . . .
I'll keep my 5d2, at least for now, but not so much for landscapes/architecture/macro - the good m4/3 lenses are at least sharp and in many cases sharper than any of my Canon FF or alt glass - and the greater DOF of m4/3 is usually appreciated in these cases anyways.
What I really appreciate FF and the 5d2 for is portraits - for photos of people I still prefer 35mm FF over smaller formats. For people photography I like to shoot with 35mm and 50mm on FF and the DOF really makes a difference with FF here, at least for me. I just picked up the Pany 25 1.4 off of the buy/sell here today, and I'm curious to see how it does, but I think this is one situation where I will continue to favor my 5d2....
Have you seen some of the better samples from the 75/1.8 lens? You may be surprised by it's sharpness and bokeh/blur quality. Check out the images on this link - click on the thumbnails in the sample gallery:
michael49 wrote:
What I really appreciate FF and the 5d2 for is portraits - for photos of people I still prefer 35mm FF over smaller formats. For people photography I like to shoot with 35mm and 50mm on FF and the DOF really makes a difference with FF here, at least for me. I just picked up the Pany 25 1.4 off of the buy/sell here today, and I'm curious to see how it does, but I think this is one situation where I will continue to favor my 5d2....
bobbytan wrote:
Have you seen some of the better samples from the 75/1.8 lens? You may be surprised by it's sharpness and bokeh/blur quality. Check out the images on this link - click on the thumbnails in the sample gallery:
^ I like the PL 25mm, great choice of a lens, but yeah when you start comparing f/1.4 FF vs M43, this is where you really start to see the DOF / bokeh differences. m43 by design just can't blow away the background as well as FF if you've got a messy background, especially considering the normal ranges (or wide if you're one of those bokeh-tastic 24/35mm 1.4 shooters)- you'll either have to post blur it away, think more and set up the shot, or just live with it
An example here of woods / foliage in the background
Alas, I love some creamy bokeh but I've decided to live without it, if it means I have to carry around a FF/50 1.4 setup. Not back-breaking, mind you, but the OMD kit is just that much smaller.
