cputeq wrote:
You have either amazing physique, or have never gone serious mountain biking with SLR gear. It gets heavy after a while and more annoying to carry than useful.
I am 6 ft, 207 lb in shape, but why should I carry bulky gear for no extremely overwhelming benefit? ( for my shooting).
Sure, I spent 2 months hiking in the Rocky Mountains with full SLR gear. Sure, I take weekend (2 day) hikes with three to five heavy lenses. Actual "mountain biking" I probably would not bring a camera at all. But I spend full 10 to 14 hour days riding a bicycle with just whatever lenses I like. For about a month last summer I spent almost everyday 10 - 14hrs per day, carrying around a Linhof tripod, the nFD 300/2.8L and one other lens (usually the ~1kg TamronSP 60-300mm F/3.8 Macro.
My physique? I dunno, most girls beat me arm-wrestling. I'm over 6 feet. I dunno how much I weigh but I'm pudgy and soft around the middle. But I don't con myself into thinking that 500 grams one way or the other is going to make any difference. I'm NOT a weight-wimp!
Even in normal travels, I just dont want the overall bulk of an SLR system. OMD and prime native lens are small, great IQ, unobtrusive, and quiet.
Yup, finally a decent native µ4/3 lens with nice IQ - or so it looks like so far. That it happens to be a lightweight combination is an extra benefit (maybe) in some situations. It can also be a negative in other situations. That it's quiet is nice if you're sneaking shots at a stage play, in a museum, or at another venue which doesn't allow photography.
When hobby turns to hassle, it is time to reasses the situation.
So I should give up biking because I have to wrench on it every sunday and fill it with gas?
I should give up hang gliding because of all the gear I have to pack, unpack, and pack up again every time?
I should quit rock climbing because managing, maintaining, and hauling around about 150 to 200 ponds of gear is by your standards "a hassle"?
I guess by your standards I should lay in bed and die because even lifting a fry-pan to cook food to feed myself is a hassle.
I call BS!!! I like playing with photography enough that I don't care about an extra kilogram - I don't even think about it except in discussions like these.
I plan to keep my DSLR for some siuations, but I am expecting it will be gathering more dust than photos.
I think you should sell it. Actually you should sell your µ4/3 system too. It's too much hassle to point the thing and press the shutter button after all. Instead you should just buy or download other peoples pictures. These days everything and every place is photographed - so you don't need to bring any camera at all - it's just too much of a hassle!
OK, I'm being sarcastic now but you get the point right? Ansel Adams loved large format B&W film photography so he made a hobby and a living out of it. He loved it so he found a way. Usually a pack mule or a donkey. And station-wagon with a strong roof to get there in the first place. He didn't think of the logistics involved as hassles - they were part of it. Instamatics were available at the time but he didn't switch and I bet he didn't care that much that his gear weighed 100 to 150 pounds either - again that was part of it. I can compare myself to Adams in that singular way: When I like doing something I do it and in the doing is the man made. I don't go trying to find ways around doing it or complain - neither do I spend thousands to get the newest, lightest, coolest substitution for what I already have or for what I can get at a fraction of the cost instead. I like playing at photography and mostly my goals are either to get clear highly detailed images or to make creative art. If I can do that with a $400 GH2 and a $15 TamronSP 60-300mm F/3.8 Macro then "why in hell" would I spend $400 to $800 for the same lens (with lower IQ in most cases) and another $1,200 on a different camera body because it was 8mm narrower and 62 grams lighter? It boils down to $1,700 or $415. And when the main difference is only a little weight and a few centimeters I'm not so stupid as to spend that much more and end up with same or worse results because I've conned myself into becoming a weight-wimp.
Bifurcator wrote:
For me the only reason to get µ4/3 was lens adaptation and primo (or extra-primo hacked) video. See the difference? If the D700, D800, D3, D4, 1Dmk3 or 1Dx could adapt all the lenses my µ4/3 does I would change over in a heartbeat. I probably would have gone with Sony (another evil junk maker - like Panasonic) had the Nex been released prior to the GH1+hack (depending). I've kinda given up on the video thing but I stay with µ4/3 even still, because of my 20-some adapters, all of the extra rigging I have for the GH1/GH2, and the fact that the Sony is a lamer shape with Disney menus....Show more →
What I don't understand is why you ”need” all those adapted lenses. How about 3-5 and then be done? You could use a 5D and some nice lenses and sell the rest, right?
I totally want a mirrorless (shallow registration) FF, APS-H, APS-C, or µ4/3 (in that order) with a D4 or 1Dx body style and the functionality of the same. Size and weight savings are totally lost on me. I don't even understand others who like that sortta thing. It's just weird to me. I guess you've read my snide (but accurate IMHO) remarks designating such users as weight-wimps in the past? Those who think saving an ounce here or there is going to save them from some kind of fatigue... bla! Or that the GH1/EP3 w/100-300 is any smaller than a K-5 with the same... heh!
I can understand compacts in a girl's purse or in a guy's pocket. But I don't get buying µ4/3 for size and weight savings when with alt glass (and even many native lenses) they weigh about the same and pretty much take up the same amount of space. With only native lenses? Sure, recently there are a few nice native lenses but at release, no, they almost all sucked arse IMO - and there still aren't nearly enough good ones. So why did people buy it? I can't speak for them and I'm at a loss to even try. In my case it was the video crowd adapting good glass and using the GH1 (and later the GH2) as a substitute for a $15,000 video camera that attracted and eventually sold me on the purchase. The size and weight could have easily been the same as the Red ONE and I still would have gone for it. ...Show more →
I have too much stuff, but I never bring more than 3 lenses at a time, and I seldom use anything longer than corresponding to 150 mm on FF. So for me the difference in size and weight is huge. I want a camera that I can take with me all the time and I want it to be light enough to hang around my neck for hours, every day.
The only reason I bought the OM-D when already having an NEX-5N was the aspect ratio and better functionality. But adapting lenses has now become almost useless. I don't see the point.
Bifurcator wrote:
For me the only reason to get µ4/3 was lens adaptation and primo (or extra-primo hacked) video. See the difference? If the D700, D800, D3, D4, 1Dmk3 or 1Dx could adapt all the lenses my µ4/3 does I would change over in a heartbeat. I probably would have gone with Sony (another evil junk maker - like Panasonic) had the Nex been released prior to the GH1+hack (depending). I've kinda given up on the video thing but I stay with µ4/3 even still, because of my 20-some adapters, all of the extra rigging I have for the GH1/GH2, and the fact that the Sony is a lamer shape with Disney menus....Show more →
Makten wrote:
What I don't understand is why you ”need” all those adapted lenses. How about 3-5 and then be done? You could use a 5D and some nice lenses and sell the rest, right?
Yup, and now that I know basically what all those lenses are like I've come to the same conclusion and actually that was part of my initial plan: Acquire buttloads of lenses via purchase and horse-trading, try and test them all, then settle on a few I really like, and sell off everything else just in time for my Son's university entrance fees. It's worked out about right so far - I need to come up with the cash by march 1st 2013 which seems doable.
Makten wrote:
I have too much stuff, but I never bring more than 3 lenses at a time, and I seldom use anything longer than corresponding to 150 mm on FF. So for me the difference in size and weight is huge. I want a camera that I can take with me all the time and I want it to be light enough to hang around my neck for hours, every day.
The only reason I bought the OM-D when already having an NEX-5N was the aspect ratio and better functionality. But adapting lenses has now become almost useless. I don't see the point....Show more →
I've discovered that I tend to like longer focal lengths. 600mm equiv is just too much fun with something like the nFD 300/2.8L on µ4/3. But 400mm and 500mm are pretty awesome too! So far I get the most fun from focal lengths 85 to 300 (170 to 600 equiv). But I also dig ultra wides (20mm equiv. or so).
As far as "the point" to adaptation what µ4/3 lens matches the IQ and "magic-ness" of the CZ C/Y 50/1.4, the CZ C/Y 85/1.4, the Voigtlander 125/2.5, the nFD 85/1.2L, the nFD 300/2.8L (or even the 4.0L). etc. etc.? Those lenses are so good they actually transform the camera into an entirely different animal! With all of those lenses except the 300mm ones, I can hang the camera around my neck all day long and never even think about the weight. One of my most favorite all-day carry lenses is the nFD 85/1.2L - I never think to myself "gee this thing is heavy" - ever. And the CZ C/Y 85/1.4 is easily half it's weight (I think).
Better functionality is an excellent reason to buy a new body IMO! Right-on. For me tho, I'm going to wait till it comes down in price to about $500 or maybe $600 if I end up incapable of waiting it out. At that point I'll sell off my GH2 for $350 to $400 and get the OM-D for $500 or $600. I guess I live on a slightly different planet but IMO those are the prices these cameras should be released at in the first place. About $600 for the OM-D, yeah, that's about right - and then just keep a stable price-integrity so that it never falls more than about $75 below that.
Bifurcator wrote:
As far as "the point" to adaptation what µ4/3 lens matches the IQ and "magic-ness" of the CZ C/Y 50/1.4, the CZ C/Y 85/1.4, the Voigtlander 125/2.5, the nFD 85/1.2L, the nFD 300/2.8L (or even the 4.0L). etc. etc.?
I have no idea about the longer lenses, but I'm sure you can get much better IQ from a simple whatever-brand 100/2.8 on FF than with the C/Y 50/1.4 on MFT. None of those require a short register distance either, so I think you'd find an even nicer kind of "magic" with an old 5D. Edit: Oh, the FD lenses...
Me, I can't stand waiting. I constantly swap gear and I don't even like doing so! It's just because there are no cameras on the market that fits me, yet. The OM-D is getting close, but the sensor is still too small and the EVF sucks compared to a good optical VF. Which obviously doesn't have to take up any considerable space or weight, just look at the 0.92x VF of the original OM-1.
Bifurcator wrote:
As far as "the point" to adaptation what µ4/3 lens matches the IQ and "magic-ness" of the CZ C/Y 50/1.4, the CZ C/Y 85/1.4, the Voigtlander 125/2.5, the nFD 85/1.2L, the nFD 300/2.8L (or even the 4.0L). etc. etc.?
Makten wrote:
I have no idea about the longer lenses, but I'm sure you can get much better IQ from a simple whatever-brand 100/2.8 on FF than with the C/Y 50/1.4 on MFT. None of those require a short register distance either, so I think you'd find an even nicer kind of "magic" with an old 5D. Edit: Oh, the FD lenses...
Me, I can't stand waiting. I constantly swap gear and I don't even like doing so! It's just because there are no cameras on the market that fits me, yet. The OM-D is getting close, but the sensor is still too small and the EVF sucks compared to a good optical VF. Which obviously doesn't have to take up any considerable space or weight, just look at the 0.92x VF of the original OM-1....Show more →
Yeah, that's it too. If I could do more mounts via adapters I think I'd be trying to save up for a FF camera. The D700 is looking pretty good given some of the current used prices I've seen lately... but...
Yeah, I really like the OM-D too! I think it's missing a few things tho. The video codec hardwired defaults are too lame for one. IMO I think it needs a sturdier body - titanium all around please. Dual memory cards is another. A centered tripod socket is pretty critical IMO. Better menu structures - I see a lot of folks saying this tho I haven't really spent enough personal time with it to know just how bad it is or isn't. The little time I did spend I thought there was lots of room for improvement tho. A more gripier surface finish would be nice, and of course a larger sensor goes without saying. And I dunno if it already has this or not but I want n ISO priority mode where I set the the min and max ISO and it keeps the same SS and Aperture but changes the ISO within my set range to achieve proper exposure.
What would you improve - besides the viewfinder?
For me tho coming from a video BG I actually like an EVF better than an OVF on anything digital. On a film camera an EVF wouldn't make much sense and I feel the same inversely - on a digital camera an OVF doesn't make much sense! I think the hybrid idea that Fuji came up with rocks tho! I'd love to see that on something like the OM-D.
And finally I don't mind waiting too much. As long as I have something I feel is capable in some regards (enough to please) then I can move at the pace of the used market without too much angst. In my world the GH2 just released a few months ago. Meaning that the used price of the GH2 is now down around $500... a price I'm willing to pay. The one I got had only 63 shots on it and had only been switched on 28 times in total - at least according to the service menus.
I don't know...while not as biting in contrast as the c/y 50, I'll take the Oly 45/1.8 over the Zeiss any day. It's every bit as sharp, with better bokeh, a better contrast curve for portraits and with blazing fast and accurate AF, which means I'll get a lot more shots than I would with the Zeiss. Sure, the Zeiss would be better for landscape type work, but that's not my main reason for using a portrait length lens.
I'd also say that from what I've seen from the Oly 75/1.8, it's every bit as good as the Zeiss 85/1.4, and probably better at f/1.8. (I had two copies of the Zeiss 85, and while decent at f/1.4, and very good at f/2, I found my Rokinon 85/1.4 to be just about as good as the Zeiss stopped down and noticeably better wide open....and I fully plan on selling my Rokinon as soon as I get my pre-ordered Oly 75.
You are correct that there is not any high quality long glass for m4/3 right now. I'm really hoping Oly puts out a 200/2.8 soon.
I saw a Kenko made mirror lens for native µ4/3... I wonder how that is? I think it was 300mm f/6 or something. A little dark but with the OM-D and the GH2 being pretty great at ISO 1600 maybe usable even for BIF?
But wait... the Oly 75/1.8 you mentioned is "pre-ordered"? Then how do you know anything about it at all let alone how it compares to the Contax 85/1.4 ? I'm confused.
And also at this point I should probably mention another aspect I don't think I'm alone in valuing. Build quality. I hope to always deal in lenses that are capable of lasting several life-times. Besides the two Voigtlander lenses I haven't seen any native µ4/3 lenses that I think will even last one life-time. There is just something about using a solid well made piece of equipment that is inspiring on a multitude of levels.
Bifurcator wrote:
What would you improve - besides the viewfinder?
Nothing really. A few more buttons or better customization ability wouldn't hurt, but isn't necessary.
The build quality is already very good and titanium is twice the density of magnesium, so I don't see the point. If you drop the camera so bad that the chassis cracks, the electronics would most likely be dead anyway.
The Olympus 45/1.8 seems great, but I'll use my 50/2 ZM just because I already have it.
Yes, Bif, I haven't actually used the 75/1.8, but all one has to do is read review after review and tons of sample images. The lens looks to be absolutely tack sharp right from wide open, is built as well as any L-grade lens (Read Roger Cicala's blog post on the 75/1.8 here.), and has almost zero CA, plus really beautiful bokeh. I haven't seen a single review yet that hasn't basically praised it universally. It looks to have essentially no flaws.
Help requester. My one week old silver body quit while using my Lumix 20MM F1.7 lens. No warning at all, it just shut down. Changed battery and it tried to start, but just flickered in the LCD and was dead. Walked back to my car, about 10 minute walk and the camera started up with the 20MM on it. Can someone point me at contacting/hearing from others with the same problem. I first shot about 100 images with an FD lens and then the Lumix 14MM. I had about 85 images with the 20MM when it quit.
Harry Palmer
Had almost exactly the same problem - but with different lens - since the camera was only 2 days old, I took it back to the store I bought it from and exchanged it. Never knew when it was going to work or not - then at end of 2nd day, it hung up almost all the time.
Second one I got has problem with shutter speed over 1/1000th - gives total black picture - waiting on store to get new shipment in to replace this one now - however it is useable as long as you don't have to shoot something with a fast shutter speed. Good luck!
The OM-D I received last week had wildly inconsistent exposure issues, often underexposing for no reason by about 1 2/3 stops. It was random enough to be quite annoying . Coupling that with all the other things I didn't like about the camera, it's currently boxed up and waiting in the hallway for the UPS guy, returning it for a refund. I'll stick with my Panasonic GX1 for the time being and check out the Panasonic G5 when it releases. I have seen enough Olympus strangeness for now.
I'm over 6 feet. I dunno how much I weigh but I'm pudgy and soft around the middle. But I don't con myself into thinking that 500 grams one way or the other is going to make any difference. I'm NOT a weight-wimp! 
It's just because there are no cameras on the market that fits me, yet. The OM-D is getting close, but the sensor is still too small and the EVF sucks compared to a good optical VF. Which obviously doesn't have to take up any considerable space or weight, just look at the 0.92x VF of the original OM-1.
Then how do you know anything about it at all let alone how it compares to the Contax 85/1.4 ? I'm confused. 