Hi,
Just wanted to check with you guys, (if some of you are into long exposures)...
Is there a fundamental disadvantage to doing long exposure on a mirror less like OM-D vis a vis a DSLR? Mostly from a handling perspective....
Or its just fine, as good as one of those chunky cameras...
regards,
nandadevieast
Perhaps, as it really depends on conditions and the length of exposure we're talking.
Some disadvantages I could think of:
1) the OM-D's battery life is pretty short compared to typical DSLRs, so that could mean running out of power.
2) Most native m43 lenses have focus by wire - so, achieving accurate infinity focus might be a problem if conditions are dark enough and you can't find a point source to focus on. Usually solved by bringing a flashlight, but the problem is there moreso than for a DSLR , though most DLSR lenses have a bit of play in infinity focus also.
Really depends on what sort of stuff you're talking about, though - astrophotography or just daytime ND-filter type stuff, etc.
No long exposure experience as I have only had the camera for a week. But some features of the OM-D might be useful. It is possible to watch the exposure "develop" on the LCD or in the viewfinder of the OM-D and then stop the exposure when it suits you. Also you can select to amplify the light (sort of a viewer-only high ISO) while focusing (although giving up some other features in the process.) The power issue mentioned above can be overcome somewhat by adding the battery grip with a second battery.
