As well ask in this thread:
EM1.2 will be launched here in May afterall. Even the lenses have come. I will definitely pick it up in a fortnight i hope, with 300 Pro.
Now, suppose you have EM1.2 and 300/4. Should you add: 12-100/4 or 40-150/2.8 ?
40-150 will fill the gap.nicely because 300 is just 300, a prime. On the other hand, the combined carry weight again goes up..
12-100 doesn't have 300mm but 200mm is quite respectable what do you think?
I think you would enjoy the 12-100 as a general walk-around lens. You give up the 101-150mm range, but gain the 12-39mm range, which could be useful.
Don't have the specs handy, but I don't think the weight difference between those two is that much. Remember, 12-100 is IS PRO, so it has the lens stabilization unit which increases weight.
nandadevieast wrote:
As well ask in this thread:
EM1.2 will be launched here in May afterall. Even the lenses have come. I will definitely pick it up in a fortnight i hope, with 300 Pro.
Now, suppose you have EM1.2 and 300/4. Should you add: 12-100/4 or 40-150/2.8 ?
40-150 will fill the gap.nicely because 300 is just 300, a prime. On the other hand, the combined carry weight again goes up..
12-100 doesn't have 300mm but 200mm is quite respectable what do you think?
Yes, i am thinking that too.
Though I won't have 200mm to 600mm.
Weight diff is 320 grams. 40-150 being close to 900grams.
mitesh wrote:
I think you would enjoy the 12-100 as a general walk-around lens. You give up the 101-150mm range, but gain the 12-39mm range, which could be useful.
Don't have the specs handy, but I don't think the weight difference between those two is that much. Remember, 12-100 is IS PRO, so it has the lens stabilization unit which increases weight.
I believe the E-M1.2 is very well sealed. I have run both of mine under running water. Using it at the beach, sand did not get lodged in between body panels, whereas it did with Canon bodies.
I didn't realize the weight diff was 500 grams. I removed the tripod collar and hood from the 40-150 to make it lighter and smaller.
k-h.a.w wrote:
IIRC the 1000x cards aren't fast enough.
Your impression is correct, the Lexar cards weren't useable on my E-M1.2 or E-M5.2 either.
When shooting video they crashed the cameras and the cards became unuseable.
The Lexar cards had a bug, but Lexar fixed the bug and issued REV B of those memory cards.
I sent my cards in and they came back working fine, the fix is free of charge.
I held the shutter down a couple of times for a minute or so, no slowing down.
I have not used the high frame rate.
K-H.
Bought one of the Lexar 2000x 64GB to try out and was surprised to find that it performs worse than the 1000x version by almost a factor of two in terms of buffer depth. Seems like they sent me a Rev A card in a Rev B box though, =(.
Mitesh, thanks
Pls look at the link in the post to which you replied. I have linked a user experience.
mitesh wrote:
I believe the E-M1.2 is very well sealed. I have run both of mine under running water. Using it at the beach, sand did not get lodged in between body panels, whereas it did with Canon bodies.
I didn't realize the weight diff was 500 grams. I removed the tripod collar and hood from the 40-150 to make it lighter and smaller.
I've done this too ... rinsed my dusty E-M1 + 12-40 PRO (after a shoot on the dunes) under a running tap! But don't do this unless you think your camera really needs a shower ... as you never know if there might be a leak in the rubber seal!
You will also notice that the auto-sensor cleaning is remarkably effective. In the 4-5 years I have been shooting Olympus I have not even once had to do a manual cleaning of the sensor. Sony cameras are the very worst in this regard. They are dust magnets.
mitesh wrote:
I believe the E-M1.2 is very well sealed. I have run both of mine under running water. Using it at the beach, sand did not get lodged in between body panels, whereas it did with Canon bodies.
I didn't realize the weight diff was 500 grams. I removed the tripod collar and hood from the 40-150 to make it lighter and smaller.
Get the MC-14 extender too ... so you have an equivalent reach of 840mm at f5.6.
nandadevieast wrote:
As well ask in this thread:
EM1.2 will be launched here in May afterall. Even the lenses have come. I will definitely pick it up in a fortnight i hope, with 300 Pro.
Now, suppose you have EM1.2 and 300/4. Should you add: 12-100/4 or 40-150/2.8 ?
40-150 will fill the gap.nicely because 300 is just 300, a prime. On the other hand, the combined carry weight again goes up..
12-100 doesn't have 300mm but 200mm is quite respectable what do you think?
Cloudy and rainy for much of the day. Sun peeked out for a little bit, so I went for a quick walk. Eastern Kingbird backlit by the setting sun as it perches on a branch.
whumber wrote:
Bought one of the Lexar 2000x 64GB to try out and was surprised to find that it performs worse than the 1000x version by almost a factor of two in terms of buffer depth. Seems like they sent me a Rev A card in a Rev B box though, =(.
Thanks. You got the right card.
Only the box is marked REV B.
Did you format in camera?
Use the card in the fast slot with raws only?
No writing to the slow slot.
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks. You got the right card.
Only the box is marked REV B.
Did you format in camera?
Use the card in the fast slot with raws only?
No writing to the slow slot.
K-H.
Yeah, I formatted in camera, also tried formatting in computer and then in camera. Card is slot 1 with no card in slot 2 (also tried it with the 1000x in slot 2 but doesn't make any difference.) Tried with RAW as well as all JPG options. Maxes out at 38 shots before buffer fills and framerate drops; the 1000x gets almost 60 shots before slowing down.
My card is a revision A according to what one of the B&H guys posted over on DPReview.
Poof doesn't participate on forums but this is one of her shots via M1ii + Oly 300mm.
She'll tell you, for first time BIF is in her life because of the M1ii-
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Unless the distortion of shapes we need to see preserved in a way we see them is significant, in my experience rolling shutter is more an internet problem. In the hummer images we are discussing, the wings are still wing shaped, not curved.
Rolling shutter is definitely more than an internet problem ;-)
I notice it much less on the Mark II, but I still notice it now and again in the unnatural shapes of moving things, like wings, and not just straight lines like here on this E-M1 shot.
But the 1/60 read speed of the sensor is a big step in the right direction over the 1/15 in the E-M1 I. It could cause some pretty weird looking birds!
Here is another interesting example, though I am not sure whether this has to do with rolling shutter. I just know it was taken with the Mark I at 1/25 in pretty bad light and in silent mode. Never seen water drops like that in a photograph, but it could be a natural phenomenon.
The key is, as you say, the question of whether the distortion is "significant". Fortunately, with birds etc, there are not usually any straight lines to deal with and the differences can often only be seen in comparing one frame with another. It is certainly no longer the PITA that it was with the E-M1 on anything but still subjects and with no camera movement. So far, I can live with it, but I still see room for improvement.
Nice testimonial!
