Hi Frank, Chris and all,
From: Frank Wijsmuller <wijsmuller@xxxxxxxxx>
>If you want to know how the E-M5 scored *as a package* then read the
>DPreview conclusion of the E-M5 test: "...The E-M5 can't completely
>overcome the light capture disadvantage brought by its smaller sensor,
>compared to APS-C, but it reduces it to the point that it's irrelevant for
>almost all practical purposes. At which point we think its size advantage,
>in terms of both body and lenses, will outweigh that difference for most
>uses.
I agree, especially about the *lenses*. Finally, we have that 12-35mm
constant F2.8 zoom available from Panny -- it makes a world of difference!
Because the E-M5+12-35 combo isn't much bigger (if any) than an APS-C DSLR
with a kit F5.6 zoom, while the faster lens in a way compensates for the
sensor size difference -- on both low-light performance and DOF control.
If we go longer, things get even better. These holidays, most of my pics
were taken by the 12-35, of course; but second most used lens was the
(manual) Canon 'New' FD 100mm F2 -- much smaller than its Zuiko equivalent
and a pretty good performer, if a bit smooth wide open -- and it 'became'
stabilised on the E-M5 ;-) While in DOF terms it's the equal of a
conventional 200/4 on FF, in exposure terms would be a monster of a 200/2;
even for APS-C, a 135/2 lens is going to be a much larger item than this 53
mm long, 445 gr lightweight Canon.
From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>I was merely remarking, perhaps in a rather obscure way, that the E-M5
might have been
>given a good writeup by DxO, but that it was still not that good in the
context of cameras of
>that supposed quality.
Define 'that supposed quality' ;-) Seriously, I agree with Frank that
there's much more to a camera than the sensor. The E-M5 isn't "perfect" by
any means, and surely isn't the camera for everyone and/or everything… but
seeing it as a system, particularly when mated to Panny's 12-35, it
definitely is a *very* capable tool.
In fact, this is the *first* time ever that a 'standard' zoom is
"acceptable" to me. ALL previous offerings, no matter the brand or format,
were either too slow, too big or had a limited range or poor quality --
sometimes, more than one of these 'flaws'. Particularly about F2.8 zooms:
an APS-C DSLR with a big lens on it is going (at least in my case) to be
collecting dust in the closet, while the "supposedly inferior" E-M5+12-35
fits inside my go-everywhere small bag, ready for taking the picture.
That's the point of it.
>I've read some of the DPR review, but that's nothing to do with my comment
on Moose's
>post.
OK, the EVF issue. Once again, this time is more then 'good enough' for me
;-) It was already acceptable on the X100 (which anyway is easily
switchable with an excellent, but not WYSIWYG, optical one) and this one is
much better -- it isn't a MPix matter only. I do like a *good* OVF, like
the one on the Contax RTS-II. But the digital picture is most likely to be
seen on a computer screen, thus I better get an accurate idea of the final
result, instead of 'previewing' what won't be captured by the sensor
anyway… That possibility of shadow/highlight clipping preview _before_
exposure is a *very* convenient feature.
But, as usual, all of the above is rather subjective, so please take it
with a grain of salt… ;-)
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|