On 12/31/2012 7:41 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> No Shake Moose writes:
> >
>> ... Unfortunately, Oly seems to be > unable to shake a tendency
>> toward body induced shake, and this happens to be right in the
>> troublesome speed range. > Here's a good summary of the issue.
>> http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/micro-43-shutter-shock-revisited-omd-em.html
> >
>
>
> Seems the OM-D may have the quietest shutter and likely smallest issue
> with this shutter induced shake at intermediate speeds
> than all the other Oly bodies and most if not all of the Panny ones.
> See below:
>
> http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/pz14-42/index.htm
Now THAT IS interesting. Here I was knocking Oly for another vibrating camera,
when it is much less so than the Pannys
and its older siblings.
This general prevalence of the problem from the beginning of µ4/3 makes Oly's
AntiShock on the E-M5 make more sense. It
appears they may have been working on the problem for some time, reducing it in
mechanical design, then adding the delay
settings. I'm guessing Panny has no AntiShock settings.
So the 60D wins on one count, with electronic 'first-curtain', and a great deal
more mass. :-)
> Thought the PZ14-42 might make a tiny nice kit in lieu of another cam,
> but just don't know. Perhaps the performance would be acceptable with
> the antishock setting optimized.
It's unfortunate he didn't test the E-M5 AntiShock. Sort of a moot point, as it
is much better than the others, but it
would be nice to know how well it works in a lab test.
> Undecided, Mike
If you get an E-M5, give it a real lens. ;-)
Multi Lensed Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|