The shadow noise from the E-5 above 1600 was unacceptable for my uses at the
time. I am sure you're right in that the E-M5 is better but the ergonomics of
it and the 35-100 would likely be a challenge. It's a moot point for me now as
I no longer have that job or the camera and lens.
I'm keenly awaiting the developments with the E-M1 and its new lenses as they
sound very exciting.
Dan S
On Aug 31, 2013, at 10:16 AM, "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> How about f/4 at 3200 or even f/5.6 at 6400? I suspect the E-M5 may
> perform as well at 6400 as the E-5 does at 1600. Times change.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 8/29/2013 4:36 PM, Daniel Sepke wrote:
>> In my last job I used my e-5 with the 12-60, 14-35 and the 35-100 in a
>> regular shooting role as at a private school. I routinely needed to work in
>> the theatre and a chapel. The latter involved needing to shoot at f2.8
>> 1/60th and 1600 ISO. So fast lenses were my only option to get anything even
>> vaguely usable.
>>
>> Now granted that was professional usage but I wouldn't want to use an
>> extreme variable aperture zoom in my personal work if I have the choice. Now
>> that I'm no longer working for the school I have sold most of my Oly kit and
>> just kept the 14-54/50-200 combo with an e-620. I really miss the 35-100
>> though, awesome lens that one.
>>
>> I don't disagree on a lot of your points though. For casual users its not as
>> big an issue. But for learning the craft it helps to have as little area for
>> confusion.
>>
>> Dan S
>>
>> On Aug 28, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/26/2013 3:52 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> More data leaked.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dailycameranews.com/2013/08/olympus-om-d-e-m1-camera-12-40mm-f2-8-pro-lens-price/
>>>>
>>>> Pricey combo. Will see how it performs relative to the similar Panny
>>>> zoom. Looks like very serious gear.
>>>
>>> It may seem a silly question, but, serious for what, and whom?
>>>
>>> Fast zooms were a big deal in film and early digital days. We associate
>>> them with serious/pro photographers because they
>>> are big, heavy and pricey and because they were bread and butter lenses for
>>> many actual pros.
>>>
>>> And yes, I still have my 80-200/2.8s. They were important lenses with
>>> film. Needing 1/200 minimum shutter speed, and
>>> more, if to be enlarged or cropped much, with film that started to go
>>> downhill noticeably at ASA 200, later 400, lens
>>> speed becomes really important for any but really good light. And I have
>>> the 24-40/2.8 and 60-120/2.8, but seldom found
>>> them really more useful than the typical f3.5-4.5 zooms.
>>>
>>> With IS and amazing IQ at higher ISOs, one doesn't need a wide aperture to
>>> get the shot for many uses. So the advantages
>>> of fast lenses start to come down to higher shutter speeds to stop subject
>>> motion, focusing and intentional shallow DOF,
>>> for subject/background separation and artistic effects.
>>>
>>> Contemporary AF systems work well with slower lenses and rear screens and
>>> EVFs don't need great lens speed to be
>>> effective. I am far, far more often looking for more than less DOF. Would I
>>> like to be able to catch more birds in
>>> flight? Sure! Do I think a bigger, faster lens would hep my reflexes to
>>> find and keep the subjects in the frame? Not
>>> really. ;-)
>>>
>>> It was also true that essentially all lenses needed to be stopped down at
>>> least a couple of stops for best performance.
>>> This is far less true with contemporary lens designs, so good IQ at any
>>> given stop requires less maximum aperture.
>>>
>>> So what would a 24-80 eq. f2.8 zoom bring to me that my 24-100 eq. f3.5-6.3
>>> doesn't? Would it look cool, more
>>> impressive? I suspect it will just look large on µ4/3 bodies. It would mean
>>> lower ISOs at the long end, which ain't bad.
>>> It would mean carrying around a larger, heavier lens, perhaps offset by a
>>> lighter wallet? :-)
>>>
>>> Like virtually all fast lenses, especially zooms, I'll bet it won't focus
>>> very close. The 12-50, OTOH, has an excellent
>>> Macro mode. Close focus is really important to me.
>>>
>>> So, are we to be impressed, and interested, because such a lens was a big
>>> deal long ago? Or might we match up the
>>> characteristics of a new tool against our practical photographic needs
>>> before thinking about shelling out the dough? And
>>> toting the load. ;-)
>>>
>>> My 12-50 is almost certainly a better match for me. Darn fine lens, in
>>> fact. :-)
>>>
>>> Pragmatic Toter 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/
>>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|