Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Back to Micro 4/3rds

Subject: Re: [OM] Back to Micro 4/3rds
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:53:37 -0800
On 11/24/2016 10:47 AM, ChrisB wrote:
I’ve returned to the fold, in a manner of speaking.  I am now the proud owner 
of a bright red GM5 with 12-32.

Congrats! I hope you both enjoy it and get great pix!

I am not totally sold on the transition of formats from APS-C,

I've had a hard time figuring why people believe there is such big a difference. The formats essentially the same height, but different widths. So a 4/3 sensor with the same pixel count actually has a slightly higher nominal resolution. Not enough to make a meaningful difference in practical resolution, but there is just no loss, either.

A bit ago, before Fuji and Oly moved to higher MP sensors, I succumbed to paranoia from all the posts here and elsewhere about their wonderfulness. So I downloaded Raw sample files of 16 MP Oly and Fuji sensors from dpreview, stacked on layers in PS, so I could flip instantly between them. At 100%, looking very closely, with the most difficult parts of the target, there were some quite small differences. Oly was a tiny bit better on some, Fuji on others. If I had to, I'd have given the prize to the Oly, but really, there was no meaningful difference.

If you are talking about the kind of color rendering, curve, secret sauce, etc. differences that AG tends to see where I tend not to, I can't say. But that's a difference in other aspects of sensor and processing. If it's the idea of greater resolution of detail, it just ain't so.

but it’s a delightful little device.

On 11/24/2016 1:22 PM, ChrisB wrote:
:-) thanks, Rick.  And thanks to Moose for suggesting this rather unique model.

Thanks! And I hope it continues to please.

On 11/25/2016 11:17 PM, ChrisB wrote:
Thanks, Mike. I am considering that zoom.  I'll have a look at that article.

On 11/30/2016 9:07 AM, ChrisB wrote:
. . .
And I’m happy with the quality of both jpg and Raw images with the little 12-32.  
I’m on the point of shelling out a little for the telephoto zoom that Mike and Moose 
recommended.

The only problem I see with the review Mike linked to is that the photos make 
camera and lens look huge. :-)

I had occasion recently to compare Panny 14-140, their new 12-60 and the Oly 12-50. As long as I was at it, I shot with the 12-32 and 35-100. Neither is quite up to the 14-140; both are better than the 12-60. I shot at 12, 14, 32-35, 50, 60 and 100 mm. At 100, I dragged out the Leica 100-400, too.

Basically, the 12-32, 35-100 combo are better than the Panny 12-60 and the Oly 
12-50. (The 12-60 went back.)

My long awaited Oly 12-100/4 Pro finally shipped today, so I'll soon see what 
more lots of size, weight and $$ does.



My Fuji X100T is much faster on the draw, but it is slightly larger and has a 
fixed focal length lens.

I’ll see how I get on . . .

Chris


--
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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz