On 9/11/2017 11:34 AM, Jan Steinman wrote:
Hi Mike, welcome back!
Up until 2008 I was using my beloved OM2ns and my, almost as much
loved, OM4. I had been keen to go digital, as long as I could still
use my large collection of OM mount lenses. However, when I looked at
the newly released E1 in 2003 it was a great disappointment
Yea, me too. I reluctantly went with the E-3, mainly so I could use my OM
Zuikos easily. I was unhappy with the size and weight, and found myself
gradually shooting less and less.
So the first question is, "what to buy?"... Searching online for "best DSLR
viewfinder", up pops the OM-D E-5 II.
I have not tried the E5.2, but this spring, I spent my first two Social
Security cheques on an OMD1.2, and could not be happier!
It supports my OM Zuikos splendidly, allowing me to program in their name and aperture
(as well as focal length) into a list that I select from one of the front buttons. I then
use the other front button to turn on "focus peaking," which outlines in-focus
areas. This has made all my old manual-focus lenses even more enjoyable!
My only gripe with the support for legacy lenses is the in-camera list is only
ten items long. I fill the first nine with my most-used lenses, then go to the
trouble of re-programming the tenth slot for anything odd I may use.
This is not a consideration for me. I gave up using my legacy OM glass on digital long ago. As Tina said today, "None of
my manually focused photos equal the auto-focus of the SL1!" It's the same for me and first Canon, then Oly and Panny
µ4/3 AF. The old lenses are big, compared to the µ4/3 equivalents, and aren't as optically good. Even leaving aside the
great improvements in materials and design, it would likely be true, as one is throwing away almost 75% of the image
area the OM designers worked so hard to make good.
I DO shoot with old glass, odd MF glass (and glass-less), but I do so mostly on
a FF sensor in an A7.
The main reason for sticking with Olympus (besides legacy glass) is the superb image
stabilization -- which is the main reason for bothering to tell the camera what focal
length you are using. As a film shooter, you're probably thinking, "No thanks; I
know how to use a tripod." But it has really revolutionized the way I take pictures.
I find it especially useful for macro, which I would not have even considered without a
tripod before.
AMEN! IBIS has revolutionized photography for me. Applies to long tele, as well as macro. Before, it was a whole big
hassle for either. Now, it's just point and shoot. The bee image Dean praised as the best he'd ever seen took seconds
and no special equipment.
Another feature I'm finding useful that I thought I'd never use is sequential shooting.
When shooting macro without a tripod, I'll often set it to sequential, press the shutter,
and move through the focus range, in effect doing "manual focus stacking." It
is especially useful for moving critters. Then go through your shots and keep the ones
with the best focus.
I'll have to try that. I do use Focus Bracketing a lot, and a few times an
insect has come out well in one of the shots.
I only have two OMD lenses, and only because they are truly special. I found a lovely
14-45 "pancake" zoom on evilBay for just $150.
Do you mean the 14-42/3.5-5.6 EZ, with the power extension and power zoom?. It's a nice lens in some ways, but I don't
like the way the power zoom works much. Same for the Panny eq. lens.
It makes the E1.2 truly a pocket camera, assuming you have fairly large
pockets. :-) I often slap that on when I'm not planning to take photos, just in
case...
The other OMD lens I have gets used A LOT! It's the incomparable 7-14/2.8 superwide zoom.
I can't say to many good things about this lens! I had the OM 15 fish, 18/3.5, and 21/2.
I loved them all, but reluctantly sold them when I went into the E-System, knowing the
"crop factor" would destroy their usefulness. I sprung for the E-System 7-14/4,
and loved it, shooting several magazine covers with it.
When I got into the OMD System, I wondered whether I should just adapt the
7-14/4, but it was so big and clunky, and there's that extra stop, so I emptied
the piggy bank on a used 7-14/2.8.
Too big and heavy for me to carry regularly. Since I started doing wide landscapes as panoramas, I really haven't used
super wide much at all. The 9-18 is so small and light, and optically good, that It's what I still carry. The MF Laowa
7.5/2.0 I recently acquired is for other situations, close quarters and dim.
No, I lied about two lenses. I also have the 9mm f8 "body cap" fisheye. It's not really a
good body cap -- the lever that opens it keeps getting bumped in the bag -- and it's barely a lens.
But it can be fun now and then if you want the fisheye effect without spending a bundle. It also
makes a great "grab shot" lens for when you want a pocket camera, but was only a bit less
than the 14-45 pancake zoom, which is a REAL lens. And with no electrical contacts, it takes up one
of your ten manual focus slots in the camera menu.
A fun toy, is how I think of it.
My favourite adapted lenses these days are the 90/2 macro, the 135/4.5 macro,
and the 600/8 mirror. All work exceptionally well with the E1.2. I've also had
fun with the 55/1.2, although it is as soft on OMD as it was on OM. :-( Using
the electronic shutter, I can coax sharp images out for the 600/6.5, which I've
never been able to do, with either E-System or OM System! Even with
mirror-lock-up on the OM-1, the shutter motion would whip that lens into a
frenzy,
It's not the mirror, it's the aperture close-down mechanism. Miro-aperture pre-fire on the OM-4 and OMPC are tedious,
but far superior to OM-1 mirror lock-up. It's one place where Maitani's design choices failed. The reverse aperture
mechanism design of the Nikon Fs AND mirror/aperture lock was far superior for that.
but the vibrationless electronic shutter on the E1.2 does the trick.
Adapters vary greatly in quality, but you can find good ones for cheap. I have
two brands (which I can't recall now): one is very tight and has a decent
infinity focus, but the rotation screw is missing, which means you can turn it
too far when taking lenses off. The other has the right stop-screw, but is
longer and focuses FAR past infinity. It also feels a bit sloppier. Both were
under $10 on evilBay; don't know how a $150 Olympus one could be a whole lot
better.
I received an Oly MF-2 OM=>µ4/3 adapter free as a promotion with some purchase. It is as carefully and thoroughly
designed and built as any old OM gear, but I would never have paid full price.
I have one for every OM mount lens I own (except the bellows macro lenses, for
which I'm adapting a Nikon PB-4 tilt-shift bellows).
I also have an 8-degree tilt adaptor that was under $30 on evilBay. The OMs all
have a wider image circle, so you can tilt them and experiment with Sheimpflug
Effect for off-focal-plane depth-of-field. The large image circle also allows
focal reducers (speed boosters). The first one I tried (~$80) was a dog, and it
went back. (Amazon has yet to reimburse me, after three months!) The second was
the Kipon Baveyes, which I find acceptable, and which cost about $150. The
Metabones ones are supposed to be supurb, but at $600+ are too rich for my
blood.
I tended to travel with two bodies and 21, 28, 50 and 100mm lenses.
Remember, these are going to crop on micro four thirds, so they'll be
equivalent of 42, 56, 100, and 200. I'd keep the 50 and 100, and replace the
wides with perhaps the 9-18 zoom (equiv 18-36, handling your wide end needs) or
for some real excitement, either of the 7-14 zooms. (The adapted f4 version can
be had fairly cheaply these days.)
The OMD "kit lenses" seem to be quite good and inexpensive, especially used, as people
upgrade. You might consider picking up a 14-40 to cover the "normal" focal lengths.
14-42
I'm lusting after the 14-150 II for use as a lightweight, compact "do
everything" travel lens.
I had the first model, and it is exactly that. Much better optically than anyone used to long zooms from the film era
would imagine. I only switched to the Panny 14-140 because a Panny GM5 is my lightweight, casual camera, and it doesn't
have IBIS.
So is the OM-D E-5 II a good choice, or can you suggest something better?
Budget notwithstanding, the OM-D E1 II is a better choice. :-)
I would agree only for those wanting to use adapted MF glass.
But I'm sure the 5.2 is still pretty damn good.
I'm going on a far away, once in a lifetime photo trip this month. So I was willing to consider switching to E-M1 IIs.
After much research, review reading, image comparison on DPReview's studio subject comparator, and consultation with
Ctein, who had just bought an E-M1 II, and was deciding whether to keep it, I decided that the E-M5 II is actually a
slightly better camera for me. I don't know if you know how serious and through Ctein is about cameras and lenses. He's
an excellent pro photographer and one of the few truly master printers in the world. So his assessment of 5.2 vs. 1.2 is
as meaningful as any I'm likely to see.
One alternative is the digital Pen-F
I've been considering one as a "back up" second body, but have not even laid hands on one so far.
They seem to be quite inexpensive used. Might be a decent "try-out" point, after which you could
get most of your money back, or keep it as a backup to the eventual "grown up" camera.
Remember Mike's proviso that he wanted the best VF possible. The Pen-F and E-M10 II and III VFs are visually smaller, so
not good for him. My current back-up camera is an E-PL7, with VF-4 when I want the same VF as your 1.2, rather than the
small size/weight. My other choice, before a Pen-F, would an E-M10 II. The practical difference between 16 and 20 MP is
nil, the 10.2 is getting cheap, with the 10.3 announced, and it has Focus Bracketing.
Finally, this might not all work out. I might find that I am still
frustrated with not being able to imagine the end result using the
wrong eye. Rather than reach that conclusion after a month or so with
a perhaps a thousand or more Euro down the drain, I would like to buy
a fairly cheap DSLR or mirrorless camera to experiment with. Any
suggestions?
You just aren't going to get a DSLR that will make you happy, if your standard is the OM
System. Everyone seems to make their DSLRs "macho big," for fools who think a
big camera automagically guarantees big results. For one thing, the physics of a larger
sensor means that in-body image stabilization isn't going to be as good as with a smaller
sensor.
Yes, Yes and Yes.
So I think you should go for a used EVIL (Electronic Viewfirder,
Interchangeable Lens) camera, and not even consider DSLR. The EV on the OMD
E1.2 is good enough that I am often surprised when I haul it up to my eye
before turning the camera on, and am surprised that it is dark.
You might try the 5.1 version first (or even the 10.1), which can be had used
for a lot less than the 5.2.
NO, not an E-M10 mark I. It is a lesser camera with poorer IBIS and crummier VF. The 10.2 was a major upgrade, while the
10.3 is minor.
Then, if you don't like it, you can get most of your money back on the used
market.
Best of luck, and I don't think you can go wrong with an Olympus mirrorless
these days! The build quality is superb, features are amazing, and size and
weight are reminiscent of the OM System.
Amen, again!
M. F. T 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/
|