Part of what I would like is to have the opportunity to use some of my OM glass
on a full frame digital. If I go with the Sony, I will get some of their glass.
In my OM prime stable reside the 16mm, 18mm, 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm,
85mm, 90mm, 100mm, 135mm and 200mm (all of them f2 where available.) Most of my
long lenses are Tamron SP adaptall 2, each of which is faster than the Zuiko of
the same focal length. So using many of these with an Olympus body tends to
miss point. If I go to Sony, I'll probably sell the Olympus e-thingys and their
glass and try to get a Sony and maybe three lens or so. Bill Barber
Sony
-----Original Message-----
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: olympus <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Jan 17, 2018 5:19 pm
Subject: Re: [OM] OM-D E-M1 Mark II or?
On 1/17/2018 2:38 PM, Bill Barber via olympus wrote:> I've ridden the Olympus
horse for many years, starting with the OM series film cameras and then after a
few years on the fence to the e-1, e-3 and finally e-5 cameras. At this point I
felt Olympus had basically deserted the folks in the trenches. I was heavily
invested in there system, both from the standpoint of bodies but also glass.
Having sat on the sidelines for several years watching Sony and am close to
pulling the trigger (that means sometime this year) on the Sony a7r III. I'm
at the point where lighter is better. Just got a mailer from Olympus promoting
their OM-D E-M1 III as a good transition for the e-thingy users. two questions?
Is anybody really seriously satisfied with using their e-glass with this 20
megapixel camera?I am not a real user, but have read many reviews and user
comments. The e-glass was designed to work with Phase Detect AF. All the other
µ4/3 camera bodies are Contrast Detect AF only and e-glass used on them is slow
to glacial in AF. In my recent silliness of acquiring an E-1 with 14-54 lens
and comparing it to an E-M5 II with the same lens on and adapter, I found it to
be far from glacial, but too slow for me to be happy with it normal use.The
E-M1 introduced PDAF in addition to CDAF, continued in the Mark II (and in the
Mark III you apparently have access to.) User reports and reviews all say that
AF for most lenses is as fast or faster as on the e-bodies. I'm no expert, but
do recall there is/are an original lens or two that are still pretty slow on
the E-M1 bodies. I believe the original 40-150, the lens that sold me on Canon,
rather than an E-1, is one of those.> Is there any compelling reason to not go
with the Sony.It really depends on what you want. If you like your e-glass and
the 4/3 format, why not try an E-M1 and see how the AF is for you?The switch
from 4/3 to µ4/3 didn't make any big shift in sensors and image making. All the
early models had the same size sensors as the E-5, later went to 16, and now 20
MP. If you liked what you got from the e-bodies, you will probably like what
you get from the new ones.If, like me, you want hand holdable long tele, it's
µ4/3. If you want/need more Megapickles for other than static subjects, it's
the Sony. The Oly HR Mode does great High Res on static subjects. Wonderful for
lens testing, for example.I wouldn't trade for Sony for my regular work if only
because of the focus bracketing of the Olys, which I consider Magic.I have the
original A7, and quite like it for my legacy/weird lens work, but have no
native/AF lenses for it.Both Ways Moose-- What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what
it's all about?--
_________________________________________________________________Options:
http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympusArchives:
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/
|