On 3/16/2019 4:50 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
Moose,
To start out, I was not really trying to do a lens comparison. I had recently been shooting a 200mm Takumar on the
E-1, because I happen to like the Kodak sensor.
Perfectly clear in your original post.
Yes, it's only 5MP. But, for my purposes it works Ok. I mentioned to a friend that the 200 FL was nice, but it sure
would be nice to have AF. He mentioned the 50-200, so I researched it and bought one.
A sensible thing to do, and, again, clear in your post. I've just spent a few non-quality minutes peering through an E-1
VF in moderate light. I'd go for AF for sure.
I had the lens for about 3 hours when I took the picture I posted, obviously a mistake, because I had not really
learned how to configure the camera and lens properly. Rather than depending on "program", I needed to pick a proper
shutter speed and let another variable float. My apologies for taking up your time with this.
It's all grist for the mill. I have control over my choice of things to wonder about and perhaps research. And besides,
you didn't do anything. Threads here wander about. At least a couple of folks here fire off posts apparently without
fully reading what they are responding to. Perfectly understandable misunderstandings may send a thread shooting off in
unexpected directions.
In this case, the comparison of MF to AF wandered off into lens IQ comparison. I was curious, suspecting what
experimentation confirmed. As I had E-1, E-M5 II and 14-54 right here, it was easy to compare. I've used the HR mode of
the E-M5 II to do quite a bit of lens testing. It's always shown that µ4/3 lenses considerably out-resolve the non-HR
sensor system, so I'm not surprised that it's true of at least the better 4/3 systems lenses.
As to the AF response to a moving airplane or parachute, I have had similar difficulties with my Fuji gear, so it's
not an E-1 problem alone.
As you later noted, the E-1 not as bad as you thought. That sort of focusing is a performance feature of some cameras,
the Pro Canikons, E-M1X, etc. The E-M5 II would do fine with that subject, but is pretty useless with flying birds. The
Panny GX9 is supposed to be somewhat better at focus tracking - don't know yet.
I only have one other 4/3 body, an E-510, and it has only 10MP, which doesn't help much, but also has a CMOS sensor,
which has advantages, but not in color quality when compared to the CCD of the E-1. One of the main reasons I went to
the E-1 is the robustness of the body, when dealing with heavy lenses. This is not really a problem with the 50-200,
but was a concern with my 200 Takumar.
I suspect you would enjoy an E-400, 10 MP Kodak CCD, somewhat more compact, but still sturdy. Never marketed in the US.
They had to go CMOS to make Live View work.
Let's forget about this misbegotten comparison. I would delete the image, but there are a few folks that always look
at posts about 2 weeks after everyone else, and would require an explanation as to where the image went.
Not to worry, certainly not on my account. :-)
By the way, I also have several uncirculated sequential $2 bills in my bank box. They appear to make nice subjects
for resolution tests.
I've become quite familiar with Tom Jefferson recently. ;-)
I. Q. 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/
|