At 9/21/2021 12:20 PM, AK wrote:
>MichaelC wrote:
>> Just wow!
>
>Thank you. And sharp eyes may have caught which camera/lens was used
>for the photo. :)
>
>So, it's really fascinating taking a glance at photos from last year
>and this year of the same subjects. With rare exceptions, I think I've
>found a clear favorite camera/lens combination for Alaska that has
>just a few minor shortcomings.
>
>The E-3 with the SWD lenses is probably the best all-around camera
>system in my kit. It's fast, comfortable, solid, has great
>color/tones, and is sharp. The only areas of significance where the
>camera falls down is weight/size, pixel-count, sometimes ineffective
>IBIS, and limited dynamic range. Skintones will sometimes go wonky,
>but that's not an Alaska landscape issue. But with rare exception, the
>E-3 nails white-balance and has better out-of-camera colors and
>contrast than most everything else. I can pull the files into
>Lightroom and not do much of anything to them. If I wrangle the files
>too much, they do fall apart, but I really don't have to wrangle them
>very much. First pass with the files is closer to final than what I
>have to do with the other more modern cameras.
>
>I rented the Sony G Master 16-35 and 100-400 lenses for the trip this
>year. The 16-35 is a lovely lens and is exceptionally sharp and very
>well behaved. The 100-400 is less so. It's sharp 100-300, but from
>300-400 it does struggle a bit. The ergonomics are just off too. I
>shot with my nephew's Canon kit a little bit and the difference in
>ergonomic refinement between the two systems was stunning. Anyway, I
>got to carry $5000 worth of glass with me for about $40 per day (first
>day free). Well worth it. I'm sure to rent some more G Master glass
>off and on. The 70-200/2.8 is obviously a very good lens and I will
>probably try that one next.
>
>The ZD 50-200 SWD lens has the same fall-off at the very far end like
>the 100-400, but the ergonomics of the SWD are, again, worlds better
>than the GM 100-400. In all honesty, with more pixels (16mp vs 24mp),
>and slightly lower noise-floor in the Olympus, I didn't find much
>advantage with the Sony kit than the E-M5ii with 50-200. Obviously,
>focus performance of the E-M5ii is atrocious. Oh, speaking of, the GM
>100-400 at the 350-400mm range really struggled at focusing on the
>A7ii.
>
>But after a week of shooting around 6000 pictures, I had the E3 with
>50-200 lens with me when I dropped my nephew off at the airport and
>really enjoyed the fact that I had a camera that just got the job done
>without any drama.
Perhaps the 100-400 focus is an issue with the A7ii? On the A7iii, A7Riii, or
the A7Riv I have not seen any auto-focus performance issues at 400mm. Sony says
the A7iii is twice as fast auto-focus in low light as the A7ii. As the lens
goes to F5.6 at the long end, lower light performance may be a factor?
The 100-400 is reported to be sharpest at the long end. Next time rent an
A7Riii to go with the lenses. The A7iii has a different BSI Exmor R sensor with
1 stop more sensitivity and "better color" according to Sony.
I do find the 100-400 when fully extended at 400mm is not the most ergonomic.
It weighs about the same as the 50-200/2.8 but the internal zoom is a big plus.
I have a Grifiti Band Joes (silicone rubber band) to add more friction to the
100-400 zoom ring. Even though it has a friction adjust, it still zoom creeps
when hanging down at my side. Not an issue with the 70-200 but frustrating with
the 100-400.
Of course the 4/3 system is going to be a lighter package. And in your hands
magic happens.
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|