Entropius

Are they, though?

I have an old book on nature photography, back in the film days. It specifically advises against getting a 50 f/1.2 lens, saying that "how often are you really going to use that...

Olympus has never been at the bleeding edge of that sort of technology -- ultimately they are a optics company first, a camera company second, and a computer company a distant third.

The price...

In-body image stabilization.

For many years Olympus has done image stabilization by wiggling the sensor around instead of glass elements in the lens. By all accounts it works quite well: I have an...

What exactly about the Four Thirds sensor format makes it unsuitable for serious photography?

I don't worry about print output when shooting. Most of the subjects I shoot are wildlife and don't have crucial things at the edges of the frame, and most of my printing is either 11x14 or 16x20....

I've had a similar problem. In aperture mode, you shouldn't get black pictures at all -- the only consequence of having "too low an ISO" selected in any situation would be the camera choosing too...

IS is a thing that doesn't do anything obvious -- it just makes all your pictures sharper with no drawback. You don't even see it working (with in-body IS, except on the E-M5); it just does its...

... the 14-35 is notable not only in that it opens to f/2, but that it is wickedly sharp even at f/2. How good is this Sigma at f/1.8, I wonder?

The manual is online; I googled "E-M5 manual" and found it. Anyway, you can change the aspect ratio easily; there's an option on the "Super Control Panel", the grid display of easy-to-change...

Lovely! Where was this pretty fellow?

My father was out on a hunting trip in Montana when he encountered one at a distance of about ten feet. Both of them apex predators, both of them easily capable of killing the other, and both aware...

Here's a shot from the OM Zuiko 50/1.8, shot wide open on an E-510:

That's way too high. You can get a used 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 mk1 for under $500, but I think he was talking about the 50 f/2 ZD lens (used, $350).

Sorry about that -- the shot I posted was taken with a 200mm base lens, but using a 2x converter to make it a 400mm, and all of my discussion was about the 50-200mm with the 2x teleconverter. Whoops!

I've shot sunspots with a 400mm, actually :)

Lensrentals did an interesting test comparing digiscoping to dedicated supertele lenses; the verdict was that digiscoping did remarkably well for the cost but that when it comes to clarity and...

The Canon 400 f/5.6 costs $1000. Just that lens in m4/3 mount, or possibly a redesigned version making use of advances in optics, would do just fine. Actually, I'd rather have a 300 f/4.

Here's a shot taken with a rather bad excuse for a 400mm: a 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 zoom lens with a decentered element (because of mechanical damage), stopped down to f/9 to try to sharpen it up. This...

Actually, prime lenses are simpler. Your eyeball is a prime lens; it always gives you the same angle of view. Zoom lenses are harder to make. It's always at 150mm. It's just a zoom lens that...

I'm a vicious predator! Yes, I'm five inches tall. But I'm vicious! Vicious, I tell you! What a lovely shot!