audiobomber
Veteran Member
Human bias is very strong. People who leave a system are apt to denigrate it in order to justify their choices. I'll stick with FNAC Lab results, thanks. I have not used an Olympus, you haven't used a K-5 II or K-3. I base my opinions on many comments I've read in forums and reviews. From the DPR OM-5 review for example:
"Focus in good light is impressively fast and continues to be pretty quick until the light gets very low. In situations where you're using the camera's highest ISO settings because you have to, you'll find the focus spends a bit of time hunting, and you'll have to start thinking about the contrast level of your target. Overall though the EM-5 turns in a good performance, especially by mirrorless standards.
However, despite Olympus' claims about improvements in continuous autofocus and subject tracking capability, we found the system too slow and unpredictable to develop much enthusiasm about. If you're careful about making sure the camera has locked onto a subject, you can expect to get a couple of sharp shots out of a burst but the results are patchy and, for the kinds of 'grab the moment' shooting you'd want it to work for, the results simply aren't reliable enough. The EM-5 is far from unusual in this respect (Continuous AF isn't a strength of contrast-detection AF), but for such an expensive model, and one for which Olympus is pushing the continuous AF capabilities, it's a disappointing result.
Tracking is a particular disappointment. If you specify an AF point, the camera will usually 'lock-on' to the correct subject but it gets very easily distracted. No matter how distinct the subject might appear (being the only red item in the frame, for instance), the camera will often decide it's much more interested in the background after a couple of frames. This, combined with the continuous AF's hunting, means you simply can't rely the system to get your shots in focus."
I'm not aware of any improvements in CDAF with the EM-1. It has PDAF, which is an improvement, but only with 4/3 lenses and even then it is not up to DSLR standards.
It's true that some of the SDM lenses are slow, notably the DA*50-135 and DA*55. OTOH, they have excellent IQ and are unique. No one else has APS-C lenses that show the classic film FOV, 75-200 & 85mm on 1.5 crop. These are mainly portrait lenses, fast focus is not as important as accurate focus. The lenses focus, then check focus, so you hear zzt, zzt, instead of zzt. It takes longer, but accuracy check vs. speed is a viable choice.
The DA*300 f4 focusses faster than the Sigma HSM 150-500mm, so it's not true that all SDM lenses are slow (I've owned both). It's true that Canon & Nikon lenses with ring motors have faster AF, but I'm not in the market for $5000-10000 lenses.
Larger DOF with m4/3 helps here.Face detection is definitely a gimmick - at least on DSLR's using live view. The only thing gimmicky about it on an Olympus is that you can shoot wide open with the 45mm F1.8 and repeatedly nail sharp eyelashes with the ~depth of field of the DA*55 @ F2.5 or F2.8, shot after shot after shot. And the gimmick works well in manual mode tooI shoot manual mode only indoors with Auto ISO (effectively TAV mode) with bounce flash, 90mm equiv focal length @ F1.8 and only have to worry about lighting and composition - which is what photography is all about IMO.
I've used focus peaking with a Carry Speed LCD VF on a K-01. It's a lot larger than an EVF, and I didn't find it any more accurate than an OVF. I can see far more clearly through a pentaprism than a miniature TV. I haven't tried an Olympus EVF, but I have tried the NEX-7 and it was execrable; like watching a video game. I felt very disconnected from the scene and detail was very coarse.
I don't doubt this at all. It's not necessary to have the greatest technology for every shot. For many uses, my Q is fine, m4/3 is fine, APS-C is fine. In more challenging scenarios, different capabilities can shine. I want my DSLR for BIF, and m4/3 can't do it. Since I want pixels on the bird, 24mp APS-C suits me more that Full-Frame.
I'm not sure what the mountains have to do with your choice, unless you're talking about a small weight savings. No Oly can compare with a K-5 II or K-3 for shooting little kids in dim light.
Only a DSLR is an all-purpose body. Other systems may more than meet the needs of their users. Not everyone wants to shoot wildlife in dim conditions. I need a DSLR, and the K-3 looks to be the one I've been waiting for. I will know soon, mine arrived today, and it's good'un.
