Hmmm,
You refuse to post comparison shots. You refused to use the 75mm F/1.8 which you claim to own.
That tells us a lot.
To sum up your argument, there is some kind of massive difference between an F/2.8 zoom and the MFT F/1.8 prime. And The E-M1frame rate is too fast and takes too many pictures. Thanks for the laugh.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Returning Olympus EM1 Mark2
- Thread starter Ozonation
- Start date
F
Fun 4 all
Guest
Just as I thought. Still no examples, and whining about the E-M1 taking too many pictures.
Oh well.
Maybe next you will complain that Olympus does not make any F/2.0 zooms.
--
One of the last Samsung Zombie system users. And still waiting for something to come close.
Oh well.
Maybe next you will complain that Olympus does not make any F/2.0 zooms.
--
One of the last Samsung Zombie system users. And still waiting for something to come close.
Last edited:
samtheman2014
Senior Member
Perhaps, he read some of the daft claims made about high ISO in this forum
Just as I thought. Still no examples, and whining about the E-M1 taking too many pictures.
Oh well.
Maybe next you will complain that Olympus does not make any F/2.0 zooms.
noflashplease
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,497
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,196
Oh, really? I don't see anyone who isn't denying that.
For the record, the 75mm F/1.8 represents everything wrong with MicroFourThirds as a system. The MSRP on that lens is $900! That's a lot for an amateur prime for a system with the 1/4 frame sensor size of M43. You can't really compare that with a 70-200mm F/2.8, from even a third party manufacturer. Incidentally, the little Oly is on sale for $750, and the truly excellent Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 VC recently sold for $750 after rebate.
Personally, I could care less if any camera shoots 60 or 30 JPEGs per second. That capability is absolutely useless. JPEGs? Why not just screen shots from a compressed video format? Essentially, that what these silly hypothetical JPEG frame rates amount to. That's not useful for professional stills photography. Not at all.
noflashplease
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,497
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,196
Perhaps, he read some of the daft claims made about high ISO in this forum
F
Fun 4 all
Guest
M
MShot
Guest
I thought more better pictures was more better Is there a setting that allows you to shoot at a slower FPS?
Is there a setting that allows you to shoot at a slower FPS?
samtheman2014
Senior Member
Perhaps, he read some of the daft claims made about high ISO in this forum
M
MShot
Guest
You only have to jump 5 feet 1 inch to get over a 5 foot fence, so if an 8 year old sensor works for the use case, the ability to jump 7 feet doesn't help that much.
F
Fun 4 all
Guest
So the old E-M1 matches the FF A99 at most ISOs for DR (shadow noise) -even the high ISOs you keep crying about. Sony loses 1/4th to 1/3rd of a stop due to the mirror, but they are very close, although the E-M1 beat the A99 by more than that at ISO12800.
The GX8 does a little worse.
The GX8 does a little worse.
Last edited:
You do realise that because of that the m43 can compensate at least part, if not all of the disadvantage of the smaller sensor?
On a full-frame camera you have to use f/4 or 5.6 to get the desired DoF, while on a m4/3 camera you can use 2.8.
You do realise the camera is out for only 3 weeks, at most, and still not available in all countries?
You do realise it can shoot sixty 20mpix raws per second?
M
MShot
Guest
I bought a used 75 from KEH for $424, delivered, no tax when they had a sale. Has a couple of little dings if you look closely, but the glass and operation is perfect. I think it produces pretty fine images on a PL/7 and an EM-5 for that money.
The EM-5 cost me $440 new in 2015 from B&H. I think they bought up all the unsold inventory, had them for sale for months in the middle of 2015. Came in a $500 kit. I sold the kit lens for $60 to a camera store.
The PL/7 was refurbished from the OLY website for $275, looks like a new camera.
Hard to make a better image for this cost.
The EM-5 cost me $440 new in 2015 from B&H. I think they bought up all the unsold inventory, had them for sale for months in the middle of 2015. Came in a $500 kit. I sold the kit lens for $60 to a camera store.
The PL/7 was refurbished from the OLY website for $275, looks like a new camera.
Hard to make a better image for this cost.
DonParrot
Senior Member
Or is it? There are so many features of the E-M1 MKII the D500 hasn't got that your claim is nothing but a poor joke. Compare these camera feature for feature and you could charge a far higher price for the E-M1 MKII.
And as far as I know, Imaging Resource alwas has been regarded as one of the most independent review sites. But I understand that discrediting them is easier than accepting the truth.
Probably nine. After all, the Oly just hit the shelves and pros don't tend to jump ship just so. They will wait for the respective experiences before even thinking about making a switch.
DonParrot
Senior Member
Well, it's a well-known fact that top-class primes are more expensive than mid-class third-party manufacturer zoom. If you don't understand trhat you'd rather go shooting pictures with your smart phone.
First of all, these framerates also can be achieved in the raw mode, not only JPEGs. And in addition, there are so many professionals shooting JPEG only that you are embarassing yourself with this kind of claims. Even National Geographic accepts JPEGs and Reuter's even accept unprocessed JPEGs only. There you are! Get real, man.
Yes, but when you shoot sports, you need to isolate the subject from the scene, especially the background, while keeping most of the subject in focus. So, I don't want f5.6 because too much of the background will be evident.
The reality is you normally need to shoot at as large of an aperture as possible to maximize light when shooting such high shutter speeds.
Last edited:
samtheman2014
Senior Member
Working with what you have is what it’s all about film "worked " for sport, just not very well. If you dig far enough into the history of digital cameras I am sure that you can find a FF bad enough to be behind the current state of the art m43 in 2017 . Unfortunately, this is 2017 and the competition is both better and fierce.
The bottom line is that the E-M1 II and Panasonic GH5 from a stills perspective have a terrible price/image quality ratio. The GH5 looks to have some spectacular video features that for high end videographers make it an absolute bargain in a world where prices can become astronomical
F
Fun 4 all
Guest
No, I was talking about the sites run by photographers who were not paid to pick Nikon who chose the E-M1 mark II as camera of the year.
Sadly, the D500 is a 1 trick pony that is beaten by his big brother. The darned thing can't focus on anything moving in video mode or live view. It is LARGER than the D750 (Which is HUGE and better in low light). And the D500 lacks IS with most lenses!
The E-M1 mark ii is simply a better overall camera.
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum