Another convert to m43

Looks like I was able to persuade my brother to join the m43 bandwagon.

But at the same time, I feell I have violated a cardinal sin against the Equiv God. After all I have learned throughout the year, why I cannot tell the truth?

I told him that the lens are Equiv is 28mm-300mm DLSR wise!!!

Now I fear my karmic retribution will be heavy for this lie.

How many levels of hell are there, 9?

Do you think I can take picture with my m43 sensors there?

Best

Here's a history dialog:

FROM ME:

This is a very good deal.
Zoom range 28-300mm 2 lens.Small package as you want that takes as good a picture as my camera.Chi

FROM HIM:

CHi,I'm sold on the Olympus e-PL series. Last time you emailed me the e-PL5 model. This one is a e-PL6 series.
The e-PL6 series is a bit cheaper and seems to have the same specs. I'm still trying to determine why the difference in price. Do you know? Does the PL6 has the ability to swap out lenses?

FROM ME:

EPL5 is the older generation, inferior to EPL6. EPL7 if the latest model and cost $399 just for the body. You get two lens covering 28-300mm with the EPL6 and there are many more lens available that you can use.This format is called Micro-Four Third and is supported by both Olympus and Panasonic. Meaning you can use Panasonic lenses too! Lens can go from $100 to $2500!Many PRO photographers are using this now for their main gear so don't be concern about any limitation.It's very good.

FROM HIM:

e-PL6 it is.

Thanks

How is the E-PL5 inferior to E-PL6?

Brian Steele wrote:

How is the E-PL5 inferior to E-PL6?

As we all know, smaller is inferior to bigger, hence 5 is inferior to 6, hence...

Why do you need to convert anyone? Is it a religion? 

I do agree that if the user base was bigger there might be more native lenses from third parties. I think that's the only weakness in my view of m43.

Brian Steele wrote:

How is the E-PL5 inferior to E-PL6?

As we all know, smaller is inferior to bigger, hence 5 is inferior to 6, hence...

Don't anybody tell the E-M10 this...
--
~~~ Kim

Brian Steele wrote:

How is the E-PL5 inferior to E-PL6?

The E-PL6 was initially also packaged with a Toshiba Flash Air WIFI memory card so you could use Olympus's Image Share WIFI app, and share your images at the same time.

Thanks for the very informative information.

That's still useful things added IMO.

BUT I do have one theory for newer body.   Even with same sensor,  they had more time to work out the bugs and improve sensor efficiency at the backend.   For example, the EM10 II  has the EM1 but seems to have better IQ test results.

Best

Chi Pham wrote:

Looks like I was able to persuade my brother to join the m43 bandwagon.

But at the same time, I feell I have violated a cardinal sin against the Equiv God. After all I have learned throughout the year, why I cannot tell the truth?

I told him that the lens are Equiv is 28mm-300mm DLSR wise!!!

Speaking as an equivalence "apologist", I have no problem with someone stating the equivalent focal length on its own, unconnected to anything else. It's a very useful way to describe the AoV range of a lens. Probably the only useful way, as no one seems to "get" degrees. My only problem would be if you said the lenses were equivalent to 28-84 f/3.5-5.6 and 80-300 f/4.0-5.6. That is a misrepresentation easily overturned by evidence.

But I feel that the representation by luddites of equivalence "apologists" as being religious in their devotion is a problem. We are the Bill Nye to your Ken Ham, and the very website you are using has acknowledged that much. The real religion here is the Church of the Holy Trinity of Exposure (In the name of the f-number, the shutter speed, and the ISO, amen).

Guy Parsons wrote:

Brian Steele wrote:

How is the E-PL5 inferior to E-PL6?

Yup, "inferior" is a strong word. It's the same camera but with a couple of little changes, like adding a level gauge (which I find irritating on my E-P5 so never use it).

If you ever shoot ultra wide, give it a chance. I tried using it with my GX8 and 7-14mm shooting some interiors and keeping the camera level made the images MUCH better, with fewer exaggerated lines, etc..

That's correct.   It still comes with the free WiFi.

Best

Mistajolly wrote:

Why do you need to convert anyone? Is it a religion?

It seems to be preached everyday like one.  

I do agree that if the user base was bigger there might be more native lenses from third parties. I think that's the only weakness in my view of m43.

This exercise prove to me that the average consumer does not know anything about the M43 format.

It's a shame really.  Sigma did join the 4/3 party with some gold tele lens. 70-200, 50-500.

Guess it didn't payoff to return to m43.

Best

Guy Parsons wrote:

jeffharris wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

Brian Steele wrote:

How is the E-PL5 inferior to E-PL6?

Yup, "inferior" is a strong word. It's the same camera but with a couple of little changes, like adding a level gauge (which I find irritating on my E-P5 so never use it).

If you ever shoot ultra wide, give it a chance. I tried using it with my GX8 and 7-14mm shooting some interiors and keeping the camera level made the images MUCH better, with fewer exaggerated lines, etc..

Yes, I use the 12-40mm, 9-18mm and Samyang 7.5mm and never use the levels, I use the LCD to get things right by judging what is happening to verticals and horizons, I find that way easier than trying to satisfy the level indicator.

I see the results that I need, and do not concentrate on the levels which seems to actually hinder the framing for me.

I tend to trust my eye more than the camera, too.

I don't know if you've ever shot with one of the 7-14mm lenses, but shooting interiors @ 7mm requires quite a bit of subtle camera positioning to minimize distorted lines at the edges of the frame. Raising and lowering the camera vertically is the trick. The level gives subtle visual feedback while composing that doesn't cramp creative style.

Thanks Henry for the reminder.

I did some investigation and it looks like it does not have 0-sec antishock.

However, I think 1/8 sec is OK when needed. The GX7 is 1 sec which is much slower if I remember correctly.

As the the IBIS, that's true that it's only 2-AXIS.

That equates to 1-2 stops which is similar to GX7?

Bottom line, for $319 with body and 2 kit lens, it's a good deal still.

Best

Klarno wrote:

Chi Pham wrote:

Looks like I was able to persuade my brother to join the m43 bandwagon.

But at the same time, I feell I have violated a cardinal sin against the Equiv God. After all I have learned throughout the year, why I cannot tell the truth?

I told him that the lens are Equiv is 28mm-300mm DLSR wise!!!

Speaking as an equivalence "apologist", I have no problem with someone stating the equivalent focal length on its own, unconnected to anything else. It's a very useful way to describe the AoV range of a lens. Probably the only useful way, as no one seems to "get" degrees. My only problem would be if you said the lenses were equivalent to 28-84 f/3.5-5.6 and 80-300 f/4.0-5.6. That is a misrepresentation easily overturned by evidence.

But I feel that the representation by luddites of equivalence "apologists" as being religious in their devotion is a problem. We are the Bill Nye to your Ken Ham, and the very website you are using has acknowledged that much. The real religion here is the Church of the Holy Trinity of Exposure (In the name of the f-number, the shutter speed, and the ISO, amen).

-- hide signature --

http://www.photoklarno.com

Before you feel almighty with your new understanding of things you should know:

Your evidence is only meaningful to you and your followers.

You wish to undertake photography as a factual science full of meanings.

I wish to look at it as an art, unbound by rules and meanings.

When I see shallow DOF photos, I say that's nice in it's way and different.  No dislike, hatred, and fully respect it's characteristic as portrayed by the photographer. When I see more DOF, I say it's nice and different.  No dislike ,hatred, and fully respect it's characteristic portrayed by the photographer.

So next time when you impose your view that science say it must be so, think how foolish it is to impose your views on others.

That's the beauty of a photo.  There's millions of different views on it and none of it is wong.

PS: Whos' Bill Nye and Ken Ham?

Best