Oly question: Is a PRO lens wasted on an EPL9 body?

though whether you like the combination of small camera with big lens that's another thing.

cc99 wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

The 1/8 second quoted would be about a bit over 5 stops stabiisation, the 2 seconds is off the chart and unbelievable.

Two seconds also shocked me (expected 1/2 sec), but I did it several times in a row (albeit seated and braced), so new respect for the E-M1.2.

In my experiments, seated instead of standing adds about one stop. Seated and braced, such as elbows resting on the chair armrests, adds maybe two stops on average compared to standing hand-held, so now your 2 second claim for the E-M1ii now makes some sense to me. Odd though that the E-PL7 does not do as well as I would have expected better than 1/8 sec in that braced seated situation.

BruceRH wrote:

I don’t think so particularly if you are eyeing a body upgrade at some point. My opinion is buy the best glass for it lasts a long time, bodies come and go. The small size of the 40-150/4 Pro should match well. Welcome to the forum!

Endorsed - a good lens will always improve any particular cameras performance.

I have been doing that for some time by pairing great lenses with GM5 camera bodies.

On the other hand a better sensor will bump up all the lenses performance with the reservation that the sensor will never make a good lens into the even better lens that you might have chosen to buy.

raenneb wrote:

Thank you! Some of my concern was that I read a review of an EM-5 (cant recall which) where the user said the body was flexing with the weight of the pro lens that they use as their everyday carry. I thought, oh no, does my EPL9 stand a chance?? But you've reassured me, this lens is set to be very light

(Surprised) I have never noticed body flex on any of my camera bodies even with the heaviest lenses.  For example the tiny GM5 can carry the PL 200/2.8 (which has significant weight.

Perhaps it is because the weight to the lens is generally supported by the left hand and arm.  For really heavy lenses - such as large telephoto - it is traditional that the lens more or less supports the weight of the camera body.

cc99 wrote:

There's the rub: there is no grip available for the E-PL9 (or anything after PL5). I don't use mine with anything larger than the 12-40/2.8. Still useful when you need an extra body and have little space in your bag.

As I bought the 12-40/2.8 while I was using the E-PL5 I took the opportunity to try it with...

• The default grip.
• The bigger grip (I think was an optional one for the E-P3?).
• No grip at all.

And for me I report no difference at all in handling, even if putting the 75-300mm on the E-PL5. I also kept my Sony RX100M6 "plain" and did not add the optional grip to its front.

Oh, and no viewfinder, always screen (with all cameras) and held mostly around mid chest and sometimes down to waist level.

The trick for me is to make fitted wrist straps from 1/2 inch cotton tape so the right side of the camera is held with the strap and my grip of the right side only needs to be a rather light finger wrap.

The left hand holds the lens and body at an appropriate balance point by adjusting hand shape.

No problems at all.

cc99 wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

In my experiments, seated instead of standing adds about one stop. Seated and braced, such as elbows resting on the chair armrests, adds maybe two stops on average compared to standing hand-held,

To me, hand-held means no tripod, not free-standing. In the real world, I try to brace somehow, precisely balance the lens in my left hand, and use the rear-screen, not EVF. Practice made a huge difference for me.

In my case I base all my experiments and tests on standing hand-held as that is by far the most likely situation - usually no tree or post is handy. Naturally if some support is close by and the need arises then they may be used as stabilisation boosters.

The E-P5 IBIS is so good that I never carry a tripod any more on trips, maybe just that little bean bag gets used on rare occasions. One evening in Japan in 2014 I tried my "stability" and at 40mm I could get perfect results shot after shot at 1/2 second, that's a bit over 5 stops compared to my usual ability with no IBIS to match the old rule. Lately though increasing age has taken my 40mm ability to 1/4 sec to be reliable. I now do need that tree to lean against.

Impulses wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

raenneb wrote:

Thank you! Some of my concern was that I read a review of an EM-5 (cant recall which) where the user said the body was flexing with the weight of the pro lens that they use as their everyday carry. I thought, oh no, does my EPL9 stand a chance?? But you've reassured me, this lens is set to be very light

(Surprised) I have never noticed body flex on any of my camera bodies even with the heaviest lenses. For example the tiny GM5 can carry the PL 200/2.8 (which has significant weight.

Perhaps it is because the weight to the lens is generally supported by the left hand and arm. For really heavy lenses - such as large telephoto - it is traditional that the lens more or less supports the weight of the camera body.

On a tripod there's no support for the lens and there's some heavier lenses that could probably benefit from a collar but one isn't provided (and/or available) for them... I doubt it's an issue on most bodies but it's turned into an issue on some, like the rash of E-M5 III with broken bottom plates near it's launch. Most of those instances seemed to involve mounting/carrying the camera on a PD Capture but it's not inconceivable that heavier lenses & certain tripod use cases could lead down the same path.

My E-M5 III does have some visible bottom plate flex to it compared to my Mk II, particularly if I mount the 100-300 II to it and don't use the Roesch collar I got for said lens. I've never tried doing the same thing with my GX850 but I've used ~300g lenses on it on a tripod and even hung it off a PD Capture with them without issue. There's a handful of lenses that are as heavy or heavier than the 100-300 but have no collar option unless 3rd parties have filled that gap, eg 12-100, PL50-200, etc.

I don't set out to deliberately go crazy to prove a point that the GM5 with its usable evf is perfectly at home with lens supported by left hand and eye to evf.  But it is not really any different balance-wise to any regular dslr with a significant lens on board.  If the mount might flex I have not noticed it. Holding the GM5 thus equipped by each end of the camera body and trying to use this combo by using the lcd to frame and focus is plain nuts.

I do agree that mounting such a combination via the tripod socket on the camera body itself is unwise.  But I hardly use tripods any more.  I do have occasion to use the EF 400/2.8 (5.5Kg) which really needs a tripod but this lens and most other truly heavy types have a tripod socket in a lens collar as you obviously know and appreciate. But with larger lenses I usually use larger camera bodies as I am not truly stupid with it

I still find the PL 200/2.8 quite happy as a hand held lens even with the 2.0x TC in use.  The lens IS is certainly good enough to make even a GM5 combination quite stable. Again, if I am not trying to work as compact as possible I will have something like a G9 attached to this combination.

The Olympus 12-100/4.0 is one of my favourite GP lenses and almost always lives on a GM5 camera body without any reservations as to its size.  The Lens-IS again makes it an excellent stabilised platform on the GM5 camera body.

cc99 wrote:

Guy Parsons wrote:

In my case I base all my experiments and tests on standing hand-held as that is by far the most likely situation - usually no tree or post is handy.

I don't mean to suggest this is in any way representative, but it shows what the IBIS can do if you really push it. If there really are no supports, I can always sit on the ground (which I already do for macro).

As I said, sitting or sitting braced adds one or two stops to IBIS, it also adds one or two stops to non-IBIS situations.

In my years of testing it always works out that with no stabilisation the old rule works for me and bracing helps of course. The thing with no stabilisation is that the scatter of good and bad results is rather messy and sometimes even stupidly slow shutter works and sometimes way faster does not work. More randomness but a curve soon develops that sees the old rule surface.

Turn on IBIS and it all tightens up and the results are less scattered, the stability is good down until at the slower speed where the IBIS "lets go" and then it all falls apart reliably. It's much clearer to plot the good/bad curve.

In testing I do 10 separate shots at each shutter speed, not bursts, just 10 careful separate single shots. Even with the greatest care I occasionally find failed shots (shake, not shutter shock) at good higher shutter speeds, no matter if IBIS is on or not. It doesn't happen often in the tests but it does happen.

All that means is that with a scene that is important, just don't take one single shot like I usually do on holidays, take a few shots and one may be found to be better than the others.