Hey guys!
I have a eos r with the 35 and 50mm rf 1.8 lenses. Also the trio of Tamron 2.8 g2 lenses and I love them but they are big and heavy. I'm tired of carrying them around. Sometimes I take them on trips and leave them in the room because they're so unwieldy. In the interim I've been using the 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 with the canon control ring adapter. Which the eos crops to 13mp I think?
Alas I'm looking into m43. I believe I've decided on the em1 iii. I do (in no particular order) portraiture, wildlife/sports (not alot), landscapes and alot of low light indoors.
One note about the E-m1 mark III (and E-m1 mark I/II, E-m1x, E-m5 mark I/II, and E-m10 mark I) is that the viewfinders used on these cameras is a TFT LCD display.
These TFT LCD displays have distortions if you look at the viewfinder using polarized sunglasses and you shoot in horizontal (i.e. landscape) orientation. On all of the above bodies except for the E-m5 mark II, the distortion shows up as a series of horizontal bands. One band is clear, and the next is heavily distorted. On my E-m5 mark I, E-m1 mark I, and E-m1 mark II cameras, I could use polarized sunglasses and frame shots by using single point auto focus, with the focus point being in one of the clear areas. I would not be able to use manual focusing (which I rarely do anyway), or see parts of the screen. It is annoying, but with practice, I have gotten good shots with these cameras.
Note, the E-m5 mark II is different in that instead of having areas of the viewfinder screen being clear and other parts being distorted, on the E-m5 mark II, the entire screen is opaque when I shoot in horizontal orientation using polarized sunglasses.
Now, obviously if you take off the sunglasses, there is no distortion. Likewise, if you shoot in vertical (portrait) orientation, there is no distortion.
The other OM/Olympus cameras with built-in viewfinders use an OLED display. These cameras include E-m10 mark II/III/IV, E-m5 mark III, Pen-F, OM-1 mark I/II, OM-3, and OM-5. On cameras with OLED displays, you can shoot in either orientation with polarized sunglasses there is no distortion (often one orientation might be a little darker, but there is no distortion).
I do find in general, all OLED displays (either viewfinders with OLED, or the 2 cameras I own that have a OLED rear monitor) tend to supersaturate the colors somewhat. So if you see an image in the viewfinder that really pops, when you look at it on the computer, it won't pop as much, and you might need to adjust the levels slightly in post processing.
I should mention it is an issue to me because I have 'photophobia' which means I am more sensitive to bright lights, and I typically need to wear polarized sunglasses all of the time when I'm outdoors in daylight. Hence when the E-m5 mark III came out with the OLED viewfinder, I switched from the E-m1 mark I camera that was my main camera to the E-m5 mark III, giving up the deep hand grip in favor of having a viewfinder I could see without distortion. I upgraded to the OM-1 when it was announced so that I could have both the deep hand grip along with the OLED viewfinder. I bought the E-m1 mark II as a secondary camera, and it never was my main camera due to the viewfinder.
FWIW, most of the cameras I have owned have TFT LCD rear monitors, except for the Olympus TG-2 and E-m5 mark I, which both had OLED monitors. In all of these cameras with TFT LCD rear monitors, the orientation that is distorted is portrait orientation, but the effect isn't as bad as it is in the viewfinders when you shoot in landscape orientation. Note, I do use the rear monitor somewhat frequently, but I rarely shoot using the rear monitor in portrait orientation, so I don't notice it as much.
I am trying to select a sling bag that will fit the em1 iii with the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 12-40mm F2.8 PRO II lens attached while standing up(lens down); and also fit the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm F4.0 PRO not attached and standing up. As well as my eos r with the 35mm 1.8 attached(laying on its side) lens facing front).
Problem is the dimensions don't take into account the hand grip on the em1 iii doesn't add to the overall dimensions with a lens attached.
Can anyone give the depth of the em1 iii with the 12-40 f2.8 attached?
I don't have the E-m1 mark III, but I do have the E-m1 mark II, which is the same size as the E-m1 mark III. I just measured things with a tape measure, so it might be off slightly. Lets see:
The grip overhang is about 2.5" (6cm) from the lens mount on the body.
The eyecup juts out from the rear monitor by 0.5" (1cm).
The official length of the 3 lenses is:
- The 12-40mm f/2.8 lens is 3.3" (8.4cm);
- The 40-150mm f/4 lens is 3.9" (9.9cm); (and)
- The 17mm f/1.8 mark II lens is 1.5" (3.76cm).
Note, these dimensions do not include the length of the mount since they assume the lens is mount. When I did the combined measurements, it includes the length of the filter and the lens caps (both front and back for the 40-150mm and 17mm lenses, just the front for the 12-40mm lens).
If I attach the 12-40mm f/.8 to the E-m1 mark II, the total length (including eyecup) is 6" (15cm).
If I put the 17mm f/1.8 mark II lens lens under the E-m1 mark II + 12-40mm lens, the total length is roughly 8" (20cm).
If I put the 40-150mm f/4 underneath the grip of the E-m1 mark II and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, the 40-150mm f/4 is about 1 3/4" (5cm) longer than the E-m1 mark II and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens. So you might have about 1/4 - 1/2" gap between the 40-150mm f/4 under the hand grip, and the 17mm f/1.8 mark II lens under the camera + 12-40mm lens.
