amblepath
Lives in
British Columbia, Canada
Joined on
Dec 31, 2006
|
Comments
 |  |
| Fascia walkie talkie building London by ian herridge from Abstract Architecture | Global Reach by cjf2 from Battleship |
Beginner's GuidesGetting Started
In-depth testingLatest Camera Reviews
Beyond the studio testsFeature Articles and Videos
real world performanceField Test Videos
see how we seeSample Galleries
In-depth ReviewFujifilm X100F
Show CoverageHits and Misses from CP+ 2017
Throwback ThursdayClassic Cameras from Days Past
2464FeatureWhat is equivalence?
What's that Noise?Shedding some light on the sources of noise
The viewfinder on my omd em5ii is a huge improvement over my last evf. I find it a pleasure to use. Add in magnification for manual focus and it's EVF all the way for me.
amblepath: I fall into the more depth of field is an advantage most of the time camp. I know it's hard to accept for some that less depth of field to many is a con and yet it truly is. With m4/3 for instance you get to keep the quick shutter speed of the widest aperture and still keep vital areas in focus. Software also is getting better and better for blurring backgrounds if you need more. This leaves high ISO noise as the only con for me from smaller sensors like m4/3 and APS-C. So if the best in high ISO is your need then it's full frame for you. Otherwise remember more depth of field for your average photographer is often, possibly even mostly a pro not a con.
I get your point Richard. Sometimes I forget how clean high ISO adds another dimension to exposure.
I fall into the more depth of field is an advantage most of the time camp. I know it's hard to accept for some that less depth of field to many is a con and yet it truly is. With m4/3 for instance you get to keep the quick shutter speed of the widest aperture and still keep vital areas in focus. Software also is getting better and better for blurring backgrounds if you need more. This leaves high ISO noise as the only con for me from smaller sensors like m4/3 and APS-C. So if the best in high ISO is your need then it's full frame for you. Otherwise remember more depth of field for your average photographer is often, possibly even mostly a pro not a con.
Have the test scenes been updated yet from the pre finalized raw converter that was originally used? It doesn't seem to indicate that they have been. I hate the arguments about IQ that mean nothing until a proper raw converter is used.
Nikon D500 seems like a great camera. DSLR's are not dead yet and may not be for a long time. For me I'm biased because I now would never go back to the mirror. The future for anything seems pretty uncertain these days so lets see what the next few years brings.
If you're in Canada Olympus Omd Em5II is in this price range as well. Under 700 us dollars.
rafalvonbur: Olympus em5 mark 2 should win hands down. we all know it :)
well I can get it now for$680 us dollars so that makes it pretty appealing
"Controls can be overwhelming" At Em1-II price the lack of controls would be the con. It's not aimed at beginners. "Sorry mister pro or semipro. This camera is too complicated for you."
I have an Olympus and I must be used to it because I keep wondering, 'what's wrong with the menus.'
amblepath: Default jpegs on a camera at this level mean nothing to me. Adjust them to what you want after you get the camera. Fuji looks like it has much more default sharpening for instance.
When I look at the raw conversions(Olympus not finalized I understand) I find myself squinting at the details looking at the minor differences. Then I look at how small a portion of the picture I'm looking at and laugh. I laugh because these cameras are all so good that no one that I'm going to show my pictures to (coffee table photo book) would ever be able to tell which of these cameras took the picture. Only exception being full frame at extremely high ISO.
I like the Olympus for its toughness, speed, video with crazy stabilization, and excellent lenses. Also high res is intriguing. These minor differences in IQ really are overblown in my opinion.
If you want super small with great quality get the em5II. Or wait for the em3 :)
Default jpegs on a camera at this level mean nothing to me. Adjust them to what you want after you get the camera. Fuji looks like it has much more default sharpening for instance.
When I look at the raw conversions(Olympus not finalized I understand) I find myself squinting at the details looking at the minor differences. Then I look at how small a portion of the picture I'm looking at and laugh. I laugh because these cameras are all so good that no one that I'm going to show my pictures to (coffee table photo book) would ever be able to tell which of these cameras took the picture. Only exception being full frame at extremely high ISO.
I like the Olympus for its toughness, speed, video with crazy stabilization, and excellent lenses. Also high res is intriguing. These minor differences in IQ really are overblown in my opinion.
I love how many peoples comments have less to do with the camera and more to do with the fact that they reject m4/3's. This camera is for those who appreciate the format and want a pro body to go with it. To go on and on about the system any time an article or review appears is very tiresome.
eyeswideshut: There is something wrong when Olympus presents a superlative lens in the best Olympus tradition and 90% of the comments below seem concerned with equivalence to another system.
Folks, this is a 300mm lens for m43. If you don't use m43 it is clearly not for you.
I second that Gary. It was like ringing the dinner bell. It's funny because to many the extra depth of field will be viewed as a real boon on a lens like this. However in the reviews it is almost universally viewed as a con. Sorry but that's just snobbery as far as I'm concerned.
amblepath: To me the pros of this lens are
1. I get a 600 mm field of view with shutter speeds equivalent to an f4 lens. In a size that can easily be handheld.
2.From the review I read the image stabilization is amazing on Em-1 and Em-5II enabling hand held down to 1/15 of a second.
3. Also from the review this lens is razor sharp centre and corners and doesn't even suffer from diffraction until f12/f16 and then only slightly.
4. On a lens like this I would be happy to take the extra depth of field and view it as a definite plus. ( Whole bird or face in focus at f4. )
5. Very high quality build.
6. Good for Macro work. (I don't understand Richard's comment as all I care about is what I see in the viewfinder and again I'll take the extra depth of field as a plus.)
Cons
It is expensive. (Translation... I can't afford it.)
As an aside. The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well.
I'm referring to the comments not the article. Also depth of field is subjective as to whether more is better or worse.
To me the pros of this lens are
1. I get a 600 mm field of view with shutter speeds equivalent to an f4 lens. In a size that can easily be handheld.
2.From the review I read the image stabilization is amazing on Em-1 and Em-5II enabling hand held down to 1/15 of a second.
3. Also from the review this lens is razor sharp centre and corners and doesn't even suffer from diffraction until f12/f16 and then only slightly.
4. On a lens like this I would be happy to take the extra depth of field and view it as a definite plus. ( Whole bird or face in focus at f4. )
5. Very high quality build.
6. Good for Macro work. (I don't understand Richard's comment as all I care about is what I see in the viewfinder and again I'll take the extra depth of field as a plus.)
Cons
It is expensive. (Translation... I can't afford it.)
As an aside. The Panasonic 100 - 400 hands on review did not garner nearly the equivalent full frame dogpile as this did. Olympus hatred is alive and well.
I wish we didn't have to have all this comparison to full frame that to most people makes it seem like the lens is pretending to be something it's not.
I've used psp for years. I finally got a chance to use photoshop and I know there's a learning curve but it sure seemed cumbersome and overly complicated compared to paint shop pro.
No Hotshoe? No viewfinder? I have the XZ1 and would never consider this Sony as an option. I use the excellent viewfinder for the XZ-1 most of the time. Or for fun I'll attach the XZ-1 to my full size flash (not the other way around) and get great bounce flash portraits. The lens on this sony is also very slow at the long end. I'm sure the image quality is good but I would find this camera too limiting. Of course Sony may have a better equipped model in the works.
Prognathous: It's amusing that dpreview considered Live View to be "a solution looking for a problem" when they first encountered it in a DSLR - the Olympus E330. Now they consider it to the "The missing feature". How things have changed.
DPReviews coment on the E330 was a supreme lack of insight. However I think it's about time we forgave them and let it go. Of course if they acknowledged it I guess it would make it easier for some to do that. We all make mistakes.
I think that picture of the whole stable of 4/3 lenses with the Om-D made the nex system seem pretty sparce. This announcement is I think a 'don't jump ship they are coming' type of announcement.