Iq option вход
IMO the Grip was an essential piece of gear that made the handling amazing. It had some quirks, it was a very sexy body and I had it paired with the PanaLeica 25mm f1. Unfortunately I sold it just over a year ago when I got my EM-1, I just wished the EM-1 had the handsomeness of the EM-5. Sad to see it go. I just wish the EM-5 MK3 ll have all the bells and whistles of the EM-1 MK2 or even MK1 like the EVF, fast AF, chunkier dials, 4K video, the handsome design of the EM5 MK2.
I wish I have inside info on the E-M5 Mark III. Unfortunately I have left Olympus, so no more special info available to me now. I do wish it has all the items you have described too. I agree about the handsomeness of the E-M5. Looks fantastic in silver trim. E-M1 in silver on the other hand, SMH plus a chuckle. Quite a capable and handsome camera. Your images a proof of that. Unfortunately the ergonomics were so bad for my hands that I decided not buy it back then. I was a little sad about that.
There is no one camera that fits all hands, just like shoes. But the fact that they managed to make it that small, is the true testament to the advantage of Micro Four Thirds system. Hi Robin, great retrospective on the E-M5. The E-M5 was the first digital camera I called my own. You can always add on the beefier grips to add comfort and improve handling. I discovered your blog and mingthein. com because of your respective E-M5 reviews.
The great photos you got out of them needed very little additional commentary. I am so thankful you guys veered me away from getting a NEX-series Sony, I tried one recently and getting anything done beyond Auto is a nightmare. Unfortunately, I took their claims of weather sealing too seriously and broke it more than 2 years ago. My caffeine-addled hands loved the E-M5 s revolutionary IS.
I m left with my backup E-PM2 with the inferior IS but I m always thinking of getting a new OM-D so I don t have to lug a tripod around when shooting. Hah, there is only a limit on what the weather sealing is capable of. Sorry to hear about your camera not surviving the weather. But yes, for caffeine addicts like us, the 5-Axis IS is Godsent. Hi Robin, Reviewing the past is always a pleasant activity.
It reassure us that we are progressing. Yes I totally agree that the Olympus OM-D E-M5 was a major step for the acceptation of the MFT format by the many prosumers and even some courageous professionals at the time. I was part of that trend since I have migrated from an Olympus EP-3 which was a giant improvement. For sure the release of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II have addressed some major specific flaws present into the first original version and this is why I consider this newest itineration to be more practical and reliable.
The big advantage of the E-M5 original or Mark II is their ability to be a discrete unit or a very powerful combination with the added grip and the vertical power unit depending of your different requirements. Somehow Olympus is now due to present a new Mark III declination with the 20MP image sensor. No worries, Daniel, I too am a fan of the E-M5 series, and am eagerly waiting for the 3rd iteration. I agree that having the smallest form factor possible, with the possibility of adding on vertical and horizontal grips when necessary is a good move.
Thanks again for bringing us these good memories, Daniel M. I personally keep the size of the cameras and lens choices as small and light as possible when I am on the move street shooting, travel, etc but I need the better handling for long hour shooting paid gigs, etc. Thank you David Babsky. Your reading skills and memory leave nothing to be desired. You re correct on all points, save one I did consider, but didn t mention, as that particular aspect has nothing to do with the point I tried to make apparently in vain.
One good turn deserves another. David, There were two things that did not sit well with me. 1 Michiel953 claimed that all Micro Four Thirds photos, including mine shown in this article, have nearly unlimited depth of field. That was simply false. I have just as many shallow depth of field shots using M43. When questioned if he has considered if I was intentionally using more depth of field in my shots, he then.
2 Falsely assumed that your choice of gear camera system dictates your style and approach in photography. Another point I disagree completely with. The photographer decides what he shoots, and chooses what gear he wants to shoot with. It would have been soooooo much simpler if he just said Micro Four Thids could not render the shallow depth of field effect I needed for my own shooting. I found full frame to deliver this.
That should be the end of it, without dragging all photos taken with M43or assuming how everyone else is doing their photography like the way he imagined it to be. You both made assumptions. Michiel appears to assume that your photos were to some extent confined to deep d-o-f as a result of using m4 3 lenses and an m4 3 sensor. He made a general remark about the m4 3 format, and you assumed that he was thus criticising, and being disparaging of, your photos.
You, Robin, assumed that Michiel was being critical of your photos, and then assumed that he generally doesn t like m4 3. Michael said in his initial comment that there s. you said, assuming it to be true, You do not like Micro Four Thirds. always that nagging feeling you re restricted in the way you shootbut perhaps there was a misinterpretation of. you re restricted in the way you shoot.
to mean YOU, ROBIN, are restricted in the way you shoot. but he probably meant. one any person is restricted in the way one anyone shoots. I think that he just meant anyone. I don t think it was a comment aimed at YOU, even though Michiel used the word you. Perhaps it would have been clearer in some other language, like German, say. The conversation turned into guesses about each person s preferences, and then the conversation turned into accusations, and then somebody else became more personal and accusatory with the phrase.
a jitterbug troll. at which point I thought I should speak up on Michiel s behalf as he had done for me, some years ago. Misinterpretations all round I d say Michiel iq option вход have thought that you were willingly accepting some restrictions of the m4 3 format by using deep d-o-f. perhaps without his realising that it was your specific intention to use that as your iq option вход artistic choice. And you may have misinterpreted.
that nagging feeling you re restricted in the way you shoot. to be referring to you personallyrather than meaning the world in general. It happens in blog comments. And we re all possessive about our own pictures, as they re something which we ve put our own choice and effort into. Many years ago when I saw some of your first pictures taken with the Oly 45mm f1. 8 I was astounded by the shallow d-o-f you d got with that, and I promptly went out and bought an m4 3 camera and the 45mm.
I agree; the 45mm f1. 8 and 75mm f1. 8 give stunning results. I also agree that it would have been soooooo much simpler if Michiel had said m4 3 generally delivers deep d-o-f. and if perhaps you hadn t assumed what Michiel prefers, as in You prefer to shoot with shallower depth of field. I get it You do not like Micro Four Thirds. But I wouldn t have written a word if somebody else hadn t described Michiel as. a jitterbug trolland diminished the conversation to insults.
Misunderstandings all round. Hopefully now resolved. To Robin, David and Terry I ve been wondering whether I should respond to all this, or let it pass; so much water under the bridge. Being weak, here goes. One not you, haha, which of course was meant as a plural should never assume I m not fully aware of what I write. Maybe it takes careful reading, and putting aside a possibly fragile ego, to interpret a comment as it was meant.
In this case, my initial comment was meant as a general observation only on the constraints of a format, which, like it or not, influence the type of image captured. Vide my rangefinder example. Another example would be that I feel limited to a certain extent by the spread of the reliable AF points in my camera an 850as I like off centre subjects, in focus.
Having near limitless depth of field at your disposal solves that problem, obviously. Thank you David and Terry. Signing off now. as I like off centre subjects, in focus. Michiel, I rather think you d have some fun with Canon s old Eos 5 film camera. I don t know if you ve heard of it, it s getting on a bit now, but it has eye focus. It has an array of five focus points aligned left to right across the centre of the viewfinder.
You need to set it up for your eyes but, thereafter, simply looking at a focus point causes the camera to focus on the subject covered by that point. Obviously, with only five focus points, it is fairly limited, but it is fun to use, when it works. I no longer use it, but I still play with now and again. Its a brilliant concept but one which Canon never developed. Modern digital cameras can move their focus point by command, but I don t think this is as elegant a solution.
Thanks Terry. I heard of it, and sounds like a great concept. The joystick on the 850 works quite well, investing in a Canon camera Too many old Nioon cameras already. Tbh an oldfashioned slr like my F2AS, or FM3a or FM2n has a focusing screen that allows for reliable manual focusing right into the corners; unlike a modern dslr, where the focusing screen has different proporties.
Anil Mistry has written about his personal experience with his FM3a over at 35mmc. I m sorry, but I think your comments are somewhat condescending, as this last one you wrote. Perhaps you are not as aware of what you write as you think. Clearly others have interpreted things differently from what you, apparently, meant.
Could that be because of the way others read, or maybe because of the way you write. Yes, I particularly like this part Maybe it takes careful reading, and putting aside a possibly fragile ego, to interpret a comment as it was meant. Given how any treatment of Micro Four Thirds on various Web sites seems to be accompanied, without fail, by sensor size trolling and pronouncements by the equivalence police, all for a format that is supposedly far inferior to whatever those people are using, one has to wonder why they feel so threatened by its existence.
I d certainly get annoyed if I had to read any of that nonsense in response to any of my writing, let alone on every single occasion. Thanks for the article Robin. Still, the spread of AF points is what would be most important to me. 4, it s a great light weight kit that I can carry around in a backpack as an everyday camera. The weather sealing I found to be very good, mine ended up in a creek and the repairer who fixed the broken LCD screen said there was no sign of internal water damage.
I also suspect that the AA filter is quite weak which helps with the resolution but don t have any information to verify this apart from my own use, do you know if this is the case. In reading the above comments, I totally agree that the choice of tool is a consideration of the photographer based on the images they want to create and that any style would be due to iq option вход conscious decisions made. This however has got me thinking though about those learning the craft, how much of a developing photographers work could be associated to the limited equipment choices that they have available.
Mark, I revisited DPReview s original review of 2012 and whilst they do make reference to an AA filter it is only with reference to moire; they don t mention what sort the E-M5 incorporates. As they have always seemed to mention if a camera does have a weak, or no AA filter, such as in the Panasonic LC10 dslr and the Olympus EPL-1, I m guessing it is standard.
Reading the review, I was impressed by the E-M5 s performance overall. Terry, Olympus never specifically mentioned no AA filter for the E-M5, I think there was one. They did claim that for E-M1, there was no AA used. Confirms my view from the DPR review that their not mentioning the E-M5 having a weak or no AA filter must mean it had one. If it didn t I m sure Olympus would have touted the benefits sharpness that having no AA filter, or a weak one, brings to the ball park.
Thanks for the kind words, Mark. As a learning and developing photographer, if you have found some restrictions imposed by your cameras and lenses, then you either find alternatives or solutions to break through the limitations plenty of ways to go about something or you end up getting the more suitable tool for the job.
At the end of the day, once you know what you are doing, you know what you need to have to get the job done. Canon and Nikon are rumored to be releasing a full frame mirrorless system. The not so mature range of DX lenses is what drove me away from Nikon to Olympus OM-D. I wanted small and light, but Nikon did not offer that in DX. Not even now does Nikon have a mature DX lens range. I doubt they will take a different approach when they introduce a mirrorless camera, seeing what they did with the Nikon 1.
I still have and use my E-M5 with the pana-leica 25mm 1. That, and more people looking to smaller and lighter cameras is where MFT has, and will keep, a clear advantage. In my photoclub many are amazed by the small size an light weig of my EM-10 and the image quality it offers, which can match a FF DSLR in all but the most demanding low light scenarios. However, it is too early at this stage to tell how large or how heavy the lenses for the rumored Canon and Nikon Mirrorless Full Frames will be.
Size advantage is a big considering factor when people choose mirrorless camera systems. We all assume that no thanks to Sony these lenses will be unbearably huge. What if, they were not that huge and made within the size that is tolerable. Robin, I can t see this. The professional market wants pro lenses and that doesn t include f3. 6 bit is very important in keeping kit zooms so small, even for FF. Pro lenses with faster apertures will always by much larger, and heavier.
No way to beat the laws of optics. The only way I can see this happening smaller aperture, but high quality optics is if, and when, sensors operating at up to 25,600 ISO, say, have absolutely no noise penalty over base ISO. The E-M5 is my main camera, so I revisit it every time I go and take some pictures. And even though I arrived late to the party, buying mine in 2014, I have been largely happy with its output, even more so after getting the 45mm f 1. As for the buttons, I managed to operate some of them more or less without problems while wearing mittens yesterday, so I suppose it is a question of knowing where they are and having the confidence that you re pressing the right spot on the camera body.
Thanks for the kind words, I like the pedestrian bridge image too. You are right, it is crucial to know the camera well, spend enough time with it and know how to operate it efficiently. It is interesting to me, having moved up from a compact, how the E-M5 supports rather different shooting styles. So when I started out in 2014, I used P mode and a fair amount of exposure compensation. On a holiday that took me via KL, by the way. Nice illustrative photos as always, particularly the one of the bridge walkway.
But now, I use M mode, perhaps to try and be more ambitious, to control the parameters more, to take advantage of the effects of different apertures, and so on. It was interesting when, the other week, I took my old compact out and shot some scenes in the snow. For one thing, I found myself not zooming at all and just settling for the default wide angle view. Then I realised that I could have been zooming but had become so used to wandering round with the 45mm lens on the E-M5 that I had almost forgotten about the compact s zoom control.
That said, to avoid inviting trouble with the weather, plus difficulties operating the zoom control with mittens on, I decided to keep it simple and stick with the default focal length. It is amazing that something that was once second nature has now become so foreign. Never owned the original EM-5 but when they brought out the EM-5 Mark II, I got one with the 12-40 F2. Love it still. Good size and weight and the image quality is amazing.
Took a shot with it, leaning out a hotel window, with arms outstretched at sunset over the city of Makati Philippines. 1 2 second and it was sharp as a tack. Every now and then I ll pop on the 9mm Body Cap lens for a different point of view. my EM5-II is my goto camera for a grab and go. It always delivers. If they hadn t brought out the II version though I would have gotten the original. I wish they would find a way to simplify their menus, but other then that, the system is pretty awesome. Thanks for sharing your experience with the E-M5 Mark II.
Glad that you have found the joy of using the fisheye body cap lens. And I agree with you that the menu is not easy to use, even myself, who worked for years as a product specialist for Olympus Malaysia found that the menu was difficult to navigate. Hello Robin. Yes, i also use my old E-M5 since today.
Especially for the street photography. On my Blog there are am many photos shot with the Olympus E-M5. at street-photography-in-wien-jaennerfebruar2017 Greetings from Vienna, Christian. Owh Vienna looks like such a beautiful place for street photography. You got my hands itchy there. Why is it I wonder, that almost all images of mft cameras posted on the web, including here, have almost unlimited depth of field.
No prizes for guessing; there s almost no other way. As good as these images may be in other departments as some commenter said colours, contrast and sharpnessteher s always that nagging feeling you re restricted in the way you shoot. Btw, my most used not necessarily favourite lens on ff is 35mm, my most used aperture is f4. Are you saying that these images shown in this article are bad because they have unlimited depth of field. Have you considered that it was a conscious choice to stop down the aperture to F5.
6-F8 to achieve everything in focus except the food shot. I was doing environmental portraits. I want to see the environment surrounding the people I shoot. Is that a bad thing just because the images have no shallow depth of field effect. I shoot mostly micro four thirds. I have lost count how many times people tell me my shots have too shallow depth of field when I use 45mm F1.
8 for portrait shots and I have learned from years and years of shooting experience that there is a very clear line between blurring everything into nothingness unnecessarily and having the right amount of zone in focus to tell a better story. I choose the later. Please read carefully Robin, I did not use the word bad. Everything in focus does not have any specific creative merit neither does the opposite.
I was merely commenting on the limitations of the format, that drive people towards a certain style, which they then justify. A bit like rangefinder users that center their subjects, if you know what I mean. I prefer choices. Was that not obvious you were referring specifically to my images, that they were, how did you put it, nagging feeling being restricted. That sounds VERY bad indeed, especially commenting on someone s images. So I was merely questioning, have you considered that it was a conscious decision to have MORE depth of field.
Why do you keep misinterpreting my comment. There was no misinterpretation here. You prefer to shoot with shallower depth of field. You could have just said that. However, you used my images to demonstrate that there was unlimited depth of field. That was uncalled for. I demonstrated that the limitations of the format you probably don t like that wording leads one to to a certain style of photography.
Not really something to be offended by. I disagree with this completely. A photographer develops his style, vision and execution over time and experience, regardless of his choice of gear. He then chooses the selection of tools that works best for his specific shooting purposes and needs. Not the other way around. The format system does not dictate the style of photography. It is the conscious creative direction of the photographer that makes photographs.
You do not like Micro Four Thirds. That is perfectly fine. Go for whatever format that works for you. Robin I m surprised that you got sucked in by a jitterbug troll who thinks shallow depth of field is a requisite to a good photograph. He obviously doesn t get it and wasn t taught proper manners or communication skills. It s amazing the lengths some people will go to justify their choice of brand or format even to the point of being rude or vulgar. This is a wonderful article about an extremely influential camera.
Great set of photos too. Once upon a time Michiel stepped into an online discussion about 3 years ago. and said some good words on my behalf in the middle of some knockabout discussion, or argument. oh, wait a minute I think it was on this very website. So let me say that in my opinion, anyway I don t think, Robin, that Michiel made any QUALITATIVE pronouncements.
he didn t say that the pictures. almost unlimited depth of field. was a BAD thing. nor that it was a GOOD thing. Just that it was there to see. He didn t give any opinion as to whether that was good or bad. not meaning, I think, that Robin can t shoot any other way. but meaning that with the smaller-than-full-frame size of m4 3 sensors, any photographer gets twice the d-o-f at any identical aperture compared with using that same aperture on a full-frame sensor.
Michiel didn t say that greater d-o-f was a good or a bad thing, but that it s a characteristic of using m4 3 compared with full-frame 36mmx24mm. You re right, Robin; my guess is that maybe Michiel didn t think whether or not you d purposely CHOSEN great d-o-f as your preferred way of shooting; I think he was simply saying that greater d-o-f was inevitable when using, say, a 25mm f2 lens on m4 3, compared with using a 50mm f2 lens on full-frame.
they both give the same angle-of-viewor look to the picture, but the 25mm f2 on m4 3 gives unavoidably greater d-o-f. But Robin, you seemed to take as a personal insult Michiel s comments about greater d-o-f. whereas he was, I think, just commenting on the physics, or optics. I don t think Michiel was CRITICISING your pictures in any way, but was just saying that greater d-o-f will generally occur when using m4 3.
However, I think you re right, Robin, that Michiel may not have considered that THAT was the way that you specifically chose to create these shots. So I think iq option вход you each misunderstood or misinterpreted the other s description in these comments, but I m sure that no personal antagonism or criticism was intended. Why not just calm down a bit, and then kiss and make up. I m sure that no animosity is needed.
It is so easy when reading posts to completely misunderstand what a poster intended and to read into it things that weren t actually said. With the absence of face to face, we have no immediate clue that something we said isn t been taken the way we meant, iq option вход didn t, and can t immediately respond with a conciliatory follow up, if needed.
What then ensued is an example of a typical escalation in words as neither party could instantly respond to the other to avoid any escalation arising from misunderstand. Scott, would you now have preferred not posting a jitterbug trollwasn t taught proper manners or communication skillseven to the point of being rude or vulgar. Being rude and vulgar hoist with your own petard, perhaps.
A MFT camera with a 17mm f 1. 8 will get you an equivalent DOF. So what s with your comment there s almost no other way or feeling restricted. The FF format has it s own restrictions shear size if you want a lens that allows that shallow DOF for one. You just need to know how to use each format to their own advantages. Choose the tool that allows you to get what YOU want to accomplish best and leave each to his her own. Equivalent to what. I d have to use that 17mm wide open to get the same DoF as the 35mm on ff used at f4.
You just underlined my point. And I did choose the tool that in my experience gives me the widest choice of photographic options, and the least downsides. Once you ve made that choice, you just need to master that particular tool, and you can progress to the final image, which is what interests mé most. As for Robin s You do not like MFT comment Two years ago I was at the official presentation of the F in Amsterdam. Lovely little camera, with infuriating ergonomics for my medium sized hands, and very impressive images, printed big, by Andreas Bitesnich.
What point that you think I underlined do you mean exactly. That teher s always that nagging feeling you re restricted in the way you shoot. Then can you explain how you are restricted when you can get the same DOF as with your most used setting on FF. Because you have to use a MFT lens wide open. Sorry, but that seems like nitpicking to me. Perhaps MFT is not for you, but that does not mean MFT is restricted in general, something you seem to suggest in your OP.
Like I said, every format has it s own restrictions, as well as strong points. Choose what suits you best, which you seem to have done, and leave others their own. As good as these images may be in other departments. They aren t as good as they could be because of the unlimited depth of field. Of course you never actually said that. Bought it way back when it was a really great camera at the time; still capable of producing wonderful images today, with the right primes.
I fell in love with its small size, looks, and mostly ergonomics. As great as the camera feels, however, its menu system and UI are a horrible nightmare. What eventually killed the camera for me, and this is where I have to disagree with the author, is its sensor s lack of dynamic range. There s barely any latitude in the raw files both shadows and highlightsand that severely limits the capabilities in post-processing to achieve certain looks, even when exposed perfectly in-camera.
Moved on to Nikon s D8x0 range, despite the size and weight, and never looked back. The menu system and the UI, unfortunately, have not improved much over the years. I seriously hope the product team in Japan will consider making a complete make-over. How many million complains must they hear before they make the change happen. I claimed that the dynamic range of the E-M5 was close to the APS-C DSLR at the same time of release. That would be D7000 Nikon and Canon 60D.
You compared the E-M5 against a full frame camera, the D800, surely that is a little extreme even to illustrate your point. There s barely any latitude in the raw files both shadows and highlightsand that severely limits the capabilities in post-processing I m sorry, but you seem to severely exaggerate, and that barely gives your statement any believability. I personally switched from a Nikon D300 to an Olympus OM-D EM-10 and found IQ and DR the same for all practical purposes.
Perhaps you have very specific needs and MFT is not for you, but please don t suggest something that is far from the truth. Robin I had tried the M5 as a second camera to my Nikon D7000 on a vacation trip, but the menu and controls were too confusing, and I returned it. But the trip was in Florida in the summer and carrying the Nikon was a chore in the heat. I later got an M10, worked on the controls and menu, and got to like it.
It is now paired with an M5 Mkii with a half dozen lenses. The 12-40 mm f2. 8 is usually on the camera, an amazing lens. Another lens for walking around is the 14-150 mm, which I find very good. I no longer think of getting a FF camera, as the FF camera will need larger and heavier lenses than M4 3. I am looking at the Panasonic G9 as an upgrade, as I am not sure I want to get the M1 Mii. I still find the Olympus control placement awkward, as I still sometimes accidentally reset something, especially on the M5 MKii.
It looks like the G9 may be better in this respect, at least I hope so. I look forward to checking your website and looking at your great photos and a review of the Iq option вход. I seriously hope the Olympus people are taking notes. Menu too confusing. That is one big problem, you are not alone in this. Glad that you have found the joy of using the E-M10 and the 12-40mm PRO. That is one great combo to work with.
Either the G9 or the E-M1 Mark II, you can t go wrong. Both are great choices. If you still cling on to the 12-40mm PRO and Olympus lenses, then the Olympus camera body is the better choice for optimized lens on camera use. I agree the OM-D s are very difficult to setup. It took me a long time, longer than any other camera I ve owned, to get a grasp on mine. However, once setup they are easy to operate. Operation between different models is mostly the same, which I think is a good thing if you use several cameras.
I really like being able to save and recall settings through mysets, although you really need to understand how that works. html I can also recommend the book Supercharging the Olympus OM-D EM-10 Camera by W. Still clearly remember the way I was gobsmacked by it s capabilities after I pulled the plug and bought it in 2012. My E-450 suddenly felt so ancient.
After a number of various lenses that I went through I finally settled with 25 1. 8 nearly permanently fixed to the camera and Rokinon fisheye. Last year I bought E-M10 MkII, but to my surprise sold it just weeks later. Despite some of its advantages e.those control wheels I wasn t all happy with Oled viewfinder, plasticky feel, some other niggles and just couldn t see it as my camera for foreseeable future. Although similar in appearance, for me the E-M5 felt substantially more pleasing to hold and to use.
Anyway, 6 years and some 60. 000 shots later the E-M5 is still my main camera, beautifully worn and just keeps banging on. My GAS is at an all time low and I ll worry about the substitute when my old buddy decides to shut down for good. S Feels good you decided to review my two all time favorite cameras and the only ones that i have in a row. Glad to know that both the E-1 and E-M5 are your favourites.
I wish I have discovered photography sooner, my first DSLR was the Olympus E-410, which was about 2 generations later than the original release of the E-1. Thankfully I was around when the E-M5 came along, and I was fortunate to be the first few in the world to review it. Glad that you are loving the E-M5 and it is still going strong. Great photos as always. It s still my main Four Thirds Camera. After all, it still has the same sensor as all but two of the current lineup.
My 12-40 is pretty much glued to it with the E-P5 being used for primes. Matching the E-M5 with the 12-40mm PRO is a great idea. I usually bring along some primes too. And yes, I also have, and actively use my E-P5. Awesome camera that is, too. I remember trying out the E-M5 when it was released, but couldn t justify the price and ended up with the E-PM2. I still regularly use my PM2 to this day. When you have a lens like the 1.
8 45 it s hard to find a better a pocket-size portrait camera. Thanks for sharing your story. Great photos btw. I was a bit disappointed when Olympus decided to kill the Pen Mini line of cameras. I always loved smaller cameras, and was particularly in love with the Panasonic GM series. Still using mine and haven t really felt a need to upgrade it because of the high quality of the images.
Zuiko lenses really are amazing quality for the money. The menu complexity is the only thing i don t like but once set-up-how-you-like-it, there isn t much of a problem. The weatherproofing has worked for me even while shooting birds on exposed beaches in the rain. Really, any of the OM digital cameras with any one of the pro lenses will be enough to get excellent photos without breaking the bank. I remember being not much impressed with digital cameras until I saw the results from the E-M5.
For me it was THE camera that made digital viable, not because of the technology like image stabilization, but simply because of the color and sharpness I was seeing in the results. Sorry, sharpness probably isn t a very precise word to use most lenses being sharp these days I maybe meant to say. color and details resolved in the images. The images I was looking at were of course the ones on your Shutter Therapy site. The fact that you found the E-M5 to be still good enough, even till this day, is a testament of how many things Olympus got right with that E-M5.
I also agree with you that it was the image output that successfully convinced the crowd that the E-M5 is a worthy consideration and a viable alternative to DSLR APS-C cameras. I tried out a colleague s E-M5 once 5 years ago, and it got me attracted to Micro Four Thirds, although I didn t like the slightly mushy buttons. I didn t have the budget for the E-M5 itself, so I bought in on an E-PL5 and a year later an E-M10.
The size and handling of OM-D, especially with the wonderful small MFT primes, has made it a joy to use, and way easier to travel with than a DSLR. Now I ve added an E-M5. 2 because of recent price drops, and a 12-40 2. 8 that s barely bigger than a DSLR kit zoom. Although I never bought one, I guess the E-M5 started my relationship with the MFT system. It s the lenses that sealed the deal, though. On full frame mirrorless from Canon and or Nikon being a serious threat to MFT, do you think the size weight of lenses could help the MFT system defend its position in the market.
Thanks Robin for the article and pictures, hopefully with enough practice I can make some images like that. You are being too kind, Ken. The lenses alone are not enough to justify the micro four thirds advantage for too long. great article, as usual. However, I don t entirely share you somewhat pessimistic view of the threat to m4 3 that FF Nikon or Canon will pose.
THE big advantage with m4 3 has always been the size and optical quality, of course of the lenses and, as shown on this site, there have been big strides in IQ.
Coments:15.04.2020 : 04:08 Murr:
IQ Option Special Strategy - Iq option вход it with the system I created for IQ Option. Free to my members. حساب الرابح يقدم لك فرصة لربح جوائز قيمة على مدار السنة.
17.04.2020 : 00:33 Mazukinos:
IG MT4 servers have been broken for hours, ALL hedges out. Bitcoin Store Canada Forex BrokersSimulators and demo accounts let novices practice day trading binary option broker metatrader handelssysteme entwickeln risk-free in forex, stocks, ETFs, iq option вход futures.