Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 & Mark 2 Owners Thread

Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
When I click on the crop tool in Capture One the image is often, but not always, already cropped.
If you’re shooting in 3:2 or another format then the raw file will be cropped as it crops some of the top and bottom of the 4:3 image to create the 3:2 ratio (or whichever ratio you have selected). Lightroom does this too, but it also allows you to use the full 4:3 file if you choose to.
 
Messages
9,687
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
FWIW
I have set my E-M1 mk2 EVF view to the 3:2 ratio and there have been some images where the 'overlap' (of the 4:3 complete frame) that is still there on the RAW file for added cropping choice where needed. ;)
Every OMD I’ve had has been like this, shoot raw in 3:2 but it actually still captures the full 4:3 image which you can select in post. Handy if you’ve clipped the subject at the top or bottom of the frame in the 3:2 frame ;)

I can't imagine I'd ever change the cropping ratio in camera before taking a shot. But are you saying that if you set it at 3:2 for compositional purposes - my default for the last....oooh.... fourty years - when you open the RAW file in LR it shows the full 4:3 ratio image?

It's a bit of a drawback on 4/3rds for someone like me who prefers 3:2 that you basically lose some MP's top and bottom before you even start.
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
I can't imagine I'd ever change the cropping ratio in camera before taking a shot. But are you saying that if you set it at 3:2 for compositional purposes - my default for the last....oooh.... fourty years - when you open the RAW file in LR it shows the full 4:3 ratio image?
yes if you open up the crop adjustment tool you can see the full 4:3 image, but by default LR should show the ratio chosen in camera.

It's a bit of a drawback on 4/3rds for someone like me who prefers 3:2 that you basically lose some MP's top and bottom before you even start.
Well I guess you could say the same for a Canikon shooter who prefers the 4:3 ratio ;) (although you’d lose the sides rather than top bottom obviously).
 
Messages
9,322
Edit My Images
No
I can't imagine I'd ever change the cropping ratio in camera before taking a shot. But are you saying that if you set it at 3:2 for compositional purposes - my default for the last....oooh.... fourty years - when you open the RAW file in LR it shows the full 4:3 ratio image?

It's a bit of a drawback on 4/3rds for someone like me who prefers 3:2 that you basically lose some MP's top and bottom before you even start.
I chose to set my E1M mk2 to 3:2 EVF view because that is what I have always been used to...............secondly because (almost) all my prints are that ratio.

Now, in LR as I recall (I am not using it much, if at all now for anything other than its DAM) it would honour the 3:2 ratio of the view I set but there is setting to reject that and default to the 4:3

In Photolab it does not honour the 3:2 view and always shows the 4:3................this different behaviour to LR initially caught me out and it took a short while for me to realise what was happening.

AFAIK if you set the Oly to 3:2 of any other ratio and shoot JPEG only it will crop in camera and I have never tried RAW + JPEG to see what happens ;)

Oh, as mentioned in my prior post on this and remarked upon by another poster:-
Even when composing in the EVF (LCD as well?) there are times for whatever reason I may cut off something that when I have the whole 4:3 to play with I am able to just adjust the 3:2 crop to get back the clipped off bit. There are exceptions where I have not be able to do so but the latitude it gives is very welcome :)
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I can't imagine I'd ever change the cropping ratio in camera before taking a shot. But are you saying that if you set it at 3:2 for compositional purposes - my default for the last....oooh.... forty years - when you open the RAW file in LR it shows the full 4:3 ratio image?

It's a bit of a drawback on 4/3rds for someone like me who prefers 3:2 that you basically lose some MP's top and bottom before you even start.
.... I feel confident that you are right about a captured image not having its mpx rearranged into the non-m4/3 format size you have chosen for compositional viewing. I think changing the aspect ratios is simply an option for viewing as an overlay, just like which grid you can choose to see while shooting. But the difference is that the aspect ratio information gets embedded in the metadata and so appears in most RAW editing software.

I for one would be disappointed if the Olympus did do anything other than preserve its original full m4/3 format and pixels on the sensor and output all of it for RAW conversion.

If you feel you are not getting enough pixel performance/area, should you not be thinking of shooting instead with larger sensor cameras such as full-frame? Fancy a Hasselblad? Or PhaseOne camera?

But anyway, if you investigate/research it more deeply you may find that a high percentage of pixel sensitivity is concentrated more centrally anyway - I don't know but seem to recall reading about such things relating to Canon's crop-frame and full-frame sensor differences. If you can achieve images which please you it then gets a bit academic.
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
.... I feel confident that you are right about a captured image not having its mpx rearranged into the non-m4/3 format size you have chosen for compositional viewing. I think changing the aspect ratios is simply an option for viewing as an overlay, just like which grid you can choose to see while shooting. But the difference is that the aspect ratio information gets embedded in the metadata and so appears in most RAW editing software.
the pixels are obviously set in place on the sensor so it would be impossible to “rearrange” them, all you can do is crop them off in processing, whether that’s in camera processing or post.

But anyway, if you investigate/research it more deeply you may find that a high percentage of pixel sensitivity is concentrated more centrally anyway - I don't know but seem to recall reading about such things relating to Canon's crop-frame and full-frame sensor differences. If you can achieve images which please you it then gets a bit academic.
Pixel density is evenly spread across the frame, and I’d be surprised and have never seen anything that says sensitivity of the pixels is different across the frame either, however if you do come across something that says differently please link it (y). TBH it wouldn’t make sense to me as it would skew the whole ISO rating.
 
Messages
9,687
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
Well I guess you could say the same for a Canikon shooter who prefers the 4:3 ratio ;) (although you’d lose the sides rather than top bottom obviously).
Mmmmmm, I suppose it's possible to look at that either way. Although I can't imagine I would prefer a 4:3 ratio image very often.......
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
Mmmmmm, I suppose it's possible to look at that either way. Although I can't imagine I would prefer a 4:3 ratio image very often.......
Tbh I still can’t decide which I prefer :LOL: Neither follow paper ratio (A3, A4 etc) although 4:3 is closer,... just.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
the pixels are obviously set in place on the sensor so it would be impossible to “rearrange” them, all you can do is crop them off in processing, whether that’s in camera processing or post.
.... Which is what my post suggested. Technology never stands still and I tend to keep an open mind to every possibility plus I am not an expert in such subjects.

Pixel density is evenly spread across the frame, and I’d be surprised and have never seen anything that says sensitivity of the pixels is different across the frame either, however if you do come across something that says differently please link it (y). TBH it wouldn’t make sense to me as it would skew the whole ISO rating.
.... I am probably confusing matters by saying "sensitivity" and was referring to Canon's Dual Pixel technology which exploits density. But Olympus and Canon are different of course and have different patents.
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
.... Which is what my post suggested. Technology never stands still and I tend to keep an open mind to every possibility plus I am not an expert in such subjects.



.... I am probably confusing matters by saying "sensitivity" and was referring to Canon's Dual Pixel technology which exploits density. But Olympus and Canon are different of course and have different patents.
Ahh right. I don’t believe Canon’s dual pixel tech exploits “density”, all it does is record two images, one from each diode with one containing parallax info allowing small focus adjustments in post. It doesn’t record an image with extra pixels like Olympus hi res, and I don’t believe that it’s any different in the centre compared to the edges either (y)
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
DON'T EAT [OR DRINK] TOO MUCH !!! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

MERRY CHRISTMAS! by Robin Procter, on Flickr

EDIT:
I am proud to say that this image has now been chosen by Explore.
:)
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,375
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I can't imagine I'd ever change the cropping ratio in camera before taking a shot. But are you saying that if you set it at 3:2 for compositional purposes - my default for the last....oooh.... fourty years - when you open the RAW file in LR it shows the full 4:3 ratio image?

It's a bit of a drawback on 4/3rds for someone like me who prefers 3:2 that you basically lose some MP's top and bottom before you even start.
It's just whatever you're used to. I switched from M43 back to APSC a while back and for the first month or so I found I was cropping the images in post to mimic M43 ratio because I'd gotten so used to it
 
Messages
1,431
Edit My Images
Yes
If you’re shooting in 3:2 or another format then the raw file will be cropped as it crops some of the top and bottom of the 4:3 image to create the 3:2 ratio (or whichever ratio you have selected). Lightroom does this too, but it also allows you to use the full 4:3 file if you choose to.
I shoot in 4:3
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
However my ORFs are pre-cropped...
They shouldn’t be, what software are you using and are you using a preset on import? Are you 100% sure that you have 4:3 set for the raw format?
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
On this subject of deciding to select a cropping frame preset onboard camera, IF the user selection does not upload the full 4/3rds captured image to the chosen RAW converter/editor, then why commit to your onboard crop and hence restrict editing or fine tuning a crop later? - It doesn't make sense to me not to keep all options open for editing.

I don't even want to test it in CaptureOne as I see no point to the exercise.
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
On this subject of deciding to select a cropping frame preset onboard camera, IF the user selection does not upload the full 4/3rds captured image to the chosen RAW converter/editor, then why commit to your onboard crop and hence restrict editing or fine tuning a crop later? - It doesn't make sense to me not to keep all options open for editing.

I don't even want to test it in CaptureOne as I see no point to the exercise.
I always believe you should shoot as close to what you want in camera so ratios aren’t particularly important for things like landscape. If you want your final image in 3:2 but you shout in 4:3 it can have a detrimental effect on your composition. It can also affect metering (y)
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
Whilst waiting for my recently purchased em5 to arrive i am looking at lenses
I am thinking of either oly 12-40 or Panasonic 12-35 would be trading my x100t
Any views on either?
Leaning towards oly at the moment
I have the Olly and highly rate it.
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I always believe you should shoot as close to what you want in camera so ratios aren’t particularly important for things like landscape. If you want your final image in 3:2 but you shout in 4:3 it can have a detrimental effect on your composition. It can also affect metering (y)
.... But surely with landscapes you can select your exact composition using the onboard picture aspect ratio you intend as final output after editing in your RAW converter and then either deselect that other ratio and capture fully on 4/3rds, or shoot the same scene both with and without the non-4/3rds format crop.

Hey, you are shooting landscapes so you have the luxury of time. If you are serious about landscapes then use a tripod - There are so many choices which mean you can even take one hiking.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Whilst waiting for my recently purchased em5 to arrive I am looking at lenses
I am thinking of either oly 12-40 or Panasonic 12-35 would be trading my x100t
Any views on either?
Leaning towards oly at the moment
.... If you are shooting on Oly bodies then it's a bit of a no-brainer to use Oly lenses < In my personal opinion. And yes I do know that others like Blackfoxy Jeff use other brand lenses and get good results.

Also, if you buy the excellent (I have one) Oly 12-40mm F/2.8 Pro it's more future-proof should you ever decide to get a M1 series body (and also matches the very high standard of weatherproofing) and it will be easier to sell on one day.

I have no experience of any m4/3rds lenses other than Olympus.
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
.... But surely with landscapes you can select your exact composition using the onboard picture aspect ratio you intend as final output after editing in your RAW converter and then either deselect that other ratio and capture fully on 4/3rds, or shoot the same scene both with and without the non-4/3rds format crop.

Hey, you are shooting landscapes so you have the luxury of time. If you are serious about landscapes then use a tripod - There are so many choices which mean you can take one hiking.
So you’re saying shoot 4:3 initially in raw then use the in camera editor to make it 3:2? Isn’t the edited image then jpeg in which case that’s an even worse scenario as your losing a heap of data.

hen composing landscape you want your leading lines and want to make sure you composition has all the elements in and in the correct position. If you’re framing in a different format you can’t be sure that everything’s in the right place within the frame when you finally crop to your 3:2 format and that you’re not going to clip things from the top and/or bottom.

If you want your final image in 3:2 you’re better off shooting in the 3:2 format imo.
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
.... If you are shooting on Oly bodies then it's a bit of a no-brainer to use Oly lenses < In my personal opinion.

.
I know you’ve said this a couple of times but I’m not sure why tbh. I know you’re an ex canon shooter and always preferred Canon over third party like Sigma and Tamron, but it’s not the same with m4/3. The m4/3 system was designed specifically so that Olympus and Panasonic can share the mount and make lenses that work properly on all m4/3 cameras. Sigma and Tamron being used on Canon is different as they have to reverse engineer everything to build their lenses which is why there have been issues in the past.

The only time I’d recommend specifically using Olly lenses on Olly bodies and Panny lenses on Panny bodies are for those that support dual IBIS, which are few and far between (y)
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
So you’re saying shoot 4:3 initially in raw then use the in camera editor to make it 3:2? Isn’t the edited image then jpeg in which case that’s an even worse scenario as your losing a heap of data.

hen composing landscape you want your leading lines and want to make sure you composition has all the elements in and in the correct position. If you’re framing in a different format you can’t be sure that everything’s in the right place within the frame when you finally crop to your 3:2 format and that you’re not going to clip things from the top and/or bottom.

If you want your final image in 3:2 you’re better off shooting in the 3:2 format imo.
.... As I always (so far in my short 2-month history of shooting m4/3rds) expose to the full uncropped size of the sensor and only crop as part of post-processing, I may be mistaken because I didn't realise that the in-camera editor only output JPEG and not RAW (I never shoot JPEG).

As posted earlier, I thought that the user-chosen aspect ratios onboard camera were merely like a guide/grid overlay and that the RAW file arrived in the off-camera software in full 4/3rds image with the option to revise the crop in post-processing. Isn't that what was reported earlier in this discussion?

If someone wants heaps of data for landscape then it might be better to shoot on a full-frame camera and furthermore one with a high Mpx sensor.

If sticking to the m4/3rds system the Olympus Hi Res option would also help methinks.
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I know you’ve said this a couple of times but I’m not sure why tbh. I know you’re an ex canon shooter and always preferred Canon over third party like Sigma and Tamron, but it’s not the same with m4/3. The m4/3 system was designed specifically so that Olympus and Panasonic can share the mount and make lenses that work properly on all m4/3 cameras. Sigma and Tamron being used on Canon is different as they have to reverse engineer everything to build their lenses which is why there have been issues in the past.

The only time I’d recommend specifically using Olly lenses on Olly bodies and Panny lenses on Panny bodies are for those that support dual IBIS, which are few and far between (y)
.... For a start, if you shoot outdoors then the Olympus Pro lens standard of weatherproofing etc is a big enough reason even without IBIS. Do any of the other m4/3 brands offer beyond that international IPX1 standard? - I don't believe so and certainly not yet.

But, like many photographers as individuals, I have different preferences from yourself. I greatly value features you don't care about and vica-versa.

What you describe about the m4/3 system universally playing happily amongst the different brands is fine in theory but wasn't it initially designed to promote all the 4/3 manufacturers' marketing efforts collectively? I am not convinced it is lasting nor will last as each brand independently develops further technological advances. If you were to say that Olympus is the leading brand or dog, then the other brands as tails don't wag the dog. Don't all the m4/3 brands each operate independently rather than closely liaise to the point where it potentially restricts the innovative development which Olympus is famous for?
 
Last edited:
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
.... As I always (so far in my short 2-month history of shooting m4/3rds) expose to the full uncropped size of the sensor and only crop as part of post-processing, I may be mistaken because I didn't realise that the in-camera editor only output JPEG and not RAW (I never shoot JPEG).
TBH I’m not 100% sure myself, but that’s what happens with Nikon (y)

As posted earlier, I thought that the user-chosen aspect ratios onboard camera were merely like a guide/grid overlay and that the RAW file arrived in the off-camera software in full 4/3rds image with the option to revise the crop in post-processing. Isn't that what was reported earlier in this discussion?
It’s a pretty weird/unique scenario. If you shoot 3:2 raw with Olympus you see 3:2 in the viewfinder and when you open the file in Lightroom or wherever it will show you the 3:2 image. However, if you go to the crop tool in LR you will see that the data from the full 4:3 sensor has been captured and you can select this retrospectively.

If someone wants heaps of data for landscape then it might be better to shoot on a full-frame camera and furthermore one with a high Mpx sensor.

If sticking to the m4/3rds system the Olympus Hi Res option would also help methinks.
It depends, I’ve demonstrated on here that it is nigh on impossible at times to tell the difference between images shot on a 16mp m4/3 sensor compared to a 45.7mp FF sensor when viewed at ‘normal’ sizes. People can’t even tell on my 75cm prints which are m4/3 and FF.

Hi res on Olympus is only good for completely static subjects tbh.
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
It’s a pretty weird/unique scenario. If you shoot 3:2 raw with Olympus you see 3:2 in the viewfinder and when you open the file in Lightroom or wherever it will show you the 3:2 image. However, if you go to the crop tool in LR you will see that the data from the full 4:3 sensor has been captured and you can select this retrospectively.
.... That's my understanding from reading this thread too. Perhaps I should test it for CaptureOne (I don't use Lightroom) on an unimportant snap.

Hi res on Olympus is only good for completely static subjects tbh.
.... Yes, Olympus Hi Res is a compromise we need to accept. I do think though that a photographer could exploit it to gain Hi Res for the truly static parts of an image and even slow the shutter speed to further emphasise moving components within the frame. I think toggers should always keep an open mind unless they just use cameras as cold recording machine.
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
I spotted that my Avatar was a tiger. I thought I'd been hacked for a second but that couldn't be as I could still post. Gosh knows what went wrong.

How very odd... maybe a glitch in the matrix?
.... For a start, if you shoot outdoors then the Olympus Pro lens standard of weatherproofing etc is a big enough reason even without IBIS. Do any of the other m4/3 brands offer beyond that international IPX1 standard? - I don't believe so and certainly not yet.

But, like many photographers as individuals, I have different preferences from yourself. I greatly value features you don't care about and vica-versa.

What you describe about the m4/3 system universally playing happily amongst the different brands is fine in theory but wasn't it initially designed to promote all the 4/3 manufacturers' marketing efforts collectively? I am not convinced it is lasting nor will last as each brand independently develops further technological advances. If you were to say that Olympus is the leading brand or dog, then the other brands as tails don't wag the dog. Don't all the m4/3 brands each operate independently rather than closely liaise to the point where it potentially restricts the innovative development which Olympus is famous for?
I think Panny weather sealing is very good too tbh.

As far as the agreement is concerned both develop their own systems BUT to enhance the m4/3 system, therefore as long as there is a m4/3 system all lenses will remain compatible. AFAIK m4/3 is a universal system and is open to anyone, as long as they abide by the agreement. IIRC sharp officially joined the m4/3 family a year or so ago, although to date I’m not aware of any lenses or cameras from them.
 
Messages
9,446
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
When I first got into MFT last year with a panasonic g80 I soon realised that with decent adaptors (k&f concept) that a lot of legacy glass gave extremely good results far better than expected ,and imho robin your stance on Olympus only lenses is rather biased .. at one point in fact I had 2 Panasonic lenses and 11 legacy glass covering a multitude of lengths and Apertures with some very good and others excellent ,I have now sold them all but may well rebuild the collection when the mood takes me .. legacy glass has increased vastly in price since last year though which does hold me back a tad ..
mirrorless in fact lends itself to experimentation and to take a purist one lens type fits all sizes view is totally wrong . Last year I was even doing b.i.f with a 200mm MF lens worked well to
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I think Panny weather sealing is very good too tbh.
.... I am sure it's very good, just as Canon and Nikon weather sealing is very good but does it exceed the international IPX1 certified standard? < No it doesn't. The IPX1 certificate awarded to Olympus is claimed as a camera-world first.

Do I value it? < Yes I most definitely do. I am outdoors in all weathers often from dawn til dusk and I want the peace of mind which the Pro Olympus system offers - I have missed shots due to faffing around under rain covers before now.

For anyone new here who hasn't seen it and there are other videos showing performance in extreme sports environments :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=5jpgsXzgXVU


As far as the agreement is concerned both develop their own systems BUT to enhance the m4/3 system, therefore as long as there is a m4/3 system all lenses will remain compatible. AFAIK m4/3 is a universal system and is open to anyone, as long as they abide by the agreement. IIRC sharp officially joined the m4/3 family a year or so ago, although to date I’m not aware of any lenses or cameras from them.
.... Yes the lenses are "compatible" in that they can be easily mounted, are not reverse engineered, and most features are functional, but not all. For example, the Olympus Pro lens's customisable L-Fn button on other bodies. Another example are the Pro TCs only fitting Pro lenses and other m4/3 TCs not fitting Olympus Pro lenses. It is a loose agreement and not coordinated in feature details and electronic communication and I think that as technical advances are made, the brand differences will continue to widen - They have to if only to give brand marketing advantages. The parties to the M4/3 agreement are separate independent companies.

If you want evidence of this now, just contact technical support and ask for some help or advice which concerns your lens><body when you have mixed brands even within the m4/3 agreement - It's merely an agreement and not an overall technical system which is coordinated.

Yes, I am biassed towards what works for me both physically and very importantly gives me peace of mind. When you pay about £2grand plus for a camera body why would you mount anything other than the highest spec lenses you can buy which are very specifically designed for them? < It's up to you of course but when I'm asked what I would do or advise then I offer my advice - It's entirely up to the reader whether they take notice or not. I don't have to offer any advice at all but I am given advice and so like to give back.
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Taken in the very early morning a few minutes before the official time of sunrise. In my wildlife garden in Dorset UK. So that's equivalent @840mm handheld 1/60s, F/5.6, ISO 2500, handheld. Would another m4/3 lens offer this performance in such lighting circumstances on this body?

GREY SQUIRREL SPORTING A WINTER COAT by Robin Procter, on Flickr
 
Messages
16,779
Edit My Images
No
.... I am sure it's very good, just as Canon and Nikon weather sealing is very good but does it exceed the international IPX1 certified standard? < No it doesn't. The IPX1 certificate awarded to Olympus is claimed as a camera-world first.

Do I value it? < Yes I most definitely do. I am outdoors in all weathers often from dawn til dusk and I want the peace of mind which the Pro Olympus system offers - I have missed shots due to faffing around under rain covers before now.

For anyone new here who hasn't seen it and there are other videos showing performance in extreme sports environments :

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=5jpgsXzgXVU




.... Yes the lenses are "compatible" in that they can be easily mounted, are not reverse engineered, and most features are functional, but not all. For example, the Olympus Pro lens's customisable L-Fn button on other bodies. Another example are the Pro TCs only fitting Pro lenses and other m4/3 TCs not fitting Olympus Pro lenses. It is a loose agreement and not coordinated in feature details and electronic communication and I think that as technical advances are made, the brand differences will continue to widen - They have to if only to give brand marketing advantages. The parties to the M4/3 agreement are separate independent companies.

If you want evidence of this now, just contact technical support and ask for some help or advice which concerns your lens><body when you have mixed brands even within the m4/3 agreement - It's merely an agreement and not an overall technical system which is coordinated.

Yes, I am biassed towards what works for me both physically and very importantly gives me peace of mind. When you pay about £2grand plus for a camera body why would you mount anything other than the highest spec lenses you can buy which are very specifically designed for them? < It's up to you of course but when I'm asked what I would do or advise then I offer my advice - It's entirely up to the reader whether they take notice or not. I don't have to offer any advice at all but I am given advice and so like to give back.
I understand what your saying and appreciate that with certain combos using the same manufacturer has it’s benefits. However imo you can’t apply this to every scenario.

The OP asked about the 12-40mm vs 12-35mm and imo the Panny has certain benefits going for it, especially the Mark II. Optically there’s little to choose between the two, but the Panny is smaller and lighter, and cheaper.

From my experience the Panny 100-300mm is optically better than the Olly 75-300mm and is faster. There are several other examples where I’d recommend the Panny over the Olly (y)
 
Messages
6,838
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I understand what your saying and appreciate that with certain combos using the same manufacturer has it’s benefits. However imo you can’t apply this to every scenario.

The OP asked about the 12-40mm vs 12-35mm and imo the Panny has certain benefits going for it, especially the Mark II. Optically there’s little to choose between the two, but the Panny is smaller and lighter, and cheaper.

From my experience the Panny 100-300mm is optically better than the Olly 75-300mm and is faster. There are several other examples where I’d recommend the Panny over the Olly (y)
.... Absolutely fair enough and I cannot and do not disagree at all with what you are saying in this post. However, for me personally the Olympus Pro standard of weatherproofing trumps all the other considerations mentioned and the sharpness of Olympus Pro lenses is not in question.

And as a wildlife photographer I don't need many lenses (but I do need two identical bodies).

Either way, I am confident that we have both offered the OP helpful advice.
 
Top