Olympus OM-D E-M5, E-M1, E-M10 - Mk1, Mk2 & Mk3 Owners Thread

That's reassuring Julian! So I might need to upgrade the lens firmware? I've never done that but I'll try and check if I need to. I really am bad at hand holding, being small and scrawny, so it will be interesting to see how I do tomorrow! I read some great reviews on it before I made the purchase - it's good to know you like it.
 
ShrubMonkey said:
Yes I have it and one of the my fav lenses. Have absolutely no fear of hand holding, the OMD IBIS should be great. Even on my Panasonic bodies the lens IS is one of the best (after upgrading the lens firmware). rock solid stabilization. I loved my Canon 100-400mm L lens on my Canon 5D2, but this is even better and so little weight too, amazing lens (you can tell I like it)
Click to expand...

How does the Pany lens compare optically with the Canon 100-400 in your experience?
 
magicolor1 said:
How does the Pany lens compare optically with the Canon 100-400 in your experience?
Click to expand...

I never did a side by side comparison when I had my Canon gear, but I've never had any compliant from what this lens produces (and I am a pixel peeper). The only negative thing I can say about the Panasonic is the less than smooth zoom action IMO.
 
Dug up some shots I took with the 100-300

These taken on the old Panasonic G3 (horrid handling body)

7155562681_ec2f9d454a_c.jpg



7384813322_ff9672dff5_c.jpg


7366064468_d0a879ec31_c.jpg
 
Lindsey, like Julian says the 100-300 is a super lens but remember to switch off the IS on it if using the olympus ibis. The IS on this lens is so good I have held it one handed with the g3 and amazed myself at just how good this lens is. Here is a shot I took today with the om-d at 269mm at 1/250 sec and cropped to please me. This lens will become a favourite with you I am sure.


People on Hayling Island by Alby Oakshott, on Flickr
 
ShrubMonkey said:
I never did a side by side comparison when I had my Canon gear, but I've never had any compliant from what this lens produces (and I am a pixel peeper). The only negative thing I can say about the Panasonic is the less than smooth zoom action IMO.
Click to expand...

Like a few others here, I'm seriously thinking of swapping my Canon outfit for an OM-D, mainly to reduce weight but hopefully not at the cost of image quality. I never much liked my 100-400 as it was too cumbersome, so the pany sounds like a promising replacement.
 
Great images Julian and Alby! I got to use my 100-300 today on some birds, not very good light and many of the birds were moving so it was a bit of a challenge (I didn't stop down because I wanted to test sharpness wide open) any less than sharp images were of course down to some of the constraints I encountered and not the lens itself. But so far I am happy with it: http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/pets/wildlife-photography-sussex/

Simon I too found the 100-400 huge and heavy and I never liked the push-pull mechanism.
 
ShrubMonkey said:
Interesting article, that Scott Bourne is selling all his Canon gear and has purchased every Olympus lens and two OMDs. Even though he is retiring and that's the reason for selling up his canon gear, it's still interesting that he decided to go for m43 and Olympus gear

http://photofocus.com/2012/12/27/how-serious-am-i-about-mft-cameras-canon-camera-gear-for-sale/
Click to expand...

Lots of similar stories on the web, I really enjoyed this article about a guy using 3 OM-Ds to shoot weddings. Some of his comments regarding 'looking' professional really interested me, particularly as the only odd comments came from photographers, but not one client has questioned his gear.
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
Lots of similar stories on the web, I really enjoyed this article about a guy using 3 OM-Ds to shoot weddings. Some of his comments regarding 'looking' professional really interested me.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw that article too, really interesting
 
Lindsay D said:
Great images Julian and Alby! I got to use my 100-300 today on some birds, not very good light and many of the birds were moving so it was a bit of a challenge (I didn't stop down because I wanted to test sharpness wide open) any less than sharp images were of course down to some of the constraints I encountered and not the lens itself. But so far I am happy with it: http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/pets/wildlife-photography-sussex/

Simon I too found the 100-400 huge and heavy and I never liked the push-pull mechanism.
Click to expand...

Thanks Lindsay :)

Looks like you got some great shots too today, if you didn't like the 100-400, the benefits of the 100-300 must be even better to you ;)
 
My 17mm f1.8 turned up today. Not had a chance to use it properly yet but the AF is like lightning 😀
 
I think I may have a duff copy of the 100-300. I've just been looking more closely at the shots, the ones which are over about 230mm (460 eq) are so soft as to be useless (obviously I'm maintaining high shutter speeds and bracing myself, so I'm pretty sure it's not me). Anyone else had this? I would expect a degree of softening at the long end of any big zoom, but this is quite bad.
 
Lindsay D said:
I think I may have a duff copy of the 100-300. I've just been looking more closely at the shots, the ones which are over about 230mm (460 eq) are so soft as to be useless (obviously I'm maintaining high shutter speeds and bracing myself, so I'm pretty sure it's not me). Anyone else had this? I would expect a degree of softening at the long end of any big zoom, but this is quite bad.
Click to expand...

Nothing I've noticed at all on my copy, I'd try it on a tripod just to make sure it isn't you ;)
 
Lindsay D said:
I will - but I'm reading similar reports on other discussion boards, seems there's a lot of copy variance with this lens. I'm also losing tons of contrast and colour over 230mm as well.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound good at all, I wasn't aware there was issues with a number of these
 
Yes, apparently there are a few bad copies floating around. When I compare similar focal lengths with this lens to the output from my 40-150 it's like night and day.

Having said all of that I found the autofocus to be very good - much better than some of the reports I'd read.
 
I do find the 100-300 needs a fair bit of light at 300mm to lock a really crisp shot.
I've often wondered about the relative merits of the Panny 100-300 verses the Oly 75-300, I've read lots of claims and counter claims regarding which is better (as you do) :)
I have the Panny btw :)
 
I've not heard too many arguments in favour of the Olympus, the 100-300 pretty much always seems to be the lens of choice.

I was incredibly sceptical (but wanting a challenge) when moving to M4/3, but my second day shooting with the 100-300 changed that, this was taken wide open at 260mm, it's a 1/200 panning shot with AF, to get that much detail in the drivers faces etc blew me away, I just wasn't expecting it as I was told the AF would be hopeless etc etc. I didn't expect a £400 lens shooting at an equivalent of up to 600mm to be even remotely that good.
 
Last edited:
ukaskew said:
I've not heard too many arguments in favour of the Olympus, the 100-300 pretty much always seems to be the lens of choice.

I was incredibly sceptical (but wanting a challenge) when moving to M4/3, but my second day shooting with the 100-300 changed that, this was taken wide open at 260mm, it's a 1/200 panning shot with AF, to get that much detail in the drivers faces etc blew me away, I just wasn't expecting it.
Click to expand...

Great shot Chris, I had the exact same reaction when I used this lens :)
 
ukaskew said:
I've not heard too many arguments in favour of the Olympus, the 100-300 pretty much always seems to be the lens of choice.

I was incredibly sceptical (but wanting a challenge) when moving to M4/3, but my second day shooting with the 100-300 changed that, this was taken wide open at 260mm, it's a 1/200 panning shot with AF, to get that much detail in the drivers faces etc blew me away, I just wasn't expecting it as I was told the AF would be hopeless etc etc. I didn't expect a £400 lens shooting at an equivalent of up to 600mm to be even remotely that good.
Click to expand...

Hats off to that shot, nice work :)
 
Lindsay D said:
I will - but I'm reading similar reports on other discussion boards, seems there's a lot of copy variance with this lens. I'm also losing tons of contrast and colour over 230mm as well.
Click to expand...

I had to send the first 100-300mm that I had back, due to the zoom being very stiff and jerky in places, and i found that the second one was also sharper.
When I got the OMD I decided to go for the Olympus 75-300mm instead. My main reason was size and weight (I have RA), and I'm really happy with it.
I do need to keep the speed up if I'm hand holding because I am quite unsteady, but that was the case with the 100-300mm too.
I hope you can exchange it for a better copy. :)
 
My copy is slightly softer over 260mm but not too much that I would worry about it. I did expect it to be at the extremities.

Thanks for the link Paul, I saw the second half and was amazed he told people to sensor swab given all the info I have read about the sensor sitting free in a magnetic field and swabbing can cause damage to the IBIS from the sensor moving. It would be interesting to get others feelings and thoughts re sensor swabbing.

Great car shot Chris, bags of detail like you say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ajophotog said:
Thanks for the link Paul, I saw the second half and was amazed he told people to sensor swab given all the info I have read about the sensor sitting free in a magnetic field and swabbing can cause damage to the IBIS from the sensor moving. It would be interesting to get others feelings and thoughts re sensor swabbing.
Click to expand...

I never caught the details of that link. I'm still happy that I've not had to clean sensor on any m43 camera once, unlike the Dyson-like-dust-traps of my previous Canon bodies.
 
ShrubMonkey said:
I never caught the details of that link. I'm still happy that I've not had to clean sensor on any m43 camera once, unlike the Dyson-like-dust-traps of my previous Canon bodies.
Click to expand...
My Olly is going back to the service centre tomorrow as it came back with a couple of spots on the sensor, I phoned them and they are sending me packaging to return it. I haven't had to clean any of mine either, this is the first time I have seen dust on any of the 5 them.
 
Been looking through some of my older photos and found this one taken with the 100-300 wide open at 300mm albeit with the Panny G3 but does show that it can be sharp.


Puffin 096 by Alby Oakshott, on Flickr
 
That's a lovely shot Alby, and as you say very sharp. I think mine is iffy, I'll take it back.

1/250 and sharp, that's impressive at 300mm! Mine were at speeds of 1/400 to 1/800 and I braced myself quite well etc - there's no sign of camera shake or motion blur in my images, just a softness, so you've helped to confirm my suspicions about my copy of the lens.
 
Last edited:
Lindsay D said:
That's a lovely shot Alby, and as you say very sharp. I think mine is iffy, I'll take it back.

1/250 and sharp, that's impressive at 300mm! Mine were at speeds of 1/400 to 1/800 and I braced myself quite well etc - there's no sign of camera shake or motion blur in my images, just a softness, so you've helped to confirm my suspicions about my copy of the lens.
Click to expand...
Good luck Lindsay, I hope they have another in stock for you to try.
ShrubMonkey said:
Cracking shot Alby, nice background too
Click to expand...
Cheers Julian ;)
 
Having just been away with my OMD I am really pleased with the outside shots but have decided I need a fast prime for low light situations. I have a budget of £200 so the Oly 17mm f1.8 is out of my price range. I am looking at the panny 20mm or the oly 17mm f2.8. I would rather the Panny but have read it struggles to focus in low light. Are there any other options in this price range or should I try to save a bit more and get the Oly?
 
sting said:
Having just been away with my OMD I am really pleased with the outside shots but have decided I need a fast prime for low light situations. I have a budget of £200 so the Oly 17mm f1.8 is out of my price range. I am looking at the panny 20mm or the oly 17mm f2.8. I would rather the Panny but have read it struggles to focus in low light. Are there any other options in this price range or should I try to save a bit more and get the Oly?
Click to expand...

There is the Sigma 19mm f2.8 at just over a £100, I have the 30mm version and I think it is pretty good for the price. No experience of the 19mm though but plenty of reviews on the net.
 
sting said:
... Are there any other options in this price range or should I try to save a bit more and get the Oly?
Click to expand...
At the shorter focal range there isn't much : Sigma 19mm F2.8 I guess.
At the longer range : I spent £230 in the Olympus 45mm F1.8 and it really is a great lens, worth the money.
I also own the sigma 30mm which in my opinion is a good lens for indoor low-light focus despite only having F2.8, and cost £99 new.
 
Ajophotog said:
There is the Sigma 19mm f2.8 at just over a £100, I have the 30mm version and I think it is pretty good for the price. No experience of the 19mm though but plenty of reviews on the net.
Click to expand...

Ulfric M Douglas said:
At the shorter focal range there isn't much : Sigma 19mm F2.8 I guess.
At the longer range : I spent £230 in the Olympus 45mm F1.8 and it really is a great lens, worth the money.
I also own the sigma 30mm which in my opinion is a good lens for indoor low-light focus despite only having F2.8, and cost £99 new.
Click to expand...

Thanks both I think I will get both of these and see which length I prefer as they are so reasonable
 
Am I glad I changed my faulty E-M5 at Jessops on Tuesday. One more day and I would have been stuffed.

The new one seems somehow newer than the old one in the sense that it had more wrapping. Blue plastic stuff around the lens and sticky plastic on the rear LCD. The old faulty one didn't have any of that. Makes me wonder, along the damaged box, whether the first one was some sort of return or a refurb, or something else dodgy.

Anyway it's done now (and Jessops deserved everything they got for years of customer neglect and misdirection - though I do feel sorry for the staff).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top