- Messages
- 934
- Name
- Huw
- Edit My Images
- No
Those are lovely Huw. I would love that lens but I don't think I'd be any good at hand holding it.
Great Macro shots Huw. Very nice indeed.
James
Thanks Lindsay and James
Those are lovely Huw. I would love that lens but I don't think I'd be any good at hand holding it.
Great Macro shots Huw. Very nice indeed.
James
Oh James N I do like that!
How much better do people think the new one will be.
Yes, and Olympus have a history of particularly simplistic/poor C-AF tracking in their (phase-detect) DSLRs anyway. I'm not sure they even WANT to have a decent tracking system ...... And a lot of people seem to think that adding phase-detect AF on sensor will be some magic bullet to amazing focus tracking (it's not, there's much more to it than simply detecting phase information).
Yes, and Olympus have a history of particularly simplistic/poor C-AF tracking in their (phase-detect) DSLRs anyway. I'm not sure they even WANT to have a decent tracking system ...
I'll just be shooting every day life for personal use.
Cripes, thanks for the earlier link about HDEW - the e-m5 body only is £585...can feel my resolve cracking.
What are they like as a retailer? Been using SRS happily for years, are they similarly trustworthy, UK warrantied stock etc?
EDIT - just found the huge thread about HDEW, yay for the search button...
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=215462&highlight=hdew
Do Olympus lenses allow filters and for that matter lens hoods?
Thanks
Cripes, thanks for the earlier link about HDEW - the e-m5 body only is £585...can feel my resolve cracking.
What are they like as a retailer? Been using SRS happily for years, are they similarly trustworthy, UK warrantied stock etc?
EDIT - just found the huge thread about HDEW, yay for the search button...
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=215462&highlight=hdew
Thanks for your help. This makes the decision much easier.Yes and Yes. Most (if not all?) lenses take front screw filters typically around 46mm to 56mm diameter (which are cheaper becuase they're smaller). But Olympus have the crazy nuts policy of NOT including hoods with their lenses bang::bang so you'll need to buy em seperate ... but the official ones are expensive, so most people use 3rd party ebay alternatives that seem to work just great (eg JJC, or is it JCC, whatever).
Edit: it's also worth mentioning that I've read reports that some of the primes can benefit a lot from a hood (perhaps more so than most people typically think about with dslrs), so I always attach them when possible for better contrast. Why wouldn't you when they don't cost much and add some protection as well as improve IQ?
Edit 2: And because of the screw thread you can also attach square drop in filters (grads and NDs etc) via an adapter like the Cokin P.
Will
Thanks for your help. My last lens goes this weekend so I'm nearly thereI think the only native MFT lenses (by the system manufacturers) that don't take filters are the Panasonic 7-14mm and Panasonic 8mm fisheye.
I doubt the Samyang 7.5mm fisheye takes them either.
I don't know about the other third party lenses. I would think all lenses except ultra-ultra-wides and fisheyes would have a thread.
Dropped another £10 now, £575
Look, over there, that's my resolve lying on the floor crying!
Now a member of the OM-D club
Come on postie...
My 100-300 arrived today. Well built for the price, very small for its reach and balances nicely on the OMD. I was a bit concerned over sample variations but mine seems to be a good one - a couple of quick shots in the garden this evening produced some very pleasing results. Looking forward to having a proper play at the weekend.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/littlebarker/9368615320/
Panasonic 100-300 Test 1 by little barker, on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/littlebarker/9365837813/
Panasonic 100-300 Test 2 by little barker, on Flickr
James
Awww, you could have bought mine that I'm selling in the classified section :-(
Lindsay I like your colours and subtle vignetting : they all match. Crisp, too.
Hi Lindsay, great set of pics again! But I couldn't help thinking about your comments on shutter speed.
When I shot my 5dii I came to the opinion that with the higher pixel densities on modern sensors you really needed more like 1/(1.5 x focal length) to keep things critically sharp. Then, with my OMD I naturally increased this closer to 1/(2 x FL) on the basis of (a) even higher pixel density, (b) the very light weight camera/lens combo being harder to hold steady, and (c) a suspicion (not tested) that the IBIS effectiveness starts to fall away quite a bit at longer focal lengths.
So shooting my 40-150 @ 150mm I try not to let SS drop below 1/500 (or perhaps 1/400) rather than the conventional rule of thumb of 1/300. Often though, this bumps up the ISO a bit, which is the lesser of two evils (I'd rather a noisier sharp image than a blurry one).
Then, here you are, producing some fine shots, indicating that 1/(1 x FL) works great. So now I'm wondering if I should be making much more effort to hold the camera steady (didn't think my technique was that bad!), or if, in reality, while possible to get great results at 1/(1xFL), the keeper rate actually drops off a bit or you have to be really steady to maintain it?
It would be nice to hear your thoughts having spent a lot of time with the 100-300 where this stuff matters a lot.
Will
Hi Will, my view is that it depends very much on the individual and the subject - I think some people are better than others at handholding at longer focal lengths. I'm not as good at this as some of the photographers I know, but employing sound technique and putting in some practice does make a difference and I found that although conventional wisdom should be quoted as a guide, it is often possible to successfully shoot at slower shutter speeds without recourse to a tripod.
However this is also subject dependent to an extent since clearly some subjects will move faster than others and that in turn will influence our calculation. Other factors exist, as you point out the size to weight ratio is very important - and this is where IBIS has additional value in my opinion. I find the 40 to 150 quite hard to hold steady when zoomed out because it is very lightweight but if I concentrate I can still obtain sharp results at comparatively slow shutter speeds so I would attribute that to very good in body stabilisation and photographer concentration. I often shoot the 40 to 150, at the long end, using shutter speeds below 1/100, even though we might strive for 1/300 or higher. I juggle all of those things when I'm determining the shutter speed I am likely to need, rather than relying entirely on the standard equation. The 100-300 is quite a niche lens, and it's not an easy lens to use much of the time, so one has to work harder to overcome some of the challenges it poses. But the equation is always a good starting point for newcomers. Hope that makes sense.