1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Olympus OM-D

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by vindicator, Jan 16, 2012.

  1. 2SHY

    2SHY Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    7,774
    Location:
    Sydney NSW Australia
    Not because of lenses purely down to the crop factor. Prefer APS-C or larger.

    I don't want 14-140 to mean 28-280. I want to mean something closer to normal. Price between a NEX-5N/7 to EM-5 are close so, I would go for the APS-C sensor camera.

    Also, i have access to NEX lenses though, would be prepared to go all out for a camera if i had money and i liked the camera.
     
  2. crankinhaus

    crankinhaus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    179
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I want to try and find a OM 18mm f/3.5. I use an OM 28mm f/2.8 as normal lens on M43 bodies, and it works quite nice, I like the colours out of it, but I have no wide OM lens :(
     
  3. nakey

    nakey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,093
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia.
    would that new Voigtlander 17.5mm lens work for you?

    :D
     
  4. crankinhaus

    crankinhaus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    179
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    :thumbup::thumbup: Yeah, that's right - that could be a great option. So 35mm f/0.95 ... wonder how much that baby is gonna cost, might go nicely on a new OM-D ... hmmm
     
  5. nakey

    nakey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,093
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia.
    I heard US$1500

    Money being relatively no object, i'd get the Voigtlander 25mm F0.95

    US$1199 at Adorama...
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2012
  6. RnR

    RnR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Messages:
    17,374
    Location:
    Brisbane
  7. crankinhaus

    crankinhaus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    179
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
  8. rhes4

    rhes4 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    31

    $1095 from Mainline.
     
  9. jastormont

    jastormont Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,201
    Location:
    Brisbane
    But it is easier to work out what 2x is then 1.5x or 1.6x. :confused:
     
  10. chilloutbuddy

    chilloutbuddy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,494
    Location:
    Melbourne
    what is "normal" LOL
    there's nothing normal about 24X36, the only reason why it's consider normal is that it was here before. Same reason an escimoe would consider the first white explorers abnormal.

    Personally I love 24X36 for one reason and one reason only: it has a squillion lenses to choose from, because it's been around for ever. Give me a format that has enough good lenses designed exclusively for it and I'm a happy puppy (Oly is getting very close). I dont want to have to use lenses designed for bigger formats on smaller formats, because this means that I paid for glass that I'm not using, and the lens is either not as fast, or as wide, or as small, or as cheap as it could have been. Or all of the above.

    I dont give 2 sh!ts about shallow dof or super high iso or another mountain of megapixels.
    (but I respect those who do... and feel a little sorry for them, they're an almost permanently unhappy bunch :D)
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2012
  11. SyN

    SyN Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    7,359
    normal length is the diameter of the imaging circle slightly larger than the sensor format

    so "normal" for m4/3 is about 25mm!
     
  12. chilloutbuddy

    chilloutbuddy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,494
    Location:
    Melbourne
    yeah I know but I tend to disagree somewhat.

    it has been popular to consider a 50mm lens on 35X24 as "normal", because the magnification matched the human eye. So if you looked through a FF SLR with a 50mm lens with one eye, things will look about the same size as looking with your other eye. Same size = normal. Which of course totally ignores the fact that 50mm is narrow as fuck and you feel more like a horse with blinders on the sides of your head than human. thats why others consider a 35mm lens normal, but then things are too small. Cant win. The whole problem is not the final photo as such, you can print that massive to cover your whole field of view. It's more so what you see through the VF while you're taking the photo. It's always either too narrow or too small. One reason why some people love RFs with big magnification viewfinders and 40mm-50mm lenses. What you see is as big as with the naked eye, and what you see is wider than the FoV of the lens because you can see outside the frame. Of course the lens cant, therefore the resulting photo is narrow again. Cant win, photography will always be very different to reality.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2012
  13. lithos

    lithos Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,530
    And that, my friend, is why Pentax made 43mm lens.
     
  14. zach

    zach (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,614
    Location:
    chermside.bris.qld.au:80
    FA43 is in a different class to OM lenses.
     
  15. Slugoid

    Slugoid Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    3,841
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Well, I'm sure the lens will be weather sealed too. Not that I care...first thing I'd do when I get this camera is whack on my 20mm f/1.7 and save up for the 12mm F2.0 :D

    I'm actually excited about this camera because I still have my dad's old OM-1 and secondly, I've invested into m43 to go anywhere else. Was planning to go NEX-7 but the only E-mount lens that interest me is the 24 and 50 f/1.8 and both lenses are bloody huge on the NEX. No thanks....I still think m43 lens is better and smaller than any current E-mount lens.
     
  16. chilloutbuddy

    chilloutbuddy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,494
    Location:
    Melbourne
  17. Slugoid

    Slugoid Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    3,841
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm surprised how much m43 has improved. I don't notice much noise until ISO 12800! On my GF1 it already starts getting noisy at 1600 and at 3200 it's pretty much useless. The E-P1 was marginally better but nothing to write home about.
     
  18. Trysaeder

    Trysaeder Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    233
    Location:
    3104
    Huh? 640 is the highest they show.
     
  19. jastormont

    jastormont Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,201
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Well I might move from the NEX -5 I have now and to this camera. I can then use my E-3 Zuiko Lenses on this and still hope (and from what I have read will be) to buy the E-5 replacement as well.

    Also has anyone heard more about the E-50 (E-30 replacement) as I read something the other day about this coming out mid this year?
     
  20. leok

    leok Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Click on "Part 3" and "Part 4" for the high ISO samples.

    Quite impressive results for a "small" sensor.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: