No announcement yet.

E7 and E-M7 rumours

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: E7 and E-M7 rumours

    Originally posted by Greytop View Post
    Here's a couple of action shots with the m4/3rds system.

    Travelling towards me at a few hundred knots...

    More quick action again towards the view point...

    I don't disagree that it's not ideal for action but to dismiss it outright is a misjudgement. It is possible to use an OM-D for action and get good results.

    And macro...not at problem at all

    An example

    There are two excellent native macro lenses in Oly 60 mm f/2.8 and Panny f/2.8 45 mm plus you can hook up pretty much what you like, the 50 f/2 or Sigma 150 f/2.8 plus an array of manual lenses.

    Which brings me on to wildlife.. again with an adapter and a good old manual lens

    BIF is more more a challenge agreed but again not impossible, there are some very nice examples recently by Brian1208 on this forum.
    Had to just express my admiration of these incredible shots......... really inspiring.
    Blackadder: "Allow me to be the first to offer Dr. Johnson my most sincere contrafibularities! I am anaspeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused him such pericombobulation."


    • #62
      Re: E7 and E-M7 rumours

      Originally posted by katran View Post
      Missing ISO-100 is not a real problem.

      Olympus cameras with the new 16 Mp sensor cannot go lower than ISO-200, but have an higher DR.

      This means you can overexpose with +1 when you do the picture, than later on editing, adjust back the exposure to the corect value.

      Even E-5 has good enough DR and is possible to overexpose with +1....+1.5 without burning some areas of the picture.
      I guess E-M5 is a bit better. No problem at all to overexpose with +1...+1.5.

      So problem solved.
      For coping with high contrast lighting, yes, I agree (although I prefer to use the expose to the right technique rather than risk truly unrecoverable highlights) but I wouldn't advocate deliberately over exposing just to achieve the equivalent of a lower ISO.

      "A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there � even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." ~ Robert Doisneau


      • #63
        Re: E7 and E-M7 rumours

        Want ISO 25 not 100 so I can slow the shutter down with my lenses with no filter threads.
        It's the image that's important, not the tools used to make it.

        David M's Photoblog


        • #64
          Re: E7 and E-M7 rumours

          Originally posted by David M View Post
          Want ISO 25 not 100 so I can slow the shutter down with my lenses with no filter threads.
          Use a bit of welding glass
          Regards Huw

          Olympus equipment
          Capture One Pro
          My flickr


          • #65
            Re: E7 and E-M7 rumours

            Originally posted by Greytop View Post
            For other wildlife instances try some old quality manual focus glass (in my case the Tokina 300mm f/2.8) on your OM-D, it works very nicely and certainly out performs the 50-200 (in my experience)
            Since I bought a Canon 7D and EF400mm f5.6 for BIF I have started using this lens on the E-M5. It really shows just how good the sensor is and just how good the lens is. MF is a delight for static subjects using the magnified EVF and has encouraged me to try other make lenses using MF.
            I actually get more keepers using MF than the E-M5 AF especially for wildlife.

            PBase Galleries:-


            • #66
              Re: E7 and E-M7 rumours

              Originally posted by Johnheatingman
              Unfortunately the above comment is possibly quite true. However, that being the case the fault lies not with the photographer or camera equipment but with the fickle nature of the general public.

              These days, at sporting events, and all other events covered by the media, rows of the "White Lens Brigade" toting muscle ripping canikons equipped with humongous lenses has become the norm. It's little wonder the general public come to associate "professional photographers" with this type of equipment and to form the erronious opinion that in photography ... "size matters".

              As we in this forum all appreciate, the only thing that should concern the general public (clients) is the quality of the end product and not the equipment used to obtain it.

              Rant over


              Just so that I'm not being misunderstood, I wasn't meaning to belittle m4/3 and agree that it is a misconception. I was merely pointing out an observation.