GAS GAS: Please Share your Latest Desires Big and Small

[MoonMind]

I'm thinking of grabbing a refurb OMD body for my remaining lenses. EM10 ii or EM5 ii. The former is super light and cheaper, the latter has a Mg body and is WR. Still, polycarbonate is not an issue for me, WR is not much good given that none of my lenses are WR, and I never use those fancy software features of the EM5.

Don't forget the better EVF and superior I.B.I.S of the E-M5 II ... Good choice either way, though.

I ran into a hard truth today: My much loved 14-150mm II simply doesn't cut it on a 20MP sensor. The images look pleasing enough at small display sizes, but they don't hold up to even moderate scrutiny; they're not very sharp at all even stopped down a bit (f/5.6, f/8). It's really a bit annoying - shooting with that lens is really enjoyable. But I want results with a bit of leeway these days ... On 16MP, there weren't such apparent problems ... or I didn't care as much then. The lens has some redeeming qualities, but that's a bit of a blow to be honest. Still, it makes decisions easier ... Should my strong suspicion that the FZ1000 produces technically better images prove true, I'll definitely move the 14-150mm II on. That's really the most "controversial" step for me because I used to like that lens so much ...

The Nikon Z 24-200mm is beckoning ever more urgently ...

M.

 

[drd1135]

Don't forget the better EVF and superior I.B.I.S of the E-M5 II ... Good choice either way, though.

I ran into a hard truth today: My much loved 14-150mm II simply doesn't cut it on a 20MP sensor. The images look pleasing enough at small display sizes, but they don't hold up to even moderate scrutiny; they're not very sharp at all even stopped down a bit (f/5.6, f/8). It's really a bit annoying - shooting with that lens is really enjoyable. But I want results with a bit of leeway these days ... On 16MP, there weren't such apparent problems ... or I didn't care as much then. The lens has some redeeming qualities, but that's a bit of a blow to be honest. Still, it makes decisions easier ... Should my strong suspicion that the FZ1000 produces technically better images prove true, I'll definitely move the 14-150mm II on. That's really the most "controversial" step for me because I used to like that lens so much ...

The Nikon Z 24-200mm is beckoning ever more urgently ...

M.

Both have 2.36 m dot EVF but the EM10 is OLED. Both have 5 axes IBIS. I think the EM5 has a better processor.

 

[MoonMind]

Both have 2.36 m dot EVF but the EM10 is OLED. Both have 5 axes IBIS. I think the EM5 has a better processor.

I had underestimated the E-10 II then - the E-M5 II I tried next to the E-M10 ("I"), and the EVF was far better ... I wasn't aware they put all those goodies into the E-M10 II!

At the time it came out, I was so happy with the E-M10 I didn't consider upgrading at all and didn't really research the E-M10 II as I should have.

Good to know it's such a viable choice!

M.

 

[drd1135]

I had underestimated the E-10 II then - the E-M5 II I tried next to the E-M10 ("I"), and the EVF was far better ... I wasn't aware they put all those goodies into the E-M10 II!

At the time it came out, I was so happy with the E-M10 I didn't consider upgrading at all and didn't really research the E-M10 II as I should have.

Good to know it's such a viable choice!

M.

I actually had an EM10 II and it was a very nice body, a surprisingly capable entry camera. I gave it to my sister since she still lives in my hometown and uses it to take pictures of my extended family. She has done well as the family photo-historian, so, as they say, that was money well spent.

 

[mike3996]

Why do I have to watch youtube videos?

 

[drd1135]

Why do I have to watch youtube videos?

I understand what I perceive to be his overall point. If photography is a passion for you, the shooting experience with a particular camera is important even if the results from many cameras are pretty similar. A favorite comparison of mine is cars and cameras. Most modern cars do a great job of getting you from point A to point B and are pretty reliable. However, many of us buy cars based on style, color, acceleration, power, and off-road capabilities we don't really need, etc. The same is true for cameras. Some folks believe cameras are "only a tool" but years on photography forums have convinced me that statement is wildly inaccurate for most people. We love particular cameras and lenses in spite of and sometimes because of their flaws. Most enthusiasts, who are the biggest market for high end cameras, love using the camera and are not simply result-oriented. For me, I prefer simpler interfaces. I don't want a million buttons on the back of my camera. I've tried, and unless I use a control a lot I just don't remember where they are.
The X-Pro 3 should be good for me but I just don't use the optical VF. I had a used X Pro 1 and currently have an X100V and I always use the EVF. I don't have preference for either the RF or SLR style bodies and that is one of the "features" of the X Pro 3. I do wonder if I would like the LCD screen, since I'm mainly use the tilt screen for low angle and waist level shooting. Despite owning Fuji lenses, I think if I had the money for an X pro 3 I would buy a Nikon Z5 instead. This makes little sense but is consistent with my overall point.

 

[Ad Dieleman]

Why do I have to watch youtube videos?

Nice video, had a good nap while watching it

 

[gryphon1911]

I currently desiring getting serious about podcasting, voice over work and more into video production.

I've got a Fifine podcasting USB microphone setup arriving today to help toward that. This is a cardioid design that should help cut down the ambient noises in my home office. All my other microphones are more sensitive, "hotter" with a wider pickup pattern, so not as ideal for the podcasting/voice over.

I'm also trying to determine some video projects that make sense. Given the current pandemic, and the lack of my "usual" work...it is a bit more challenging.

So, my desire is to work toward a better videography level for myself.

 

[mike3996]

The X-Pro 3 should be good for me but I just don't use the optical VF. I had a used X Pro 1 and currently have an X100V and I always use the EVF

When I had the X100T I went with the EVF all the time too. The OVF is nice but you can't confirm focus so it's kind of useless.

X-Pro3 in a sense has a worse OVF than Xpro2 but the EVF is vastly better = for someone who continues to prefer the EVF could like Xpro3 a lot. (Then again, why not go for X-E3, ah well!)

Sadly the screen solution is not for me, so so far it's easy to dismiss this camera.

 

[tonyturley]

After this morning, I'm thinking about reasonable m4/3 telephoto options. I had left my P 45-150 at home, and encountered a Bald Eagle, Osprey, and Great Blue Heron. Not sure how much the P 45-150 would have helped me, but it would have been better than the O 45/1.8 I had on the Pen-F. Trouble is, I spotted all of those while on my bike, so the P 45-150 may be my best carry option.

 

[drd1135]

After this morning, I'm thinking about reasonable m4/3 telephoto options. I had left my P 45-150 at home, and encountered a Bald Eagle, Osprey, and Great Blue Heron. Not sure how much the P 45-150 would have helped me, but it would have been better than the O 45/1.8 I had on the Pen-F. Trouble is, I spotted all of those while on my bike, so the P 45-150 may be my best carry option.

The P 35-100 4-5.6 is very small and should easily be a bike option at about 2 in long and 5 oz.

Panasonic 35-100mm

Lumix G Vario 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. Micro Four Thirds Lens, Black

www.adorama.com

I have one and it's a great lens. Only 200 equivalent but maybe you could lure them closer with some Purina Eagle Chow.

 

[MoonMind]

A little update on my superzoom explorations: The FZ1000's lens performs *clearly* better than the Olympus 14-150mm II at the long end. Which means that, for all intends and purposes and and with the obvious exception of the Olympus 12-100mm PRO, the FZ1000 is actually the better buy than a superzoom, regardless of brand and model. And the FZ1000 II handles even better, though IQ is basically the same.

Which brings me back to the ongoing discussion in this thread: Yes, I know the RX10 III and IV are superior to the FZ1000. But also much more expensive and considerably bigger and bulkier. The FZ1000 is a steal if you need reach, and it's actually pretty portable (only a tiny bit heavier than the E-M5 III with 14-150mm II, for instance).

That's not to say you shouldn't own a dedicated tele zoom for , though - just don't pick one of the superzooms if you want solid IQ; though that's only because if you really want reach, the 12-100mm isn't the best solution - even though it's the best superzoom on the market as of to date (though by some accounts, the Tamron 28-200mm seems to come quite close). By extension, the Nikon Z 24-200mm wouldn't solve that problem, either. But it'd provide portable reach for the Z6 without breaking bank or back. And from what I read and see, it offers pretty respectable performance. And since there's no 70-200mm f/4 on the Z lens roadmap, it may be the only portable option for quite some time.

The thing is, though: Here in Switzerland, the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 PRO and the Nikon Z 24-200mm virtually cost the same, they weigh the same and are almost the same size. So there *is* an attractive alternative to the Nikon zoom if, like me, you own both systems ... But I somehow feel it would defeat the idea of as a compact system ... furthermore, if I get the additional grip for the E-M5 III, I have to factor that in, and size and weight will be almost exactly that of the FF system, without any gains in reach, but actually higher costs. Given the better high ISO performance of the Z6, the shooting envelope is almost identical as well, with slight advantages for the Z6. It's still possible that the 12-100mm remains the better lens optically, though if the 24-200mm holds up on the Z7, that advantage could be negligible.

Well, since size and cost (not counting the grip) are a wash, I think I'd better wait for technical reviews of the 24-200mm before deciding.

M.

 

[tonyturley]

Thanks for the detailed review, Matt. I am hesitant to buy into yet another camera, but when I look at the FZ1000 compared to a Pen-F with an O 12-200, it is actually shorter and weight is comparable, and the cost is considerably less. I'm not sure how highly regarded the O 12-200 is compared to the FZ1000. I do know I briefly owned an FZ2500 a couple of years ago, and I wasn't overly impressed with the IQ. Perhaps it was me, or perhaps I had a less than optimal copy, because I've seen some very nice samples from the FZ2500. Perhaps it's time to give a superzoom another try.

 

[MoonMind]

Thanks for the detailed review, Matt. I am hesitant to buy into yet another camera, but when I look at the FZ1000 compared to a Pen-F with an O 12-200, it is actually shorter and weight is comparable, and the cost is considerably less. I'm not sure how highly regarded the O 12-200 is compared to the FZ1000. I do know I briefly owned an FZ2500 a couple of years ago, and I wasn't overly impressed with the IQ. Perhaps it was me, or perhaps I had a less than optimal copy, because I've seen some very nice samples from the FZ2500. Perhaps it's time to give a superzoom another try.

For the record: The FZ2500's lens doesn't have the same reputation as the FZ1000's - keep that in mind when considering those two cameras. What I've read about the - rather bulky, btw. - Olympus 12-200mm wasn't that convincing, either. However, at least around here, the FZ1000 II with its improved ergonomics is only marginally more expensive than the original by now. For all those reasons, I never considered the 12-200mm in the first place ... But I get its appeal - it would keep you within one system. I just can't find reasons enough to recommend it. I'd still pick the FZ1000 again.

I just reread the FZ1000 II review on dpreview.com - yes, the Sony RX10 III and IV are better in all respects, but as stated, their price and size puts them out of my comfort zone as a secondary camera, and the FZ1000, first or second model, is reasonably suitable for that role (I'd get the II today, btw. - the improvements are worth the extra cost even if they're not important enough to upgrade IMO). The Sony cameras, on the other hand, are true one-for-all solutions with lots of powerful extra features I don't need - I want reach and versatility on the (relatively) cheap while maintaining reasonable quality. I thought I had two options, but it turned out now I only have one (which isn't weather sealed ). But one at least, and a solid one at that, as far as performance goes. Which means I can start prioritising other things for the next lens move. That said, if I could trust myself to use it regularily, I'd buy the Panasonic 50-200mm f/2.8-4 and be done for . But that's not really a portable solution, and it's definitely overkill for occasional use, as it would be the case with me. The FZ1000 is - for me personally - the much more sensible solution, and absolutely good enough for my purposes as a non-birder (though its S-AF is actually really fast and accurate - better marksmen than me could use it successfully, I have no doubt).

M.

 

[tonyturley]

I think that's what has kept me from buying the PL 50-200; it's not portable, at least not for biking, and at a minimum of $1,300 USD used, that is a ton of $$$ for occasional use. I'm not a birder either, but every now and then I come across an impressive sight that has me yearning for more reach and better IQ. I could go all year and not see a Bald Eagle, Osprey, or Great Blue Heron, and today I saw all three in a single 3 hour bike ride. At least I was able to eek out some images, such as they are.

I did want to ask, Matt, if you ever carry your FZ1000 when you are out biking, and if so, how has that worked out for you? I do very little hiking these days due to a persistent soreness in my foot, so biking is my prime source of recreation. Strange that the problem with my foot doesn't affect me in any way when I bike.

 

[MoonMind]

I think that's what has kept me from buying the PL 50-200; it's not portable, at least not for biking, and at a minimum of $1,300 USD used, that is a ton of $$$ for occasional use. I'm not a birder either, but every now and then I come across an impressive sight that has me yearning for more reach and better IQ. I could go all year and not see a Bald Eagle, Osprey, or Great Blue Heron, and today I saw all three in a single 3 hour bike ride. At least I was able to eek out some images, such as they are.

I did want to ask, Matt, if you ever carry your FZ1000 when you are out biking, and if so, how has that worked out for you? I do very little hiking these days due to a persistent soreness in my foot, so biking is my prime source of recreation. Strange that the problem with my foot doesn't affect me in any way when I bike.

I'm maybe not the best person to ask - because for me it's the other way round: I rarely shoot a lot when I'm out biking. However, I've carried the FZ1000 on my bike in a photo backpack (Mindshift Rotation 180 Trail - the brand is now owned by ThinkTank and the Trail has sadly been discontinued, I think it's still the most interesting for the very purpose we're discussing); I haven't yet used it with my smaller photo sling bag (LowePro Slingshot Edge 150 AW), so I can't comment on that, but it would work if I rearranged the padding ... The FZ1000 fits into the rotating belt pouch of the Trail, its signature feature, with ease and is simple and quick to deploy from there - and it's not heavy enough to make carrying it cumbersome, even though I prefer not to wear a backpack for longer rides these days (other body parts turn sore quicker with one on my back ...); of course, I can fit the camera into my carrier bag as well (in an additional padded bag or insert that fits in there - I own several of those), but I'm no longer as comfortable as I was as to reaching behind me for the camera - the back's not as flexible as it was, and I don't want to contract lumbago when on the road ...

The FZ1000, however, through its simple all-in-one design, makes deploying it with one hand very easy - you can actually shoot it one-handed quite comfortably, so it could actually ride in a belt pack or small shoulder bag - like the one I actually store it in, a LowePro Toploader Zoom 45 AW II - as well; I have to try that out one of these days. This type of one-handed use wouldn't be possible with the E-M3 III at all (unless I shifted the on/off switch to the dual switch on the back - but I tried that and found it didn't feel sturdy enough for constant use), but the GX9 with the 14-150mm II works well enough this way - except that you can't zoom it with one hand, like you can with the FZ1000. I have set the FZ1000's rocker to step-zoom btw. - it makes zooming more predictable. So, all in all, for on-the-go shooting, I think the FZ1000 has further advantages over just about any camera. And having one hand free to steady your bike can be, well, handy ...

Thanks for asking - I hadn't considered all that very clearly before ...

EDIT: I just put the Toploader on my regular belt - no, I wouldn't want to ride that way ... but a clip might work better; I won't use it that way, though - too dangerous.

M.

 

[davidzvi]

I'm not completely convinced - plastic lens mount, less sealing ... and it's clearly bulkier than the 16-50mm f/3.5-6.3. Not big as such, but not that small, either. Light, though ... It's likely that I'll pass on this - but I'm still interested in seeing its performance. The 24-200mm remains a much more interesting option for the Z6 and Z7 in my view, anyway. By the way, firmware updates are in for those two cameras as well, something I'm looking forward to exploring, because AF updates for the Z system are needed (the flaws are minor overall, but quite annoying at times).

The Z5 - has me scrachting my head a bit. I think it's a good thing that it exists, but it puts the Z6 in a somewhat awkward spot. Just like the D610 did for the D750 at first glance, but the latter turned out to be the much more compelling option in so many ways. However, the Z5 really is very close to the Z6 and the better entry/swap option for sure (dual SD card slots, for one thing - you can reuse your cards). That's a good thing for the Z system as a whole, but somewhat less fortunate for the Z6.

For me, the Z6 still is the better buy, and anyway, it's the best overall camera I own, period. The Z5 won't make be give up the D750 as a second (not secondary!) Nikon body, either. I just compared the Z6 and the D750 side-by-side for the umpteenth time - and findings are always the same: With bigger lenses, the D750 still handles a lot better than the Z6. By extension, the Z5 doesn't change that (nor had I thought it would).

Better to look into the lens options again - that's far more promising at the moment. My sights remain firmly set on the 24-200mm - so much so that I already chose the lenses I'm planning to trade in for it. Four so far ... all zooms ... and there may even be more. But I'm still doing a couple of re-evaluations to determine if I should really go that far ... but it's probably the right thing to do. I'll go into this in more detail once things are moving ...

M.

Sensor and video limitations seem to be the biggest differences between the Z5 & Z6. Yes there are others like the cards and FPS. But from a purely photo stand point the sensor seems to be the big one. I think that would make the difference for me and why I have to agree the Z6 (and probably up coming Z6s) would be my pick between the Z6 and Z5. But those of use on forums like this are probably much more knowledgeable about what BSI is and the difference it can make.

I'm not sure the average buy would really understand and everything thing I've seen about the Z5 points to it being a winner for Nikon.

I'm thinking of grabbing a refurb OMD body for my remaining lenses. EM10 ii or EM5 ii. The former is super light and cheaper, the latter has a Mg body and is WR. Still, polycarbonate is not an issue for me, WR is not much good given that none of my lenses are WR, and I never use those fancy software features of the EM5.

If it's just for a small "sub" system than I'd probably look at the E-M10.2 over the E-M5.2. They are both feature packed, but the E-M10.2 is just a much simpler camera while the E-M5.2 (and both my Pen F and E-M1.2) can, at times, be more complicated than they really need to be.

 

[davidzvi]

Have to admit, the Z's are getting interesting. I still have a good chuck in the bank from the sale of my Nikon gear that I've been hanging onto for an Olympus Pro telephoto. I was hoping for that companion to the 12-100 Pro, but that's questionable now. So what should/can I do?

Buy the upcoming 100-400 (non Pro) and 12-45 Pro. I could also probably sell off the PanLeica 8-18 in favor of the Pro 8-25 if that gets released; that range sounds great and it might even make the 12-45 unnecessary.

OR

I could sell off my E-M1.2, O12-100 Pro, PL8-18, and maybe a few primes. With that and what I still have I could probably pick up a Z7 kit, 24-200, and .... (Especially after the Z7s is released) I'd probably also add an old O9-18 to go with my Pen F. But there are compact primes on the lens roadmap that could come close to replacing the Pen F as well.

Yes the sale to JIP has me thinking more about option 2. But there are other considerations as well. Light is the Z7 supported by Lightroom 6.14? So far I've been able to dodge this as both the E-M1.2 and Pen F are supported.

 

[tonyturley]

After scouring through image samples on Flickr (some of them were even from my home state), I ordered an FZ1000 II for rental. If I like it and it works for me, I'm going to buy one and clear out some of my meager gear collection to make room for it. I don't need 3 or 4 cameras sitting around my desk area. I have a Rixen & Kaul bicycle bar bag that I used today to carry the Pen-F and several lenses, so it may fit in that. We'll see. I'm thinking the Pen-F, O 45/1.8, O 17/1.8, P 45-150, and X-30 will go if I like the FZ1000 II. The X-E2 would stay.

 

[drd1135]

After scouring through image samples on Flickr (some of them were even from my home state), I ordered an FZ1000 II for rental. If I like it and it works for me, I'm going to buy one and clear out some of my meager gear collection to make room for it. I don't need 3 or 4 cameras sitting around my desk area. I have a Rixen & Kaul bicycle bar bag that I used today to carry the Pen-F and several lenses, so it may fit in that. We'll see. I'm thinking the Pen-F, O 45/1.8, O 17/1.8, P 45-150, and X-30 will go if I like the FZ1000 II. The X-E2 would stay.

3 or 4?