When you're undeniably right, you're undeniably right! And you, sir, are, how-do-we-say?.....undeniably RIGHT!We can agree that the article was an interesting read. But while I appreciate the subtleties of a good vanilla bean ice cream, mint chocolate chip is the KING!
Actually, there's vanilla ice cream, and then there is white lingerie and thigh high white leather boots vanilla ice cream. My kind of vanilla.We can agree that the article was an interesting read. But while I appreciate the subtleties of a good vanilla bean ice cream, mint chocolate chip is the KING!
I picked up the Olympus 45/1.8 the other day. Price isn't too bad at $330(out of Korea). It's an ugly little thing, but the glass sure isn't. Well, it's not ugly on it's own, but it sure does look naff when mounted on a black E-M5 or a GH1! Thankfully a hood toughens up it's looks a bit. I compare this and my PL 25/1.4 to the EF 50/1.4 USM and Sigma 30/1.4 HSM I had on my (APS-C) Canons and for a similar combined price I feel that I have come out well in front. Neither of those two lenses were anywhere near being sharp until stopped down, and the Sigma was never sharp around the edges.
Now I'm thoroughly confused. Why did you choose the X-Pro over the OM5 if not for the IQ? The OM5 seems like a better camera in every which way to the X-Pro1 apart from the IQ due to it's larger sensor. Especially since you shoot street, wouldn't the OM5 with it's fast AF be a better camera for you?You put a much higher premium on image quality than I do and you scoffed at the notion of "good enough", where good enough was the only salient point I can EVER see regarding IQ. Rashomon indeed! And even though the author and I came down to the same place in terms of the OMD (he rejected the X-Pro while I also chose that), our reasoning in getting there was not at all the same.
I didn't choose the X-Pro over the EM5 - I chose both. I just really love variety in my shooting and the X-Pro is a very different shooting experience than the EM5. And IQ means more to me in low light, where I can get shots with the X-Pro that I couldn't do nearly as well with the EM5. But I do tend to use the EM5 more for street shooting (although I rarely use AF for street). I find the combination of the EM5 with the 12mm lens and the flip up touchscreen to be about perfect for street shooting. But in low light, I can use the X-Pro in situations, even with zone focus, that I can't with the EM5. And I'm not saying I don't care at all about IQ - the X-Pro is really sweet in this regard. But the EM5 is more than good enough in anything but the lowest light, where better matters enough to me that I'm really glad to have both. if I was going to have one camera, it would be the EM5 for its greater versatility.Now I'm thoroughly confused. Why did you choose the X-Pro over the OM5 if not for the IQ? The OM5 seems like a better camera in every which way to the X-Pro1 apart from the IQ due to it's larger sensor. Especially since you shoot street, wouldn't the OM5 with it's fast AF be a better camera for you?
I can't really swing that one now, and not sure how I would even use it, but I cracked up when I saw that blur graph. By far the flattest blur chart I have ever seen on SLRGear.First test of the new M Zuiko 75mm f/1.8. Not a focal length that everyone will want, and not at a price that everyone can afford, but it shows some clear intent that Olympus is getting serious about making higher-end lenses again. Zooms next? (Please!)
Olympus Lens: Primes - Olympus 75mm f/1.8 ED M.Zuiko Digital (Tested) - SLRgear.com!
It's pretty damn impressive, isn't it? Now I'm not going to be rusihing out to buythis lens either, and nor would I really have much of a use for it if I did, but it's good to see that Olympus has even loftier goals than we've seen so far.By far the flattest blur chart I have ever seen on SLRGear.
I completely defer to you on all things technical, but in practical terms I can't get low light high ISO color results from my brother's M9 (processing RAW files in Lightroom 4.1) that are as good as I get from my E-M5 with it's 4/3 sensor.Looking at the numbers on the dx info site- I am guessing they are comparing RAW output from cameras. In this case, CMOS based cameras have already performed signal processing on the chip and the CCD based M8 and M9 have not. Otherwise, the QE numbers for the M9 should be closer to 90%, or the 60% numbers are for cameras without a color filter and without an IR filter.
Sorry but there is no mu43 sensors, I am aware of, if you meant 43 sensors, then latest m43 cameras are matching DR of APSC sensor cameras. OM-D is clear winner there and new Pany G5 also looks promissing in that regards.For me, I still see better DR from the APS sensors like the Pentax K5 than the smaller mu43 sensors. I'm basing this on what I see posted in this forum and the mu43 forum vs. the K5 shots I see on the Pentax mailing list. The latter still seem to my eye to have a more subtle range of gradations whereas mu43 sometimes looks a bit "clipped", especially the highlights. Mind you, I use almost exclusively mu43 and smaller sensor cameras like the X10, so I'm happy with these results. I just can't help but notice the differences. I suspect that as sensor technology improves further, however, these differences in DR will become increasingly moot in most situations.
This is with the M9, ISO2500, 50/1.1 Nokton wide-open. Only lighting at the roller rink is the "LASERS" and Disco lights. It was very dark, the picture is brighter than by eyesight.I completely defer to you on all things technical, but in practical terms I can't get low light high ISO color results from my brother's M9 (processing RAW files in Lightroom 4.1) that are as good as I get from my E-M5 with it's 4/3 sensor.