Latest with the E-M1 Mark II and 12-100mm f4 M. Zuiko

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Greg M, Nov 10, 2017.

  1. Nice combination to carry on a morning hike. Also had the 7-14mm f2.8 and 25mm f1.2 in the bag. Never reached for either one.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Glad to see how well the 12-100mm can do.

    I am streamlining my Olympus kit for travelling abroad. Will be leaving the 12-40 and 40-150 at home. The kit range will be:

    fisheye, 7-14mm, 12-100mm, 100-400mm, 300mm with 1.4. Main camera EM1 II, backup using EM1 fitted with 12-42mm pancake lens. Accessories: Naturescapes Skimmer II, traveller tripod and ballbead, Singhray ND variable pack, Singhray grad ND set.

    Oh, also FL900 flash + Magpod MagBeam and MagBounce.

    Anything missing? Anything I don't need?
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2017
  3. That’s a pretty massive streamlined system, LOL.

    My “smaller” system is the E-M1 Mark II, 7-14, 12-100 and 25/1.2. I couldn’t imagine totting both the 300mm f4 and 100-400 together in one bag. The 7-14, 12-100 and 100-400 seems ideal without the 300. I was looking to buy one or the other, opting in the end for the 300. The bag I have today has the 7-14, 12-40, 40-150 f2.8’s and 300mm f4.

    The 12-40mm f2.8 seems downright tiny after using the 12-100 for a while.
     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  4. Thanks for the feedback Greg. Your thought makes sense. Adding the 300+1.4 would only add a marginal focal length over the 100-400 lens. My reasoning was, psychologically - I am thinking perhaps the 300mm is a smidgen sharper - though I have not yet seen any evidence of it based on my own rather-limited experiences with these two lenses at this time - and all hand-held. Actually the 100-400 seems extremely sharp. The thing to do now would be to put both on a tripod to compare apple to apple before making the decision to take both or just one. Thanks.

    Actually I like the 12-40 and 40-150 a lot. Just seem like a lot of lenses to change especially when more shots are at the 12-100 distance.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
  5. Mary,
    Are you shooting both Nikon FX and Olympus m43?
    How is that working?

    I am thinking of doing similar but lighter.
    Nikon for DX/FX my normal gear, and Olympus OM-D-E-M10 or M5.
    I was thinking of the Olympus as a tweener, between the dslr and P&S, when I don't want to carry the dslr, and I want something better than my P&S.
     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  6. I am mostly shooting Olympus M43 these days. I use the Nikon D800 and D300s and have recently added Nikon D500. Hwvr, I have not been doing much serious shooting these days. I am thinking to just keep the D500 eventually and discard the others.

    You will love it. Pairing it with the Olympus 12-42mm "pancake lens" is great as it would not be much larger than a point-and-shoot. However, E-M10 and M5 are not likely to be as good as Nikon for tracking fast action such as bird-in-flight. The Olympus E-M1 Mark II, however, has likely caught up. I would like to do some apple-to-apple comparison sometime.
     
  7. Mary,
    My biggest concern with mirrorless in general is, to get decently good AF performance, it seems that I have to go up to the $2k pro line cameras. Which is priced like a D750 :-( Whereas I can get decent/good AF performance with consumer dslrs.

    I checked the Olympus site, and the E-M1 has phase detect AF, the E-M10 and M5 have contrast detect AF. And from what I have been able to read, the phase detect is faster than contrast detect AF, which backs up your comment.

    One of my major issues with P&S cameras is the shutter lag, where the shutter fires 1-2 seconds after I press the shutter. So almost useless on kids, who never stay still. Taking pictures of the kids at a family party with a P&S is an exercise in frustration.
    The AF performance of the consumer priced mirrorless looks to be effectively the same. Even if it fires immediately (no shutter lag), if the AF can't track the moving kid, I don't get a sharp shot.

    I was originally thinking about the D3400 + 18-55, which is probably the smallest Nikon dslr package that I could get. But as you said, the Olympus is even smaller, so makes a great "grab camera." And the E-M10-mk2 comes in at an attractive price for a secondary camera.
     
  8. I don't have experience with E-M10, Meanwhile the E-M1 has come down considerably in price after E-M1 Mark II has been released (for more than a year now). I have not experienced shutter lag (that I am aware of) with either. I believe you can acquire a great-condition E-M1 for well under $1K. See B&H 9+ listing (link). Even the super-duper new Mark II can be bought for well below $2K if you shop carefully. I think a small and capable camera makes it easy to photograph children, as you can easily hold it with one hand and shoot multiple bursts. Good luck Gary!
     
  9. THANKS MARY
    That is a a GREAT price :)
    Now to make up my shopping list.
     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  10. Mary,
    May I get your opinion on a standard lens for the E-M1.
    • Olympus 14-42 EZ "pancake" lens
    • Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45
    • Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42 II (I think this is a sucessor to the 14-45)
    I like the compact Olympus 14-42 EZ, but how will it work on the larger E-M1 vs the smaller E-M10?
    The Panasonic 14-45 has some good reviews.
     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  11. Gary, of the three lenses you mentioned, I only have the 14-42 Pancake lens - bought it for the thin "pancake" feature. I won't recommend it to be used as an all-purpose standard lens because it is designed with projection and retraction, much like some point-and-shoot design.

    I don't have the Panasonic lenses you mentioned, but I think either of these Panasonic lenses will do well and the price is reasonable. There are reviews on the net and here are two:

    Review of Panasonic 14-45 lens
    Review of Panasonic 14-42 lens

    When you are ready to switch to "pro-level" lenses, you will know. Good luck! :)
     
  12. Or the Olympus 12-50

    The pancake lens is the most compact but the 12-50 would be a NICE coverage 24-100 FX equivalent.

    Oh my, I feel like I'm sliding down a rabbit hole ;)
     
  13. There is no need for fear. It's all good. :)

    It seems the Olympus 12-50 is a pretty good lens. See Review.

    The 12-40mm may cost slightly more as an f/2.8 "pro lens". Currently very popular is the 12-100 f/4 "pro" lens. It is expensive but really really good. I love it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2018
  14. Narrowing down to the 2 lens kit of:
    • 14-42 pancake lens (for compactness)
    • Olympus 12-50 or Panasonic 12-60 (as the GP lens)
    The 12-100 f/4 is really attractive, but the price puts it on the shelf, for now. But it effectively does what would need 2 lenses.
     
  15. Exactly. Since I got it, it is on the camera just about all the time. I no longer need the 12-40mm. It's so good I do not hesitate to just "point and shoot" and know I would get good results. So I just concentrate on zooming to the appropriate focal length to make a good composition.
     
  16. Mary, you are digging me further down that rabbit hole ;)
    Maybe I can get the 14-42 pancake first, since I still want that compact lens, for easy carry.
    Then save for the 12-100, rather than the 12-50 or 12-60.
     
  17. :D
     
  18. Mary and Greg,
    Either of you have a need for the 20 or 25mm f/1.7 as a FAST normal for lower/indoor light?
    I'm working on/planning the lens kit.
     
  19. I am a bad one to address this question to - as I love zoom lenses, hate to carry a lot of fixed lenses when a zoom can do the job and more when all pros and cons are considered; and I believe the ISO can always be cranked up to accommodate low light in most situations. A fisheye lens, however, is a different story. That said, I do have the 75mm f/1.8 fixed lens - only because its sharpness is supposed to be "legendary". I have to admit that I have yet to use it in any serious manner. Some people do use it as a macro lens though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2018
  20. As an m43 user for 7 years I guess I may be qualified to stick my nose into this discussion. With respect to continuous focus performance, it is simply not reliable on my EM-5, and would anticipate the same for any Olympus without PDAFs (everything but the EM-1s / as of this date). They can track faces, and single focus performance is lightning fast. You can also tap on the screen whereby the camera will focus on that spot you tapped on and then shoot the image, but I only use the single focus setting. It is my understanding that the latest Panasonic cameras with DFD technology have decent continuous focus performance (with Panasonic lenses), but it doesn't work with my Olympus lenses, so I need to wait for Olympus to sell an EM-5 sized body with PDAFs.

    In terms of standard zoom lenses, and based personal experience and reviews which I trust, the Oly 12-50 is not a well regarded lens, while the Oly 12-40mm, 12-100mm, and Panny 12-35mm and 12-60mm are all excellent. The Oly 14-42mm and Panny 12-32mm pancake zooms seem to be well regarded by a number of reviewers.

    The zoom vs prime discussion is timeless (and endless), and I find that the Oly 12-40 is good enough to generally replace most of my primes, though I usually carry an Oly 25mm f1.8 for low light or if I really want to travel light. I find that the Oly 45mm f1.8 is capable of producing images with a rendering that is different than the zoom (perhaps more micro-contrast), and is still worth owning and using.

    best of luck
     

Share This Page