r.t. dowling

<p>If I was in Matthew's shoes, I think I'd skip the Sigma 30 and get the Panasonic 20 first. With the 20 and eventually the Oly 45, I'm not sure how much use you'd have for the 30. That just seems like an awkward focal length on Micro Four Thirds. (This is why I'll probably never buy the Pentax 40/2.8 [if I end up staying with Pentax], despite it being a great lens -- the focal length on APS-C just doesn't work for me).</p>

<p>That's not bad at all, considering the decent optical quality. Hmmm... another item for the wish list! Assuming I stay with Pentax. ;-)</p>

<p>Nice!</p>

<p>Nick, how much did you pay for yours? And what is considered the "going rate" for these TCs nowadays?</p>

<p>Am I correct to assume that these TCs allow "A" lenses to work in Program and Aperture Priority modes?</p>

<p>I still think the E-PL1 with a 500mm mirror lens is going to be the most cost-effective solution. The E-PL1 does have 720p HD video, despite being old and cheap. And the 12MP stills are nothing to sneeze at! At ISOs below 800, it's as good or better than APS-C cameras of that era.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Maybe I just need to slap a 500mm mirror on an APS-C dSLR?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's actually not a bad idea, considering the distance you need to reach. What might work even better would be a used Olympus E-PL1, which you can find for under $200, and with the 2x crop factor that would you give you a 1000mm field of view. An inexpensive Tamron 70-300, with the proper adapter, would also be a great option (140-600 equivalent when used on the E-PL1).</p>

<p>Very nice images!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Considering the reputation that most 2X TCs have, I'm very impressed by these images!</p>

<p>Just to clarify my previous post: I tend to agree with Ariel that the E-M5 sensor is not tied with the NEX 7 sensor in terms of pure resolution... but that's not necessarily a bad thing, for me anyway. I don't need 24 megapixels right now and probably won't need that many in the future, either, since I rarely print bigger than 8"x10". </p>

 

<p>The problem with the NEX 7 is that it's brutally unforgiving with lenses. A lens that looks decent on NEX 5 may look like crap on NEX 7. That may be true with the D800 as well; I haven't looked at those tests yet.</p>

<p>I'd say the K-5 is ahead of the D7000 by a hair (and K-01 may be ahead of K-5 by a hair), but otherwise your ranking seems pretty reasonable to me.</p>

<p>The sensor in the E-M5 is certainly as good as the last generation of APS-C sensors, which I think is a great accomplishment. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...the only special thing about it is the resemblance to the OM film SLRs which may appeal to the old OM film shooters..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I respectfully disagree. I've never owned an Olympus OM camera and have never shot with one, nor do I have any particular affection or nostalgia for Olympus cameras, and yet I find the EM-5 extremely appealing. As a Pentax shooter, I find the EM-5 to be everything I hoped Pentax's mirrorless camera would be (aside from the smaller sensor, which isn't a dealbreaker).</p>

<p>From the description, it sounds like a Pentax K-5 with DA Limited primes and DA* zooms.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_JPEG</p>

<p>This happens somewhat frequently, especially with products that are very good (or perceived as such) and have built up a big following. I remember the Fuji F30 and F31 selling for double their original price almost a year after they were discontinued. The same thing has happened with the Pentax 35/2 lens -- a few years ago you could buy one brand new for $299 (and that was the everyday normal price, not a special "closeout" deal); now used ones are selling for $450. I'm sure there are many other examples.</p>

<p>I don't consider Patriot Memory to be off-brand. They might not be as well-known in the photography world as SanDisk, but in the PC memory world they're considered one of the better / more-reputable brands. I've been using their stuff for years and never had a problem.</p>

<p>Most of their SD cards come with a 5-year warranty. If you suspect there's a problem with the card, contact Patriot and they may be able to replace it. (But before you do that, try to rescue your images from the card.)</p>

<p>There might be more wrong with your lens than just the SDM motor. According to the resolution tests at PhotoZone, the 17-70 at 70 f/8 is nearly as good as the DA* 16-50 at 50 f/8, and at 40 f/8 the 17-70 is sharper than the 16-50. And, mind you, PhotoZone had a 17-70 that was slightly de-centered at 70. Maybe yours is badly decentered at 70.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One wonders why Olympus hasn't reissued their 25/2.8 pancake in Micro Four Thirds mount.</p>

<p>I don't have a solution for your problem, but you might be interested to know that the free image viewing program IrfanView has an optional "JPEG Lossless Rotation" plugin, which works very well. I use it quite frequently.</p>

<p>fast primes: good question. I'm not sure how many stops they're claiming, but they say that the new system is 5 axis rather than the traditional 3 axis, so in theory it should be able to correct more "types" of vibration than other systems, and should be effective in a greater number of shooting situations/scenarios.</p>

<p>One of the best "small" cameras on the market, which often gets overlooked, is the Olympus XZ-1. DPReview rated it higher than the LX5 and S95. I think it's very worthy of consideration.</p>

<p>How about K-c (for colors)? They went from K-m to K-x to K-r, so they really could go in either direction with the next letter.</p>

<p>The blurred letter on that page does look like a z, though.</p>

<p>I too was very impressed with the results, Bill. I compared it to the D7000 and K-5 (my two favorite DSLRs), and the EM-5 is as good or better than both of them.</p>

<p>When you look at the RAW samples and take noise reduction out of the equation, the EM-5 does show slightly more noise... but not enough to make a major difference, and the detail retention is extremely good.</p>

<p>I REALLY want an EM-5!</p>

<p>Is it my imagination, or are these lenses actually a bit smaller than the Pentax Q primes?! Quite amazing, considering that they cover a much larger image area.</p>

<p>In the late '70s and early '80s, my mother shot a lot of Kodachrome on some kind of high-end 110 camera... can't remember if it was a Pentax or something else, but the slides are gorgeous and look fantastic when projected or printed. I've even scanned a few of them, with great results, although I don't have any of those scans handy to post at the moment.</p>

<p>Beautiful shots, Hin! Thanks for posting them. I am always inspired by your creativity, especially with unique and unusual equipment. :-)</p>

<p>Yeah, their prices are pretty high. Does anyone else find their name (SLR Magic) ironic and/or inaccurate? i.e., none of the cameras they make lenses for are SLRs... shouldn't their name be MILC Magic?</p>