leandro_dutra1

<p>Thank you, Rogers, but you being in the US makes it a more difficult proposition.</p>

<p>I need to get a pair of Panasonic Leicas D: a Summilux 25mm f1.4 and a Vario-Elmar 14–150mm. The thing is, I want it as cheap as possible, and I need them at Rome by July the 12th at the latest.<br>

Any tips?</p>

<blockquote>50mm equ FOV is about the same as human eyes FOV</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens">Not quite</a> .</p>

<p>Alſo bear in mind not all R or M lenſes will be telecentric enough to avoid vignetting and chromatic aberrations at ðe corners of the image, ſo it would be nice to experiment before buying.</p>

<p>For a beginner, the ‘kit’ ſemiprofeßional Zuiko 14–54mm II is a great choice. Olympus does have a 70mm equivalent, ðe Zuiko 35mm macro 1:3.5, and a 50mm equivalent, ðe 25mm 1:2.8 pancake. Alſo available are Sigmas equivalents to 48mm (24mm 1:1.8), 60mm (30mm 1:1.8), and a Leica equivalent to 50mm (25mm 1:1.4).<br>

Not only ðoſe Four Þirds prime lenſes, but Zuiko and Leica zooms are nearly as good as ðe primes, and Four Þirds cameras accept nearly all manual prime lenſes from oðer ſyſtems þrough adaptors. Obviouſly Leica Rs and Zuiko OMs are ðe moſt popular.</p>

<p>Panaſonic ðemſelves ſtated Leica would not put ðeir name at the Lumix 7–14mm becauſe it was not good enough — in ðis caſe, becauſe it need digital correction for vignetting and chromatic aberrations at ðe corners. It ſounds ſtrange as ðe M8 alſo needs ðis, but ðen it is not a digital ſyſtem; and alſo ðe D-Lux 4, but again it is not a ſyſtem camera.<br>

Olympus has ðe ſame philoſophy as Panaſonic reports Leica to have: no digital corrections needed at digital photography ſyſtems.<br>

When comparing different ſyſtems, pleaſe bear in mind boþ quality — Zuiko glaß is top quality uſually — and ðe focal lengþ equivalence multiplier of 1.96 or ſomeþing ðe like.</p>

<blockquote>The corner problem Leonardo mentioned is one of the reasons some Canon users mount certain Leica SLR lenses</blockquote>

<p>Actually the problem is more generic ðan only Canon. It happens wiþ digital ſenſor arrays in general, because each individual ſenſor (‘pixel’) actually captures light only at ðe bottom of a kind of well. Ðus, light arriving at any angle ſignificantly different from 90° will not fully reach ðe ſenſor proper, and obviouſly ðe effect is worſe at ðe corners.</p>

<p>Ðis is alſo ðe cauſe of ðe need for ‘digital-ſpecific lenſes’, and even of ðe ‘digital-ſpecific’ Four Þirds Systems. It ariſes out of a combination of lenſes, ſenſor ſize and diſtance to ðe ſenſor, ſo 24×36mm cameras need huge and expenſive lenſes, πAPS-C cameras generally need bigger, more expenſive lenſes ðan Four Þirds but not as much as 24×36mm, and Micro Four Þirds haſn’t yet been able to match reflex Four Þirds ſuperb optical performance, ðus no Leica or Zuiko Micro Four Þirds glaß yet.</p>

<p><blockquote>Neither Pentax nor Sony has Canon-style corner problems and Pentax offers its own superb, rectilinear ultra-wide primes. Gossip is only gossip, but Pentax is likely soon to offer over 20MP, K20D is already acceptably low noise at 1600, and doesn't suffer Canon's detail-softening noise reduction at 800.</blockquote><br>

Still ðey are much bigger ðan anyþing Four Þirds, ſpecially Micro Four Þirds. I don’t underſtand ðis obſeßion wiþ high-ISO, low noiſe when I would much raðer carry any Four Þirds camera and lenſes ðan any pſeudo-APS-C (no ſo-called APS-C camera has a ſenſor of actual APS-C dimenſions). Ðe worſt camera is ðe one you left home when ðe photography opportunity preſents itſelf — or ðe one which left you tired and aching.<br>

Not to mention being able to use any Four Þirds lenſes but ðe Panaſonic Micro Four Þirds wiþout having to worry about digital artifacts, and any manual lenſes wiþ an adaptor. No dSLR will ever match Micro Four Þirds video, nor any APS-C will match ðe Four Þirds combination of portability and quality — even if Minolta & Pentax have telecentric lenſes, ðey are much bigger and more expenſive to be able to cover a bigger, wider ſenſor. ¡And the GH1 multiaſpect ſenſor!</p>

<p><blockquote>I don't understand obsession with the still photo capability of this cheap, tiny, reportedly highly user-friendly video/still convergence camera/audio-recorder, given the existence of so many 2/3 cameras that are so vastly superior to anything in 4/3 for conventional still photo purposes.</blockquote><br>

<p>Which are huge, expenſive, and have juſt ðe ſame corner problems, wiþout ðe video capability — & wiþout ðe perſpective of Zuiko or Leica lenſes in ðe near future which would leave only noiſe at ſtupiditly high ISO as a diſadvantage.</p>

<p>One would ſtill face ðe ißue of ſteep light ray angles at ðe corners of ðe ſenſor matrix, ðe main reaſon why ðe Four Þirds ſyſtem was created.</p>

<p>Ken, ðe E-620 ſeems quite nice, wiþ its compactneß, as compared to ðe E-520, image filters or not. Ditto for ðe E-30 againſt ðe E-3.</p>

<p>If it is juſt CLA, try John <http://zuiko.com./>. If it anyþing more ſerious, juſt get yourſelf an OM-[1-4].</p>

<p>Juſt a note: I found <a href="http://geocities.com/maitani_fan/om_interview_2.html">ðe interview I mentioned above.</a></p>

<p>Does it have to be a prime? If it is not neceßarily ſo, the Zuiko 35–100mm could be what you need.</p>

<p>I þink people have been able to get a few ſhots at ðe Olympus dSLR forum at DPReview.</p>

<p>DPReview uſers report ðat ðe E-30 (and conſequently ðe E-620 ſhould be ðe ſame) lacks ðe banding ißue of ðe E-3 at ISO 1600, ſo if you are worried about noiſe and do not care for ſpeed and weaðerſealing ðe E-620 could be your choice.<br>

On ðe oðer hand boþ all recent Olympus cameras ſhould perform well at ISO 800.</p>

<p>From initial reports on the E-30 at DPReview, it does not have the banding ißue at high ſenſor ſenſibility (ISO numbers). And ðe E-620 ſeems to have exactly the ſame ſenſor, wiðout ðe autofocus performance. So, from your ſtatement of requirements, it ſeems you want ðe E-30.</p>

<p>It is all a balancing act. The E-3 has a proper viewfinder, by means of total coverage and some amplification. But it makes ðe camera bigger, heavier, more expenſive. So the E-30 is smaller, lighter and less expenſive (well, not actually, but ðen it has newer ſenſor and proceßor), and ðe E-[45]20 even more ſo. Short anſwer: ſpend more money, get a better viewfinder but carry more weight and bulk. Just ðe ſame as wiþ APS-C and 24×36mm.</p>

<p>Do you mean the FE-340?</p>

<p>For that price, you can have a real camera: an <a href="http://www.adorama.com/IOME410K2.html">E-410 with the dual kit lenses</a> , or even an <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549009-REG/Olympus_262081_E_420_SLR_Digital_Camera.html">E-420 with the single lens kit</a> .</p>

<p>Give a call to John at Zuiko.com</p>

Is there anywhere a list of letters and factories? I have a black button Olympus Trip 35 which is N0X, that would mean it was made in October 1980 at...?

About special lenses, they are used to correct perspective when you are at a corner of a very big object — just like when photographing a big building from very near. Google around and you will find some nice information on that, with examples.

 

You don’t need to glue anything to any lens. The chip is glued to the adaptor, and some are sold already integrated to Fotodiox adapters. User reports have been generally good.

 

OM lenses were always manual. I do not know about the interface with the adapter.

The 7-14mm will give you most of what you need for landscape and some architecture. For the rest, get tilt-and-shift OM lenses and an adaptor with a Dandelion chip.

Ðe E-420, ðe smallest dSLR in đe world, hasn’t sensor-shift stabilisation. So I could imagine Olympus could make a first version wiðout image stabilisation for đe sake of compactneß.