ben_obryan

<p>I've been using the jinfinance 4/3 to M4/3 adaptor with a modified Konica Hexanon 40mm F1.8 and also pairing that adaptor with an OM to 4/3 adaptor (also from jinfinance). Both work perfectly and are very well made. He sells packages of a 4/3 to M4/3 adaptor with two other mount to 4/3 adaptors - works out to be a good deal.<br>

I'd recommend him - fast, helpful and responsive.<br /><br />Here's another question. Has anyone come across adaptors to M4/3 that are tilt/shift? I've seen them for other mounts but to be able to turn some of my cheap eBay treasures into tilt/shift lenses on a live view camera would be amazing....</p>

<p>The Panasonic 20mm looks great. Just one slight problem. It's not available yet! (And judging by previous Panasonic experience it could be a long wait....) I seem to recall that the lens was originally announced back at the G1 launch!<br>

<br />I'm using the Oly 17mm on my G1 and really enjoying it. May change over to the Panasonic when it comes out depending on its results.</p>

<p>I've not yet tried any FD lenses but have really enjoyed the experience (metal lens! aperture ring!) using some OM and Konica glass.</p>

<p>Can highly recommend giving it a go - the focusing works perfectly and you only need to use the magnifying focus effect if you are trying to focus at small apertures.</p>

<p>In terms of results, any way to get old fashioned characterful results (as opposed to the uniform effect of modern lenses) gets a thumbs up from me.</p>

<p>This is terrible behavious (and to me makes bad business sense for a fledgling camera manufacturer).</p>

<p>If Panasonic are generally concerned for my safety, I have a suggestion. I'll send in my two third party batteries ($25 for both), in return they can send me a voucher for (at least) 50% off an official Panasonic battery. Those cost £72.50 from Amazon UK (closing in on $120). Still a massive profit for Panasonic but might make me think that there is any motive other than abusing a monopoly position.<br>

<br />On that note, I wonder what the anti-monopoly laws in the European Union and US will say about this (absent some strong evidence of safety issues from Panasonic).</p>

<p>Errrm, the "m" is for micro. The format is micro four thirds. You can mount M lenses with an appropriate adaptor.</p>

<p>I have a horrible feeling that they are going to drop the ball on this. The press release talks about substantial changes from the original design (which was a minimalist approach - almost an absence of design). You have to question what has taken them so long....</p>

<p>I think many potential buyers (me included) have already bitten the bullet and bought the Panasonic offering. Olympus' offering is going to have to be very compelling and/or pretty cheap if they are going to get in with any market share....</p>

<p>This is such a corking opportunity. I really hope Oly don't cock it up.</p>

<p>I was looking at a DP1 yesterday as I am desperate for something small to carry all the time and also to use for street photography. It's the best digital compact option but still essentially a point and shoot (manual focus impossible to use, autofocus slow). I really would love Olympus to come up with something good as I really would rather not go back to film and a CL/CLE etc...</p>

<p>I think they would sell buckets of CL sized compacts with some small, fast(ish) primes (they'd only need equivalents of say 24 or 28, 40 or 50 and 85/90 or 100). Fingers crossed, but I really do think Olympus have lost their way completely since the advent of digital...</p>

<p>Had it (as the kit lens to the 5D), didn't like it very much, and sold it. Very convenient in terms of focal lengths and the IS but I found pretty average IQ. IQ certainly worse than cheap old primes and not appreciably better (in my eyes) to, say, the 24-85 which is much cheaper and lighter. I'd just get a non-L from eBay if I was ever in the market for a mid-range zoom again.</p>

<p>I didn't derive any pleasure from using it which is sort of the point when photography is a hobby rather than a profession. That said if you are often shooting moving targets and don't like changing lenses then there is not a great deal of choice, particularly for those who <em>must</em> have L lenses (the 24-70 is a monster with not much "zoom" at all).</p>

<p>I just sold mine as well. Not discernably better than the 1.8 Mark 1 in my view - just larger and heavier (and neither much cop until stopped down a little). Conspiracy theorists think that they only discontinued the Mark 1 and replaced it with the nasty Mark 2 to drive people to the overpriced 1.4.</p>

<p>I have the 35 F2 and the 1.4L. Very hard to perceive any difference at sensible apertures. I only use the L now if I know I am going to be indoors with poor lighting and no flash, it's just too cumbersome. I suspect it will be leaving the collection soon.<br />The Autofocus is a bit buzzy but it's fine. These original model EOS lenses are also a bit better for autofocusing compared to the Ls.<br />For what it's worth, I tend to use a 50 as a walkaround unless I am in a tighter area (markets, souks etc.).</p>

<p>p.s. this is on a 5D.</p>

<p>I have a 5D and a stack of primes. As someone else alluded to, I actually prefer the cheap original EOS models from the 80s to the far too heavy, far too large, too hot Ls (although I do have the 85 and 35Ls). I defy most people to tell the difference in the results at normal apertures once they have been through Lightroom or similar (certainly there is a difference wide open, particularly if you needed the extra stops).<br>

I find they force me to take better pictures as I have to think more about what I am doing (can't just zoom in and out to compose). They suit me as I'm not paid to shoot so it doesn't matter if I miss something, and I don't take sports pictures.<br>

<br />The massive upside is that I can have the camera slung over my shoulder with a 50 on it and put a 24 or 35 in my coat pocket. So liberating compared to a massively heavy backpack or shoulder bag.<br>

<br />That said I have two zooms that I only use when hiking (as I don't really like changing lenses in the rain etc.) - a 17-40 and a really cheapo (£30 on eBay) 80-200. Incidentally the original model EOS primes can be picked up for a song on eBay and as they are simple they rarely go wrong. I've picked up a mark 1 50 1.8, a 35 and a 24 for peanuts - altogether less than a new non-L zoom.<br>

<br />Obviously all my photograper friends think I am a freaky throwback being deliberately contrary. (Particularly since I've broken and shelled out for a Zeiss ZE 50!)</p>

Doesn't David Bailey still shot with Olympus?

 

He has to qualify as an all-time great.

 

Don't think he generally shoots weddings though.....

I upgraded from a 350D to a 5D with the intention of hanging onto it as the body I would use if I wanted lightweight and compact, or less valuable. I didn't shoot one frame for 6 months and sold it.

 

I don't think that it is sufficiently more compact to make a difference (if you really need to travel light a good P&S is better) and the IQ difference was noticeable (to me) even on 6x4 prints.

 

If I used tele a lot (I don't, my longest lens is 100) then it might be different. For you, this consideration, coupled with how much you get for your 400D is what I would focus on.

Third vote for the 100 F2. I have it and like it, a little soft wide open but then, most lenses are.

 

I made a Faustian pact and bought the 85 F1.2II and absolutely love it but have kept the 100 because it is (a) and excellent lens, and (b) it is actually possible to carry it around in my bag without dislocating my shoulder. The 85 tends to to only come out if I am travelling by car!

 

Personally, I barely notice the difference in focal length between 85 and 100, but it will be more pronounced on a crop sensor camera.

I did have the 24-105 (as a kit with the original 5D). My most used lens by far for 2 years but I just never loved it and

ended selling it to fund something else (I'm mostly a prime shooter). It's not a bad lens by any stretch but it's not a

great one. For what it's worth, my local secondhand dealer (the magnificent Aperture UK near the British Museum)

always shifts them as soon as they are listed on their webpage so they are obviously incredibly popular.

 

Was worried I'd miss its versatility when I got rid of it, but never have (I just don't really see the point of mid range

zooms for what I shoot - zoom mark 1 and a 35 or 50 tends to get me what I want).

 

The 17-40 is my only zoom and I do really like it. I only use it outdoors and only at about F8 and smaller. I would

never, ever trade it for the 16-35 for one reason - weight. If you are going to hike any distance for landscapes it's a

great lens.

 

Weight being the subject, if you do want a mid range zoom, then for me it would be a score for the 24-105 ahead of

the 24-70.

 

A final thought that will know doubt be unpopular.... I don't get "fast" zooms at all. They are still very slow

compared to cheaper, lighter zooms and weigh an absolute ton compared to the F4L zooms - what is the point

exactly? You could carry a 25-105 F4 and, say, an 85 1.8 and I suspect it would weigh less than the 24-70....

Looks excellent. The FOV and lens speed were my two original concerns when the DP1 came out. The concern that came later was how long it took to write a RAW file and be ready to go again.

 

Those three together (combined with the high price kept me out). Any ideas whether the new processor is quicker?

 

Also, any views as to where these will fit in once the Olympus M4/3 hits the street?

Check out DPReview. Shots posted of some sort of Oly 4/3 prototype. Bar the dodgy wood effect finish it looks spot on.

 

I'd order this in a flash (optional accessory no doubt...) if it can be everything the DP1 should have been, with interchangeable lenses. If it's any good at all it will do very well indeed.

 

And I've never, ever owned an Oly of any sort, ever.

Oly could potentially sell a boat load of those. As a former M6 owner who would not buy an M8 on principal, I'd snap that up.

 

Hopefully it's not a fake but an early design idea!

As an amateur I just can't justify a second 5D. (Or rather I can't justify it to my wife!).

 

Current 5D would stay if and when I get a new 5D Mk II/3D/4D/7D. Until then a G9 doubles as emergency back-up (so far never needed) and lazy camera.

 

For you, crop factor second body sounds perfect for wildlife. In the UK there seem to be tons of 20D and 30Ds floating around secondhand - I guess these are people who skipped the 40D and are now moving to 50D. My guess is that there will be even more (with a smattering of 5Ds) once the new photographic messiah finally breaks cover (I think there will be weeping from here to DPR via all points South if it is anything less than stellar).

The 17-40 is a very good lens. I've recommended it to people with crop EOS cameras as it is a good general purpose lens which becomes a nice, compact, light wide angle on full frame. (It's the only zoom I have.)

 

Not sure it's going to do the job for you as a landscape lens on a 450D, in fact not really being any better in terms of FOV than the kit lens.

 

I've not tried the 10-22 but people do like it (although I have heard some complaints about the build and it filling with dust - pretty anecdotal though). I did use the Sigma 12-24 a fair bit and thought it was a decent option - built like a tank and nice to handle. In common with a few other Sigma lenses it did however need some post-processing in some conditions to sort the yellowy tinge out.

I have owned or do own the Canon 1.4 and both the mark 1 and mark 2 1.8s.

 

My favourite is the 1.8 Mark 1. I picked it up on eBay for about £100 and am very happy with it. It is as small as the Mark 2 but has decent build quality and proper rings, scales etc. If I had this first then I would not have bought the 1.4.

 

The 1.8 Mark 2 has terrible build quality - it just jammed wide open on me after a while so was replaced with the 1.4. I have my suspicions that they deliberately made it horrible to drive sales of the 1.4.

 

Petteri Sulonen has a good review of these (and the other older Canon primes) on his Prime Junta website. I'd recommend having a look.

 

The Sigma does look nice but it is massive.

I shot Canon SLRs (AE-1, EOS) and bought an absolutely beaten up M6 secondhand and loved it. Sadly had to sell it to finance an EOS 300D.

 

The problem Leica have is that they are a lens maker. In the good old days you had companies making film and companies making lenses. The camera body was a light proof tin to mount the lens on and keep the film nice and dark. The game has changed. Now the camera body itself has become the film and an essential part of the process - and you need to be an electronics manufactucturer, or become one. Hardly any companies have the cash to play in this space. The only traditional camera makers really at the party are Canon and Nikon. The only people likely to challenge them are electronics giants - Sony, Samsung, Casio, Panasonic.

 

Sad perhaps but true. It's not just Leica, it's Olympus, Pentax, Minolta.

 

Lecia unfortunately are in the invidious position of trying to persuade people to part with £3,000 for a body. Too rich for most people's blood. You have to either love your legacy Leica glass or be a collector of expensive gizmos to be interested. The only way to save the company, imho, is to produce a cheap M body (caould be manual everything) with a decent third party sensor. That could drive new lens sales. Otherwise they are left with the recent direction of selling their brand to put on slightly cr@ppy Panasonic point and shoots. And that will only last until the name is not really worth anything any more.

 

Ironically, the closest thing to a Leica body now is probably the Canon 5D - the cheapest way to mount good glass on a full frame light proof box.

 

(I'm too scared to even read that back it's so long and boring.)

I was using my father's spare AE-1 when I was about 8 or 9 and got an EOS 1000 when they first came out. I would

have been 13 or 14 I guess. I never had any problems.

 

Go for an SLR. I'd echo the person who suggested a Rebel or xxxD though. Much smaller and lighter. Less

intimidating. I'm sure a 300D would be very cheap these days.

 

P&S cameras can be great but not really much use for learning photography or if you shoot because you enjoy

making pictures, rather than shoot to keep a documentary record.

 

Good luck and it's great that your son wants to share your hobby!