Convince me.... (2)

[HuubL]

After selling some of my (SLR) lenses I got some money burning in my pocket.
I've been intrigued by the raving reviews the OM 5D gets and seriously considering a body as a new back cap for my micro 4/3 glass (20/1.7, 14-140, 7-14) to replace the GF1. OTOH,.... I could also buy a nice 2nd hand M8....

Please convince me why I should buy the M8 and stay far from the Oly....

 

[rover]

Zoom lenses suck, no matter how good they are. There are some very good/excellent M43 prime lenses, not as good as RF glass IMO though. The Oly user interface has improved greatly from the E-P1 I once owned and sold because it was driving my blood pressure through the roof, but it was still conceived by some freak who would be better mated to designing remote controls for home entertainment systems.

Signed, happy OMD owner.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Zoom lenses suck? I dunno. That might've been true 30 years ago, but I'm not sure about today. Been using Olympus' E-series zooms and I've been pretty happy with the results-pics look good and sharp.

The nice thing about zooms is that you have a whole range of focal lengths at your fingertips, and you don't have to carry around a whole bunch of primes--or fumble around for the right lens for the particular shot you're taking...

 

[HuubL]

I take that as both of you go for the Oly then....?

 

[Paul Luscher]

I'm still waiting for my EM-5. It will arrive ANY DAY NOW....

Think it promises to be a really good camera. Think it will do everything the M8 does and more, for about the same price new, as a used M8. M8 was a "beta model" digital M with attendant shortcomings (those IR filters were expensive, for one--speaking from experience here).

 

[rover]

I take that as both of you go for the Oly then....?

Yes, but not necessarily. I have an OMD and am very happy with it. Right now I am only using the PL 25/1.4. I think I can survive with this kit, maybe one more lens around 35mm field of view, quite happily. I am not a fan of using zoom lenses. Yes, they offer great flexibility and are good optically. I just don't like using them, just my opinion. M43 is a good choice, again IMO, because the native lens line-up is currently good and improving still. It is a format to which you can adapt other lenses, but for me that is just an added bonus, not a primary focus.

Using lenses designed for the 35mm format on a cropped body just doesn't make sense to me. That is the primary con for the M8 in my book. If I had the means an M9 would be a great camera, but I just can't afford it, and there are no other FF DRF bodies.

That is all just my opinion based on the way I shoot.

 

[BobYIL]

Let me convince you:

You do not have enough cameras.. only a wheelbarrow full.. How about buying an OM-D together with an M8? Hmm? 😀

 

[semilog]

Zoom lenses suck, no matter how good they are. There are some very good/excellent M43 prime lenses, not as good as RF glass IMO though. The Oly user interface has improved greatly from the E-P1 I once owned and sold because it was driving my blood pressure through the roof, but it was still conceived by some freak who would be better mated to designing remote controls for home entertainment systems.

Signed, happy OMD owner.

Here is a comparison of the Olympus 12-60 SWD (for 4/3) vs. the highly regarded Panasonic 20/1.7 (for micro 4/3).

Look at the 12-60 results at 18mm.

True, the 12-60 is a relatively bulky, heavy lens. But it definitely does not "suck." In fact, for image quality it is significantly better across the frame than the (very good) 20/1.7.

Oh! you say. But the 12-60 is not quite as good at longer FL's. Well, here's the comparison between the 12-60 and the (again, excellent) Pana-Leica 45 OIS Macro. The behavior of the two lenses is almost identical, although the 45 shows slightly less CA.

That is what a good modern zoom is capable of. The actual photographic results (the download button will give you an 8 megapixel .jpg) with the 12-60 confirm its performance.

 

[dreilly]

I think Rover meant to say that "using a zoom lens sucks for me" which could be true...it seems fairly easy to demonstrate that modern zooms, especially gems like the Olympus 12-60, Tokina 11-16, Olympus 11-22mm and the Sony 16-50mm (just to name zooms that I have shot with and believe in) are quite good indeed. That doesn't mean they work for everyone's shooting style.

Today I was doing a few quick shoots with my OMD and three prime kit (14mm, 20mm, 45mm) and it was a blast. I love those three lenses. Juggling them on and off the camera wasn't fun, however, and in that respect I like zooms. For slower and more deliberate shooting than I was doing, however, the primes are just great.

I had an M8 and it was a really fun camera to use, and I liked the results (not at high ISOs but still). It just isn't nearly as versatile a camera as the OMD. That versatility you might not need or want. I finally settled on the OMD for my digital work--I can't really think of anything more I need in digital except FF depth of field--but I'm not wiling to trade that for a sore shoulder from those bruiser FF cameras--and for my RF pleasure I got a used M3 and will shoot that odd stuff from the last century called film.

So it really depends on what niche exactly you want your new purchase to fill. Since you already have m43 glass, the OMD would probably make you very happy. Do you have glass for the M8? If not then your pocket will be vaporized and not just burned. Eventually I concluded that the M8 and lenses was a bit too much to have invested in a system that excelled at what it does, but only does one thing. The OMD does a lot more things, and all of them pretty well if not with the same magic feel as the M8. (By which I mean some kinds of shooting that are important to me: semi-macro, fast(ish) AF, high ISO shooting, time lapse, etc., and it has frickin' great JPEGs (not like the M8's!) and a wonderful EVF, AND good manual control dials.)

The choice was clear for me, but might not be for you!

 

[HuubL]

Let me convince you:

You do not have enough cameras.. only a wheelbarrow full.. How about buying an OM-D together with an M8? Hmm? 😀

🙄

 

[rover]

I think Rover meant to say that "using a zoom lens sucks for me" which could be true...it seems fairly easy to demonstrate that modern zooms, especially gems like the Olympus 12-60, Tokina 11-16, Olympus 11-22mm and the Sony 16-50mm (just to name zooms that I have shot with and believe in) are quite good indeed. That doesn't mean they work for everyone's shooting style.

Said better than I did. Yes, for me, zooms suck. They may be very nice, but just don't do it for me.

 

[rbelyell]

i am a RF user and a long time oly m4/3 user including the new OMD.truth be told it really is an excellent camera with a menu system from the marquis de sade school, but i can get used to stuff like that if the IQ is there. for low light there is no contest, its oly over M8. to use your m4/3 glass, again no contest as the OMD is the best such cam you can buy.

however, i think it really comes down to lenses: what do you want to shoot digitally? if its RF lenses and you dont care about low light, the M8, or even the ricoh gxr M module, will deliver crisper pictures throughout the frame due to lack of AA filter. in fact, the OMD is the last camera i will ever buy that has an AA filter. when i compare zoomed in images from the OMD to those cams withiut the filter, the OMD has a kind of waxy look. the M8/ricoh (and fuji xpro with non RF lense) just deliver a kind of pinpoint resolution the OMD doesnt, imo. if you dont pixel peep, or crop, both of which i do, you may not notice it. but close inspection is revealatory in these areas.
tony

 

[RObert Budding]

Here is a comparison of the Olympus 12-60 SWD (for 4/3) vs. the highly regarded Panasonic 20/1.7 (for micro 4/3).

Look at the 12-60 results at 18mm.

True, the 12-60 is a relatively bulky, heavy lens. But it definitely does not "suck." In fact, for image quality it is significantly better across the frame than the (very good) 20/1.7.

Oh! you say. But the 12-60 is not quite as good at longer FL's. Well, here's the comparison between the 12-60 and the (again, excellent) Pana-Leica 45 OIS Macro. The behavior of the two lenses is almost identical, although the 45 shows slightly less CA.

That is what a good modern zoom is capable of. The actual photographic results (the download button will give you an 8 megapixel .jpg) with the 12-60 confirm its performance.

Hey, that's not fair! You're using facts to support your position!