Micro Four Thirds Club

northcoastgreg · 02-22-2021, 02:33 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by WPRESTO

That is the appropriate time and place to use a tele rather than walk up closer to fill the frame

Absolutely. That would be a very frigid soaking. It has hypothermia written all over it.

Also with the Oly 100-400:'

**WPRESTO** · 02-22-2021, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

Absolutely. That would be a very frigid soaking. It has hypothermia written all over it.

It also substantial risk of an icy slip into a hypothermic sea

.

Ivan · 02-23-2021, 09:47 AM

When I hear that the value of the MFT is in its compactness, I can't help but grimace. I try to suppress this feeling in myself, there are much bigger problems, this is just a regular touch. Compactness is a way to enter the market and nothing more. This can be a nice bonus. If desired, for example pen + 17mm. But human hands have not become smaller, and it is better to take pictures relying on three points, and not on two and the more on one... The photo system is not understood.

**AgentL** · 02-23-2021, 10:55 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Ivan

When I hear that the value of the MFT is in its compactness, I can't help but grimace. I try to suppress this feeling in myself, there are much bigger problems, this is just a regular touch. Compactness is a way to enter the market and nothing more. This can be a nice bonus. If desired, for example pen + 17mm. But human hands have not become smaller, and it is better to take pictures relying on three points, and not on two and the more on one... The photo system is not understood.

Compactness is only partly about the bodies. In my experience, it's WAY more about the lenses. And, in general, MFT lenses are much smaller than the competition. And the short flange distance means the bodies don't need to be extra deep. Some MFT bodies I'll agree are too small to hold properly, but I see the lenses as the major advantage. Small, fast, the closest any digital mirrorless system comes to replicating the size and speed of Leica lenses.

**WPRESTO** · 02-23-2021, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by AgentL

Compactness is only partly about the bodies. In my experience, it's WAY more about the lenses. And, in general, MFT lenses are much smaller than the competition. And the short flange distance means the bodies don't need to be extra deep. Some MFT bodies I'll agree are too small to hold properly, but I see the lenses as the major advantage. Small, fast, the closest any digital mirrorless system comes to replicating the size and speed of Leica lenses.

Agree 100% The top-end Olympus camera, I forget the precise model designation, is almost as big and heavy and a K1 = defeats the appeal of MFT IMHO. On the other hand, my Oly EM 10 is just a bit too small. When I first got it I kept pressing the 4-way on the back with my thumb causing some bizarre images. Adding Oly's little accessory grip cured that 100%, but I also got a slightly larger after-market grip that has an Arca-Swiss rail. My Pany G9 is for me right at the upper limit of size for an MFT camera. OTOH. the Vario-Elmar 100~400mm, FOV equivalent to 200~800mm on FF, is smaller than the Pentax 60~250mm I used to have. The Pany 50~200mm, equivalent to a 100~400mm f2.8-4.0 on FF, is just a hair larger. The Oly 300 f4.0 is about the same size as a Pentax 300mm f4, but on MFT it is really a 600mm f4.0. Ever tote along a 600mm f4.0 for FF just in case you come across a subject that would call for such a lens? I wouldn't hesitate to take along the Oly 300mm if I thought I might use that much reach.

Ivan · 02-23-2021, 12:03 PM

---------- Post added 02-23-21 at 12:17 PM ----------

I would buy the Olympus OM-D E-M1X and 17 / 1.2. But this is unlikely to work, but I know that F1.2 will be working and often used, this is not for the game. And it will be very helpful. What is real is buying 40-150pro. In any case, I will not sell my m5 precisely because of the opportunity to put 25 / 1.8.

---------- Post added 02-23-21 at 12:48 PM ----------

Originally posted by WPRESTO

Agree 100% The top-end Olympus camera, I forget the precise model designation, is almost as big and heavy and a K1 = defeats the appeal of MFT IMHO. On the other hand, my Oly EM 10 is just a bit too small. When I first got it I kept pressing the 4-way on the back with my thumb causing some bizarre images. Adding Oly's little accessory grip cured that 100%, but I also got a slightly larger after-market grip that has an Arca-Swiss rail. My Pany G9 is for me right at the upper limit of size for an MFT camera. OTOH. the Vario-Elmar 100~400mm, FOV equivalent to 200~800mm on FF, is smaller than the Pentax 60~250mm I used to have. The Pany 50~200mm, equivalent to a 100~400mm f2.8-4.0 on FF, is just a hair larger. The Oly 300 f4.0 is about the same size as a Pentax 300mm f4, but on MFT it is really a 600mm f4.0. Ever tote along a 600mm f4.0 for FF just in case you come across a subject that would call for such a lens? I wouldn't hesitate to take along the Oly 300mm if I thought I might use that much reach.

This is obvious to me, but I suspect that there may be people who disagree with you. The question is whether they would like to enter into discussion with you). I wanted to say that if small size and weight were important for me first of all, I would buy an inch or, even worse, 1.17 with high-aperture optics. For me, the beauty of the mft is not in size and weight, but in the possibilities that a great depth of field gives, with an excellent fleet of optics.

**dadipentak** · 02-23-2021, 01:50 PM - **4 Likes**

Olympus EM-1 mkII + 300/4 & MC2.0

**UncleVanya** · 02-23-2021, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Ivan

When I hear that the value of the MFT is in its compactness, I can't help but grimace. I try to suppress this feeling in myself, there are much bigger problems, this is just a regular touch. Compactness is a way to enter the market and nothing more. This can be a nice bonus. If desired, for example pen + 17mm. But human hands have not become smaller, and it is better to take pictures relying on three points, and not on two and the more on one... The photo system is not understood.

I have big hands and yet I like compact cameras. Human hands have no trouble holding these cameras steady.

**dadipentak** · 02-24-2021, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

I have big hands and yet I like compact cameras. Human hands have no trouble holding these cameras steady.

Holding the camera steady is no problem--the Olympus shake-reduction is awesome! With a 300mm & 2x tc, I'm hand-holding at an effective 1200mm! But I'll say this: my hands aren't particularly large but they are exceedingly clumsy (always have been and aging doesn't help.) The Olympus EM- Mark II is manageable--but just. Anything smaller would be impossible. However, that it offers so many advanced functions, is so configurable and there are so many controls is a bit problematic for me--I often feel like I'm just one bumble from rendering it unusable.

**UncleVanya** · 02-24-2021, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by dadipentak

Holding the camera steady is no problem--the Olympus shake-reduction is awesome! With a 300mm & 2x tc, I'm hand-holding at an effective 1200mm! But I'll say this: my hands aren't particularly large but they are exceedingly clumsy (always have been and aging doesn't help.) The Olympus EM- Mark II is manageable--but just. However, that it offers so many advanced functions, is so configurable and there are so many controls is a bit problematic for me--I often feel like I'm just one bumble from rendering it unusable.

My em1 (mk1) feels good in my hands but the menus and configuration options are confusing. Contrast that with my Panasonic GX8. I have zero confusion and the controls make sense. I just don’t feel connected to the Olympus.

Ivan · 02-24-2021, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by dadipentak

Olympus EM-1 mkII + 300/4 & MC2.0

The sparrow is very good, but the female of the red cardinal (if I'm not mistaken) jumped out of the depth of field. These small birds tend to move sharply

I have a worker's - peasant's hands, large, but there are no problems with the buttons. But omd5 from 12-40 is not convenient to hold. And there is an imbalance. It seems to me that the transition to pro optics requires the use of bodies with a good grip. Of course I'm wrong, but it will force me to switch to OMD1.

**UncleVanya** · 02-24-2021, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Ivan

The sparrow is very good, but the female of the red cardinal (if I'm not mistaken) jumped out of the depth of field. These small birds tend to move sharply

I have a worker's - peasant's hands, large, but there are no problems with the buttons. But omd5 from 12-40 is not convenient to hold. And there is an imbalance. It seems to me that the transition to pro optics requires the use of bodies with a good grip. Of course I'm wrong, but it will force me to switch to OMD1.

Try the Panasonic 12-35. It is much easier to handle in my opinion.

**dadipentak** · 02-24-2021, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

My em1 (mk1) feels good in my hands but the menus and configuration options are confusing. Contrast that with my Panasonic GX8. I have zero confusion and the controls make sense. I just don’t feel connected to the Olympus.

I'm glad to know it's not just me who finds the Olympus menus and configuration options confusing! I did give Panasonic a try and did indeed find the controls easier to understand but was so put off by the stiff zoom of the 100-400/4-6.3 that I bailed out.

**dadipentak** · 02-24-2021, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Ivan

The sparrow is very good, but the female of the red cardinal (if I'm not mistaken) jumped out of the depth of field..

Thanks! Yes, that's a female Cardinal. My Cantonese-American wife prefers the males because RED! but I'm a fan of the more subtle coloration of the females--which really pops in wintry conditions.

**UncleVanya** · 02-24-2021, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by dadipentak

I'm glad to know it's not just me who finds the Olympus menus and configuration options confusing! I did give Panasonic a try and did indeed find the controls easier to understand but was so put off by the stiff zoom of the 100-400/4-6.3 that I bailed out.

Just use the Olympus lens of your choice on the Panasonic body.

02-23-2021, 09:47 AM	#3528
Ivan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2019 Location: Moscow Posts: 639	When I hear that the value of the MFT is in its compactness, I can't help but grimace. I try to suppress this feeling in myself, there are much bigger problems, this is just a regular touch. Compactness is a way to enter the market and nothing more. This can be a nice bonus. If desired, for example pen + 17mm. But human hands have not become smaller, and it is better to take pictures relying on three points, and not on two and the more on one... The photo system is not understood. Last edited by Ivan; 02-23-2021 at 09:53 AM.

02-23-2021, 12:03 PM	#3531
Ivan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2019 Location: Moscow Posts: 639	---------- Post added 02-23-21 at 12:17 PM ---------- I would buy the Olympus OM-D E-M1X and 17 / 1.2. But this is unlikely to work, but I know that F1.2 will be working and often used, this is not for the game. And it will be very helpful. What is real is buying 40-150pro. In any case, I will not sell my m5 precisely because of the opportunity to put 25 / 1.8. ---------- Post added 02-23-21 at 12:48 PM ---------- Originally posted by WPRESTO Agree 100% The top-end Olympus camera, I forget the precise model designation, is almost as big and heavy and a K1 = defeats the appeal of MFT IMHO. On the other hand, my Oly EM 10 is just a bit too small. When I first got it I kept pressing the 4-way on the back with my thumb causing some bizarre images. Adding Oly's little accessory grip cured that 100%, but I also got a slightly larger after-market grip that has an Arca-Swiss rail. My Pany G9 is for me right at the upper limit of size for an MFT camera. OTOH. the Vario-Elmar 100~400mm, FOV equivalent to 200~800mm on FF, is smaller than the Pentax 60~250mm I used to have. The Pany 50~200mm, equivalent to a 100~400mm f2.8-4.0 on FF, is just a hair larger. The Oly 300 f4.0 is about the same size as a Pentax 300mm f4, but on MFT it is really a 600mm f4.0. Ever tote along a 600mm f4.0 for FF just in case you come across a subject that would call for such a lens? I wouldn't hesitate to take along the Oly 300mm if I thought I might use that much reach. This is obvious to me, but I suspect that there may be people who disagree with you. The question is whether they would like to enter into discussion with you). I wanted to say that if small size and weight were important for me first of all, I would buy an inch or, even worse, 1.17 with high-aperture optics. For me, the beauty of the mft is not in size and weight, but in the possibilities that a great depth of field gives, with an excellent fleet of optics. Last edited by Ivan; 02-23-2021 at 12:27 PM.

02-24-2021, 07:42 AM	#3534
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by UncleVanya I have big hands and yet I like compact cameras. Human hands have no trouble holding these cameras steady. Holding the camera steady is no problem--the Olympus shake-reduction is awesome! With a 300mm & 2x tc, I'm hand-holding at an effective 1200mm! But I'll say this: my hands aren't particularly large but they are exceedingly clumsy (always have been and aging doesn't help.) The Olympus EM- Mark II is manageable--but just. Anything smaller would be impossible. However, that it offers so many advanced functions, is so configurable and there are so many controls is a bit problematic for me--I often feel like I'm just one bumble from rendering it unusable. Last edited by dadipentak; 02-24-2021 at 07:52 AM.

02-24-2021, 08:07 AM	#3536
Ivan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2019 Location: Moscow Posts: 639	Originally posted by dadipentak Olympus EM-1 mkII + 300/4 & MC2.0 The sparrow is very good, but the female of the red cardinal (if I'm not mistaken) jumped out of the depth of field. These small birds tend to move sharply I have a worker's - peasant's hands, large, but there are no problems with the buttons. But omd5 from 12-40 is not convenient to hold. And there is an imbalance. It seems to me that the transition to pro optics requires the use of bodies with a good grip. Of course I'm wrong, but it will force me to switch to OMD1. Last edited by Ivan; 02-24-2021 at 08:15 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
comparing adapters for Micro Four Thirds (MFT)	rparmar	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	25	08-09-2011 10:01 PM
Kr/Kx or Micro Four Thirds	snowfreak	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	07-18-2011 01:12 PM
Leica 25mm f/1.4 for Micro Four Thirds	jct us101	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	06-13-2011 05:46 AM
Pentax seriously considering joining Micro Four Thirds?	iht	Pentax News and Rumors	2	04-30-2010 11:49 PM

02-22-2021, 02:33 PM - 3 Likes	#3526
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by WPRESTO That is the appropriate time and place to use a tele rather than walk up closer to fill the frame Absolutely. That would be a very frigid soaking. It has hypothermia written all over it. Also with the Oly 100-400:'

02-22-2021, 04:19 PM	#3527
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,104	Originally posted by northcoastgreg Absolutely. That would be a very frigid soaking. It has hypothermia written all over it. It also substantial risk of an icy slip into a hypothermic sea .

02-23-2021, 10:55 AM - 2 Likes	#3529
AgentL Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2020 Location: Seattle Photos: Albums Posts: 1,756	Originally posted by Ivan When I hear that the value of the MFT is in its compactness, I can't help but grimace. I try to suppress this feeling in myself, there are much bigger problems, this is just a regular touch. Compactness is a way to enter the market and nothing more. This can be a nice bonus. If desired, for example pen + 17mm. But human hands have not become smaller, and it is better to take pictures relying on three points, and not on two and the more on one... The photo system is not understood. Compactness is only partly about the bodies. In my experience, it's WAY more about the lenses. And, in general, MFT lenses are much smaller than the competition. And the short flange distance means the bodies don't need to be extra deep. Some MFT bodies I'll agree are too small to hold properly, but I see the lenses as the major advantage. Small, fast, the closest any digital mirrorless system comes to replicating the size and speed of Leica lenses.

02-23-2021, 12:02 PM	#3530
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,104	Originally posted by AgentL Compactness is only partly about the bodies. In my experience, it's WAY more about the lenses. And, in general, MFT lenses are much smaller than the competition. And the short flange distance means the bodies don't need to be extra deep. Some MFT bodies I'll agree are too small to hold properly, but I see the lenses as the major advantage. Small, fast, the closest any digital mirrorless system comes to replicating the size and speed of Leica lenses. Agree 100% The top-end Olympus camera, I forget the precise model designation, is almost as big and heavy and a K1 = defeats the appeal of MFT IMHO. On the other hand, my Oly EM 10 is just a bit too small. When I first got it I kept pressing the 4-way on the back with my thumb causing some bizarre images. Adding Oly's little accessory grip cured that 100%, but I also got a slightly larger after-market grip that has an Arca-Swiss rail. My Pany G9 is for me right at the upper limit of size for an MFT camera. OTOH. the Vario-Elmar 100~400mm, FOV equivalent to 200~800mm on FF, is smaller than the Pentax 60~250mm I used to have. The Pany 50~200mm, equivalent to a 100~400mm f2.8-4.0 on FF, is just a hair larger. The Oly 300 f4.0 is about the same size as a Pentax 300mm f4, but on MFT it is really a 600mm f4.0. Ever tote along a 600mm f4.0 for FF just in case you come across a subject that would call for such a lens? I wouldn't hesitate to take along the Oly 300mm if I thought I might use that much reach.

02-23-2021, 01:50 PM - 4 Likes	#3532
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Olympus EM-1 mkII + 300/4 & MC2.0

02-23-2021, 08:51 PM	#3533
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by Ivan When I hear that the value of the MFT is in its compactness, I can't help but grimace. I try to suppress this feeling in myself, there are much bigger problems, this is just a regular touch. Compactness is a way to enter the market and nothing more. This can be a nice bonus. If desired, for example pen + 17mm. But human hands have not become smaller, and it is better to take pictures relying on three points, and not on two and the more on one... The photo system is not understood. I have big hands and yet I like compact cameras. Human hands have no trouble holding these cameras steady.

02-24-2021, 07:47 AM	#3535
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by dadipentak Holding the camera steady is no problem--the Olympus shake-reduction is awesome! With a 300mm & 2x tc, I'm hand-holding at an effective 1200mm! But I'll say this: my hands aren't particularly large but they are exceedingly clumsy (always have been and aging doesn't help.) The Olympus EM- Mark II is manageable--but just. However, that it offers so many advanced functions, is so configurable and there are so many controls is a bit problematic for me--I often feel like I'm just one bumble from rendering it unusable. My em1 (mk1) feels good in my hands but the menus and configuration options are confusing. Contrast that with my Panasonic GX8. I have zero confusion and the controls make sense. I just don’t feel connected to the Olympus.

02-24-2021, 08:33 AM	#3537
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by Ivan The sparrow is very good, but the female of the red cardinal (if I'm not mistaken) jumped out of the depth of field. These small birds tend to move sharply I have a worker's - peasant's hands, large, but there are no problems with the buttons. But omd5 from 12-40 is not convenient to hold. And there is an imbalance. It seems to me that the transition to pro optics requires the use of bodies with a good grip. Of course I'm wrong, but it will force me to switch to OMD1. Try the Panasonic 12-35. It is much easier to handle in my opinion.

02-24-2021, 09:11 AM	#3538
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by UncleVanya My em1 (mk1) feels good in my hands but the menus and configuration options are confusing. Contrast that with my Panasonic GX8. I have zero confusion and the controls make sense. I just don’t feel connected to the Olympus. I'm glad to know it's not just me who finds the Olympus menus and configuration options confusing! I did give Panasonic a try and did indeed find the controls easier to understand but was so put off by the stiff zoom of the 100-400/4-6.3 that I bailed out.

02-24-2021, 09:18 AM	#3539
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by Ivan The sparrow is very good, but the female of the red cardinal (if I'm not mistaken) jumped out of the depth of field.. Thanks! Yes, that's a female Cardinal. My Cantonese-American wife prefers the males because RED! but I'm a fan of the more subtle coloration of the females--which really pops in wintry conditions.

02-24-2021, 10:15 AM	#3540
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,401	Originally posted by dadipentak I'm glad to know it's not just me who finds the Olympus menus and configuration options confusing! I did give Panasonic a try and did indeed find the controls easier to understand but was so put off by the stiff zoom of the 100-400/4-6.3 that I bailed out. Just use the Olympus lens of your choice on the Panasonic body.