My review of using E-M1 only with FT lenses

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by hugemon, Oct 3, 2014.

  1. hugemon

    hugemon New to Mu-43

    4
    Oct 3, 2014
    South Korea
    HyunMo Koo
    [​IMG]

    I posted an article about using E-M1 as a four-thirds camera (as in using only FT lenses), and I thought you guys would like to check it out.

    http://hugemon.tistory.com/5


    BTW, my first language is not English so bear with some language problems. :rolleyes:

    Is there anyone else using E-M1 primarily with FT lenses?
    What are your thoughts?
    :wink:
     
    • Like Like x 8
  2. acmatos

    acmatos Mu-43 Regular

    Very nice article! Thanks for sharing!
     
  3. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    All I use with my E-M1 are 4/3 lenses; 7-14mm, 14-35mm, 35-100mm and 90-250mm (plus the tele-extenders). I couldn't ask for a better set of lenses. Like me, you appear to also use B&W MRC filters.
     
  4. hugemon

    hugemon New to Mu-43

    4
    Oct 3, 2014
    South Korea
    HyunMo Koo
    Ah 90-250mm is my dream lens... and it is so hard to come by a nice used one here in Korea. :(

    I use B&W MRC or Kenko Zeta filters. (Almost the same quality, both easy to clean. But zeta is cheaper in bigger sizes.)
     
  5. AussiePhil

    AussiePhil Mu-43 Top Veteran

    790
    Jun 1, 2014
    Canberra, ACT, Aust
    Phil
    Nice article and let me just say your English is fine :)

    I also use my older 4/3 glass but only have the 12-60 in HG the rest is the standard glass, 14-45, 40-150, 70-300, the first two are the originals with the slightly brighter specs and still take great photos though the 14-45 is redundant now and is stuck on the front of the E3.
    Looking to buy a 50-200 soon however the rest of the HG glass is out of my price reach.
    I also permanently have the HLD7 attached and love how it transforms the EM1's in hand feel and I find even with the diminutive O45 that i prefer the grip in place.

    Cheers and thanks
    Phil
     
  6. I have the two Panasonic Leica zoom lenses (14-50mm and 14-150mm) and the Olympus 50-200mm. My big reservation with using 4/3 lenses on the E-M1, aside from the size of course, is the the autofocus is still rather flaky and will fail to lock focus far more often than a native Micro 4/3 lens using CDAF. I don't know what the autofocus was like on the high-end 4/3 bodies, but based on memory the E-M1 doesn't feel much better than the E-510 and E-520 class of bodies, although it certainly has more than the 3 AF points that they offered!
     
  7. hugemon

    hugemon New to Mu-43

    4
    Oct 3, 2014
    South Korea
    HyunMo Koo
    As I have pointed out in the linked article, E-M1's PDAF points are not cross-type. It is not even vertical types usually used for not-crossed points (usually outlying points) on DSLRs. Instead they are horizontal meaning they only detect vertical details. It can be confusing at first, and knowing what detail to focus on can help.
     
  8. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Clint
    I think many of us missed the part in the E-M1 manual about the difficulty of focusing on subjects without vertical lines (page 35 of the English ver. E-M1 manual). I was initially really disappointed but quickly found two work arounds - the typical focus on something at similar distance and recompose, then if there is nothing to focus on and recompose, just rotate the camera slightly, lock focus and reorient the camera.

    Even before my E-5 arrived in Dec 2010 I sold all the SHF lenses. When the E-M5 came out I sold the 9-18, 70-300, 50mm f/2.0 but kept the 12-60 and 50-200. Sometimes I wonder if I would have enjoyed the SHF lenses on the E-M1 and almost really wished I'd kept the 50mm /f2.0 - I think I'd like it better than the m4/3s 60mm Macro.

    Considering the number of SHF lenses sold there seems to be few for sale and when they are, they command a decent price - so there must be a lot of satisfied users still. Thanks for posting.
     
  9. beameup

    beameup Mu-43 Regular

    104
    Oct 23, 2013
    I've always used mine with my half-dozen 4:3 lenses. I added the Gariz leather half-case in order to extend the grip a bit.
     
  10. Levster

    Levster Mu-43 Top Veteran

    I'm drawn to the 50-200mm SWD, but I'm dreading buyer remorse! There's no way that I'll be affording £1300 for the 40-150mm any time in the near future and the 35-100mm is just a bit too short. Apart from size, which I can handle, the 50-200 SWD looks like the perfect telephoto for the system.
     
  11. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    The 50-200 is a very nice lens and focuses adequately fast on the E-M1. Used it extensively on safari earlier this year with a 1.4x teleconverter - it is slower than the native glass but certainly more than acceptable.

    I would like the 40-150 with teleconverter primarily because it's internally zooming, but would miss the focal range. The two kits are essentially the same size and weight, though, so there's no real advantage for travel.
     
  12. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I picked up an old 50-200 non-SWD recently and I'm very impressed. Focus is a bit noisy and not uber fast, but more than acceptable IMHO. I'm sure the SWD would be even better. I had the Panasonic 100-300 before and the IQ from the 50-200 is a significant step up.
     
  13. Levster

    Levster Mu-43 Top Veteran

    I'm weighing up a 50-200 SWD against buying a Sigma 60mm and the Panasonic 100-300mm. I've seen the 50-200 SWD sell from around £420 and the combination of Sigma and Panasonic will be around £450. I'd like to keep my kit to as few lenses as possible, ideally carrying one lens on the camera and one lens in my bag. I'll stew over this decision until Monday and then see what my mind says!
     
  14. AussiePhil

    AussiePhil Mu-43 Top Veteran

    790
    Jun 1, 2014
    Canberra, ACT, Aust
    Phil
    Spent a few hours today at a free flight aviary taking photos of the birds with the EM1 and the 4/3 12-60 and the original 4/3 40-150. Every time I swapped the two the lightness of the 40-150 was surprising in comparison to the 12-60 and the Samyang 85 i had with me.
    Here's a couple shots from the 40-150 4/3 Original
    at 113mm and F4.5, the interesting thing for me is that the in focus area is sharp and even at F4.5 the dof is more than thin enough
    15431952251_ed153b78a2_b. _EM42079 by aussiephil1960, on Flickr
    at 123mm and F4.5, This was shot through 1/2 inch mesh
    15248434780_3744c59fd2_b. _EM42076 by aussiephil1960, on Flickr

    For me even the basic 4/3 glass can take decent photo's
     
  15. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I really think the 50-200 is a significantly better lens than the 100-300. It's totally usable wide open at 200mm, whilst the Panasonic needs stopping down to f8 near its long end to get anything decent at all. Of course, at 200mm, the Panasonic performs a little better, but it's still much slower than the Oly and IQ (and esp contrast) are worse. I never gelled with my 100-300 at all, but I love the 50-200, despite its weight. I also picked up a 1.4 TC for the 50-200 and that's superb too.
     
  16. Serhan

    Serhan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    533
    May 7, 2011
    NYC
    You can get the cheaper non-SWD, at least that is what I did... See his report: "By the way, AF speed difference between SWD and non-SWD lenses are almost negligible. I mostly used HG 50-200 SWD and SHG 35-100 (which has non-SWD motor) for my action shots and haven’t found the non-SWD lens slower. (SWD lenses are much quieter though)."

     
  17. hugemon

    hugemon New to Mu-43

    4
    Oct 3, 2014
    South Korea
    HyunMo Koo
    I've used both non-SWD and SWD models of the 50-200, and I can confirm that AF speed is almost the same.
    However, at 200mm wide open, SWD model is much sharper. With non-SWD you'd want to stop down a bit at 200mm.

    On the other hand, non-SWD is much brighter at 100mm. (non-SWD f/2.9 vs SWD f/3.3ish)
    (making it almost contant f/2.8 lens below 100mm.)
     
  18. JimUSNY

    JimUSNY Mu-43 Regular

    122
    Nov 5, 2013
    Mid Hudson Valley NY
    Jim
    If you have a grip and or can shoot vertical with the EM-1 without one it will focus the 4/3rds lenses quicker and lock in better, . I pretty much only use 4/3rds lenses, but do have a 12-50 and 75-300 but they are no where near the quality of my 4/3rds lenses so I stick to those unless traveling light
     
  19. Probably sample variance. Depending on the aperture and focal length, my non-SWD was either as sharp or sometimes sharper than the SWD version I had, which incidentally had the AF motor fail on it.
     
  20. Mikefellh

    Mikefellh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    939
    Jun 7, 2012
    Toronto, Canada
    I stopped it loading and didn't bother to read it because:

    1. It takes forever to load, you are wasting my bandwidth with high-res images (let people choose if they want to see the high-res/sample images)

    2. Horizontal scrolling is a nuisance...paragraphs should fit within the screen width; if people have to scroll back and forth they won't read your site (which is what happened here)!