Nice Coronavirus camera/lens combo (Olympus E-m5 mark III, Olympus 12-200mm lens)

Michael Meissner

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
743
Location
Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
Just before the virus lockdown, I bought an Olympus E-m5 mark III from my brick & mortar store in February.

Now for the E-m5 mark III, as I've mentioned in the past, my attraction for it was primarily a combination of the OLED viewfinder, Olympus splash-proof sealing, Olympus in-body sensor shift stabilization, 20MP sensor, and Olympus menu/metering defaults. There are a few things, that I would have wished I had gone for the E-m1 mark III instead, but the OLED viewfinder won the day (lower cost didn't hurt either).

I didn't buy the E-m5 mark III when it was first announced, because I was wanting to see what the E-m1 mark III looked like, and I was still paying off some previous camera purchases. Just before buying the E-m5 mark III, I verified that the E-m1 mark III did not have an OLED viewfinder, I went with the E-m5 mark III, saving something like $500-700 from my mental budget process.

When I bought the E-m5 mark III, I had an upcoming trip to Disney World to celebrate my father's 90th birthday (originally planned for next week). One of the things I love to do at Mouse Land is photographing the animals at both the Animal Kingdom Park and the Animal Kingdom Lodge.

Photographing from the lodge is pretty easy -- you can swap lenses as needed and you can wait for the animal to get to the spot where you have done the visualization for the right shot. Sitting on the balcony, waiting for the animals, and just enjoying looking at them normally, and drinking some coffee is real relaxing.

However, the safari ride is completely different. You have maybe 1-2 seconds to frame your shot (at best). In the past, I've done it with a pair of cameras, one with a wide angle to normal length lens, and the other with a normal to zoom lens. But you do have practice shooting with 2 cameras, so that you always know which camera is which, and you don't want to hit the person next to your or in front of you with the gear (unfortunately, BTDT). Or in later visits, I used the 14-150mm mark II lens for the safari ride.

The last time I was in Florida (but not at Disney), I had bought a used Panasonic FZ300 from ebay, which is splash proof, and gives a nice 25-600mm range. But over time, I've found that I prefer the Olympus way of doing things, and I've used the Panasonic gear less and less (with the exception of recording movies). And the 14-150mm mark II and now 12-200mm lenses allow me to use my m4/3rds gear like a super-zoom camera.

In late February, Olympus had one of its outlet sales. They had a few 12-200mm's for sale at the normal outlet price of $720, and with the 20% off, it lowered the price down to $612. I won the lottery and I jumped at it, adding 3 months to the time needed to pay off the camera debt on the credit card. I certainly didn't 'need' the lens, but it makes a good all-around lens in good light, where rain is always a possibility (i.e. Florida weather during the day).

With the lockdown, I find the E-m5 mark III and 12-200mm are the only gear I take with me when I go to the post office, grocery store, drug store, or taking trash to the town transfer station. It is great for capturing 'snapshots' from the car when I pull of the road. In the past, I might have been more deliberate, getting out of the car, and getting closer to the subject. Sure, the images are mundane, but the larger reach allows me to capture shots without having to carry multiple lenses, and wait for the subject, etc. Sure, I could have used the 14-150mm mark II to make many of the images captured, but a few shots were in the 12-13mm range, and the 151-200mm range. I suspect after some more usage, I may either mostly retire the 14-150mm mark II or even sell it.

We have some herons that have a nest on a pond next to one of the state highways. I can't get out of the car, but I try to get a quick grab shot after stopping briefly on the shoulder. The range of the nest is just barely within the 12-200mm range when using 2x digital tele-converter. I got a few shots of them with the 12-200mm lens.

The other lens that comes up is the 12-100mm f/4 lens. For me, this lens is not one I'm drawn to.I find the two f/2.8 lenses I own (Olympus 12-40mm, Panasonic 35-100mm mark I) matches that range, but gives me an extra stop of light (which I often need indoors without a flash). But at times I need a longer focal length, and there the 14-150mm mark II or 12-200mm comes in handy. So I can understand its allure to other photographers, but for me, I tend to prefer the slower lenses with more focal length.

I also found that for me, the 12-200mm balances nicely on the E-m5 mark III. I was originally afraid it might be too top heavy, particularly without a grip on the camera.

Would I recommend getting the 12-200mm over the 14-150mm mark II? I dunno, it really depends on the user, and how much they would use it. How often would you need a little more wide angle and a little more zoom? I've found in the 10 years I've owned the 14-150mm mark I and then mark II, that it captures many of the shots I want to make, but there are a percentage of shots that I want to go wider, and smaller percentage of shots that I want to go longer without having to change lenses. So if you don't need to eat ramen noodles because you blew the budget, I would say consider it. But do a cost analysis to determine if you would use it all that often in the wider and more telephoto ranges.

In terms of Disney, we've had to move the trip from the end of April to mid November. So, if I had known the trip would have been rescheduled, I might have had more time to dilly/dally on getting the lens, but I'm glad I went for it in February.
 
Last edited:

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
6,304
Location
Southwest Virginia
Real Name
Steve
Just before the virus lockdown, I bought an Olympus E-m5 mark III from my brick & mortar store in February.

Now for the E-m5 mark III, as I've mentioned in the past, my attraction for it was primarily a combination of the OLED viewfinder, Olympus splash-proof sealing, Olympus in-body sensor shift stabilization, 20MP sensor, and Olympus menu/metering defaults. There are a few things, that I would have wished I had gone for the E-m1 mark III instead, but the OLED viewfinder won the day (lower cost didn't hurt either).

I didn't buy the E-m5 mark III when it was first announced, because I was wanting to see what the E-m1 mark III looked like, and I was still paying off some previous camera purchases. Just before buying the E-m5 mark III, I verified that the E-m1 mark III did not have an OLED viewfinder, I went with the E-m5 mark III, saving something like $500-700 from my mental budget process.

When I bought the E-m5 mark III, I had an upcoming trip to Disney World to celebrate my father's 90th birthday (originally planned for next week). One of the things I love to do at Mouse Land is photographing the animals at both the Animal Kingdom Park and the Animal Kingdom Lodge.

Photographing from the lodge is pretty easy -- you can swap lenses as needed and you can wait for the animal to get to the spot where you have done the visualization for the right shot. Sitting on the balcony, waiting for the animals, and just enjoying looking at them normally, and drinking some coffee is real relaxing.

However, the safari ride is completely different. You have maybe 1-2 seconds to frame your shot (at best). In the past, I've done it with a pair of cameras, one with a wide angle to normal length lens, and the other with a normal to zoom lens. But you do have practice shooting with 2 cameras, so that you always know which camera is which, and you don't want to hit the person next to your or in front of you with the gear (unfortunately, BTDT). Or in later visits, I used the 14-150mm mark II lens for the safari ride.

The last time I was in Florida (but not at Disney), I had bought a used Panasonic FZ300 from ebay, which is splash proof, and gives a nice 25-600mm range. But over time, I've found that I prefer the Olympus way of doing things, and I've used the Panasonic gear less and less (with the exception of recording movies). And the 14-150mm mark II and now 12-200mm lenses allow me to use my m4/3rds gear like a super-zoom camera.

In late February, Olympus had one of its outlet sales. They had a few 12-200mm's for sale at the normal outlet price of $720, and with the 20% off, it lowered the price down to $612. I won the lottery and I jumped at it, adding 3 months to the time needed to pay off the camera debt on the credit card. I certainly didn't 'need' the lens, but it makes a good all-around lens in good light, where rain is always a possibility (i.e. Florida weather during the day).

With the lockdown, I find the E-m5 mark III and 12-200mm are the only gear I take with me when I go to the post office, grocery store, drug store, or taking trash to the town transfer station. It is great for capturing 'snapshots' from the car when I pull of the road. In the past, I might have been more deliberate, getting out of the car, and getting closer to the subject. Sure, the images are mundane, but the larger reach allows me to capture shots without having to carry multiple lenses, and wait for the subject, etc. Sure, I could have used the 14-150mm mark II to make many of the images captured, but a few shots were in the 12-13mm range, and the 151-200mm range. I suspect after some more usage, I may either mostly retire the 14-150mm mark II or even sell it.

We have some herons that have a nest on a pond next to one of the state highways. I can't get out of the car, but I try to get a quick grab shot after stopping briefly on the shoulder. The range of the nest is just barely within the 12-200mm range when using 2x digital tele-converter. I got a few shots of them with the 12-200mm lens.

The other lens that comes up is the 12-100mm f/4 lens. For me, this lens is not one I'm drawn to.I find the two f/2.8 lenses I own (Olympus 12-40mm, Panasonic 35-100mm mark I) matches that range, but gives me an extra stop of light (which I often need indoors without a flash). But at times I need a longer focal length, and there the 14-150mm mark II or 12-200mm comes in handy. So I can understand its allure to other photographers, but for me, I tend to prefer the slower lenses with more focal length.

I also found that for me, the 12-200mm balances nicely on the E-m5 mark III. I was originally afraid it might be too top heavy, particularly without a grip on the camera.

Would I recommend getting the 12-200mm over the 14-150mm mark II? I dunno, it really depends on the user, and how much they would use it. How often would you need a little more wide angle and a little more zoom? I've found in the 10 years I've owned the 14-150mm mark I and then mark II, that it captures many of the shots I want to make, but there are a percentage of shots that I want to go wider, and smaller percentage of shots that I want to go longer without having to change lenses. So if you don't need to eat ramen noodles because you blew the budget, I would say consider it. But do a cost analysis to determine if you would use it all that often in the wider and more telephoto ranges.

In terms of Disney, we've had to move the trip from the end of April to mid November. So, if I had known the trip would have been rescheduled, I might have had more time to dilly/dally on getting the lens, but I'm glad I went for it in February.
Much of this was very familiar. We go to a DisneyWorld with some frequency, and the Animal Kingdom is a consideration in my purchases of photographic equipment. I remember the EM5 II being an excellent Disney camera and I was only using the slow and cheap 40-150. Some great shots came from this combination. BTW, our trip was also rescheduled to November.
 
Last edited:

Michael Meissner

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
743
Location
Ayer, Massachusetts, USA
Much of this was very familiar. We go to a DisneyWorld with some frequency, and the Animal Kingdom is a consideration in my purchases of photographic equipment. I remember the EM5 II being an excellent Disney camera and I was only using the slow and cheap 40-150. Some great shots came from this combination. BTW, our trip was also rescheduled to November.
During the day with the Florida sun being so bright, it really doesn't matter if your lens is 'slow', you are likely shooting with a fast shutter speed and small aperture anyway. I recall with an older camera on one vacation (maybe Florida, maybe Arizona), that I had the problem that the camera's shutter speed and aperture didn't reduce enough light, that I was just on edge in terms of whether the camera could capture it. I had a polarizing filter in the bag, and the one stop it lowered the exposure allowed me to capture the pictures.

In 2014, I had just bought a refurbished E-m5 mark I and brought it on vacation. The vacation was something like 85 days after I bought the E-m5 mark 1, and the EVF failed during the trip. Fortunately, I had bought the extended warranty when I got the camera, and Olympus did fix it when I got back. But I remember how glad I was that I had the extended warranty, and I didn't have to try and send the camera in for repairs while on vacation (and prove that it failed before the 90 day window for the refurbished warranty).
 
Last edited:
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom