Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families" (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t946727-comprehensive-comparison-of-micro-4-3-families.html)

Paul Ciszek 05-28-2012 06:14 PM

Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 
Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3.
I am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
article that would help me make some choices.
My (possibly mistaken) reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm
SLR are twofold:

1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
what good does the SLR light path do me? I would rather get my
viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the picture.

2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.

As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
will then be committed to. Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
its lenses:

1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
lenses. I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
focus and exposure on its own.

2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
"kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)

3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

4) Camera must support "raw mode".

Things that would be nice, if practical:

1) Image stabilization

2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions.
What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
when used with the micro 4/3?

So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of
the different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984


ray 05-28-2012 08:26 PM

Re: Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 
On Mon, 28 May 2012 18:14:50 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

> Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3. I
> am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
> article that would help me make some choices. My (possibly mistaken)
> reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm SLR are twofold:
>
> 1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
> situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
> what good does the SLR light path do me? I would rather get my
> viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the
> picture.
>
> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would allow
> me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification to
> what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
> doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.
>
> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
> will then be committed to. Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
> its lenses:
>
> 1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
> lenses. I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
> happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
> focus and exposure on its own.
>
> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and and
> take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in fairy
> makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses. Toward this
> end, it would be nice if the camera body could be bought "bare" so I
> wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o "kit" lens. (Unless the
> kit lens were not so lame, of course.)
>
> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have to work
> with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.
>
> 4) Camera must support "raw mode".
>
> Things that would be nice, if practical:
>
> 1) Image stabilization
>
> 2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
> provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions.
> What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
> when used with the micro 4/3?


2x

>
> So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of the
> different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.


I have researched this recently. The Panasonic m4/3 has an adapter for
35mm lenses available. The Nikon 1 series also has an adapter for Nikon
lenses (though the sensor is a bit smaller - 2.7x instead of 2x). All the
m4/3 systems I've looked at support raw formats - usually offered with or
without a jpeg at the same time.

The m4/3 systems that I've seen either have only the lcd on the back or
have that plus an electronic viewfinder (which I have as a requirement) -
point is, both systems use the sensor data. At the current time, I'm
leaning towards the Pansonic G3.

I believe it's the case that m4/3 is a 'standard' and that lenses from
one system will be usable on another although some of the features may
not go through - someone please correct if that's not the case.


RichA 05-28-2012 09:51 PM

Re: Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 
On May 28, 2:14*pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3.
> I am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
> article that would help me make some choices.
> My (possibly mistaken) reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm
> SLR are twofold:
>
> 1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
> * *situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
> * *what good does the SLR light path do me? *I would rather get my
> * *viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the picture.


Look up, EVF.

>
> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
> * *gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
> * *allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
> * *to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
> * *doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.


Wrong. The sensor isn't that small. You want an 800mm f4 lens? It's
going to be huge.
>
> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
> will then be committed to. *Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
> its lenses:
>
> 1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
> * *lenses. *I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
> * *happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
> * *focus and exposure on its own.


They do it. But given the glacial slowness of he P&S's you use, why
worry?

>
> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
> * *typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. *I
> * *realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
> * *superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
> * *and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
> * *fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
> * *Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
> * *bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
> * *"kit" lens. *(Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)
>

You can get 2 zooms to cover 12mm to 300mm. Buck up and carry one in
a bag.


> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
> * *lens. *(It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) *It would also have
> * *to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.


They do.

>
> 4) Camera must support "raw mode".


They all do.

>
> Things that would be nice, if practical:
>
> 1) Image stabilization


Panasonic has it in some of the lenses, Olympus in the bodies.

> 2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
> * *provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions..
> * *What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
> * *when used with the micro 4/3?


They will do auto-exposure but not auto-focus from different brands.
P.S. The 35mm camera lenses (SLR you mean?) lenses also have to have
AF in order that anything use AF.

> So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of
> the different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.


Being a compact camera user, insisting on auto-everything and not
being able to do the leg-work to find out some of this stuff on your
own, you might consider you aren't ready to move on from superzooms.
If their awful image quality is good enough, stick with them.

David Dyer-Bennet 05-29-2012 08:50 PM

Re: Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 
nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) writes:

> Someday I would like to graduate from compact superzoom to micro 4/3.
> I am hoping that someone has published an unemotional, non-partisan
> article that would help me make some choices.
> My (possibly mistaken) reasons for prefering micro 4/3 over full 35mm
> SLR are twofold:
>
> 1) Since I often use an image on an LCD screen to aim the camera in
> situations where I couldn't get my eye up to the viewfinder anyway,
> what good does the SLR light path do me? I would rather get my
> viewfinder image from the same sensor that will be taking the picture.


Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
from prosumer cameras and up.

> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
> to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
> doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.


You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
though. IS can only do so much.

> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
> will then be committed to.


Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
exposure, and so forth.

> Here is what I require from a micro 4/3 and
> its lenses:
>
> 1) Must be able to do auto-exposure and auto-focus through the chosen
> lenses. I am willing to do my own zooming manually, but when stuff
> happens unexpectedly, I need the camera to be able to figure out
> focus and exposure on its own.


You should be more than "willing"; power zooms are very hard to control,
and much slower to work with.

> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
> and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
> fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
> Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
> bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
> "kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)


This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're
describing.

> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.


You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
that's *so much* better than 35mm.

> 4) Camera must support "raw mode".


Good choice.

> Things that would be nice, if practical:
>
> 1) Image stabilization


One of your big choices is IS in the body, or in the lenses. Olympus
bodies have IS, Panasonic do not, they put theirs in the lenses.

In-body IS works with any lenses, including c-mount video lenses on
adapters (i.e. totally mechanical, very old-school, lenses).

> 2) Having the ability to use lenses made for 35mm cameras sounds nice,
> provided they work with the auto-exposure and auto-focus functions.
> What "multiplier" does one apply to the focal lengths of 35mm lenses
> when used with the micro 4/3?


You've got that sort-of backwards. It's not "multiplier for 35mm
lenses"; it's "multiplier to give 35mm equivalent focal-length".

And the answer is 2x. A 300mm lens on a micro four thirds body gives
the angle of view of a 600mm lens on a 35mm body.

You can get adapters for a huge range of lenses to micro four thirds.
Mostly they're cheap mechanical adapters for old lenses, so that means
manual focus. Even the adapters for modern AF lenses rarely (never in
my experience, but some may exist) give you AF.

> So, if anyone could point me to a sober, well-reasoned comparison of
> the different micro 4/3 families, I would be grateful.


--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet 05-29-2012 08:52 PM

Re: Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> writes:

> "Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2a2e21612d0835e98c74a@news.supernews.com. ..
>> In article <jq0faq$q86$1@reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek says...
>>
>>> 1) Image stabilization

>>
>> Only available on Olympus bodies. If you use a Panasonic camera you have
>> to buy an IS lens (they are available). See for an overview of m4/3
>> lenses:
>> http://myolympus.org/E-PL3/#Lenses
>>
>> (still have to add a couple of recently announced lenses, otherwise the
>> list is complete)

>
> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
> do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
> but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).


My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
quite useful -- even with old lenses.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

nospam 05-29-2012 09:29 PM

Re: Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 
In article <ylfksjeig15k.fsf@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
<dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:

> > .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
> > do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
> > but this is not done by most Olympus cameras).

>
> My experience with in-lens IS is somewhat disappointing (the Nikon
> 70-200/2.8 VR, original version, and the Sigma 120-400). My experience
> with P&S IS is much more satisfactory. My Olympus EPL-2 body IS is
> quite useful -- even with old lenses.


i'm not sure what was wrong with your 70-200 but nikon's vr is very
good. on the other hand, sigma is a crapshoot if you get a good one and
even then, its stabilization is not as good as nikon, which is actually
a little surprising since sigma stole nikon's design and is being sued.

in any event, one major advantage of in-lens stabilization is that it
stabilizes the viewfinder which makes composing easier and also helps
autofocus track the subject. another advantage is it's tuned
specifically to a given lens.

the advantage to in-camera stabilization is that it works with just
about any lens, although its effectiveness goes down as the focal
length goes up (which is where stabilization matters the most) because
the sensor needs to move a greater distance. at some point, it will
reach a limit and no longer be able to move enough to stabilize the
image.

Paul Ciszek 05-29-2012 10:04 PM

Re: Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 

In article <ylfkwr3ug193.fsf@dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
>particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
>screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
>from prosumer cameras and up.


Does anyone offer a "remote" eyecup viewfinder on a wire? For situations
where you can't get your eye up to the camera OR see an LCD screen in the
sun.

>> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
>> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
>> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in magnification
>> to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm terms) whereas I
>> doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for a 35mm.

>
>You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
>though. IS can only do so much.


Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.

>> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on the
>> merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that you
>> will then be committed to.

>
>Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
>companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
>lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
>exposure, and so forth.


That is good news! Sony and Nikon co-operating as well?

>> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
>> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
>> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
>> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and
>> and take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in
>> fairy makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses.
>> Toward this end, it would be nice if the camera body could be
>> bought "bare" so I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o
>> "kit" lens. (Unless the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)

>
>This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're
>describing.


OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with
a better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?


>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have
>> to work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

>
>You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
>lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
>that's *so much* better than 35mm.


Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
price of the Panasonic version.


--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984


ray 05-30-2012 12:39 AM

Re: Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 
On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:04:39 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

> In article <ylfkwr3ug193.fsf@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>Yeah, as a viewfinder, the DSLR optical path is not that great. In
>>particular it's not flexible. I'm still annoyed that tilt/swivel LCD
>>screens seem to be treated as a consumer feature, and actively excluded
>>from prosumer cameras and up.

>
> Does anyone offer a "remote" eyecup viewfinder on a wire? For
> situations where you can't get your eye up to the camera OR see an LCD
> screen in the sun.


That is possible since several of the m43 cameras come with no viewfinder
but have an optional one - but as far as I know, they only attach to the
top of the camera - like a flash shoe. I'm not aware of any with a
feature like that.


>
>>> 2) I *think* that the smaller sensor, while allowing for more light
>>> gathering and less noise than my compact superzoom does, would
>>> allow me to someday have a telephoto lens comparable in
>>> magnification to what I currently have (826mm focal length in 35mm
>>> terms) whereas I doubt I could afford, or carry, such a monster for
>>> a 35mm.

>>
>>You need a monster tripod to give you stability at that length, too,
>>though. IS can only do so much.

>
> Of course; tripods are a given for telephoto work.
>
>>> As I understand it, you have to select a micro 4/3 not just based on
>>> the merits of the camera, but on the family of compatible lenses that
>>> you will then be committed to.

>>
>>Nope. That's the whole point of [Micro] Four Thirds -- multiple
>>companies making bodies and lenses that all work together. Panasonic
>>lenses work fine on my Olympus body, with AF, auto aperture, auto
>>exposure, and so forth.

>
> That is good news! Sony and Nikon co-operating as well?


Primarily, it is Panasonic and Olympus at this point.

>
>>> 2) I would like to have one zoom lens that would cover a lot of
>>> typical situations, sort of like the point-and-shoots have. I
>>> realize that I am unlikely to get quite the range the compact
>>> superzooms have, but I need a lens I can take to a parade and and
>>> take pictures of a guy on stilts, a closeup of a girl in fairy
>>> makeup, and the whole parade without swapping lenses. Toward this
>>> end, it would be nice if the camera body could be bought "bare" so
>>> I wouldn't be paying for an unwanted lame-o "kit" lens. (Unless
>>> the kit lens were not so lame, of course.)

>>
>>This is confusing; because "kit lens" is exactly what you're describing.

>
> OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
> whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
> the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
> better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with a
> better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?


'kit lens' does indeed mean the lens that comes with the camera. The real
reviews I've read indicates that the 14-45 (28-90 35mm equiv) that comes
with the Panasonic G3 is a **GOOD** lens.

>
>
>>> 3) I also want the aforementioned "long focal length" telephoto
>>> lens. (It's a midlife crisis thing, OK?) It would also have to
>>> work with the camera's auto-exposure and auto-focus.

>>
>>You won't get out to 800mm-equivalent with dedicated micro four thirds
>>lenses at a sane price. But you can get out to 600mm for about $600, so
>>that's *so much* better than 35mm.

>
> Olympus offers a 75-300mm telezoom for $480 bumped down to $400 at
> Amazon. ($305 used) The in-lens stabilization must add a lot to the
> price of the Panasonic version.



Paul Ciszek 05-30-2012 05:12 AM

Re: Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 

In article <a2l8ieFuoiU18@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, I thought "kit lens" meant "the lens that comes with the camera
>> whether you like it or not." As in, one review was complaining about
>> the abilities of the kit lens, and saying the camera would be a much
>> better buy if you could either buy it without a lens, or order it with a
>> better lens. So, what does "kit lens" mean?

>
>'kit lens' does indeed mean the lens that comes with the camera. The real
>reviews I've read indicates that the 14-45 (28-90 35mm equiv) that comes
>with the Panasonic G3 is a **GOOD** lens.


I have seen reviews on Amazon that say they like the older, more expensive
14-45mm lens made of metal with the IOS cutoff switch better than the newer,
cheaper 14-42mm one made of plastic that makes you do the IOS cutoff through
the camera. The camera as advertized on Amazon says it comes with a 14-42mm
lens, so I assume they mean the newer cheaper one. The bare camera costs
$50 less on Amazon than it does with the 14-42mm lens; that is half the cost
of the 14-42mm lens on its own. It would be nice to be able to buy the
camera bundled with the old lens as you describe; it would have to be cheaper
than buying them separately, wouldn't it? How risky is it to buy stuff like
this used?

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984


David J Taylor 05-30-2012 06:52 AM

Re: Comprehensive comparison of Micro 4/3 "families"
 
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a2f430c3b49c92398c74b@news.supernews.com ...
> In article <jq1pfc$aus$1@dont-email.me>, David J Taylor says...
>> .. and for me, optimised in-lens IS is a rather better solution than a
>> do-it-all in body (although in-body can correction rotational jitter,
>> but
>> this is not done by most Olympus cameras).

>
> Not all lenses are IS...
> --
>
> Alfred Molon


Most of mine are, and for a telephoto lens I would not buy one without IS.
For me, it's a must-have feature.

David



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.