USER REPORT: My 1st 8 Months with the Olympus OM-D by Michel Mayerle

56 Comments

1. I’ve owned a shot with all the primes you used except the Voightlander. Also FF canon and L Lens. I find the Oly 12mm – 40mm f2.8 pro zoom equal to the primes. 75mm 1.8 was just to.long for me…Always backing up. Shooting with EM1. NOW add in Oly ‘ s free firmware 4.0 update and WOW. CAN’T do that stuff on any Nikon or Canon. Also used to shoot on Hassy. OLY EM1 and 1 zoom is a ton of fun. Kept the Pan/Leica 25 mm 1.4 which is a dream of a lens.
   Look to need a Leica or FF one needs to be printing more than 13 x 19. And that’s less than 1% of photo population.

2. Great report.
   I am also a EM 5 User.
   Please enlighten me how to use Nikon SB-910 flashes in SU-4 mode with OMD EM5.

   Regards

   S K Tong

   • Hello Tong

     If you put your SB900 or SB910 into SU4-Mode, all you need is the little hotshoe flash mounted on your OM-D. Set the flash exposure compensation to the minimal value, so that the hotshoe does not affect the overall exposure. The remote SB910 will react to the small flash burst on your OM-D and fire as well. Of course there is no TTL support for a combo like that. But it works perfectly in indoor conditions, even if there is no direct line of sight.

     Best regards
     Michel

3. Hi Michel,
   I was in the same position, shooting film based Nikons and having enough of the big cameras and lenses. I always postponed buying a DSLR because I did not like the plastic lumps Nikon and Canon were proposing. Every six months they churn out the same big plastic chunks that go bobbing around on your belly. I picked up a catalog of the OM-D without paying too much attention to it and -frankly- without taking it seriously (what? no mirror??)
   Anyway, I’m completely smitten by this camera now and I am glad I made that move. Truly a great camera that produces great results. It’s a pitty that Olympus doesn’t offer the hoods with their pretty expensiev (but great) lenses. Thansk for sharing and thanks to Steve for this great place!
   Best, Benny

4. I’m surprised most of your pictures shown are B&W after you praised the wonderful color rendition of the new camera. And even more surprised that you packed all those new gear among the baby stuff. Good pictures by the way. Really good.

   Fatherhood led me to a D40/18-55 set up. Then D300/35. It should have been D40/35. It’ll be a lot cheaper that way. Blame it on GAS. It was one camera one lens all the time. Many pictures. High IQ. Good memories. But the hefty weight also led to lesser pictures taken over time. I regretted the D300 switch but love the 35. I need not change the camera. the D40 is beautiful and 35 will bring it further.

   Then came the X100. It’s a no brainer. One camera one lens. A good camera (colors, B&W, OOC JPEG etc). No need to worry about lens. Then came WCL-X100. It was GAS again. But the 28 brought new angles (pun intended) of shooting.

   Now I’m torn with shooting at 35 (it’s more compact to carry, the Fuji case gives good protection against bumps and knocks) and shooting at 28 (wider perspective gives more context to the storytelling of a picture).

   Once I find the perfect camera bag I believe the 28 will stay on forever.

5. What lovely pictures. I have always thought about buying a mirroless camera and I still have my now oold Sony Nex3. Good camera for those who had previously owned campact ones but I have also notice how great Olympus O-MD is. It seems I have just made up my mind now. Wonderful pictures. I have been a great fan of this website for a lng time I still remember when Steve reviewed the Sony HX1 and it is alwasy fantastic to see how much this website has improved.

6. Thank you all for your kind and inspiring comments. I appreciate that respect and civility are practiced here in Steve Huffs website. We don’t have to agree in all the different terms. But at least we all share the same passion: photography. Our cameras are just tools that help us to achieve what we are looking for. Everybody has it’s own needs and requirements. In the end it is the image that counts. It doesn’t matter what kind of camera or lens we used to capture it. If it tells a story with emotion and passion then we succeeded.

   Thanks again for your comments and the exchange!

7. about sharpness, i wonder if the focus system might be faulty on the D4? If it is not aligned well, the shots will be slightly out of focus. The OMD uses the contrast focus on the sensor, so it could achieve more precise (but slower) focus on stationary subjects…
   just a thought

   Victor

8. Great article and images! If I hadn’t read about the new Fuji X100S, I would have been sold on the OM-D as well, for a ” travel” kit. I currently shoot a Pentax K-5 with some superbly sharp, small and light Pentax DA* and FA Limited lenses. However, I am seekign an even lighter kit for travel, and am considering either the OM-D or the Fuji X100S. Very few people mention the main reason that I am considering a mirrorless system….the lack of AF Micro-focus Adjustment in mirrorless systems!!! I am growing weary of having the requirement of fine-tuning focus in order to achieve “optimum” sharpness! (I don’t trust my middle-aged eyes to discern the maximum sharpness obtainable from a given lens and sensor.) I love the fact that on an OM-D (or a Fuji X100S), the image is already either in optimum focus or it’s not…no guesswork! Now, to find a buyer for a mint-condition Pentax kit…maybe…

   • Steve I own an OMD and sold my x100 for it. X100s looks to have some great improvments. They are both very different and both great cameras.

     Obviously can not comment on the x100s but have found the OMD more flexible given ICL (don’t have to buy more than one lense if you want) and tilt screen (never thought i would be i use it a lot now) and I prefer the quality of the file from it (only shot Jpegs in x100) re PP, rendering, etc….but that’s personal.

     On the flip side the x100s will fit in your pocket…literally and that is a fantastic feature given the quality of it’s output.

     hope it helps.

9. Some nice work here. How a camera makes you “feel” when you use it can definitely affect one’s work. A symbiotic relationship with one’s gear is likely going to enhance the quality of one’s output.

   There’s no question that the Nikon D4 and it’s top lenses are designed for working professionals. That equipment is big and cumbersome and really not intended for everyday amateur use.

   I do have to seriously question the objectiveness of this statement, however:

   “I experienced sharpness I have never seen before an my Nikon shots. YES, the fine Zuiko lenses are sharper than anything I have ever used on a Nikon FF body (with the best prime and zoom lenses available).”

   There is little possibility that any of the Zuiko lenses (and yes, I will concede that several of them are exceptional) on a micro four-thirds camera are going to outpeform Nikon’s top primes and zooms (I assume by zooms you are referring to any or all of the “Holy Trinity” here?) when coupled to a full-frame D4.

   As Scotty said, “[You] can’t change the laws of physics, Cap’ n.”

   Not trying to be argumentative. Just suggesting that the OM-D changed your relationship to photography, which thus led you to make better photographs.

   • Great photos…it’s obviously working for you…enjoy!

   • Dear Robert

     Thanks for your worthy comment.

     Well, the OM-D can not match or even surpass any FF camera in terms of dynamic range or high ISO capability. But when it comes to sharpness I made several tests. I often shot pictures with the OM-D and the D4 and compared the results on the screen and on printed paper. I always used the top of the line Nikkor primes (85 f1.4, 105mm Micro Nikkor, 50mm f1.4…) and yes, I also shot with the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200). When it comes to sharpness I personally simply like the OM-D shots much more then the Nikon pictures. On portrait shots I could better differentiate finest details in the eyelashes and hair features of a person. And even other people who have never seen OM-D pictures before tended to prefer the OM-D shots in a side bi side comparison. It is clearly not a scientific test and in the lab it do not doubt that Nikon Primes on a FF body can achieve more sharpness. But I think what you measure in a lab and what you look at in print is a different story. It is the whole package I simply adore.

     But again, that is my taste and that has not to be yours. And as soon as I start to compare OM-D shots with the Nikon D800E it is an all different story. Then Nikon clearly destroys the OM-D. But on a day by day basis the OM-D is a very fine and capable camera as long as you work with the finest glass out there.

10. How much is enough? Sure, a D800 is just fantastic, but for most images and how they’re used, the E-M5 will do the job almost as well, and sometimes better. Most people won’t be able to tell the difference in resulting images consistently when viewed on a computer (no pixel peeping) or printed at up to medium sizes. These are splendid images just as they are. The best mirrorless cameras are capable of so much in an expert’s hands. Thanks, Michel.

11. BUT it works for Michel! Nos. 1, 6, and 11 really sing to me. And forget the naysayers and enjoy your OM-D for what works for you.

    I still shoot with “vintage” Nikon D2H bodies because they work for me and my style. But I have just pre-ordered the Fuji X100s as I am ready to change my photos. After 35+ years of carrying two pro bodies with the assortment of fast zooms and/or primes, it is time for me to move on. Not sure if my Nikons will be sold but I am looking forward with great anticipation to a new way of seeing. For me, I am looking to reinvigorate my passion for shooting. And if HCB can shoot with just a 35mm and 50mm for his Leicas, I figure I might want my final photographic journey to be in his honor as he inspired me in the beginning.

12. Great images…I have to however disagree. I doubt OM-D is can produce as much detail as the Nikon PROFESSIONAL FF bodies. Physics just don’t add up. I own D800/D700/D600 and I had an OMD for half a year with 12,25,45,60. I have all gold nikkor lenses as well. My Nikon’s have more depth, more pop, more detail, better noise handling, more RAW latitude than OMD ever dreamed of. Yes OMD is a good camera when you don’t want to carry backpack or extra weight. However at that point I don’t want to change lenses…RX1 would been killer.. or maybe even RX100. Even my Leica M6 becomes more versatile as it is a funner tool to use. I find OMD as a jack of all trades and a master of none. Yes it can do many things, but is it really good at all of them? Not really…to each his own. OMD didn’t feel a niche for me so it was sold.

13. What has been your experience with color photography with the OMD and your prime lenses? From an amateur’s point of view, I like your work, Enjoy.

    • Thanks Steve Steinberg for your comment.

      Well, the OM-D renders color just wonderfully. I really love the way Olympus interprets skin tones. And since I shoot more and more portraiture this is really important to me. Colors are very accurate and natural. Sometimes the automatic WB struggles a bit, but that can be corrected with a manual WB.

      • +1 in my experience as well Steve.

14. Really lovely, and I shouldn’t think more extreme shallow DOF would be a major concern most of the time. Can you tell us if your B&W are OOC or PP and if the latter how done? Thanks.

    • To answer the question: All the BW images were edited in Lightroom 4 and converted to BW in Silver Efex Pro.

15. This is great feedback on a great product.
    The samples are killer and showcase the amazing abilities of the OMD and the special lenses designed for it.
    This camera and these lenses are very sharp, much sharper than most full frame cameras.
    No one should ever feel they have underpowered themselves by using the Micro Four Third OMD sensor.
    If this sensor was just a toy then all these top companies wouldn’t be investing a ton of money into creating amazing lenses for it.
    Voigtlander
    Olympus
    A ‘Leica design’ for Panasonic (25mm F1.4)
    And now Schneider! (I look very forward to their 14mm)
    Thanks for telling it like it is.

16. Good essay and very good photos. I also have an OM-D but for now I am using Lumix lenses that I initially used with a GH1. I have been very surprised how well they perform on the Olympus. My guess is that the in body stabilization is a big factor. I have a 14-140 zoom that was okay on the GH1 but it is noticeably sharper on the Olympus. So, the end result speaks for itself but in this instance I would give more credit than usual to the camera than the lenses. I am also impressed with the dynamic range of the Olympus. I got a lot of blown highlights on the GH1 but none that I have noticed on the Olympus.

    • Can I ask you, is the OM-D really clearly superior to the GH1 (which I currently own)? I have enjoyed the movie mode occassionaly, but overall, with my main use for stills, I have been satisfied with it in combo with the Lumix 20mm. My only criticism was sometimes the pics (even in RAW) lack a bit of bite and contrast. So, I am considering an ‘upgrade’ to GH3 or OM-D. Any other opinions also welcome!

17. I think what this demonstrates that 99% people are better off with the mirrorless systems and dslrs maybe really good for the 1% who do commercial shoots.

    looking at these pictures I wouldve easily thought they are from big slrs.

    that’s my opinion anyway. I ditched my dslr and am happy with x100. though GAS syndrome means I want to get an omd or rx1.

    • I disagree on the 99% thing. I used to be a pro (owned a couple of portrait studios) but am now shooting for myself. It’s not the question of image quality, more about the user experience and the ability to get the shot. I still think that the DSLR wins out here. But, as I believe they say in the United States, YMMV…

      • I agree. I owned an OMD as a personal camera and we didn’t bond. So back to DSLR. I can get more shots, more accurate, better processing. I know that omd can cheapily and easily cover anywhere from 24mm to 600mm (12mm f2, 25mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8, 75mm f1.8, and 100-300mm panazoom or the trio of panas 12-35, 35-100, 100-300). However the image quality is not on par…nowhere near my D800/D600. Close to D700 but still not as versatile.

18. Some nice photographs here – especially the first one.

    I do have one comment though. We’re seeing a lot of these ‘how I dumped my DSLR and switched to digital’ articles and clearly this is an important trend. However, I do sometimes get frustrated that there seems to be an assumption that using a DSLR automatically involves using a top of the line, bulky and heavy full frame body and always carrying 2 or three hefty f2.8 zooms. If I were hauling that lot around, sure the switch to mirrorless would look very attractive. But in my case, I carry a Nikon D7000, a 18-105 zoom and two primes – a 20mm 2.8 (30mm equivalent) and a 50mm 1.8 (75mm equivalent). That lot fits into a Domke F5 bag which I suspect is no larger and not much heavier than the equivalent mirrorless outfit. I have absolutely no prejudice against mirrorless (I have a GH2) but I think it would be fairer to compare apples-to-apples when engaging in the mirroless vs DSLR debate. I still prefer the feel and style of the DSLR (I have big hands!!) but feel no need to walk around with a D4 and a bag full of heavy lenses.

    • Whoops – in the first line I obviously meant ‘switched to mirrorless’ rather than digital (!)

    • Good point Colin. It’s comparing apples to oranges really as the D4 is a performance machine that can focus and fire off shots faster than anything around. It and the Canon 1DX will blow anything away in terms of ISO performance as well. With primes and a FF DSLR you can also get a much shallower DOF than a m43 with primes setup which may or may not be desired. Different tools for different purposes. This author clearly did not need a D4 in the first place.

      • You are absolutely right Johnny. In this case I did not neet the Nikon D4. And sometimes I really need it. I also shoot concert photography on assignments. Without my trusty D4 I was not able to shoot this kind of images. I one tried it with the OM-D and I almost missed every shot. Focussing in low light and working with high ISO ist not one of the strengths of the OM-D. And yes, with regular f1.4 primes you can achieve shallower DOF on a FF camera. But I must say my first results with the f0.95 Voigtlander on the OM-D come very close (but can not match) FF DOF. And as you say, extreme shallow DOF may be desired or not. It is up to the photographer or the client. You are right, different tools for different purposes!

    • Well, I did switch from a D90 with three lenses (18-200, 10-20 and a 24mm f/2.8 prime),
      to the OM-D with three roughly equivalent lenses (14-150, 9-18 and a 14mm f/2.5 prime).
      The new kit is significantly smaller and lighter. My shoulder doesn’t hurt any more after a whole day of carrying it.

      But even better, when I want to travel really light I take just the 14mm and it’s almost like carrying a point and shoot. The D90 with the 24mm wasn’t huge, but it was a monster compared to the OM-D. I used to leave it at home too often because of the bulk. I can take the Oly many more places.

      If I could afford several cameras, I would have kept the Nikon too, but since I had to pick just one, I picked the most versatile one for me. (Of course, this may not be the right decision for everyone.)

      • I guess, as with everything, it’s horses for courses. I have always struggled with the user interface of my GH2, finding the buttons too small and finding it all too easy to change settings unintentionally. When it comes to traveling light, a D7000 with a 20mm 2.8 is as small as I need and gives me a nice 30mm field of view. Full disclosure though – I have a GH2 but never used an OM-D so I’d love to hear the opinion of somebody who has used both cameras. I’m not so much interested in image quality – I have no doubt that the OM-D is capable of producing very fine photographs – I’m more concerned with the ‘user experience’ i.e. the buttons, the menu and the EVF compared to the OVF of a D7000.

        • Actually, I had the D90, D7000 and OM-D together for about 10 days while deciding which one to keep. I ran my own comparison.

          1) The OM-D has two control wheels, same as the D7000. Tie.
          2) The OM-D has three programmable buttons (two good ones an one that is too small and awkward) vs. the D7000’s many dedicated buttons. The OM-D also has the super control panel, which is remarkably good, but not as good as dedicated buttons. The D7000 also has that convenient top LCD. Advantage: D7000
          3) I love OVF’s and, having used crappy EVF’s before I didn’t think I would like the one in the OM-D at all, but I was wrong. Now I think EVF’s are the future. I can see the white balance, blown highlights or crushed shadows BEFORE I take the picture. It is easier to see the subject at night, and you can see the photo you just took without taking your eye off the VF. Advantage: OM-D
          4) The Menu of the OM-D is very long, with many more options that the D7000’s this is both good (configurability) and bad (learning curve). Tie?
          5) Grip. No question. The D7000 feels better in your hand. Advantage: D7000
          6) Single Autofocus – Both cameras are excellent. I couldn’t find a difference. Tie.
          7) Follow-Focus – D7000 is much better.
          8) Video – OM-D is much better

          This is, of course, my personal opinion.

          • Great feedback – thanks very much.

            It really confirms my view that there is no one solution for everybody. Personally, I find the menus on the D7000 more than adequate. Maybe it’s just me, but beyond a certain point I find endless menu options more of a distraction than anything else. Ditto on the OVF/EVF question. Having all the additional information provided by the EVF in front of my eye while I’m setting up a shot would be a distraction rather than an advantage.

            I think the real issue for me though would be getting over the irritation I feel with the GH2 when I try to change settings (or try to avoid accidentally changing settings!) Maybe I’m just a monumental klutz but I find myself shouting in frustration at the tiny buttons and confusing menu of the GH2 far more often than I would like. I really should try and get hold of an OM-D to see whether my experience of that body is different.

            In the final analysis, we all want different things and we’re very lucky to live in a time when the consumer has an unprecedented range of options and can pick the solution that suits them best.

          • agree with you Colin. I own an OMD (and was wary of size and ergonomics when buying…actually intially overlooked it for this reason) and an M6 for film.

            Both obviously different but I love both just as much as the other. by the way I have found the OMD to be fine and just takes a bit of getting used to (had a canon 20D for a few years prior). For it’s size the output is incredible….see above!! and it is just a fun camera…not sure why to be honest!? The flip screen adds a great addition to your creativtey imo as well…..

          • Just to clarify, the white balance and highlight shadow stuff is not in the form of readouts. If the screen is too yellow or too blue, you know your white balance is off. You can see the effect of WB settings live.

            The blown highlights show up in orange in the EVF and the crushed shadows show up in blue. A turn of the exposure compensation dial quickly fixes the problem. With a DSLR you wouldn’t know until you looked a the picture on the LCD, then you would have to guess at the correction and try again.

        • Hi Collin,

          I have an OM-D and am also accused of having bear paws or sausage fingers, depending on which of my “friends” you ask. To be honest, yes, the OM-D can get a little fiddly for those with larger hands, especially manipulating the fn1 and playback buttons on the rear end of the camera. Overall however, it’s such a joy to use: the build quality and heft, the ability to customise buttons, the choice of amazing lenses and not that it’s all that important to you, but the image quality really is pretty amazing, that I easily overlook my only real bugbears with the camera: the small size and low light focussing. Mind you, I’ve largely overcome the size issue buy purchasing the HLD-6 hand grip which makes a HUGE difference to me. So for general shooting, I take my small Vanguard Uprise bag with 3 primes, my HLD-grip and Gorillapod and away I go. For city sightseeing, I remove the grip and attach the Panny 20mm and (ask my wife to carry the camera – I’m kidding) we’re in Canon G12 territory.

          • Good to hear the perspective of somebody else with ‘large paw syndrome’ !

            As you say, as far as image quality and lens selection is concerned, I don’t have any issues. It’s really the user experience. As I mentioned, I’m coming from the perspective of only having used the GH2 in the mirrorless world and I do find it less satisfying than a DSLR. As well as the button issue I find the EVF to offer me a less realistic/immediate view of the scene than the DSLR OVF. I feel like I’m looking at a TV screen of the scene rather than looking at it directly. I also feel a delay between hitting the shutter and getting the image and then before the camera is ready for the next shot. In summary, it feels to me that the camera is more ‘in the way’ than with a DSLR.

            I’d be interested to hear your perspective on this. I really would like to like the OM-D, as the idea of carrying the body plus say a 3 lens 17/25/45mm prime kit in a very small bag is hugely appealing. I’ll always keep my DSLR but I’m going to be traveling to some pretty hostile areas in the near future and will be carrying a day pack with water, spare clothes, sleeping bag etc so lightness/compactness will be at a premium when it comes to my camera gear.

        • Hi there, I’ve not used the D7000 but used the d200,300 which I think are comparable size etc wise.
          I’ve also used the GH2 and traded up to the OM-D.
          And I do mean traded up.
          The image quality is better, the stabilisation is great, autofocus is a bit better, it’s smaller and weathersealed.
          The only thing I miss from the GH2 is the level of movement on the screen and the switch to go into bracket mode.

          To directly answer the question about user experience, the buttons etc I don’t think will be any better for you if you find the GH2 too small and cramped. You’d be better sticking with d7000. I have small hands for a guy and I can juuust reach all the controls nicely on the OM-D. The GH2 was better in that regard.

          • I’m interested in your perspective as somebody who has used a GH2 and an OM-D. Button issue aside, how would you compare the experience of using the EVFs of the 2 cameras? I find the GH2 viewfinder somewhat frustrating to use as I mentioned above. Did you find much of a difference between the GH2 and OM-D in this respect? Maybe I just need to spend more time with an EVF but at the moment, I feel like I’m seeing the real world when I look through my DSLR and don’t get that with an EVF.

    • In my case I couldn’t carry anything that needed a shoulder strap, or was overtaxing to my weakened arms. Age and injury does play into our choices.

    • I thought about the same thing. My dslr (d600) has usually prime attached. Nothing fancy but a 35 or 50mm. I’d never manage to sneak a dslr into a concert though.

    • regarding the difference in pack sizes. In a camera pouch about the same size as the D7000, I carry around the panalecia, zuiko 45 and the kit power zoom as well as the kit flash unit. The 20mm is on the OMD.

      It’s not a small difference. It’s a huge difference in pack size/weight. All told, you’re carrying around a pack that’s twice the size and weight as the OMD. Admittedly not a large difference to someone who isn’t burdened by other concerns but if you are, the smaller size and weight of the OMD pack is a godsend.

      • +1…

19. No2 pic is very subtle and shows what that 0.95 is meant for. Very well focused, I know how hard manual focussing can be with small children. Either they turn away or they grab for the lens (at least so does mine).
    How does the 75mm suit you? Isn’t shooting portraits with a “150mm” making you backing off too often from your subject? I got the OM-D as well recently and so far so good. I didn’t test it to the limits yet but things will get more clear when I put it on a tripod (which is now oversize lol) and shoot long exposures @ low light. Street shoots will finally be more discrete, hopefully allowing for closer approaches.

    Quite an excitement is the wide array of lenses that can be used with it, especially the manual focus, all metal ones (just ordered the SLR magic 12mm f1.6).

    Thanks

    • Yes, first it felt a bit strange to shoot portraits with the 75mm Zuiko lens. But I used to shoot many portrait shots with the great Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 and I was between 150 and 200mm almost all the time. So I am pretty comfortable now with the 75mm. I hope the new Voigtländer 42.5mm f0.95 will soon be available. I thing this could be a great lens for portraiture.

20. Thanks for your story, I also use the OM-D for the same reasons. Nice pictures.

21. Superschöni Bilder! Really inspiring. Love my OM-D although it currently gets used too little. Looking forward to some more shooting time when spring finally comes to northern Switzerland!

22. Wow. Beautiful work. If you didn’t tell me, I’d say that those photos were from a big DSLR. I am very interested in speed lights and would love to see some photos taken with the OM-D and SB-910.

23. Great shots and couldn’t agree more about this camera! I gave up my Nikon DSLR and lenses for the OMD and have never looked back. i also use all primes, though I don’t have that wonderful Voigtlander. Instead, I have the far more modestly priced (and 35mm equiv) Olympus 17mm.

24. I was just looking at the pictures without reading the text and i was 100% shure that you’re from switzerland. It’s funny to find people from our tiny country on the internet from time to time.

25. Nice images!

    I’m sure after going from the complete TANK of a camera in the D4 the OM-D was a welcome relief. Nikon has some primes that will rival any other system save Leica but you have to choose wisely. 24mm, 85mm, 200mm come to mind. You pay for that shallow DOF with size though that’s for sure.

    • But these great shots show that the DOF obtainable is fine. None of these excellent shots would need DOF other than as shown.

      • I agree Jim (and Jonny may not have been referring to these specifically but in a general sense). I think the whole lack of DoF things is overdone regarding the m4/3 cameras or at least the OMD. I can’t speak for the others. Sure there will be decline given the sensor size and focal length but not enough imo to lose quality in an image.

26. No doubt Michele…you have the photographer’s eye. Reminds me that the early years can be the most lustrous. Beautiful work!

Comments are closed.