The pana leica 100-400 is light as a feather (almost), sharp and a very nice macro lens for critters. M43 has autocorrect enabled for RAW which hides CA and purple fringing (if you pixelpeep the corrections are slightly visisble). The most amazing part is the fast if not instant focus, bird recognition and stunning dual SR from the lens and body. I plan to get the leica macro, on a tripod you get focus bracketing and touch focus (touch the screen = sets the focus point and starts the focus bracketing. In post pick the best focus point!
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 21:00, John Francis <jo...@panix.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 07:32:50AM +0000, mike wilson wrote: > > > > > On 24 November 2021 at 04:47 John Francis <jo...@panix.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Olympus rig is only a little lighter than the Pentax; > > > while the lens is significantly lighter (even though it's > > > f2.8, not f4), the OM-D body is actually quite a bit heavier > > > than the K5. (The K3 is heaver than the K5, too, but still > > > significantly lighter than the OM-D M1X, even with a grip). > > > > I was rather curious about this. For decades, Pentax was agreed to be the > > lightest and petitest of the major manufacturers, generally without a lack > > of facility. I can remember discussions here about it being one of the > > attractants. It will be interesting to see if you decide that the saving > > in mass was worth the expenditure. > > Well, a fair bit of the expenditure was already earmarked; the K5 is > getting a bit long in the tooth, so I was considering getting a K3iii. > > The big saving in mass comes if I want to use longer focal lengths. > The last time I went to San Diego Wild Animal Park was the first time > I got to use my 250-600, and there were a couple of time when I could > have used something longer. This was back before the days of digital > bodies; I suspect 600mm on an APS-C sensor would be enough. But that > lens weighs something like 12lb; there's no way nowadays I'll want to > lug that around for several hours. > > But with the 4/3 sensor I just need to get to 400mm. I'm not planning > on buying Olympus's fancy new ($7,500!) 150-400mm/f4.5 zoom, but I might > consider renting one for a couple of weeks. And that 'only' weighs 4lb. > Still a lot to cart around, but a lot more manageable than 12 lb! > And if I do decide I want my own longer lens Olympus have another way > to get there - they have an older 100-400/f5.0-6.3 which is a lot lighter > (on both the wallet and the shoulders); I would think I should be able to > sell my 250-600 for more than enough to cover the purchase of that lens. > > > > -- > > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow the directions. > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List > To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
