View Single Post
  #7  
Old 12th April 2012
benvendetta's Avatar
benvendetta benvendetta is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pontypool, South Wales
Posts: 3,748
Thanks: 83
Thanked 297 Times in 262 Posts
Likes: 167
Liked 339 Times in 229 Posts
Re: Four Thirds Lenses v Micro Four Thirds

If I was spending a grand plus on a new camera body, I would want full functionality with the glass that I already have. If I was not getting this full functionality, such as is likely to be the case with the E-M5 (at least until Oly does something about it), then I would feel I was losing out on something very fundemental, the focusing performance and usability. I would have to shell out for an expensive adapter as well.

I accept that everything else would be great but I would feel that I would not be getting my moneys worth from the E-M5. Replacing my glass would just be too costly to do and would not give the equivalent of what I have.

For me, sticking with full 4/3 would be far better and by waiting for the future E-7, which is likely to tick ALL the functionality boxes albeit at a higher price than the E-M5.
__________________
Dave

E-M1 Mk2, Pen F, HLD-9, 17, 25, 45, 60 macro, 12-40 Pro, 40-150 Pro, 12-50, 40-150, 75-300, MC-14, MMF-3 (all micro 4/3rds), 7-14 (4/3rds), 50, 135 (OM), GoPro Hero 3, Novo/Giottos/ Manfrotto supports. Lowepro, Tamrac, Manfrotto, and Billingham bags.

External Competition Secretary, Cwmbran PS & Welsh Photographic Federation Judge
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to benvendetta For This Useful Post:
OlyPaul (12th April 2012)