Recent content by AndyElliott

The E-30 with the grip will be a lot easier to hold than the E-620 with the grip if you have larger hands. If you aren't rotating the camera for portrait, then the E-30 without the grip will still be easier to handle. Andy

9-18mm is 18mm to 36mm (35mm equivalent, 2x crop!), which is pretty wide. I appreciate it isn't as wide as 14mm equivalent, but still not bad... And there is very little distortion. Compare that with the siggy 10-20 (15 to 30 on a Nik crop), and the wide end barrels quite a bit. If you correct...

There may be another reasonable option for the long and wide ends... Get an mFT->FT adapter plus the 9-18 (FT rather than mFT version) and the 70-300 - both those lenses are very good and can be had quite cheaply. The FT version of the 9-18 also supports contrast AF on the panny bodies and is a...

I suspect the 100-300 will be a lot more expensive than the 70-300 - which you can get second-hand pretty cheaply too.

There's the 9-18 as alternative SWA lens - much cheaper than the panny and still very good. As far as long goes, with the mFT-FT adapter you can use the Zuiko 70-300. This is a very good and not too expensive lens. It also supports contrast-AF fully, so will work on the panny as well as the oly...

There are plenty of people who have... The main issue with mFT is the contrast-AF - it's great for static things, but not so great for fast moving things. So it comes down to what you shoot...

That's true - shallow DOF is one thing, but you can have too shallow! For wildlife and macro, more DOF is advantageous. An example would be using a 300/2.8 on full-frame. @2.8, the DOF is often too small to get sufficient of the animal being taken in focus. If you look at the BBC wildlife...

Very true, some lenses just have that certain something... I know I'm preaching to the converted with you, Paul... ;) Here's one I took with the 35-100 before I sadly returned it yesterday... 100% crop: Taken wide open @f2, 35mm

Part of that is that the mass of the bit of glass the focussing motor is moving is generally a lot less, also more light is hitting the AF sensors.

If they could cover the full-frame area, they would be massive - as they would also need to be double the focal length to roughly equivalent. Andy

Theory and practise are quite different. It is quite possible to make a zoom lens that is sharper at its maximum aperture than a prime at the same aperture. It depends on which zoom and which prime. :D I've been hiring/trialling the Zuiko Digital 35-100 f2 over the last week. I would be very...

I think that is true, the diffraction does kick in, but not to an extent where it makes the image less sharp than it would have been at the lower resolution. There is obviously the point about whether the extra resolution is giving you extra detail for a given lens, but this is a property of the...

:clap: Looking forward to take a look at this...

Except, the pixel density of the crop sensors tends to be higher, so they are more demanding of the lens (albeit in the lens's best are, the middle). E.g. 10MP full-frame, vs 10MP APS-C Canon crop. The crop sensor is packing 10MP over 1/2.56 of the area - so the pixels are smaller and the...

I think the AF is less of a biggy, it's the lack of brightness that makes the bigma less useful. (Not really a criticism, the lens is what it is - if it was an f4 or f2.8 it would be massive and cost a lot, lot more!)