Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
Part II of our epic mini-series “The Spot on the Sensor”
In last week’s episode, I discovered that my FZ200 had sucked up yet another dust particle and said, “Well, now I am faced with a dilemma: $100 to clean it, with no guarantee it won't happen again tomorrow; $500 for the FZ300, which is supposed to be dust-resistant; or possibly a telephoto for the EM5 . . .
Any suggestions are welcome.”
DaleThorn said: “I would fix it if I could be sure to keep it away from dust.
If not, I would get the FZ300, so I could continue with a similar camera that I know I like.
A telephoto for the EM5 wouldn't be the same, for several reasons.”
Because I am not very bright and of advancing years and because I fell under the spell of my DSLR-owning brother-in-law (who said, “Get an SLR, you can put any darn lens you want on it”), I ignored Dale’s sage advice and ordered a Panasonic 100-300 for my Olympus OM-D E-M5.
I had this fantasy spinning in my head that I would permanently attach the telephoto to the OMD and carry two cameras when the better half and I went walking where we might find wildlife. The OMD would capture the long-range stuff, and my LX100 would be handy for recording the grandeur of the skies. Right?!!
RONG! The Panasonic 100-300 is a nicely made lens, but it is big, heavy, and impossible to hold steady with the OIS turned off. With the OIS activated, it settles down with a half press of the shutter, but the camera/lens combo has a disturbing tendency to jerk when the mechanical shutter clunks through its cycle.
During a series of test shots outside on a perfectly beautiful day, comparing the OMD/100-300 combo with my FZ200, I realized that I overwhelmingly preferred the superzoom. Shooting at booth 600mm e and 1200mm e (with digital zoom engaged), I found that the results at 100% from the OMD combo were smoother but softer. The FZ200 was sharper but had more digital artifacts and noise, but it was much, much easier to frame the shot that I wanted. My photographic style, if I have one, is to wander about and shoot what catches my eye; I don’t do tripods unless it is under the night sky.
I quickly realized that my fantasy about the 100-300/OMD was just that: a Spanish pipe dream. Dale was absolutely right: A telephoto for the EM5 wouldn't be the same, for several reasons. Any representations that I would regularly carry the 100-300/OMD combo were, as Nixon put it, inoperative.
So I have requested a return label on the 100-300, and I expect that as soon as I can be sure I’ll get my money back, I will be ordering the FZ300. When it shows up, I’ll report my impressions here.
Cheer, Jock
In last week’s episode, I discovered that my FZ200 had sucked up yet another dust particle and said, “Well, now I am faced with a dilemma: $100 to clean it, with no guarantee it won't happen again tomorrow; $500 for the FZ300, which is supposed to be dust-resistant; or possibly a telephoto for the EM5 . . .
Any suggestions are welcome.”
DaleThorn said: “I would fix it if I could be sure to keep it away from dust.
If not, I would get the FZ300, so I could continue with a similar camera that I know I like.
A telephoto for the EM5 wouldn't be the same, for several reasons.”
Because I am not very bright and of advancing years and because I fell under the spell of my DSLR-owning brother-in-law (who said, “Get an SLR, you can put any darn lens you want on it”), I ignored Dale’s sage advice and ordered a Panasonic 100-300 for my Olympus OM-D E-M5.
I had this fantasy spinning in my head that I would permanently attach the telephoto to the OMD and carry two cameras when the better half and I went walking where we might find wildlife. The OMD would capture the long-range stuff, and my LX100 would be handy for recording the grandeur of the skies. Right?!!
RONG! The Panasonic 100-300 is a nicely made lens, but it is big, heavy, and impossible to hold steady with the OIS turned off. With the OIS activated, it settles down with a half press of the shutter, but the camera/lens combo has a disturbing tendency to jerk when the mechanical shutter clunks through its cycle.
During a series of test shots outside on a perfectly beautiful day, comparing the OMD/100-300 combo with my FZ200, I realized that I overwhelmingly preferred the superzoom. Shooting at booth 600mm e and 1200mm e (with digital zoom engaged), I found that the results at 100% from the OMD combo were smoother but softer. The FZ200 was sharper but had more digital artifacts and noise, but it was much, much easier to frame the shot that I wanted. My photographic style, if I have one, is to wander about and shoot what catches my eye; I don’t do tripods unless it is under the night sky.
I quickly realized that my fantasy about the 100-300/OMD was just that: a Spanish pipe dream. Dale was absolutely right: A telephoto for the EM5 wouldn't be the same, for several reasons. Any representations that I would regularly carry the 100-300/OMD combo were, as Nixon put it, inoperative.
So I have requested a return label on the 100-300, and I expect that as soon as I can be sure I’ll get my money back, I will be ordering the FZ300. When it shows up, I’ll report my impressions here.
Cheer, Jock