Sep 242012
 

Today the conspiracy theory that DXO rides a vendetta against Olympus just crumbled.

You may remember, ages ago, maybe even two months ago, DxO posted on their DxOmark site that the Olympus OM-D E-M5 was “strange”. People wondered what that could mean, and when no review by DxO happened in a long time, suspicions arose.

All needless. Today DxD published data on the OM-D and, according to them, the OM-D is just a little bit better than the Leica M9 and as good as the Canon 7D.

Of course this is rubbish. I mean, it may well be so, but even if, it is more or less meaningless. The OM-D is just “Good EnoughTM” and that’s sufficient.

Today I read a question on Photo.net, a question of someone who asked if going from DX (APS-C) to FX (35 mm frame) would help with his landscape photography. No, I answered, it would not. FX is fine for shallow DOF (which you don’t need in traditional landscape photography) and high ISO (which you don’t need either). I also mentioned that I had gone in the opposite direction, from Nikon DX to Olympus OM-D and … was ignored 🙂

Anyway. I think the direction things move to is clear, but that’s not even my point. For me the OM-D is all about weight and image stabilization.

Take for instance today’s images. Both were taken with the Panasonic 20/1.7, a lens that is something between a moderate wide-angle and a so-called “normal length”.

Both of these images were taken in extremely dim light, both were taken with shutter priority (“S-mode”) and both were taken at 1/3s. Handheld.

The Song of the Day is “Solid As A Rock” by Ella Fitzgerald. Hear it on YouTube.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.