u/revjko

Just finishing my holiday packing and can't decide which 'everyday' lens to take between the two in the title. Do I go with the bigger, but more versatile 12-45, or the tiny but slightly more restrictive 12-32?

The 12-32 is new to me and from my series of test shots it behaves surprisingly well against the 12-45. I'd say it has poorer corner sharpness but holds its own for centre sharpness through the range. In fact there are a couple of places in the range I'd say it's as good or better than the 12-45.

Anyway, which would you take to sit alongside the 40-150 f/4 and the PL9mm f/1.7 for a casual holiday with no particular photographic aims in mind.

I've just recently received a used Panasonic 12-32 pancake zoom for my OM-5ii. Lovely little lens and pretty decent image quality. My question is about the zoom movement. The actual zoom range movement is smooth but the movement from the lock position to 12mm feels a bit stiff and jerky, and possibly moreso coming back from 12 to lock. Sometimes the lens doesn't fully retract but a small move out and back in sorts that. Does this indicate a problem with the mechanism or is this just how this lens feels?

Looking for thoughts and opinions on which one to try as a general purpose small lens on an OM-5ii. Probably mainly to complement a PL9/1.7 if I just want minimal carry. Likely to be swapped out for a 12-45 f/4 for when I want versatility. Good AF speed and image quality are key.

For those who've used both, is there much difference in the AF performance? I know the OM-5ii had pdaf, so there's that, but how big a step up is it?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm still contemplating a slightly smaller body than my OM-1ii for a more casual carry, probably paired with the 12-45 f/4. I'll be keeping the OM-1ii for wildlife, so this would be a 2nd body (actually replacing my 2nd OM-1ii). I first tried M43 via the E-M10iv and was very disappointed with the AF. Obviously the OM-1ii is a different league, especially with the subject detection. And before anyone suggests it, I really didn't get on with the OM-3 ergonomics. But if the OM-5ii gives me snappy, accurate, and consistent AF, even without the subject detection, then that would be nice. And if it can do decent AF for casual wildlife then that would be a bonus.

I see a lot of great shots from the OM-5ii so I'd give consideration to 'downgrading' for the sake of a slightly more compact and lighter carry. I'd probably also add a small prime to that body that would feel a bit pointless on the OM-1ii.

My zooms (40-150 f/2.8 and 100-400ii) get reasonable close-ups, especially with the TCs, but I was contemplating an actual macro lens. I'm not serious about it, but would be interested in dabbling, especially if one of the 3 OM macro lenses lends itself to double duty for other purposes.

​

Which of the three (or an alternative) would be worth considering for more casual use? Do any of the macro lenses work well for other purposes or is that pretty much their niche?

When I jumped to OM at the turn of the year I tried a few lenses and settled on the 300 f/4 and 50-200 f/2.8. I also have the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs. The one lens I didn't try was the 100-400 as I thought the other pair would be all I'd need. The 300 is great for when I'm at one of the local bird reserves and is still excellent with the 1.4x. The downside, of course, is lack of zoom versatility, hence the 50-200. However, I almost always find myself using the 50-200 with the 2.0x and I'm not entirely happy with the image quality and general performance.

I've been watching various reviews and comparison videos and the 100-400 is generally well regarded, often considered to be on a par with the 50-200 + 2.0x. With the TC I'm at f/5.6 anyway so not really miles better than the 100-400. So I'm considering swapping out the 50-200 for the 100-400 but would like some thoughts from the sub, and a bit of a sanity check.

For more general, ordinary use I also have the 12-45 f/4 and the 40-150 f/4 (for smaller, casual holiday use), so the zoom tele is mainly used for walkabout wildlife.

Hi all, I'm looking to change out my current smartwatch (Amazfit Active 2) and the 9 Peak Pro is under consideration (as well as Coros Pace 4). I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, an athletic sort but I do like to keep tabs on steps, heart rate, and suchlike. I also like to view walk routes but that's not critical. My phone could handle that if needed. I also look for long battery life, audible alarms, and basic notifications from my Android phone (a nice feature would be the watch respecting DND phone settings but that seems to be relatively uncommon). I have small wrists so something less than 44mm is preferred.

Is the 9 Peak Pro a bit overkill for what I want or is it a good choice?

Hi all, I'm looking to change out my current smartwatch (Amazfit Active 2) and the Coros Pace 4 is under consideration. I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, an athletic sort but I do like to keep tabs on steps, heart rate, and suchlike. I also like to view walk routes but that's not critical. My phone could handle that if needed. I also look for long battery life, audible alarms, and basic notifications from my Android phone (a nice feature would be the watch respecting DND phone settings but that seems to be relatively uncommon). I have small wrists so something less than 44mm is preferred.

Is the Coros Pace 4 a bit overkill for what I want or is it a good choice?

Apologies for what's likely to be the same question everyone else asks, but you'll appreciate there's a lot of personal preference and need in selecting a fitness band/watch.

The recent announcement of the Google/Fitbit Air got me wondering about replacing my Amazfit Active 2. In functional terms it does pretty much what I need. I'm not a fitness guru or athlete and generally just want to monitor steps, heart rate, broad activity level (not interested in workouts/recovery), and possibly SPO2 (but not crucial). The Amazfit Active 2 does these things and gives me a nice-sized watch as well but its integration with my Android phone can be annoying. Particularly, it doesn't respect phone DND settings and so I end up having notifications disabled or silenced on the watch, which pretty much defeats any 'smart' functionality. I do like the watch to have an alarm (and I really wish I could have the alarm on but other notifications off on the Amazfit, but that doesn't seem to be an option). Its link to Google Fit via its Zepp app can also be intermittent, as can the app itself.

Something like the Air would give me the option of just ignoring any smart wearable functionality and using a regular analogue watch (my preferred time-checking style). The band would give me the activity tracking I need. But I'm also interested in alternatives that would better link up to my phone (which happens to be a OnePlus at the moment, but I'm not brand loyal on phones, although it's always Android). I do know that getting a watch to follow the phone DND is often limited to matching brands, but happy to be directed to something suitable.

Following some other suggestions on here I've looked at the Withings ScanWatch 2 and that's certainly appealing. Functionally though, it doesn't offer much more than the Air or other bands, I think.

I also have small wrists so some of the chunkier devices such as Garmin's range are just too big. Something around 42-44mm in diameter, and without a huge bezel, is ideal.

So, happy to be pointed to some devices that would meet my need. Thanks.

I took advantage of the "compensation" discount to upgrade to a new PW. It transpired that I couldn't stack the discount with a trade-in so I still have my old PW. Just wondering if there's any benefit in jailbreaking it? What does that give me over just side-loading content? Which, of course, begs the question of whether there's any point in keeping the old one anyway.