Question About E-M5 OM-D and Panny 100-300 Lens

Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
6,184
Location
Glens Falls, NY
A few days ago, I was shooting with my OM-D E-M5, using various lenses. At one point I had the camera set to High-speed Continuous shooting and I found that (using the exact same shutter speed, same aperture setting, same lighting conditions, same ISO and same memory card) the speed of the continuous shooting was noticably slower when using my Panasonic 100-300 lens than with my other lenses (such as the Oly 12-50 kit lens). IBIS was on in both cases and OIS was off on the Panny 100-300.

It's hard to quantify how much slower, but I'd venture to say 25-30%. In other words it took approximately 25-30% longer to fire off x number of images with the 100-300 lens than with the 12-50.

Has anyone else noticed this? Is this behavior normal for this lens? The lens seems to work fine otherwise. I'm leaving on a long vacation trip in 10 days or so I'm a bit worried that there's something wrong with it though.

If anyone owns an E-M5 and this lens, I would really appreciate if you could run a test between this lens and others you might have to see if you're getting the same slowdown in Continuous-High FPS?

Thanks!
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
6,505
Location
Wolfe City, Texas
Bert,

I did a quick comparison between the 75, 12-35, and the 100-300. I had the ISO set to a fixed value, as well as the shutter speed and aperture in manual, file quality was jpeg - super fine. Nothing very scientific but I couldn't tell any difference in the speed of the shutter. I simply left the shutter depressed until the buffer was full which in each case was around 12 pictures (or so).
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
6,184
Location
Glens Falls, NY
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Bert,

I did a quick comparison between the 75, 12-35, and the 100-300. I had the ISO set to a fixed value, as well as the shutter speed and aperture in manual, file quality was jpeg - super fine. Nothing very scientific but I couldn't tell any difference in the speed of the shutter. I simply left the shutter depressed until the buffer was full which in each case was around 12 pictures (or so).
Hmmm... Sounds about like my test - except that I'm shooting Raw. (I don't know why that would make any difference though.) This has me a little worried now....

Thanks for taking the time, Mike.
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
6,505
Location
Wolfe City, Texas
I didn't think to try it with RAW files but I would think the only difference might be how many shots the buffer could handle before it's full. Seems really odd that the lens would matter -
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom