>>4038788Its a good camera, but it's too expensive for what it is, but if you're rolling, who cares. Brokefags are gonna mald
>>4038828It really depends on what you're doing. 12-40 and 12-45 serve different purposes. If you shoot daytime landscapes, real estate and architecture or do a lot of fine detail stuff, then the 12-45 is the way to go. It's crystal clear corner to corner, considerably moreso than the old classic (pic related). If you're using your zoom to shoot people in any way, the 12-40 is the play. The 12-45 is surgically clean, too much so for people imo. Its a very unforgiving lens when it comes to portraits and people rarely want portraits to reflect reality.
>>4038844The 12-100 is good but you might find 90mm equiv of a 12-45 is decent enough reach already. 12-100 is in a weird spot where it's too big to be considered a standard zoom and doesnt have enough reach to really be a tele and using mft to it's full potential. It's double the weight and almost double the cost of the 12-45. I would get a 12-45 and see how you go. If you want more reach, then get a real tele with a 300 equiv at least. Now that will get you some birds in your shot. 12-100 is like some halfway thing. Do you wanna shoot wildlife or not
Whatever you do, I would avoid the 12-40 solely because you wont be shooting people. A big negative is the manual focus clutch, which is a major downer in your case because it's going to get super annoying hiking. You're going to brush up against it or put it in your pack and its going to get pulled and youre going to be in manual focus when you dont want to be. You dont need that shit when youve got cream of the crop OM1 af. You might want to think about grabbing a wide fast prime to toss in your bag for when the sun goes down. Just get the 12mm f2 native if you dont think you're gonna use it much.
That's 2 lenses for the cost of the 12-100
