|
Kaluza-Klein posted:So the 14-45 is the good one, rite? The only difference in model name from each of them is a 2 and a 5. I am terribly afraid I am going to mess up and buy the wrong one! IIRC the 45 was supposed to be a bit better, but it's out of production as the 42 replaced it.
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2011 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
I just got the 20mm 1.7 recently, having only had the kit 14-42 before aside from a bunch of FD lenses for film stuff. It's sweet having a bright prime but drat does this thing autofocus slow  kinda wish I'd gone for the 14mm 2.5 instead as apparently it's much faster and $100 cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
I just wish it autofocused faster/better.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2011 18:24
|
|
|
Just got the new 45mm 1.8 for my GH2 and goddamn this is a nice little lens. Now time to start saving for the 12mm 2.0 and try to trade up my 20mm 1.7 for the 25mm 1.4. m4/3rds finally has a nice prime set...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Not too familiar with zooms, but for primes the best, fastest ones are regarded as the Panasonic 20mm f1.7, Panasonic-Leica 25mm f1.4, Panasonic 14mm f2.5, Olympus 45mm f1.8, Olympus 12mm f2.0. The 14, 20 and 45 can be yours for under $400 (each)! Plus, the 14 and 20 are pancakes. As far as I know, Panasonic lenses have image stabilization while Olympus does not, because Olympus is in-body. None of those primes have image stabilization. Man_of_Teflon fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Nov 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2011 16:28
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I don't have one, but the Panasonic GH2 has hacks that increase the video quality substantially. You can also do video at 12800 ISO, and video at 2fps for some neat timelapse stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
Yuns posted:I think a strong argument for at least one m4/3 system is the strong video capabilities of the GH2. Although not a great stills camera, anyone shooting video should consider the Panasonic because of it's class smashing resolution, the downscaling versus line skipping that reduces aliasing and moire and the availability of hacks to enahle high bitrate (up to 176 Mbit/s i frame only capture). The dynamic range and high ISO performance could be better but for video it is excellent. I went with the NEX-5N since I cared more about lens choice and portability but it was a tough choice. I love my GH2 for video work, don't know why it doesn't get brought up more in the DSLR video thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 00:28
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:On a side note, the Fuji x100 got a firmware update this week, and it appears that they fixed AF speed quite substantially (it's not in the patch notes). Is this upgraded from the already-upgraded speed of the previous patch, or from an unpatched at all x100?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:I was using 1.11, now I'm on 1.13. Just checked out the x100 forum and it seems I'm not the only one who notices it being way better. Almost everybody noticed an improvement. It's pretty much a launch camera, maybe a month after release. Ugh this is not making my irrational desire for one any weaker...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Momonari kun posted:Do you know if that lens works on video modes? I don't have an m4/3 still camera, but have an AF-100 camcorder, which uses the same mount and was thinking about getting one of these pinhole lenses. I imagine it would work the same as any manual lens + adapter with no contacts, so yes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2012 15:05
|
|
|
powderific posted:What's everyone's feelings on the X10? I used to carry around a GH2 and 20mm 1.7 but bought an x10 because I wanted something more pocketable, and I like it a lot for casual shooting. The manual zoom is great, and between the big aperture, good IS for low shutter speeds and EXR + low light modes it's fine for low light stuff. I'm also colorblind enough that correcting color is a pain in the rear end, but the x10 seems to a great job with white balance and nice looking JPEGs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
MrMoose posted:So, I went to Best Buy today, and they have a Panasonic DMC GF3 for sale as an open box model. Price is $349, which didn't seem bad at all, as the model has received good reviews. They also have the 45-200 lens for $249.99 if bought with the camera. Amazon is selling the 45-200 for $200 I believe.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:If it's a wide fast prime you want, you really can't go wrong with the 14mm f2.5 panasonic, although it's like $350. I believe you can get this lens new on ebay for <$200 as there are a lot of parted out kit lenses on there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Extra space is also pretty cheap these days (especially in photo-dollars).
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
If it focuses as fast as the 45mm 1.8 that would be a pretty sweet upgrade from the 20mm 1.7.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
That would be a decent deal for anyone who picks it up, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
I bought the "zeikos" brand .45x 58mm filter thread wide angle adapter a while ago on ebay for $15 or so, and it does pretty good with the Panasonic 14-42mm: 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
Anti-Derivative posted:I would presume that the simple physics of a 40mm lens would require it to be, at a minimum, 40mm in length, not even taking into account the extra distance required to allow the light to cover the APS-C sized sensor. I expect that making the lens fast, and stuffing a focus motor inside would further affect the size. The Olympus XA has a neat lens design to get around this: http://www.diaxa.com/xa.htm posted:Perhaps the most amazing thing about the Olympus XA is that, unlike the four other pocket 35´s already mentioned, it does not fold and its lens doesn´t collapse. And how, pray tell, can one achieve a pocketably slim full-frame 35mm camera that´s just over 1 ½ in. thick without bringing the lens forward for picture taking? By using optical ingenuity. The Olympus XA´s non-collapsible 35mm f/2.8 Zuiko lens uses an optical construction, that is, to put it mildly, unique. This six-element, five group optic is best described as a reversed retrofocus wide-angle lens which has been modified to shorten its overall length (approximately 31mm from front element to film plane) compared to its focal length in a manner resembling that of a true telephoto. In order to be able to cover 24 x 36mm format, large rear elements are necessary, and, for rigidity as well as shallow depth, internal focusing (by moving the third optical group back and forth) was selected. The optical problems that had to be solved as a result of this unorthodox approach were formidable - high-refractive-index glasses had to be used to control aberrations across the picture field, and optical elements had to be manufactured and aligned to very close tolerances.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2012 14:27
|
|