douglasf13 wrote:
The odd thing is that two of the lenses aren't silver, but more of a champaign:
Yeah, the 12/2 and 75/1.8 are metal bodies and they are doing champagne color for those apparently. All the silver/black lenses are primarily plastic bodies. I guess the champagne is to indicate some sort of premiumness...
For Panasonic most lenses are a dark metal grey with black accents though a few are also optionally available in silver. The Leica branded Panasonic lenses are entirely black instead.
m43 is not a system to join if you want all the parts to match in color!
My kit is even worse as my bodies were acquired based on what was the cheapest and most available at the time of purchase. So my G1 (now IR converted) is blue and my GH2 is "silver" although it is a bit more like the 12/2 champagne than a monochromatic silver.
Surprisingly I actually ended up liking both the body colors despite being a "black only please" kind of person.
kwalsh wrote:
So my G1 (now IR converted) is blue and my GH2 is "silver" although it is a bit more like the 12/2 champagne than a monochromatic silver.
Ken. Do tell. Where'd you get the IR conversion. Maybe I'll do that with my E-P3
I don't think black fits here. After all, we all know that black makes you thin but this camera is thin enough. I'll take the silver thank you very much.
Some people have complained they are a bit slow on the communication front. I did have a email not get responded to, but I was doing the conversion just before Christmas and they were swamped with orders. They did pick up the phone when I called, answered my question and got the conversion done and back to me in less than two weeks despite their back log. I was quite happy with the experience, they did an excellent job.
I decided on them because they would actually do the conversion and replace the dust shaker in my G1. Some of the conversion places don't reattach the dust shaker. Sometimes there is a good reason, I know the GF1 has to have the dust shaker removed because it doesn't pass IR very well itself as well as other complications I think. Spencer's seems to know which models can have the dust shaker put back in and will do that. Some others I talked to said they always removed the dust shaker.
Oh, and somewhere in this guy's blog is a coupon code for $25 off a Spencer's conversion:
ChrisDM wrote:
Well $#&% I JUST bought a GX1! And although I love it I miss not having a viewfinder (I usually shoot Canon DSLR's)... I'm gonna pre-order the OMD and likely put the GX1 up on the B&S when it arrives, but...
The accessory EVF for the GX1 is actually pretty good... I spent some time playing with one in the camera store the other day. It's a bit pricey, though (C$275 in local stores).
I had planned to buy a GX1 with the 14-42X and the external EVF, but that package cost more than a GH2 kit with the 14-140 zoom... so now I have a GH2 (again).
hauxon wrote:
The 75/2 is manual and 77/1.8 is AF by screw from body so neither needs to make room for a focusing motor and would be bigger with AF motor built in.
The rear cap on that lens is 53mm in diameter. Changing the magnification of the above photo on my screen to match that dimension shows a lens diameter of about 59mm, and a length of roughly 65-70mm.
that 75/1.8 along with the 12/2 may have sealed the deal on me giving u4/3 a shot with this OM-D. I cancelled my preorder for the X-Pro1/18mm/35mm since the lack of lens selection dictates using MF lenses and I think that experience is going to suck on the Fuji.
u4/3 just seems like a system that I want to try, and thinking about getting my wife an EPM-1 at the same time.
ChrisDM wrote:
12-35 f2.8, even better, thanks! One more question Ken, if you don't mind.. I am new to M43... I assume this Panasonic 12-35 will have IS... What if I have an Olympus body with IS, then mount a Panasonic? Will I be able to disable one or the other IS systems so it will run smoothly? If not, that lens alone may make my GX1 worth keeping... Thanks again,
Actually the specs aren't finalised and the apertures may not be f/2.8. I'd would like to see them f/2.4 as a compromise between the more desirable, but bulky and expensive f/2 and too slow f/2.8. However, since this is m4/3 I'm sure they stick with f/2.8.
I think it looks very typical. I just held several other lenses in my hands in the same position to compare with that photo. It might have a slightly smaller diameter but even so not by much! The rear cap is very shallow so that makes it look a little smaller. It looks good. But not small compared to other 50, 60, and 85mm lenses of similar speed to FL ratio.
That's OK though I'm not a nincompoop so I don't need it to be smaller, just good!
Jonas B wrote:
...and yummy enough - but I would of course have preferred it to be black. Complain complain.
I agree. But I dunno... I was walking along a mountain trail with my pack, hiking boots, monopod-hiking-stick, looking all mountainy and stuff... when I came upon 3 young ladies in high-heals wearing copious amounts of expensive looking jewelry and what would have been considered provocative lingerie just 25 years ago. One had a silver olympus pen with silver lens and it matched her (glam?) style quite well. It made me want - but at the time I couldn't tell if I was wanting the women or the camera. I could see everything after-all - including the camera. Olympus might be smart enough to be playing to that - I dunno.
carstenw wrote:
Do you mean at 75mm, or at the same effective focal length, i.e. 150mm? For the former, look at the Leica 75/2 M lens. For the latter, look at the Leica 180/2 for an estimate.
More like a 150/4. I can't understand why people justify to compare to a f/2 lens for 35 mm film. A 180/2 will have much thinner DOF and about two stops of light advantage coupled on a modern FF camera. Two different animals.
JonasY wrote:
I can't understand why people justify to compare to a f/2 lens for 35 mm film. A 180/2...
We µ4/3 users are so far down on the totem we'll grab every chance to bolster out positions. And painting the crop-factor issues all in beautiful positive light is a pretty old one.
JonasY wrote:
More like a 150/4. I can't understand why people justify to compare to a f/2 lens for 35 mm film. A 180/2 will have much thinner DOF and about two stops of light advantage coupled on a modern FF camera. Two different animals.
The excellent Voigtlander 180/4 APO might be considered somewhat similar FF lens in regards of focal length and DOF. Of course 2 stops slower but one might argue that ISO800 on some full-frame cameras is not that much worse than ISO200 on m4/3. It's a tiny lens for FF but it's massive mounted on a mirroless camera, shown here on Pentax Q:
JonasY wrote:
More like a 150/4. I can't understand why people justify to compare to a f/2 lens for 35 mm film. A 180/2 will have much thinner DOF and about two stops of light advantage coupled on a modern FF camera. Two different animals.
Because most people care more about equivalent exposure than DoF. They're comparing exposure at a given ISO setting, and then it's the equivalent of a 150/2, not a 150/4. It's only in terms of DoF and total illumination that the equivalent is 150/4 and most don't really care about the first and don't even know about the second.
Frankly with today's sensors total illumination is next to irrelevant until you're above ISO 1600 even with m43. Things are different when you're riding the ragged edge of ISO capability, but most people are going to spend most of their time shooting at low to mid ISO's and down there total illumination is irrelevant.
mawz wrote:
Because most people care more about equivalent exposure than DoF. They're comparing exposure at a given ISO setting, and then it's the equivalent of a 150/2, not a 150/4. It's only in terms of DoF and total illumination that the equivalent is 150/4 and most don't really care about the first and don't even know about the second.
Frankly with today's sensors total illumination is next to irrelevant until you're above ISO 1600 even with m43. Things are different when you're riding the ragged edge of ISO capability, but most people are going to spend most of their time shooting at low to mid ISO's and down there total illumination is irrelevant....Show more →
Again, at low to mid ISO, when you use a higher ISO on the larger sensor, the results are CLOSER than when you use the same ISO.
And if illumination doesn't matter we can use an even higher ISO setting on the larger sensor. Why should "the difference doesn't matter" always be used to excuse more noise on the smaller sensor, and not more noise on the larger sensor?
Olympus might be smart enough to be playing to that - I dunno.
And painting the crop-factor issues all in beautiful positive light is a pretty old one.