Finally was able to get 5 minutes with the GH-2 and 12-35/2.8 after having it for most of a week.
By far not my greatest work, but at least I was able to get outside during the couple of hours that the sun was out here in Seattle (it's been a while!).
Coming from a D800 I'm still getting used to the size of the body, the EVF and all the controls. So far though it passes my litmus test of being able to operate almost everything without having to consult a users manual.
DR and sharpness seems very very much acceptable to me for what I bought the camera and lens for.
I also handled a GH-3 today for a bit, and found it much more fitting to my hand, but it's starting to get a bit big for what I want.
Anyways, here's some native 16:9 quick snaps with just a bit of post processing in CS6 from the RW2's.
I'm now an official participant in the Alternative forum!
John
Nice shots. Thats a very nice combo. One thing to try and remember with m4/3 is to watch the stopping down. Remember that f/8 on m4/3 will have the same DOF as f/16 on FF, and also diffraction sets in sooner. While I usually can't see visible degradation until about f/14, most m4/3 lenses are sharpest at around f/4-5.6.
Jman13 wrote:
Nice shots. Thats a very nice combo. One thing to try and remember with m4/3 is to watch the stopping down. Remember that f/8 on m4/3 will have the same DOF as f/16 on FF, and also diffraction sets in sooner. While I usually can't see visible degradation until about f/14, most m4/3 lenses are sharpest at around f/4-5.6.
Thanks, but on the last image f/16 FX equivalent was exactly what I wanted since I wanted everything to be in focus. In fact when viewed at 100% this image is very sharp up and down the statue. You have to know when to stop down for high DOF while accepting some diffraction effects. I'm a very experienced FX Nikon shooter.
For the first image I had the camera in P mode (for some reason) and it chose f/7.1 whereas f/4 or f/5.6 would have been just fine.
I'll need to purposely use this camera over my D800 to force myself to quickly become comfortable with the camera operation and shooting style with this lens.
All good - just wanted to mention since I do see a lot of FF converts initially stopping down a lot out of habit. I've used f/16 on m4/3 when I really need the DOF, though I try never to go smaller because the hit is too large.
The GH3 has 16:9. It has 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9. It just doesn't have the ability to maintain the lens's focal length perfectly like the GH2 and GH1 have. But really, that's like, not a big deal. No one would even know if they weren't told. Unless they were footage matching to other systems or something...
Currently I think the only reason to be interested in the GH3 is the video modes without having to hack it, the weather proofing, and the larger body. Maybe the increased continuous drive speed if you're into wildlife, action, and such. Everything else seems too close to the GH2. The ISO behavior, the resolution, the in camera processing engine, and all the other whistles and bells aren't much more/different than the GH2 IMO. The dropped the ball by excluding an intervalometer on the GH1 and GH2 so now everyone interested in that already has a $50 - $75 PiXeL one or whatever...
So yeah, coming from a GH2 I see no great benefit in the GH3 or least not enough to justify the cost of trading up. OTOH you live in Seattle where it rains and rain AND RAINS --- when it's not snowing that is... so maybe the weather proofing is worth it for you...
That's what I meant by "native" 16:9 - you don't have to crop your image to get that aspect ratio and thus you actually have a wider horizontal FOV at the wide end of your lens without sacrificing resolution from coping. I'm a wide junky and thus want all the wide pixels I can get my hands on . . . .
Jman13 wrote:
I see a Panny 7-14 in your future. Fantastic lens.
Yes, yes you are correct of course. I'd also get either the Panny 8mm/3.5 or the Samyang/Bower/Rokinon 7.5mm/3.5 . The 75/1.8 Oly is also in my future . . .
This camera gear was meant for times when the D800 + FX gear is too big/heavy/etc., but I can see this system growing, especially if Olympus really gets it right with the OM-D successor (I was not impressed with the OM-D).
I started that way too with the e p1. By the time I got some good glass and the GH2, I realized I no longer enjoyed shooting with my SLR. Then I made the full switch.
Nice shots John. I wasn't impressed with the OM-D initially either when handling it in the store, but ended up swapping my D600 back for an OM-D for the size/weight part of the equation. I thought about the GH2/3 but wanted the weather sealing and IBIS. I figured I'd have to learn to deal with what felt like a fiddly, tiny-button, awkward-to-hold camera. I added the battery grip, used the camera for about a week, and now it's almost second nature. There are some little annoying things (the power button is ridiculous and hard to activate, for example), but generally I've gotten used to it quicker than I thought I might.
True, it will never be as nice as having all the external controls of my former Nikon SLR, but I carry the OM-D, Panny 7-14 (which is TINY for what it is), PanaLeica 25/1.4, Oly 45, and Oly 60 macro, all in about the same space and weight as my D800 with *one* prime only.
I still can't quite believe the weight and size difference. It's a revelation (especially considering the relatively small difference in IQ).
jhinkey wrote:
That's what I meant by "native" 16:9 - you don't have to crop your image to get that aspect ratio and thus you actually have a wider horizontal FOV at the wide end of your lens without sacrificing resolution from coping. I'm a wide junky and thus want all the wide pixels I can get my hands on . . . .
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
On the GH2 16:9 is 4976 x 2800 (4608 x 3456 (4:3))
On the GH3 16:9 is 4608 x 2592 (4608 x 3456 (4:3))
So that's a loss of like 368 horizontal pixels or around 7.5% of the image circle's width. Of course that's not there at all on the GH2 or GH3 when shooting 4:3 but... Hmm, so I wonder how that breaks down in focal lengths and crop factors?
Really used it for the first time today and I must say that it did it's job. Small, light, and decent IQ. Today's shots were all candids in low light so the noise was up there at ISO 1600, but it's way more than fine for 4x6 or even 8x10.
Jman13 wrote:
Nice shots. Thats a very nice combo. One thing to try and remember with m4/3 is to watch the stopping down. Remember that f/8 on m4/3 will have the same DOF as f/16 on FF, and also diffraction sets in sooner. While I usually can't see visible degradation until about f/14, most m4/3 lenses are sharpest at around f/4-5.6.
If you want to maximize your DOF, wouldn't you want to shoot at f/8 (f/16 on FF)?
I've had a chance to use it out in the mountains a bit while snow shoeing and sledding/playing in the snow and it's done a fine job of what I've asked it to do.
Sure it does not nearly have the DR of my D800, but the 12-35/2.8 is sharp even wide open and if you watch your exposure the DR seems to be just fine. Shadow recovery of some underexposed shots is still very respectable.
Stills are coming out very very good and I'm loving the video quality (I've not hacked it and I do not have a lot of video experience). I'm also using the variable aspect ratio as much as I thought I would (which is a lot). Love the controls and the intuitive menus.
So far a very good combination. I'll try to post some pics later.
lsquare wrote:
It is except for its inability to deal with flare.
Yes, that is the one thing that has me a bit scared about getting this lens. There was a rumor a while back about another version of this lens coming out which would have OIS. If it does come to p[ass I hope they do something to mitigate the flare/ghosting issue.
jhinkey wrote:
Yes, that is the one thing that has me a bit scared about getting this lens. There was a rumor a while back about another version of this lens coming out which would have OIS. If it does come to p[ass I hope they do something to mitigate the flare/ghosting issue.
It's really not that bad. I wanted the starburst that you get from a smaller aperture so I shot this at f22. But most of the time I would shoot it at f4 ... and try to avoid having the sun in the frame. Actually I do that regardless of the lens, mainly because of the contrast problem.
jhinkey wrote:
Yes, that is the one thing that has me a bit scared about getting this lens. There was a rumor a while back about another version of this lens coming out which would have OIS. If it does come to p[ass I hope they do something to mitigate the flare/ghosting issue.
Panasonic will probably have to completely redesign the lens in order to give it a bit of resistance to flare. I doubt we'll see one out any time soon.
