This is one of the reasons why I like EVF over OVF. The adjustable diopter focusing is a requirement at my age now and manual focusing has always been preferred! It's probably the same reason I hate LCDs so frigging much and why I appreciate the fact that the GH1 allows me to turn it in on itself to remain permanently OFF. With my replacement GH1 I now get 900 ~ 1100 shots on a battery charge too which is a nice side affect of that.
Bifurcator wrote:
This is one of the reasons why I like EVF over OVF. The adjustable diopter focusing is a requirement at my age now and manual focusing has always been preferred! It's probably the same reason I hate LCDs so frigging much and why I appreciate the fact that the GH1 allows me to turn it in on itself to remain permanently OFF. With my replacement GH1 I now get 900 ~ 1100 shots on a battery charge too which is a nice side affect of that.
I hear you....I converted my GH1 to IR and miss it. I will probably shop for a replacement after Photokina. The clip-on EVF's for the GF1 and EP-2 are JUST ok. They'll do in a pinch, but the GH1 form factor is more preferable for me.
Just some RAW processing notes, I use a slight tone curves and using the Faithful or Neutral settings in DPP (with the "color saturation" slider at 2). That generally seems to work best with this Super Tak, for me. I absolutely love this lens for portrait work but its definitely pretty long on my Rebel XT so I find I'm using my Zeiss 50/1.7 more often.
I wouldn't say it's "VERY sharp" though. The scaled versions were sharpened - and of course they're scaled which adds a lot of apparent detail. Also the lens has smeary corners wide open which on FF or APS I assume would look worse. I haven't shot it stopped down at all yet so I assume those only show wide open. Still, it's a cute little guy. It looks very cool on the GH1. It's the exact same diameter as the m42 adapter so it looks like one piece. I think it's pretty old by it's all metal construction and the 30's & 40's style knurled focus ring which is kinda kewl - like shooting with a piece of history.
praktinafan wrote:
I have read somewhere that the Takumar 3.5/35 uses the same lens design as the Voigtländer Skoparex from the early 1950ies. Is that true?
Me? I have no idea. There's lots of info on the web about Takumars tho. It might be interesting to look up.
Bifurcator wrote:
Takumar 35mm f/3.5 all wide open on the GH1:
It has pretty sharp centers!
Not that I noticed. If there is any it's considerably slight and easily corrected for. At least on the GH1. Just the smeary corners is all I noticed - and I think that's only wide open. The smeary corners if shooting with a flat foreground like the man above, can look like DOF effects - so in a way I kinda like that - and it's not too bad - I've seen worse.
Here's the 35mm f/3.5 shooting a test chart - pulled back to reveal the edges of the paper. It's not the best test for distortion but if you look at the paper edges it'll give you some idea. There's not very much distortion in that.
And here's the res-chart used as it's supposed to be for 4:3. (It seems to clear 2,000 LPPH on the GH1. The GH1 (I hear) has very light AA filters tho so it's likely that it won't be as good on other M4/3 cameras.):
I'm not really an off camera light equipment sort of guy but I was playing with my Zeiss 50/1.7 and Super Takumar 135/3.5 with a small Japanese vase. I only used a crude LED light for working on cars as the off camera light (and a large curtained window as the backlight). Here's the shot...
