phez wrote:Did you not bother to check out the GH1, which by all respects other than size*, is superior on so many other levels?
* these cameras are so god damn small as it is
JustAnEngineer wrote:If the $400 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 lens has too wide a field of veiw (40mm equivalent on full frame), maybe the $900 Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 OIS (90mm equivalent on a full frame) would be satisfactory? Micro-4/3 is not going to give you the very shallow depth of field that's possible with a camera with a larger sensor.
Is the $900 Panasonic Leica D 25mm f/1.4 (50mm equivalent) with the $115 Panasonic DMW-MA1 4/3 to micro-4/3 adapter a possibility?
JustAnEngineer wrote:Of course, even micro-4/3 can produce a much shallower depth of field than the tiny sensors in most point and shoot cameras.
liquidsquid wrote:Don't forget the macro lens by Panasonic, apparently it has great optical qualities at 50mm.
liquidsquid wrote:Sorry, 45mm, still... good for isolating the face
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... 20macro&Q=
the lens is not quite as sharp across the entire frame as the Lumix Vario G 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit zoom, which is outstanding at 45mm (but obviously doesn't open up to F2.8 ).
Central sharpness is high even at F2.8, but the corners don't come close
One area in which the 45mm F2.8 is slightly lacking, though, is when used as a portrait lens (a classic second purpose of short telephoto macros), due to its relatively small entrance pupil. It's just not quite capable of the selective focus and background blurring that many photographers prefer
In ergonomic terms, we weren't overly impressed by the implementation of manual focus. The combination of the 'focus-by-wire' system (which gives no tactile feedback), the lack of a distance scale and the internal focus design makes manual focus surprisingly difficult
Unfortunately though, we can't summon up quite the same enthusiasm for the 45mm F2.8 macro. It's not a bad lens in any way (in fact it's a very good macro), just one which doesn't seem (to us at least) to offer a sufficiently compelling blend of features to fully justify the significant price tag.
Voldenuit wrote:Lens Compatibility Update: It seems that the new G2 and G10 are now AF-compatible with a much larger range of Four Thirds lenses, even ones that do not support CDAF.
after all, what are the odds that someone who bought a P&S replacement is going to buy a whole stable of lenses from you?
Voldenuit wrote:I suppose Oly has their Four Thirds, cough, ecosystem to protect (does anyone actually *use* these things? I don't think I've seen a single FT DSLR in the wild - EVER)
liquidsquid wrote:I have been a member of the 4/3 Photo forums for a while, and 4/3 is definitely an "elite" exclusive (rare) crowd. Mostly guys that squeeze incredible pictures out of an obscure little-seen format. I think the passion mostly stems from the amazing Olympus glass, not so much the sensor performance. Take a look at those forums, not too crowded, not full of a bunch of hot-heads, and a great deal of talent that makes me realize I am really good at taking snapshots, but very far from being a good photographer.
A great bunch.
b_naresh wrote:I didn't know four-thirds was so rare...obviously, nothing close to the Canikon crowd but I still see a lot of new E-620 owners on the dpreview Olympus SLR forums. I've heard about the fourthirds photo website but haven't checked out the forums yet - will do that soon. Even at dpreview, the Olympus SLR forum regulars are a great bunch, rarely see any hostility there - though recently there have been quite a few panic threads about Olympus abandoning FT and focussing only on MFT.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests