Micro Four Thirds discussion

pxpaulx · 01-17-2010, 08:00 AM

The 7-14mm is more directly comparable with the Sigma 10-20mm from a focal length perspective. The M4/3 lenses are also still at a premium due to the high demand of the system in general. The 7-14mm is quite a unique lens, it is hard to compare with the 12-24mm - I think it is definitely overpriced at the moment, but that will likely change once Oly releases the 9-18mm.

I have read the 9-18mm will be in the range of $600 USD when released - it will also accept filters and be about the same size as the standard kit lens. If all of the above are true and it is a solid performer, I will probably switch out my 12-24 for it. The 9-18 will have a variable aperture, but with a lens like this the kind of work it sees typically warrants some stopping down of the aperture anyway.

I am quite excited to get my GF1, it is coming tomorrow.

juu · 01-17-2010, 09:22 AM

I agree that 7-14 on m43 = 10-20 on APSC, and 9-18 on m43 = 12-24 on APSC focal length-wise.

However, (perceived) lens quality-wise and "price segmentation"-wise I think 7-14 ~= 12-24 and future 9-18 ~= 10-20, as generally the 12-24 is considered the "best" UWA on k-mount and 7-14 is considered really great and sharp (and obv the best UWA for m43 so far as it's the only one).

Looking forward to what you think about your GF1.

pxpaulx · 01-21-2010, 08:57 AM

On the subject of those wide lenses - I think you really have to compare focal lengths before cost and benefit. To me the 10-20 simply distorts the image too much at the widest end, which is why I sold it in favor of the 12-24. The little 7-14, from what I have seen, is much the same - you can't avoid distorting the edges on the wide end simply because if you want straight lines at such wide angles that is what has to happen within the lens characteristics.

On the subject of the GF1, had it since monday and it has been in my pocket whenever I am out the door - I love it! The LCD is very responsive, the 20mm (40mm equiv) is a great focal length, and I am overall very satisfied with the handling of the camera (there are some user features missing that Pentax beats it out to be sure, even with the K-x, but this camera is a great compliment...not a replacement!). I also purchased the 45-200mm - I'm not quite thrilled with it. Had in mind to replace the 55-300mm with it, but the handling is downright awkward on the GF1. IQ seems reasonably decent, but at the moment I think I will probably not end up keeping it and stick with the 55-300mm. For walking about, that 20mm is all I need.

juu · 01-21-2010, 10:51 AM

I've never had a lens with a 15mm FF equivalent focal length, so I don't know for sure, but I also suspect it wouldn't get much use for it due to the distortion. But you can probably ignore the wide and shoot from 18mm FF equivalent and longer, turning, say, the Sigma 10-20 into a 12-20.

I'm looking at GF1 + Pana 20mm + Oly 9-18 m.Zuiko (+ maybe Pana 14-45) as the most promising combination for my needs, but the 9-18 is yet to come out.

pxpaulx · 01-21-2010, 11:00 AM

Yeah I will wait for some reviews of that 9-18 before I decide what to do. Having a wide angle setup that can fit in your pocket (judging by the 9-18 mockups, it won't be any bigger than the kit lens) would be spectacular.

Although I don't like the 45-200 coupled with the GF1, I may try and find one of the olympus E-P1 kit lenses (the 14-42mm) as it folds down - I've read it is slow and not the best, but since 'pocketable and with you' are the best part of these smaller cameras, it seems to fit the bill better than the pansonic 14-45mm

juu · 01-21-2010, 11:29 AM

What I've read is that they are only pocketable w/ 20mm or 17mm pancakes, but that w/ the Oly 14-42, even though a bit smaller, they aren't really any more pocketable than w/ the Pana 14-45. But I don't know really and would be interested to hear what you think after you get one of them.

pxpaulx · 01-21-2010, 12:54 PM

I was thinking pocketable as in, GF1+20mm in one pocket, and the lens in the other. Unless I find one under $150 I am going to skip it (that is about the going rate on the bay at the moment, and I'm not in a rush).

juu · 01-23-2010, 08:39 AM

I know that on Pentax I have to press another button for stop-down metering if I use Pentax-M lenses. Is it the same way on Micro Four Thirds or is that just not needed? Are there any differences in handling between Pentax-A and Pentax-M lenses?

pxpaulx · 01-23-2010, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by juu

I know that on Pentax I have to press another button for stop-down metering if I use Pentax-M lenses. Is it the same way on Micro Four Thirds or is that just not needed? Are there any differences in handling between Pentax-A and Pentax-M lenses?

I havent received my adapter yet. From what I have read, it will work in either M or A mode...you can only set the aperture with the lens of course - there isnt stop down metering, so the VF will get darker (though it will probably gain up). It will set the shutter based on the amount of light entering through the aperture you have set, kind of auto stop down I suppose. We'll see how it goes. The 20mm is growing on me everytime I use it.

juu · 01-23-2010, 02:55 PM

Thanks, Paul. I'm interested in how easy you find them to use once you get your adapter.

juu · 01-27-2010, 11:15 AM

Found a store which has both the K-x and the G1 in store (no GF1/GH1 though) and handled both side to side. With the kit zooms attached they were surprisingly similar in size and weight, and I preferred the K-x's handling.

GF1 with the 20mm is probably different though.

pxpaulx · 01-28-2010, 08:47 AM

I don't doubt that is the case, with the extra body mouldings the G1/GH1 are just mini-dslrs, and well, so is the K-x!

The GF1 is a different animal, really what M4/3 was intended to be I think.

pxpaulx · 01-30-2010, 03:37 PM

Hey Juu, just got my adapter today. Works great, both in M and A modes on the GF1. I posted a photo in the following thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-beginners-corner-q/88714-going-k20...tml#post902120

I have a few more photos of adapted lenses on the GF1, as well as some more macros taken with the GF1 in my picasa gallery as well if you want to take a look.

Clicker · 01-30-2010, 06:10 PM

If you're going to shoot street (incld people) and landscape, it's best to go wide vs long no? Now you have to see what this new i10 has to bring to the table vs those M43s.

juu · 01-30-2010, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Clicker

Now you have to see what this new i10 has to bring to the table vs those M43s.

What do you mean?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax Micro-Four-Thirds 17mm F2.8 17mm F2.0 14mm F2.8	ianchen	Pentax News and Rumors	167	07-15-2010 11:52 PM
Pentax seriously considering joining Micro Four Thirds?	iht	Pentax News and Rumors	2	04-30-2010 11:49 PM
Rule of Thirds	Lynn	Post Your Photos!	30	04-05-2009 01:27 PM
Anyone handled the Lumix micro four thirds camera yet?	PeterAM	General Talk	0	09-24-2008 01:43 PM
Rule of Thirds? How come?	d.bradley	Photographic Technique	44	12-27-2007 01:20 PM

01-17-2010, 08:00 AM	#16
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	The 7-14mm is more directly comparable with the Sigma 10-20mm from a focal length perspective. The M4/3 lenses are also still at a premium due to the high demand of the system in general. The 7-14mm is quite a unique lens, it is hard to compare with the 12-24mm - I think it is definitely overpriced at the moment, but that will likely change once Oly releases the 9-18mm. I have read the 9-18mm will be in the range of $600 USD when released - it will also accept filters and be about the same size as the standard kit lens. If all of the above are true and it is a solid performer, I will probably switch out my 12-24 for it. The 9-18 will have a variable aperture, but with a lens like this the kind of work it sees typically warrants some stopping down of the aperture anyway. I am quite excited to get my GF1, it is coming tomorrow.

01-17-2010, 09:22 AM	#17
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680 Original Poster	I agree that 7-14 on m43 = 10-20 on APSC, and 9-18 on m43 = 12-24 on APSC focal length-wise. However, (perceived) lens quality-wise and "price segmentation"-wise I think 7-14 ~= 12-24 and future 9-18 ~= 10-20, as generally the 12-24 is considered the "best" UWA on k-mount and 7-14 is considered really great and sharp (and obv the best UWA for m43 so far as it's the only one). Looking forward to what you think about your GF1.

01-21-2010, 08:57 AM	#18
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	On the subject of those wide lenses - I think you really have to compare focal lengths before cost and benefit. To me the 10-20 simply distorts the image too much at the widest end, which is why I sold it in favor of the 12-24. The little 7-14, from what I have seen, is much the same - you can't avoid distorting the edges on the wide end simply because if you want straight lines at such wide angles that is what has to happen within the lens characteristics. On the subject of the GF1, had it since monday and it has been in my pocket whenever I am out the door - I love it! The LCD is very responsive, the 20mm (40mm equiv) is a great focal length, and I am overall very satisfied with the handling of the camera (there are some user features missing that Pentax beats it out to be sure, even with the K-x, but this camera is a great compliment...not a replacement!). I also purchased the 45-200mm - I'm not quite thrilled with it. Had in mind to replace the 55-300mm with it, but the handling is downright awkward on the GF1. IQ seems reasonably decent, but at the moment I think I will probably not end up keeping it and stick with the 55-300mm. For walking about, that 20mm is all I need.

01-21-2010, 10:51 AM	#19
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680 Original Poster	I've never had a lens with a 15mm FF equivalent focal length, so I don't know for sure, but I also suspect it wouldn't get much use for it due to the distortion. But you can probably ignore the wide and shoot from 18mm FF equivalent and longer, turning, say, the Sigma 10-20 into a 12-20. I'm looking at GF1 + Pana 20mm + Oly 9-18 m.Zuiko (+ maybe Pana 14-45) as the most promising combination for my needs, but the 9-18 is yet to come out.

01-21-2010, 11:00 AM	#20
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	Yeah I will wait for some reviews of that 9-18 before I decide what to do. Having a wide angle setup that can fit in your pocket (judging by the 9-18 mockups, it won't be any bigger than the kit lens) would be spectacular. Although I don't like the 45-200 coupled with the GF1, I may try and find one of the olympus E-P1 kit lenses (the 14-42mm) as it folds down - I've read it is slow and not the best, but since 'pocketable and with you' are the best part of these smaller cameras, it seems to fit the bill better than the pansonic 14-45mm

01-21-2010, 11:29 AM	#21
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680 Original Poster	What I've read is that they are only pocketable w/ 20mm or 17mm pancakes, but that w/ the Oly 14-42, even though a bit smaller, they aren't really any more pocketable than w/ the Pana 14-45. But I don't know really and would be interested to hear what you think after you get one of them.

01-21-2010, 12:54 PM	#22
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	I was thinking pocketable as in, GF1+20mm in one pocket, and the lens in the other. Unless I find one under $150 I am going to skip it (that is about the going rate on the bay at the moment, and I'm not in a rush).

01-23-2010, 08:39 AM	#23
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680 Original Poster	I know that on Pentax I have to press another button for stop-down metering if I use Pentax-M lenses. Is it the same way on Micro Four Thirds or is that just not needed? Are there any differences in handling between Pentax-A and Pentax-M lenses?

01-23-2010, 01:16 PM	#24
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	Originally posted by juu I know that on Pentax I have to press another button for stop-down metering if I use Pentax-M lenses. Is it the same way on Micro Four Thirds or is that just not needed? Are there any differences in handling between Pentax-A and Pentax-M lenses? I havent received my adapter yet. From what I have read, it will work in either M or A mode...you can only set the aperture with the lens of course - there isnt stop down metering, so the VF will get darker (though it will probably gain up). It will set the shutter based on the amount of light entering through the aperture you have set, kind of auto stop down I suppose. We'll see how it goes. The 20mm is growing on me everytime I use it.

01-23-2010, 02:55 PM	#25
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680 Original Poster	Thanks, Paul. I'm interested in how easy you find them to use once you get your adapter.

01-27-2010, 11:15 AM	#26
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680 Original Poster	Found a store which has both the K-x and the G1 in store (no GF1/GH1 though) and handled both side to side. With the kit zooms attached they were surprisingly similar in size and weight, and I preferred the K-x's handling. GF1 with the 20mm is probably different though.

01-28-2010, 08:47 AM	#27
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	I don't doubt that is the case, with the extra body mouldings the G1/GH1 are just mini-dslrs, and well, so is the K-x! The GF1 is a different animal, really what M4/3 was intended to be I think.

01-30-2010, 03:37 PM	#28
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	Hey Juu, just got my adapter today. Works great, both in M and A modes on the GF1. I posted a photo in the following thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-beginners-corner-q/88714-going-k20...tml#post902120 I have a few more photos of adapted lenses on the GF1, as well as some more macros taken with the GF1 in my picasa gallery as well if you want to take a look.

01-30-2010, 06:10 PM	#29
Clicker Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,241	If you're going to shoot street (incld people) and landscape, it's best to go wide vs long no? Now you have to see what this new i10 has to bring to the table vs those M43s.

01-30-2010, 11:40 PM	#30
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680 Original Poster	Originally posted by Clicker Now you have to see what this new i10 has to bring to the table vs those M43s. What do you mean?