MFT / M43 as adjunct to Pentax shooting

justtakingpics · 06-18-2011, 06:49 AM

Just make sure you get the lenses you want. They are often times hard to find in stock.

**rparmar** · 06-18-2011, 11:52 AM

Well, I am broke so I will not be buying lenses. Truth to tell I don't think much of the line-up. Got the 20/1.7 and await a portrait pancake.

But spent twenty bucks on an adapter so I can use all my Pentax lenses. :-)

Christine Tham · 06-18-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Good catch! I have a couple of interesting sharpening methods I use that don't go over the top with edge artefacts but sometimes do create unusual smooth line areas in OOF regions. In this case I liked the effect but normally I back off.

Originally posted by rparmar

Most of them have no or minimal sharpening.

I find it difficult to reconcile these two statements of yours.

I seem to see a lot of tell tale signs of excessive sharpening in most of the photos you posted (I used to review DVDs and probably am over-sensitive to over-sharpening) - they don't look like compression artefacts because I am not seeing Gibb's Effect or macro-blocking.

In addition to the haloing on the "dancing of the edge of the leaf" i seem to see over-enhanced grain (causing speckling) on quite a few of a photos, including the portraits. If this is the the natural grain coming off the sensor, then I would be quite concerned about sensor quality.

The worst picture (in terms of sharpening artefacts) is probably the "coming in to land" photo, where the edges of the roof are quite unnatural and have banding.

I'm hoping all these artefacts are due to post processing and not inherent in the sensor or lens combo. The images look quite plasticky - okay if they came off a compact camera but I would have expected better from micro 4/3.

Are you able to post the untouched JPEG straight off the camera, or a Raw processed with default parameters?

**rparmar** · 06-18-2011, 04:53 PM

Thanks for following up with details. As I said "dancing of the edge of the leaf" and "coming in to land" are more heavily post-produced. I'd hate to think the other images -- those I have done less on -- are that bad. Please note that the first one of these is shot with a 20mm lens. So what you are seeing is only about one-quarter of the original pixels.

**rparmar** · 06-18-2011, 05:04 PM

Here are two 100% crops, the first with no PP, the second with only my default ACR. This includes 75% sharpening of 0.5 pixels, as recommended to compensate for sensor. And noise reduction sliders at 50, which is subtle but effective.

Christine Tham · 06-18-2011, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Here are two 100% crops, the first with no PP, the second with only my default ACR. This includes 75% sharpening of 0.5 pixels, as recommended to compensate for sensor. And noise reduction sliders at 50, which is subtle but effective.

Thanks a lot for posting these pictures, much appreciated. I really like the bokeh, much more natural and subtle.

The first picture (no PP) in particular gives me a good sense of sensor performance. Whilst not as good as the K-5's sensor, it is a lot better than I had feared.

You are right in that the second picture does not show a lot of detail masking compared to the first, I would normally hesitate setting the noise reduction sliders to 50 (25 is about the maximum I will generally tolerate).

I'm still undecided between the GF3, G3 and NEX-C3. I had previously been very concerned whether the 12Mp sensor on the GF3 was good enough for me, but judging by your pictures (I'm assuming your E-P1 also uses the same sensor) I think it's going to be okay.

It's still going to be a very tough choice - NEX-C3 has the upgraded version of the same sensor as K-5, but the lens choices are extremely limited and frankly the lenses are too big for the body. GF3 has the worst sensor of the 3 but similar size as the NEX. G3 has the best features but the bulkiest.

I'm trying very hard to convince myself the GF3 is the way to go - to me size matters above everything else but I do want a quality level above compact camera.

nickthetasmaniac · 06-18-2011, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

I'm still undecided between the GF3, G3 and NEX-C3. I had previously been very concerned whether the 12Mp sensor on the GF3 was good enough for me, but judging by your pictures (I'm assuming your E-P1 also uses the same sensor) I think it's going to be okay.

It's still going to be a very tough choice - NEX-C3 has the upgraded version of the same sensor as K-5, but the lens choices are extremely limited and frankly the lenses are too big for the body. GF3 has the worst sensor of the 3 but similar size as the NEX. G3 has the best features but the bulkiest.

I'm trying very hard to convince myself the GF3 is the way to go - to me size matters above everything else but I do want a quality level above compact camera.

Have you handled the G3? It is significantly smaller than it looks in the product pictures. Similar in size to the GF1 but with the EVF bump. Much more compact than the GH2/G2 series bodies.

I only say this because I'd argue that the G3 is by far the most capable all round camera of the ones you mention (excluding the C3's outright sensor performance).

Christine Tham · 06-18-2011, 08:16 PM

I'm going to PMA next week. Really hope they have the new models to touch and fondle (and maybe even kiss!)

nickthetasmaniac · 06-18-2011, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

I'm going to PMA next week. Really hope they have the new models to touch and fondle (and maybe even kiss!)

Give us a report after you do! I'd be interested to know if the G3's metal body improves the feel at all...

**rparmar** · 06-19-2011, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Christine Tham

The first picture (no PP) in particular gives me a good sense of sensor performance. Whilst not as good as the K-5's sensor, it is a lot better than I had feared.

I find it totally usable and much better than expected, though I do try to keep my ISO at 200-400.

Originally posted by Christine Tham

I'm still undecided between the GF3, G3 and NEX-C3. I had previously been very concerned whether the 12Mp sensor on the GF3 was good enough for me, but judging by your pictures (I'm assuming your E-P1 also uses the same sensor) I think it's going to be okay.

I assume they are the same sensor though the engines produce slightly different output specs.

For me the difference between the MFT images are negligible, so it makes more sense to choose cameras based on features and usability. The larger units tread on Pentax DSLR form factors, so they make zero sense. Among the smaller units I first eliminated those that did not have two control dials, as anything else requires excessive menu diving.

The Olympus E-P1 won for having a better LCD in bright light (though this is still a problem), solid metal build, very nice aesthetics and -- trump card -- IBIS. The lack of EVF does not bother me as adding on a high-priced accessory nullifies the main reason I'd be shooting a small camera. And for flash I am happy using an off-camera unit via radio trigger. As a bonus this camera looks less like a "real" camera and is hence unobtrusive.

nickthetasmaniac · 06-19-2011, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

The larger units tread on Pentax DSLR form factors, so they make zero sense.

This is a bit misleading. I use the GH2 and yes, body only there's not much size difference to, say, a K-x. But add a lens and the difference becomes significant very quickly...

johnmflores · 06-19-2011, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

The larger units tread on Pentax DSLR form factors, so they make zero sense.

Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac

This is a bit misleading. I use the GH2 and yes, body only there's not much size difference to, say, a K-x. But add a lens and the difference becomes significant very quickly...

I'm with Nick on this one. They may make zero sense for you, but the GH2 makes a ton of sense for me, someone interested in stills but getting serious about video. I would have purchased the K-5 in a heartbeat had it had good video with manual controls. Alas, I had to look elsewhere and found a video camera that works surprisingly well as a stills camera.

**rparmar** · 06-19-2011, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac

I use the GH2 and yes, body only there's not much size difference to, say, a K-x. But add a lens and the difference becomes significant very quickly...

I don't follow. Overall there are more pancakes in more focal lengths for K-mount not MFT. That's why the only lens I own in MFT is the 20/1.7. If they ever come up with better primes and smaller lenses overall the system will make more sense. Otherwise I really don't see why one would sacrifice the dozens of advantages Pentax has over MFT.

Originally posted by johnmflores

Alas, I had to look elsewhere and found a video camera that works surprisingly well as a stills camera.

Despite the usefulness of video I still treat this as a photography forum. Besides, for serious video there are much better tools than a stills camera of any description.

johnmflores · 06-19-2011, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Despite the usefulness of video I still treat this as a photography forum. Besides, for serious video there are much better tools than a stills camera of any description.

Speaking strictly about photography, the GH2 AF is better than any Pentax camera ever made bar one, the K-5. And even then the GH2 AF offers options that the K-5 does not such as face detection, focus points that can track a moving objects, resizable focus points, focus points nearly anywhere on the screen, touch screen to assign focus point, etc. Also, the GH2 does not suffer from any FF/BF issues, nor AF accuracy under different lighting conditions. The K-5 has the advantage in FPS and less shutter blackout, but the GH2 is arguably more capable than any other Pentax. Even in low light/high ISO, the GH2 has closed the gap significantly and is knocking on the heels of the vaunted K-x:

Mind you, I still trust the K-x more at these stratospheric ISOs, but the GH2 @ ISO3200 can surprise.

Regarding "serious" video, name one video camera in the GH2's price range that will let me shoot 1080p 24FPS with my Pentax DA70 F2.4 Limited and let me get this kind of background separation:

And once you think you've found that video camera, make sure that it can a still at high enough resolution and quality to be reproduced on a trade show booth panel that is over 100" inches wide @ 100dpi. And used for magazine work.

I don't disagree with some of what you are saying, RParmar. It's just that sometimes you make statements as if they are universal truths. And they are not. They are just yours.

nickthetasmaniac · 06-19-2011, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

I don't follow. Overall there are more pancakes in more focal lengths for K-mount not MFT. That's why the only lens I own in MFT is the 20/1.7. If they ever come up with better primes and smaller lenses overall the system will make more sense. Otherwise I really don't see why one would sacrifice the dozens of advantages Pentax has over MFT.

Well, if we're to talk in black and whites...

- What's the smallest Pentax package giving the equivalent field of view of a FF 600mm lens?
- What's the smallest Pentax package giving the equivalent field of view as a FF 14mm lens?
- How many fast (sub-f2) 'normal' lenses does Pentax make? How much does it cost again? (It's the FA Ltd 31mm, and it costs about $1000...)
- Of the primes you mention, how many have an acceptably fast aperture?
- Have you tried focussing any K-mount body in poor light?

I'm not saying Pentax is bad. But every system has its pros and cons, and Pentax and Panasonic are no different.

06-18-2011, 05:04 PM	#35
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819 Original Poster	Here are two 100% crops, the first with no PP, the second with only my default ACR. This includes 75% sharpening of 0.5 pixels, as recommended to compensate for sensor. And noise reduction sliders at 50, which is subtle but effective. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Panasonic Lumix GF1 MFT with 20mm f/1.7 lens, box, etc. (US)	InlawBiker	Sold Items	0	04-04-2011 08:57 AM
moving from m43 to Pentax System.	eadrian75	Welcomes and Introductions	4	03-31-2011 09:04 PM
Which mode are you? Single shooting or continuous shooting?	RonakG	Photographic Technique	39	03-06-2011 02:08 PM
M43 Focus Assist on Olympus e-pl2 using Pentax lenses with Adapter	tnb	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	03-04-2011 07:21 PM
A reason to get an m43 camera…	joakimfors	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	8	03-03-2010 05:54 PM

06-18-2011, 06:49 AM	#31
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288	Just make sure you get the lenses you want. They are often times hard to find in stock.

06-18-2011, 11:52 AM	#32
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819 Original Poster	Well, I am broke so I will not be buying lenses. Truth to tell I don't think much of the line-up. Got the 20/1.7 and await a portrait pancake. But spent twenty bucks on an adapter so I can use all my Pentax lenses. :-)

06-18-2011, 02:11 PM	#33
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Originally posted by rparmar Good catch! I have a couple of interesting sharpening methods I use that don't go over the top with edge artefacts but sometimes do create unusual smooth line areas in OOF regions. In this case I liked the effect but normally I back off. Originally posted by rparmar Most of them have no or minimal sharpening. I find it difficult to reconcile these two statements of yours. I seem to see a lot of tell tale signs of excessive sharpening in most of the photos you posted (I used to review DVDs and probably am over-sensitive to over-sharpening) - they don't look like compression artefacts because I am not seeing Gibb's Effect or macro-blocking. In addition to the haloing on the "dancing of the edge of the leaf" i seem to see over-enhanced grain (causing speckling) on quite a few of a photos, including the portraits. If this is the the natural grain coming off the sensor, then I would be quite concerned about sensor quality. The worst picture (in terms of sharpening artefacts) is probably the "coming in to land" photo, where the edges of the roof are quite unnatural and have banding. I'm hoping all these artefacts are due to post processing and not inherent in the sensor or lens combo. The images look quite plasticky - okay if they came off a compact camera but I would have expected better from micro 4/3. Are you able to post the untouched JPEG straight off the camera, or a Raw processed with default parameters?

06-18-2011, 04:53 PM	#34
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819 Original Poster	Thanks for following up with details. As I said "dancing of the edge of the leaf" and "coming in to land" are more heavily post-produced. I'd hate to think the other images -- those I have done less on -- are that bad. Please note that the first one of these is shot with a 20mm lens. So what you are seeing is only about one-quarter of the original pixels.

06-18-2011, 05:22 PM	#36
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Originally posted by rparmar Here are two 100% crops, the first with no PP, the second with only my default ACR. This includes 75% sharpening of 0.5 pixels, as recommended to compensate for sensor. And noise reduction sliders at 50, which is subtle but effective. Thanks a lot for posting these pictures, much appreciated. I really like the bokeh, much more natural and subtle. The first picture (no PP) in particular gives me a good sense of sensor performance. Whilst not as good as the K-5's sensor, it is a lot better than I had feared. You are right in that the second picture does not show a lot of detail masking compared to the first, I would normally hesitate setting the noise reduction sliders to 50 (25 is about the maximum I will generally tolerate). I'm still undecided between the GF3, G3 and NEX-C3. I had previously been very concerned whether the 12Mp sensor on the GF3 was good enough for me, but judging by your pictures (I'm assuming your E-P1 also uses the same sensor) I think it's going to be okay. It's still going to be a very tough choice - NEX-C3 has the upgraded version of the same sensor as K-5, but the lens choices are extremely limited and frankly the lenses are too big for the body. GF3 has the worst sensor of the 3 but similar size as the NEX. G3 has the best features but the bulkiest. I'm trying very hard to convince myself the GF3 is the way to go - to me size matters above everything else but I do want a quality level above compact camera.

06-18-2011, 06:27 PM	#37
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361	Originally posted by Christine Tham I'm still undecided between the GF3, G3 and NEX-C3. I had previously been very concerned whether the 12Mp sensor on the GF3 was good enough for me, but judging by your pictures (I'm assuming your E-P1 also uses the same sensor) I think it's going to be okay. It's still going to be a very tough choice - NEX-C3 has the upgraded version of the same sensor as K-5, but the lens choices are extremely limited and frankly the lenses are too big for the body. GF3 has the worst sensor of the 3 but similar size as the NEX. G3 has the best features but the bulkiest. I'm trying very hard to convince myself the GF3 is the way to go - to me size matters above everything else but I do want a quality level above compact camera. Have you handled the G3? It is significantly smaller than it looks in the product pictures. Similar in size to the GF1 but with the EVF bump. Much more compact than the GH2/G2 series bodies. I only say this because I'd argue that the G3 is by far the most capable all round camera of the ones you mention (excluding the C3's outright sensor performance).

06-18-2011, 08:16 PM	#38
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	I'm going to PMA next week. Really hope they have the new models to touch and fondle (and maybe even kiss!)

06-18-2011, 08:52 PM	#39
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361	Originally posted by Christine Tham I'm going to PMA next week. Really hope they have the new models to touch and fondle (and maybe even kiss!) Give us a report after you do! I'd be interested to know if the G3's metal body improves the feel at all...

06-19-2011, 01:22 PM	#40
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819 Original Poster	Originally posted by Christine Tham The first picture (no PP) in particular gives me a good sense of sensor performance. Whilst not as good as the K-5's sensor, it is a lot better than I had feared. I find it totally usable and much better than expected, though I do try to keep my ISO at 200-400. Originally posted by Christine Tham I'm still undecided between the GF3, G3 and NEX-C3. I had previously been very concerned whether the 12Mp sensor on the GF3 was good enough for me, but judging by your pictures (I'm assuming your E-P1 also uses the same sensor) I think it's going to be okay. I assume they are the same sensor though the engines produce slightly different output specs. For me the difference between the MFT images are negligible, so it makes more sense to choose cameras based on features and usability. The larger units tread on Pentax DSLR form factors, so they make zero sense. Among the smaller units I first eliminated those that did not have two control dials, as anything else requires excessive menu diving. The Olympus E-P1 won for having a better LCD in bright light (though this is still a problem), solid metal build, very nice aesthetics and -- trump card -- IBIS. The lack of EVF does not bother me as adding on a high-priced accessory nullifies the main reason I'd be shooting a small camera. And for flash I am happy using an off-camera unit via radio trigger. As a bonus this camera looks less like a "real" camera and is hence unobtrusive.

06-19-2011, 05:27 PM	#41
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361	Originally posted by rparmar The larger units tread on Pentax DSLR form factors, so they make zero sense. This is a bit misleading. I use the GH2 and yes, body only there's not much size difference to, say, a K-x. But add a lens and the difference becomes significant very quickly...

06-19-2011, 06:14 PM	#42
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by rparmar The larger units tread on Pentax DSLR form factors, so they make zero sense. Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac This is a bit misleading. I use the GH2 and yes, body only there's not much size difference to, say, a K-x. But add a lens and the difference becomes significant very quickly... I'm with Nick on this one. They may make zero sense for you, but the GH2 makes a ton of sense for me, someone interested in stills but getting serious about video. I would have purchased the K-5 in a heartbeat had it had good video with manual controls. Alas, I had to look elsewhere and found a video camera that works surprisingly well as a stills camera.

06-19-2011, 07:18 PM	#43
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819 Original Poster	Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac I use the GH2 and yes, body only there's not much size difference to, say, a K-x. But add a lens and the difference becomes significant very quickly... I don't follow. Overall there are more pancakes in more focal lengths for K-mount not MFT. That's why the only lens I own in MFT is the 20/1.7. If they ever come up with better primes and smaller lenses overall the system will make more sense. Otherwise I really don't see why one would sacrifice the dozens of advantages Pentax has over MFT. Originally posted by johnmflores Alas, I had to look elsewhere and found a video camera that works surprisingly well as a stills camera. Despite the usefulness of video I still treat this as a photography forum. Besides, for serious video there are much better tools than a stills camera of any description.

06-19-2011, 08:10 PM	#44
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by rparmar Despite the usefulness of video I still treat this as a photography forum. Besides, for serious video there are much better tools than a stills camera of any description. Speaking strictly about photography, the GH2 AF is better than any Pentax camera ever made bar one, the K-5. And even then the GH2 AF offers options that the K-5 does not such as face detection, focus points that can track a moving objects, resizable focus points, focus points nearly anywhere on the screen, touch screen to assign focus point, etc. Also, the GH2 does not suffer from any FF/BF issues, nor AF accuracy under different lighting conditions. The K-5 has the advantage in FPS and less shutter blackout, but the GH2 is arguably more capable than any other Pentax. Even in low light/high ISO, the GH2 has closed the gap significantly and is knocking on the heels of the vaunted K-x: Mind you, I still trust the K-x more at these stratospheric ISOs, but the GH2 @ ISO3200 can surprise. Regarding "serious" video, name one video camera in the GH2's price range that will let me shoot 1080p 24FPS with my Pentax DA70 F2.4 Limited and let me get this kind of background separation: And once you think you've found that video camera, make sure that it can a still at high enough resolution and quality to be reproduced on a trade show booth panel that is over 100" inches wide @ 100dpi. And used for magazine work. I don't disagree with some of what you are saying, RParmar. It's just that sometimes you make statements as if they are universal truths. And they are not. They are just yours.

06-19-2011, 09:44 PM	#45
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361	Originally posted by rparmar I don't follow. Overall there are more pancakes in more focal lengths for K-mount not MFT. That's why the only lens I own in MFT is the 20/1.7. If they ever come up with better primes and smaller lenses overall the system will make more sense. Otherwise I really don't see why one would sacrifice the dozens of advantages Pentax has over MFT. Well, if we're to talk in black and whites... - What's the smallest Pentax package giving the equivalent field of view of a FF 600mm lens? - What's the smallest Pentax package giving the equivalent field of view as a FF 14mm lens? - How many fast (sub-f2) 'normal' lenses does Pentax make? How much does it cost again? (It's the FA Ltd 31mm, and it costs about $1000...) - Of the primes you mention, how many have an acceptably fast aperture? - Have you tried focussing any K-mount body in poor light? I'm not saying Pentax is bad. But every system has its pros and cons, and Pentax and Panasonic are no different.