[cartesio]

Made with my Panny G3.





tronco_spezzato_P1050260 copia by Marco, su Flickr

[WPRESTO]

Part of a miniature Tudor village given to Melbourne in gratitude for help during a WWII era food shortage. The white house is based on Shakespeare's residence.

[Marcus Rowland]

Also got an Olympus 40-150mm for 4/3 (not Micro 4/3) last week, which works perfectly on this with the Olympus adapter I've got. They are crazily cheap at the moment, £20 used from the CEX chain in the UK.

Spoke too soon - it works, but not perfectly, autofocus doesn't work. Not sure if this is a problem with the converter (Olympus MMF-2) or incompatibility with the DMC-G1. Not a huge problem anyway.

[UncleVanya]

Spoke too soon - it works, but not perfectly, autofocus doesn't work. Not sure if this is a problem with the converter (Olympus MMF-2) or incompatibility with the DMC-G1. Not a huge problem anyway.

This list should help explain what lenses work "OK" and those that are terrible. Essentially some lenses were updated to make them more CDAF friendly. The Complete Micro 4/3 Lens List (read text then see chart). This list isn't as maintained as some others but gives great info on the lenses covered. NOTE that there are two versions of the 40-150 4/3 and only one of those is optimized for cdaf.

Only the Olympus OMD-EM1, EM1mkII, EM1X have dedicated pdaf focusing sensors on the sensor and appropriate software to focus the all of the 4/3 adapted lenses reliably.

[WPRESTO]

The emblem identifies the marque. In a display vase, so there may be annoying reflections.

[kadajawi]

I have a K1 K3 and K5 and now I have a GX85. Does K1 have better dynamic range and less noise, yes. But unless I'm taking something that has giant dynamic range like a backlit landscape, most of the time it doesn't matter. Even then you can bracket and combine exposures. I do like the full frame depth of field for portraits. You can't get something like an FA limited for micro four thirds.

How about the Panasonic Leica lenses? I quite liked the 15 1.7.

I have a K-5 and GX85, and yes, the K-5 may be better. But I'm more consistent with the GX85, the AF works better, and the size and weight of it is a huge bonus. But most of all, I love the video it shoots.

I did have a G9, and I'd say it surpasses the K-5 in terms of image quality. Dynamic range. Being able to recover highlights. I also prefer the way the photos look.

[sundown]

[SpottyReputation]

recently picked up a new-to-me Panasonic GX7 w/ 20mm F1.7 lens for my trip to Thailand. Overall, performed well. Luminar doesn't do the best of resolving the lens distortion, but...

Good colour, good focus, sometimes a little slow. Used shutter and aperture priority modes, along with the some auto for the quick shots.


Some of my first dealings with RAW format conversions here.

Only criticism? The glue i used to repair the frame around the LCD only lasted half the trip. That seems to be a common flaw with this model.

Oh, and I should've bought another battery. It was ok, just used the spotmatic more when the battery ran out lol.

[y0chang]

How about the Panasonic Leica lenses? I quite liked the 15 1.7.

I have a K-5 and GX85, and yes, the K-5 may be better. But I'm more consistent with the GX85, the AF works better, and the size and weight of it is a huge bonus. But most of all, I love the video it shoots.

I did have a G9, and I'd say it surpasses the K-5 in terms of image quality. Dynamic range. Being able to recover highlights. I also prefer the way the photos look.

I was debating between the 14, 15mm, and 20mm. I got the 20mm for 130 bucks used and I also have the Panasonic 25 1.7 but I am still wondering if I should get a slightly wider lens for a fun street\landscape lens. I find the crop factor plus the change in aspect ratio makes me rethink what I want to buy. The 20mm acts more like a 43, and the 25 acts more like 60-65 for me.

Honestly though I do not like the 25mm at all because I primarily bought it for a portrait lens but it has one of the worst bokeh I have ever seen in a prime. It has a haloed bokeh that basically looks like you took the image with a mirror lens. This creates super nervous blur that distracts from the subject. i thought at first it was a bad lens but it seems that is just the optical design of the lens. Am I expecting too much from a lens that cost 150 new? No but I am disappointed. I am a lot happier with the 20mm. It has a pop that the 25mm doesn't have and the difference in subject separation is negligible.


https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/micro-four-thirds-lenses/panasonic-leica-25...close-focusing

[Marcus Rowland]

I got my Lumix DMC-GF2 primarily for testing lenses that won't work on other digital bodies. So naturally I took a Russian Jupiter-8 50/2 lens (intended for their Fed Leica copy) for a stroll. Needless to say this is the first time I've tried to use this camera with a manual lens, and one that is NOT designed for use on an SLR, and I went out way too late. I took about 30 pictures, these are the best of a bad bunch.

Jupiter-8 50/2 on Micro 4/3 | Flickr

I took some more pictures with this lens and the G1 today - mostly statues etc, the Albert memorial, and so forth. On the same page above. Much easier to focus with the G1!

This list should help explain what lenses work "OK" and those that are terrible. Essentially some lenses were updated to make them more CDAF friendly. The Complete Micro 4/3 Lens List (read text then see chart). This list isn't as maintained as some others but gives great info on the lenses covered. NOTE that there are two versions of the 40-150 4/3 and only one of those is optimized for cdaf.

Only the Olympus OMD-EM1, EM1mkII, EM1X have dedicated pdaf focusing sensors on the sensor and appropriate software to focus the all of the 4/3 adapted lenses reliably.

Thank you, that's incredibly useful. It looks like the G1 doesn't support autofocus on the older 4/3 lenses, and presumably that's what I've got. Not a huge problem, just means I'll need to keep my 4/3 body for testing the ones I sell on. Many thanks!

[northcoastgreg]

My subjective impression is that the KP produces better quality shots on average. However, the 12-40mm pro I have semi-permanently attached to the E-M5ii is outstanding, and I do not have any zooms like this in my Pentax collection - usually I have a prime attached to the KP.

When I first got into m43 seven years ago my plan was to use the E-M5 for zooms and the K-5 for primes. At the time, the only really good standard zooms for the K-5 were the DA* 16-50 and the DA 17-70, and both those lenses suffered from the horrors of SDM. For several years I shot an old Olympus 14-54 which I had picked up for about $100. Great lens—but very slow to focus on an E-M5 and way too heavy for my tastes. I later tried to go with primes on E-M5 and E-M5ii (wonderfully light and optically excellent, but not terribly versatile), and am currently mostly using a the slower aperture Panasonic 12-60, which is the best of the compact zooms in the line-up. The Oly 12-40 is obviously a great lens, but just too heavy for my tastes.

NOTE that there are two versions of the 40-150 4/3 and only one of those is optimized for cdaf.

It's the slower aperture version of the 40-150 that is allegedly optimized CDAF. I bought one thinking it would focus better on my E-M5 than my non-CDAF 14-54 and 11-22. Turns out the focusing on the CDAF 40-150 was actually worse than the two non-CDAF lenses—making for a virtually unusable lens. Which was a pity because the slower aperture 4/3rds 40-150 turns out to be flat out better, particularly on the long end, than the m43 version.

[UncleVanya]

...am currently mostly using a the slower aperture Panasonic 12-60, which is the best of the compact zooms in the line-up.

I'm fond of the 12-32.

It's the slower aperture version of the 40-150 that is allegedly optimized CDAF. I bought one thinking it would focus better on my E-M5 than my non-CDAF 14-54 and 11-22. Turns out the focusing on the CDAF 40-150 was actually worse than the two non-CDAF lenses—making for a virtually unusable lens. Which was a pity because the slower aperture 4/3rds 40-150 turns out to be flat out better, particularly on the long end, than the m43 version.

I've seen tests in the past that showed the improved af of the cdaf version, but I don't recall which body they used. That had to be frustrating. With respect to the long end, Does this hold true comparing the latest 'R' version of the Oly m43 40-150? My personal testing let me to the Panasonic 45-175 over the Oly 40-150 R - I found it outperforms the Oly by a lot with my test copies. I sold the Oly. I also really like the slow Panasonic version of the 35-100 lens.

[kadajawi]

I'm fond of the 12-32.




I've seen tests in the past that showed the improved af of the cdaf version, but I don't recall which body they used. That had to be frustrating. With respect to the long end, Does this hold true comparing the latest 'R' version of the Oly m43 40-150? My personal testing let me to the Panasonic 45-175 over the Oly 40-150 R - I found it outperforms the Oly by a lot with my test copies. I sold the Oly. I also really like the slow Panasonic version of the 35-100 lens.

You mean the GX80 dual kit lenses? I like those too, for their size and weight. It's so easy to bring them anywhere, and the GX80 is still pocketable with the 12-32.

I was debating between the 14, 15mm, and 20mm. I got the 20mm for 130 bucks used and I also have the Panasonic 25 1.7 but I am still wondering if I should get a slightly wider lens for a fun street\landscape lens. I find the crop factor plus the change in aspect ratio makes me rethink what I want to buy. The 20mm acts more like a 43, and the 25 acts more like 60-65 for me.

Honestly though I do not like the 25mm at all because I primarily bought it for a portrait lens but it has one of the worst bokeh I have ever seen in a prime. It has a haloed bokeh that basically looks like you took the image with a mirror lens. This creates super nervous blur that distracts from the subject. i thought at first it was a bad lens but it seems that is just the optical design of the lens. Am I expecting too much from a lens that cost 150 new? No but I am disappointed. I am a lot happier with the 20mm. It has a pop that the 25mm doesn't have and the difference in subject separation is negligible.


Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4 vs Lumix 25mm f/1.7 ? The complete comparison

The 15 1.7 is unfortunately not that cheap, more around 400-500 Euro (though for what it is I think the value is absolutely there). Don't expect too much bokeh, but it still does beautiful work. I also got the 12-60 2.8 on loan, which is a bit of a beast (relatively speaking). It did fit the G9 beautifully... I guess one day I'll have to buy em all.

[Merv-O]

Shooting with an Olympus OM-D MK III: the zuiko lenses are above average, though my favorite is the 45mm (90mm focal length) prime. Well made and up to the task.

[northcoastgreg]

I'm fond of the 12-32.

That's a nice little lens. I was always a little worried about he build quality of the lens. The metal barrel on the lens is known to come loose. Also, the small size does force some optical compromises, most notably in terms of coma, which is the worst I've ever seen in a lens. The Pany 12-60 f3.5-5.6 is a little sharper and a little contrastier, much better in terms of coma, covers more range, is weather-sealed and still weighs less than half a pound. It's maybe not the best lens for the really compact Panasonic cameras, but it's a great fit for the Oly E-M5ii, better than any of the compact Olympus zooms (which are not WR and not anywhere as good optically).

Does this hold true comparing the latest 'R' version of the Oly m43 40-150?

Isn't the "R" version merely optimized for video? I'm not aware that there's any difference, optically. I consider the Oly m43 40-150 to be rather over-rated. A lot of people think it's great because it's really cheap.

My personal testing let me to the Panasonic 45-175 over the Oly 40-150 R - I found it outperforms the Oly by a lot with my test copies. I sold the Oly.

That's my experience as well. And the other thing that's really nice about eh Panasonic — it's an eternal zoom, so it always remains compact.

I would say that, generally speaking, the Panasonic compact slow aperture standard and telephoto consumer grade zooms are flat out better than the Olympus variants. The one possible exception is the Oly 75-300, which may be a hair better than the Panasonic 100-300.