Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wide for GH-2  (Read 2162 times)
AlfSollund
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« on: June 23, 2011, 01:01:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

The choice is as I see it between Panasonic LUMIX G 7-14mm F4 ASPH and Olympus M.Zuiko Dig ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6.

So please help me out with this:
- no SW correction for fault by Olympus in the GH-2 (as with the Pana glasses)?
- Possible to correct optical faults (distortion + chromatic aberration) in other SW (Lightroom, ...)? Yes, CA can be corrected by Cornerfix.
- Shouldnt worry about this at all?

Thanks in advance!
Logged

-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2011, 01:13:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Panasonic cameras don't correct Oly lenses, and vice versa, which kinda makes sense from a business perspective. Yes, you can do correction in LR/PS with Adobe's free lens profiler. Note that making your own profiles is a major PITA, but perhaps someone has made profiles for GH2+lens combo.

9-18mm is a stellar lens, but it would benefit from correction. Below uncorrected (since I haven't made profiles, yet) shot at wide(st?) setting with the 7-14mm.

Another option is to wait for the Olympus 12mm f/2.0 to be announced on June 30th - it's supposed to be really good. If that's the case I'll probably sell my 7-14 so that's another option for you Wink



edit: and I was talking about the Panasonic 7-14mm above, not the Oly 9-18mm.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 01:58:36 PM by feppe » Logged

hsteeves
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2011, 01:35:36 PM »
ReplyReply

I've got a 7-14 coming and plan on the Olympus 12/f2 when it shows ..
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1417


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2011, 07:34:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I have the Panny 14/2.5, which is a nice little (very little) lens. Played with a 7-14 at a camera store, took some test photos, looks great. Would have been useful in Utah last week, but couldn't spend the money right now. ($700 used, which is very reasonable I thought.)
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
JimU
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2011, 10:19:22 PM »
ReplyReply

it's a damn shame the 7-14 doesn't take filters.  that forced me to get the 14/2.5.  nicely wide and decently fast, but not screaming fast.  I am looking forward to the planned slr magic 12mm f/1.6 noktor if it ever arrrives.

Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1417


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2011, 08:12:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Question: what filter would you want to place on the 7-14?

The only filter I use anymore is a polarizer, and using one on a very wide lens is less than optimal.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
AlfSollund
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2011, 04:57:10 PM »
ReplyReply

it's a damn shame the 7-14 doesn't take filters.  that forced me to get the 14/2.5.  nicely wide and decently fast, but not screaming fast.  I am looking forward to the planned slr magic 12mm f/1.6 noktor if it ever arrrives.



Thats a good point. I use pola a lot, and with all due respect I have to disagree with k bennett; I fing pola filters highly useful on wides. I use 18 and 28mm a lot on FF, and for flyfishing photos this is a must-have.
Logged

-------
- If your're not telling a story with photo you're only adding noise -
http://alfsollund.com/
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1417


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2011, 05:41:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Depends on the subject, I suppose. For blue sky shots, I won't go wider than 28mm (ff equivalent) with a polarizer. Got burned one too many times with a 24 or wider. For reducing reflections on water or other objects, sure, you can go as wide as you want and it'll still work fine.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
JimU
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2011, 10:58:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I've found c-pols on my FF 20mm managable.  The main reason I bought into the m4/3rds was to play with video, so the filters I would want to use are a circular polarizer and neutral density as the shutter speed is set at 1 / (frame rate) & ISO only goes so far.

That leads to this question:  With all the gimmicks like auto HDR & sweep panoramic, why can't camera designers implement low ISOs?  The GH2 in video has a floor of 160.  Why can't it go to 100, 50, 25, 12, 6 etc. ?  Speaking of which, why can't any camera maker do that?  Would greatly reduce the need for ND filters.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad