"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

First shot from my new G5 coupled with 100-300mm Panasonic lens. Apart from a slight vignette, this is out of camera.

7924411472_c57a18fd88_c.jpg
 
I got a Samyang fish eye this morning, loving it so far! :D

A couple of test shots....

fish3.jpg


fish4.jpg
 
This recent talk of lenses is fuelling my GAS - I lusted for the 100-300 Julian and now really fancy the Samyang.

Must use what I already have.
Must use what I already have.
Must use what I already have.
Must use what I already have.
Must use what I already have.
Must use what I already have.
Must use what I already have.
Must use what I already have.
 
A couple more to tempt you further lol
These are nothing special, literally the first couple of shots I took with it, Ive not had time for a proper play about yet

fish1.jpg


fish2.jpg
 
Andy, Just noticed you have the 12-35 f2.8. How do you rate it? I have just acquired a GX1 and am looking for a good all round lens to replace the 14-42 but there is a HUGE jump in price! I may just stick with the kit lens and a 20mm but if the 12-35 is sharp enough it would do me just fine as the focal length is perfect for my uses.

How does the 12-35 compare in sharpness and general IQ to the 20mm?
 
Last edited:
danolive1 said:
I just dont GET fish eye lenses. Why whould you want distorted pictures?
Click to expand...

Consider more than that you see. Had the last poster taken a picture inside the car, you'd have seen most, if not all the dash. Try that with one of your lenses.

There are loads of interesting effects that you can achieve with a fisheye - and it is possible to get more information in the picture than you'd otherwise get, sometimes it can be flattened by software.
 
I was ready to pull the trigger on a Canon 650D or 60D but something keeps pulling me back to a G3 14-42/45-200 combo!!
 
AndyWest said:
Andy, Just noticed you have the 12-35 f2.8. How do you rate it?
Click to expand...
I've had it since yesterday evening... In the VERY limited testing I have done, it is sharp, fast and can be used wide open. The reason I have it (other than it is sharp and constant aperture) is to compensate for the sensor performance compared to full frame. Here is my thinking:

The IS system is good, and I can get about 3 stops with it - which is by all accounts 2x (even though I have the other lens here, I haven't tried it) what you get on the kit lens, so assuming you are the longer end of the kit lens, you get 2 stops extra light from the aperture (f5.6->f2.8) and an extra stop and a half from the IS. Basically, you can shoot the "same" picture at ISO 200 with the 12-35 as you can at ISO 2500 with the kit lens. This matters when you're walking around country houses or shooting in poor light (read days in the UK) but matters less if you have a sunny day and are at f8 (you do have to pixel peep to see the difference at higher F numbers, but they are there) you're less likely to see a difference.

If you're setting up, can always keep the camera at close to base ISO and be around f5.6-f9, you're unlikely to see much difference. If you stray outside of that (especially towards needing to push ISOs) I think the differences are significant.

If you're happy in low light with a prime and a slower zoom, the tradeoffs may well be different for you but even though it is a slower lens, as it has OIS, it will be a "faster" lens by about 1.5-2 stops of light than your 20mm prime is for static subjects (clearly if you had an Oly EM5 that would be different as the IBIS would do the stabilisation). You will need to lock down ISO and aperture to get the camera to set the correct shutter speed (it tries to set 1/(2xfocal) and ups the ISO to maintain that), but should be possible to get a balance with practice and easy access to an ISO button. Alternatively, if you can set the max ISO, you could set it for 200 or 400 and let the body do the rest on a custom setting.
 
danolive1 said:
I just dont GET fish eye lenses. Why whould you want distorted pictures?
Click to expand...
Because they can accentuate shapes. They tend to work well with larger buildings IMHO. You can get rectilinear wide angle (7-14 anyone!), but they have a totally different feel.

For example (I'm not saying it is the best example of a fisheye photo):

P1000252-800.jpg
 
I've had an arm injury so I haven't been able to do much and this is the first picture I've taken in weeks.

_1080995-C.jpg


Has anyone been following the GH3 rumours? The spec looks impressive and it may be a very tempting camera.
 
woof woof said:
I've had an arm injury so I haven't been able to do much and this is the first picture I've taken in weeks.
Click to expand...
Hope you recover soon - I still have the remains of a twisted ankle I picked up in April. I don't like getting older... :(

Nice pic BTW - you out with your MF lenses again?

woof woof said:
Has anyone been following the GH3 rumours? The spec looks impressive and it may be a very tempting camera.
Click to expand...
Oh yes :D We'll see what the dynamic range is like, what handling is like and, more importantly what the price is like.........
 
Yes, still playing with the Minolta 55mm f1.7.

I'll put the GH3 on the list of possibles with the Nex 6 and new Fuji but I'm intregued at the rumours of a full frame Nex next year so I may wait for some development on that story especially on the lenses. I have little to no brand loyalty but whatever I get I may keep the G1 as it's worth about 2p.

I've been think a bit more seriously about ditching the Canon gear or maybe thinning out the lens collection. I currently have 5D + 20mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 150mm f2.8 macro, 12-24mm, 20-35mm and 70-300mm.
 
danolive1 said:
I just dont GET fish eye lenses. Why whould you want distorted pictures?
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, a fisheye lens distorts no more than a conventional wide-angle rectilinear lens, it's just a different type of distortion. Distortion of some kind is inherent in any method of projecting a 3D world onto a 2D surface, especially once you get wider than 90° angle of view.

Well-corrected rectilinear lenses preserve straight lines as straight, which is what were're used to with perspective projections that have been the conventional representation of the world since they were popularised in Renaissance Europe.

However, when you do that, it's at the expense of accuracy of distances - you'll notice that the edges of any conventional wide-angle shot are stretched out in order to keep straight lines straight (which is what a rectilinear lens does)

This example was actually a 180° fisheye image 'corrected' to a rectilinear image with 142° angle of view in PP, illustrating what you'd get if you had a rectilinear lens that wide.


One fish, two fish, de-fish by cybertect, on Flickr

Fisheye lenses preserve angular distances from the centre of the lens across the image, at the expense of keeping lines straight. For reasons of the geometry involved, fisheye lenses also better preserve circles in the image, most notably at the edge of the frame.

If I'd shot this with a conventional wide lens, the steering wheel would have appeared bizarrely distorted.


Best Interior by cybertect, on Flickr

In this shot with a fisheye, the GLA Building doesn't appear top heavy and leaning backwards, as it does in similar shots I've seen from the same viewpoint with a rectilinear lens - and the curved handrail around The Scoop looks more natural.


Scoop! by cybertect, on Flickr

For architectural work where I need a very wide angle, I'm also rather fond of partially de-fishing an image in the one dimension only with a PS plugin called Fisheye-Hemi. This straightens the vertical lines, but leaves horizontal lines 'fishy' - you can often lose those with careful framing at capture stage.


Foster's Roof III by cybertect, on Flickr

At the and of the day, it's a choice between the two distortions. Sometimes it's better to have the option of choosing the other one.

[all the examples above were taken with a Canon EF 15mm fisheye on a full-frame 5D, but everything would apply equally to equivalent lenses on Micro 4/3]
 
Last edited:
Excellent post Rob... Truly excellent...
 
Cracking post about the fish eye and also some excellent shots both in themselves as well as to show how the properties of the lens :)

To continue with the rumours, the GH3 must be something special if it is to come in at a similar if not higher price than the EM-5. Will be interesting to also see the Olympus lower models, if they have the same sensor as the EM-5....
 
woof woof said:
I've had an arm injury ...
Click to expand...
Do tell, commiserations.
So you're stuck underneath your rose bushes?

I got a bit frustrated with my manual-focus 45mm the other day in York, couldn't get focus quickly for some reason ... so I caved in and got the mZuiko 45mm. It looks good on the G1 but after testing a few bodies I found consistently better photos on my e-P2. (G1 came second every time)

anyway, get well soon.
 
I'm getting better by the day thanks. Dunno what I did really, maybe an exercise injury or something I did through housework or DIY. Dunno. Just had a lot of pain and couldn't really put any strain on it for several weeks.

Speed isn't my first priority when shooting so I'm ok with manual and mostly use my 25mm f0.95 and 55mm f1.7. I have 20mm and 14-42mm AF lenses for use as and when.

I'm pretty happy with the G1 at low to middling ISO's and it's only really at higher ISO and when trying to shoot in very low light that it disappoints.
 
Tulipone said:
Like the spider, works well.
Click to expand...

Ta - hope to get out again today with the fishy samyang



On a slightly different note I feel (for now) that my M43 kit is complete having just added the P7-14.

My transition away from anying DSLR to entirely M43 is completed. First time in years I have been with a dslr and not missing it at all. In fact, I'd go so far to say that I'm not really missing a viewfinder either - having only used the G3 approx 3 times, but it is comforting to have it there just incase. :thumbs:
 
I'm wondering - does anyone use a Raynox with their GX1? I think I want to get closer! I also considered a Panasonic DMW-GMC1 but Raynox seem to be more available and cheaper.
 
Tulipone said:
I'm wondering - does anyone use a Raynox with their GX1? I think I want to get closer! I also considered a Panasonic DMW-GMC1 but Raynox seem to be more available and cheaper.
Click to expand...
Weird... I have just bought a Raynox (an hour ago off e-bay)....
 
My sister has been hinting at a G2 for Christmas. Do I buy her one, or do I use it as an excuse to upgrade to a G3 or G5 and give her mine?! Decisions, decisions!
 
Mandoo said:
My sister has been hinting at a G2 for Christmas. Do I buy her one, or do I use it as an excuse to upgrade to a G3 or G5 and give her mine?! Decisions, decisions!
Click to expand...
You know it makes sense to treat yourself for Christmas.
 
Mandoo said:
My sister has been hinting at a G2 for Christmas. Do I buy her one, or do I use it as an excuse to upgrade to a G3 or G5 and give her mine?! Decisions, decisions!
Click to expand...

It's a no brainer!! Upgrade!! :D
 
Haha, its a tough one as I really do love my G2. The ergonomics of it are perfect for me so I was looking at keeping it as a second body when I do eventually upgrade. I don't want to upgrade too early though and then have the price drop soon after.
I'm keeping my eyes peeled for a good deal on another G2 in the mean time though, just in case.
 
My Mum wants a G3, well I'm pushing her in to it anyway!!! She has an old
Nikon bridge camera that is dying so she wants to step up a bit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top