"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Last edited:
the black fox said:
Only crit on them Keith is d.o.f is lacking ,would stopping down have helped ,I had similar problems yesterday with the 100-400
Click to expand...

I could have stopped down a bit more, I have done with some others, but it didn't make a huge difference. It's the set up, using the tele lens and an add on gives extreme shallow DOF. Where you can pull back a tad with a dedicated macro lens and still achieve focus, with this set up you have that one plane of focus and that's it. More practice with this set up needed, will try with various settings. Planning on getting a macro lens for this type of work soon though, for now it's more experimental
 
Cagey75 said:
I could have stopped down a bit more, I have done with some others, but it didn't make a huge difference. It's the set up, using the tele lens and an add on gives extreme shallow DOF. Where you can pull back a tad with a dedicated macro lens and still achieve focus, with this set up you have that one plane of focus and that's it. More practice with this set up needed, will try with various settings. Planning on getting a macro lens for this type of work soon though, for now it's more experimental
Click to expand...
From my own experiences with true macro Keith it’s either a case of stopping down hugely I.e F16 or more ,and then using flash or focus stacking but got totally no idea where you start with that ,that’s why I like the 100-400 it’s got enough flexibility for dragon flies,butterflies etc without resorting to hairy leg counting
 
the black fox said:
From my own experiences with true macro Keith it’s either a case of stopping down hugely I.e F16 or more ,and then using flash or focus stacking but got totally no idea where you start with that ,that’s why I like the 100-400 it’s got enough flexibility for dragon flies,butterflies etc without resorting to hairy leg counting
Click to expand...


Aye, I use flash for these, I try to keep it as low power as possible, but it helps to keep the ISO low, and 'freeze' the subject - many of these were blowing about in the breeze - which in macro world may as well be a super hurricane. You have to remember also though, that stopping down with M43 is very different than FF. F8 gives similar DOF to f16 on FF and diffraction also sets in a lot earlier, usually beyond F11. I would get more in focus using a less powerful close up filter, the Raynox 150 is probably better suited, the 250 is very tricky on a tele lens. That, or a slightly shorter lens, like a 60 - 85mm. Less magnification, but a lot more in focus. I can use the Raynox on my 25mm, but it's a bit short, magnification is only around 0.37, but with a macro ring added I could boost that to close to 1:1, with less compression
 
Last edited:
Right, I had another go yesterday evening, I used my more powerful flash which enabled me to go to f/16 without having to bump ISO or slow the shutter too much [was a pretty dank and dim eve too]

The DOF is still very shallow, but as you can see, depending on your angle of approach, you can get more in focus. In the second image the bug was facing more along the same plane so it was easier to keep most of it in focus, but I still prefer the first, it's all about the eyes for me and the stance. They're bug portraits really :D

Alien attack! by K G, on Flickr

Pest by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
since posting these two ,something occurred to me ,and I have been back through my flickr pics to see if I was imaging it ,the camera especially if set to auto iso seems to favour a shutter speed of 1/640th of a sec .I have always used a/v mode for my general shooting and in reality I dont think that shooting b.i.f with a lens that equates to 800mm hand held even with dual axis i.s that the shutter speed its preferring is anywhere near fast enough . not going to have a chance to play today as the cars in for some work but I will be looking at this in some more depth over the weekend or this evening .

I have just come from using a sigma sport and a canon 1d camera and I could shoot perfectly sharp shots with that at 600mm hand held ,so this rig should be a doddle ,but its not . the gulls will be well fed later for practice have no fear hmmmmmmm
 
I have found in general that you need to keep fiddling with exp comp to get desired settings in A/P/S modes, so I just continue to use M, like I have with every other camera I've owned.
 
That's why i use S and exposure compensation on the front dial, ok it means shooting wide open but the two main things i want to control are at hand.
 
Couple more macro shots, again with the G80 + 100-300 + Raynox 250

Draining the Ivy by K G, on Flickr

Dagger fly stare down by K G, on Flickr

Not the same image [you can tell by the much shallower DOF on this one] but the same insect, went in further on the zoom here, slight crop. This was at the full 300mm, giving 3:1 macro, not even possible to get an insect this size [15mm or so] in frame
Dagger fly close up by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Managed a morning at the speed hillclimb course at Harewood on Sunday, watching the MSA British Hillclimb Championship runners.

#1 GWR Raptor (great name for a race car)
MSA British Hillclimb Championship by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

#2 Ferrari crossing the finish line at the end of a run.
MSA British Hillclimb Championship by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

#3 Up close and personal
MSA British Hillclimb Championship by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

#4 A very rapid Gould
MSA British Hillclimb Championship by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

#5 For all it's a hillclimb, the cars actually head downhill to begin with. This is at the point where they start the climb back up the hill.
MSA British Hillclimb Championship by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

# Ferrari 250GT :-)
MSA British Hillclimb Championship by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

All taken on a G9 and either an Oly 40-150mmf2.8 (with and without 1.4xTC) or PL 12-60mm.

Cheers,

Simon.
 
sphexx said:
GX8 is OLED viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Yup... I had a GX7 and still have my GX80 and to be honest the EVF's aren't the best and possibly not helped by whatever Panasonic has seen fit to put in front of the EVF and in fact I'm pretty sure that the latter is half the problem or maybe most of the problem for me at least.

I've stuck with the smaller form field sequential EVF cameras (and will shortly be getting a GX9) despite grumbling about the EVF's because of the smaller form factor although I could maybe have gone for a GX8 if it wasn't for the SS issue as some of the lenses I want to use show the issue.
 
the black fox said:
one from this morning through a double glazed window

splash splash I was having a barf by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Nice one :)

I've had to stop all feeding of birds in our garden, had planned to put a bird bath and more hanging feeders out, but the cats won the war :( they kill too many, can't be responsible. Now I wonder if I'll hold on to the 100-300, won't be using it near as much. Maybe trade in for a macro lens as I'll do more of that through the summer. I can always rebuy a tele lens once Autumn/winter comes back around
 
Cagey75 said:
Nice one :)

I've had to stop all feeding of birds in our garden, had planned to put a bird bath and more hanging feeders out, but the cats won the war :( they kill too many, can't be responsible. Now I wonder if I'll hold on to the 100-300, won't be using it near as much. Maybe trade in for a macro lens as I'll do more of that through the summer. I can always rebuy a tele lens once Autumn/winter comes back around
Click to expand...
the 100-400 is good enough for both
 
the black fox said:
the 100-400 is good enough for both
Click to expand...

I don't have that kind of money right now, or anytime soon. It's proper 1:1 macro I want to do, not 'kind of' macro, the 100-300 isn't far behind the 100-400 for that purpose. I like doing 'close up' shots too, but it isn't anywhere close to actual macro
 
so whats the option Keith a 30mm macro or the Olympus one .?

b.t.w I dont worry about cats I got a nasty arsed cat hater, come to think about it he hates everything including me
what ya doing by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
so whats the option Keith a 30mm macro or the Olympus one .?

b.t.w I dont worry about cats I got a nasty arsed cat hater, come to think about it he hates everything including me
what ya doing by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
Click to expand...

The 30mm macro lenses are too short, very little working distance. There's a tonne of vintage macro lenses for cheap out there though. For AF, the Olympus 60mm attracts me, as it would double as a very nice portrait lens also - OR - I keep the 100-300, and get the cheap and cheerful Sigma 60mm 2.8, I can attach the Raynox 250 to that and voila, macro lens :D [almost!]

Lovely doggie btw :)
 
When you say the sigma 60mm f2.8 I presume you mean via a adaptor ?? If so what am I actually looking for ?
 
the black fox said:
When you say the sigma 60mm f2.8 I presume you mean via a adaptor ?? If so what am I actually looking for ?
Click to expand...

No, the Sigma 60mm 2.8 comes in M43 mount also, can be got for £150 on amazon atm. If I get that, I can stick my Raynox on front of it when doing macro, whip it off for a standard portrait lens. Gets really good reviews and is high up on DXO's list of lenses for M43 in terms of sharpness

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-60mm...qid=1526412481&sr=8-1&keywords=Sigma+60mm+2.8
 
the black fox said:
now that does look interesting ,now on my wanted list
Click to expand...


Yeah surprisingly they have a trio of these lenses under their 'Art' range, which are usually way more expensive. There's a 19mm, 30mm and the 60mm, all f/2.8 so not the brightest out there, but all three are reportedly very sharp.
 
Cagey75 said:
Yeah surprisingly they have a trio of these lenses under their 'Art' range, which are usually way more expensive. There's a 19mm, 30mm and the 60mm, all f/2.8 so not the brightest out there, but all three are reportedly very sharp.
Click to expand...

The 30mm is available in an f1.4 version as well as a 16mm f1.4. Good prices too.
 
CSB said:
The 30mm is available in an f1.4 version as well as a 16mm f1.4. Good prices too.
Click to expand...

I've eyed those up too ;) they were made more with APSC in mind, with M43 a bit of an after thought. They're a lot bigger and more expensive too [though still very reasonable prices for 1.4] the 16mm is huge! I think I would opt for the Pana-Leica 15mm 1.7 over it, they are about the same price. The beauty of the 'Art' lenses is the low price and M43 friendlier size. There's nothing from Olympus or Panasonic near as cheap in the 60mm region, in fact the only other 60mm is the Olympus macro 60mm 2.8 which is £200 more.

Here's the 16mm 1.4 compared to the Olympus 17mm - :eek:

sigma-16mm-1.4-vs-olympus-17mm-1.8-product-shots-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Yeah surprisingly they have a trio of these lenses under their 'Art' range, which are usually way more expensive. There's a 19mm, 30mm and the 60mm, all f/2.8 so not the brightest out there, but all three are reportedly very sharp.
Click to expand...

I've owned the 19mm and 60mm in the past, and in my experience, they were even better than the hype suggested. I only (regrettably) sold them to help fund an Oly 12-40mm f2.8.

Simon.
 
srhmoto said:
I've owned the 19mm and 60mm in the past, and in my experience, they were even better than the hype suggested. I only (regrettably) sold them to help fund an Oly 12-40mm f2.8.

Simon.
Click to expand...

That's convincing enough for me :)
 
And me ,will probably buy later in the week ,to much other personal stuff happening over the next few days
 
Cagey75 said:
Here's the 16mm 1.4 compared to the Olympus 17mm - :eek:
Click to expand...

I read reviews in which the Oly 17mm f1.8 doesn't really shine and maybe it divides opinion but IMO it's a nice lens. I think it's optically perfectly fine and I wish all MFT lenses were built like it, the build and the manual focus features are IMO just wonderful.
 
woof woof said:
I read reviews in which the Oly 17mm f1.8 doesn't really shine and maybe it divides opinion but IMO it's a nice lens. I think it's optically perfectly fine and I wish all MFT lenses were built like it, the build and the manual focus features are IMO just wonderful.
Click to expand...

I read similar, general consensus seems to be it needs stopping down a bit for best results. It is a beautifully constructed lens though, built more like solid vintage lenses than the more plasticky modern offerings. I just used that for size comparison, that 16mm Sigma is ridiculous, can't see it balancing very well on M43 bodies outside the bigger ones. I don't mind big lenses, when they are mid to long tele range, for wider primes I like them neat and tidy. The Panasonic 15mm 1.7 is supposedly a beauty
 
Last edited:
That is a huge difference in size for the 16mm Sigma vs the 17mm Olympus, I've not seen them side by side before but it's enough to put me off the Sigma 16mm. The 30mm f1.4 Sigma is also big compared to the Panasonic 30mm f2.8 macro but the difference in size isn't as huge and it is two stops brighter. I'd still like to get my hands on a copy to try out.
 
Cagey75 said:
I read similar, general consensus seems to be it needs stopping down a bit for best results. It is a beautifully constructed lens though, built more like solid vintage lenses than the more plasticky modern offerings. I just used that for size comparison, that 16mm Sigma is ridiculous, can't see it balancing very well on M43 bodies outside the bigger ones. I don't mind big lenses, when they are mid to long tele range, for wider primes I like them neat and tidy. The Panasonic 15mm 1.7 is supposedly a beauty
Click to expand...

I use my MFT kit taking into consideration the crop factor for the aperture and so usually use apertures between wide open and f5.6 because with FF I'd probably mostly be between f2.8 and f10. I'd describe all of my MFT lenses as good wide open and perfectly useable but of course if you pixel peep a picture at 100% you can often find something to complain about. In isolation I'm perfectly happy with my GX80 and Oly 17mm f1.8 but if I make a direct comparison to an identical picture taken with my Sony A7 and Sony 35mm 2.8 the Sony will be sharper at 100% but for looking at a whole picture normally or even closely I think it'd only be an obsessive pixel peeper who'd complain about the Oly 17mm's sharpness :D

Apart from on internet forums I've never ever had anyone say "Woof Woof, that picture isn't sharp." Actually even when it's happened on internet forums I've ignored it as IMO anyone who criticises a picture based on a 1,000 pixel wide shot saved as quality 7 or 8 (rather than 12) and posted on line probably needs something else to worry about :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top