First couple of hours with the Panasonic GX80 - First impressions.

[Stephen L]

Yes, so does mine, in fact so do my G3s, but they activate the US dust reducer filter (ultra sonic shaker), they don't do anything to assist physically cleaning the sensor.
On Canon and I assume others, it holds the mirror up so that you can get to the sensor to clean it, they also in addition have a dust reducer that tries to "shake" the dust off

On all my m4/3 kit I've never had the need to do a manual clean - the USS seems efficient. However, my Canon 5D Mk1 was a totally different story ...

I was under the impression that on digital cameras the sensor was locked on power-down (or so I was told by an Oly rep)

 

[tijuana taxi]

I was responding to a sensor cleaning mode stabilising the sensor which I have never come across on any Olympus or Panasonic camera.

The sensor definitely still wobbles when the power is off, probably safer that way to absorb any shock.
I had a laptop that deliberately allowed the HDD to move when being transported for that very reason.

 

[Sangoma]

I was responding to a sensor cleaning mode stabilising the sensor which I have never come across on any Olympus or Panasonic camera.

The sensor definitely still wobbles when the power is off, probably safer that way to absorb any shock.
I had a laptop that deliberately allowed the HDD to move when being transported for that very reason.

That is how I understood it.

 

[Sangoma]

On all my m4/3 kit I've never had the need to do a manual clean - the USS seems efficient. However, my Canon 5D Mk1 was a totally different story ...

I was under the impression that on digital cameras the sensor was locked on power-down (or so I was told by an Oly rep)

Unfortunately, I don't seem so fortunate, the shaker doesn't seem too effective
I use a Holga pinhole lens, which shows the dust very well (maybe too well)

Neither the G80 or G9 lock the sensor when the power is off, you can hear it moving if you gently shake the camera.

 

[woof woof]

This is maybe interesting but based on film, here they're talking about hyperfocal v focus at infinity.

General: Merklinger's Approach to Estimating Depth of Field

www.waloszek.de

It's easy enough to try different techniques with digital. I sometimes use the above method as it's so easy to do without too many mental gymnastics and once set up you can shoot with manual lenses quickly and easily.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Nothing wrong with those, personally I would only compare with another camera if I had taken the same photo at the same time (+- half a minute or so in case a cloud moves)

The 100-300 is sharpest at f8 at 200-300 and f5.6 at 100, and it is good up to f11, above that it is still better than many lenses, but it does drop of as you would expect.

The best compromise is f6.3

It was mentioned that it is best to use the lens at medium lengths. Although it is true that its best performance it at around 200mm, it is still extremely good at 300.

Another way to look at it is if you have a part of the shot you want to crop fairly severely, you will end up with a better image taken at 300mm than you would if you had taken it at 250mm and cropped the same part of the image.

It is very popular for birding and wildlife for good reason, performance weight and size.

The G80 with the 100-300 is around 1100g, and the G9 with the 100-400 is around 1680g. That extra weight makes a big difference, both in use and carrying.

Those marks look like sensor, but they are so minor you won't see them most of the time, personally I would try and blow them off, or brush them with a dust free lens brush, and if they don't move, leave them, unless they are going to normally be visible.
I use a pinhole lens to check for dust and marks, and yours is very clean compared to most, and people haven't ever noticed it

If you do try and clean it, don't be alarmed if you notice the sensor rattles around, it is floating, and does move around when the power is off. (it is not actually the sensor that the dust is usually on, but the IR filter (hot filter) in front of the sensor.)

Great advice. That's the main thing here, is this amount of contamination common, and given how hard it is to see it, and how rarely on a photo, should I stress about it?
When I saw the F Stop went to F22 on the G80, I wrongly assumed that the higher I went the sharper it would be, and that lower numbers were all for bokeh.

 

[woof woof]

Great advice. That's the main thing here, is this amount of contamination common, and given how hard it is to see it, and how rarely on a photo, should I stress about it?
When I saw the F Stop went to F22 on the G80, I wrongly assumed that the higher I went the sharper it would be, and that lower numbers were all for bokeh.

I think it depends when it shows up. If I only saw contamination at f22 on MFT I wouldn't bother cleaning the sensor but if it showed up at apertures I was likely to use I would clean it just in case it appeared in a picture and was difficult to clone out without destroying something I wanted to keep in the picture.

Contamination is I think less likely with modern kit as the materials and sensor coating are much more resistant these days and the flappy mirrors are no more and I'm sure they added to the problem. The main thing is to be careful when changing lenses. I'd recommend the following...

- Get your new lens ready.
- Turn the camera off and point it downwards. If you're outside turn away from and wind.
- Take the lens off, put it down and fit the new lens ASAP.
- Put the old lens away.

 

[Sangoma]

Great advice. That's the main thing here, is this amount of contamination common, and given how hard it is to see it, and how rarely on a photo, should I stress about it?
When I saw the F Stop went to F22 on the G80, I wrongly assumed that the higher I went the sharper it would be, and that lower numbers were all for bokeh.

It is common from what I have seen on mine and others, and yours is very mild.
You would not normally see it, especially if there was any detail where the marks are.

You get a peak in lens performance, since my last post on it I have found the article I saw a few moths back https://www.ephotozine.com/article/...io-100-300mm-f-4-0-5-6-zoom-lens-review-17763 which backs up the common advice of f6.3 that many give, I follow it, and it seems sound.

You do lose at high f numbers, but then maybe that loss is acceptable to get the depth you want, only way is for you to try it and see how it looks to you

 

[Crotal Bell]

Looks like you are getting to grip with the change from your other camera Keith.
It isn't an easy transition, but photos like no 2 and 3 show you are getting there
I did have the 100-300 lens, can't compare directly because mine was the mk ii.
My preferred aperture for best quality was 5.6, rarely go above that and think of f8 as a maximum with m4/3.

You always see a loss in quality posting on here, in fact any hosting site will make changes.
Personally with No 4 I would have concentrated on the foreground rather than the whole scene
F22 has definitely caused diffraction to set in whereby nothing is very sharp.

That looks very much like sensor dust, try giving it a go with a rocket blower, but its not bad at all.
Reckon you should try it with something like a 12-60 before deciding whether to keep it or not.
The camera is capable of excellent photos and sounds to me you are enjoying seeing that improvement.

Dug out one of my photos taken with the G80 to show how it can cope with less than favourable conditions.
This is where you will notice the improvement over a bridge or phone camera
Taken handheld at f2.8, iso1600 and 1/8, I have printed this at A3 with good results.

View attachment 356863

Please advise, where did you focus on that shot? Do you use single focus point or multi point screen?
This is the original of pic 4. I think the re-sizing for the forum doesn't help, but what is diffraction please?

 

[Crotal Bell]

It is common from what I have seen on mine and others, and yours is very mild.
You would not normally see it, especially if there was any detail where the marks are.

You get a peak in lens performance, since my last post on it I have found the article I saw a few moths back https://www.ephotozine.com/article/...io-100-300mm-f-4-0-5-6-zoom-lens-review-17763 which backs up the common advice of f6.3 that many give, I follow it, and it seems sound.

You do lose at high f numbers, but then maybe that loss is acceptable to get the depth you want, only way is for you to try it and see how it looks to you

Thanks Steve, I'm off for a walk in a minute, I'll try a few different F Stops and see if the blobs show up.
So far though not very often.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Please advise, where did you focus on that shot? Do you use single focus point or multi point screen?
This is the original of pic 4. I think the re-sizing for the forum doesn't help, but what is diffraction please?
View attachment 356901

I nearly always use single point for static subjects and often spot meter off the focus point. Guessing I focused on the central orb, wanted the Atomium sharper than anything else. Think I used a 12/1.4 lens so I had a bit of leeway to get what I wanted.

Diffraction is the effect smaller apertures have on how light passes through the opening. Smaller it gets the more it blurs and unfortunately it is very noticeable on M4/3. I hardly ever go above f8 for that reason, many lenses are at their best before that. Sharpness back to front is very dependant on where in the scene you focus.

 

[woof woof]

Diffraction can cause a loss of contrast too.

I normally stick from wide open to f4/f5 with only very occasional use of f8 or smaller.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I nearly always use single point for static subjects and often spot meter off the focus point. Guessing I focused on the central orb, wanted the Atomium sharper than anything else. Think I used a 12/1.4 lens so I had a bit of leeway to get what I wanted.

Diffraction is the effect smaller apertures have on how light passes through the opening. Smaller it gets the more it blurs and unfortunately it is very noticeable on M4/3. I hardly ever go above f8 for that reason, many lenses are at their best before that. Sharpness back to front is very dependant on where in the scene you focus.

Right, so you can't have your cake and eat it, for shots over distance foreground/background, you have to lock on the main focus point of the image and accept that other parts will be less sharp?

 

[tijuana taxi]

Right, so you can't have your cake and eat it, for shots over distance foreground/background, you have to lock on the main focus point of the image and accept that other parts will be less sharp?

Not really, you can focus on a certain point where everything behind and in front is in focus.
Its called the hyperfocal point, so for instance using m4/3 camera at 100mm focal length, f5.6 you need to focus at 118m into the scene.
Bit extreme, wide angle example is better, 12mm at f/5.6 focus needs to be at 1.71 m

 

[woof woof]

DoF tables are useful until you can work out what's happening. Here's one for a 135mm lens on MFT. The CofC will vary with different cameras, though if that's significant or not is another matter, so this is for indication only.

It's worth noting that DoF tables are for a specific sized print viewed from a specific distance. Change one of those things and how you perceive it changes. Also there's only one plane of focus, what we're aiming for is acceptable sharpness at other points in the image.

I sometimes do this but most of the time I focus on the main point of interest and use what I think is an appropriate aperture for the picture as a whole.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Not really, you can focus on a certain point where everything behind and in front is in focus.
Its called the hyperfocal point, so for instance using m4/3 camera at 100mm focal length, f5.6 you need to focus at 118m into the scene.
Bit extreme, wide angle example is better, 12mm at f/5.6 focus needs to be at 1.71 m

So until you start learning it, take several shots at different focus points and make a mental note, then see which on works best and start logging that in the brainbox.

 

[tijuana taxi]

First thing to learn is the relationship betwèen iso, aperture and shutter speed when determining exposure.
Then work out the effect they have on the photo which includes depth of field and motion capture.
Lots of online tutorials and books that explain the exposure triangle.
Also get to grips with all the aids the camera has such as histogram and highlight/shadow warning indicators.
Think what you want to achieve and then investigate how you go about getting that result.
Trial and eŕror does play a part, but you need to be able to replicate it at will.
Dial twiddling isn't the answer because its too random, needs to be a reason behind your settings choice.

 

[who?]

One thing that I like about mft bodies is the ease and cheapness (yorkshireman here ) of putting old manual lenses on. There are some very good old manual lenses which can be picked up cheaply and which work really well on the olympus/panasonic bodies. It might just be me, but having to manually play with the aperture and focus helps set the understanding.

While olympus m.zuiko and lumix lenses are great it doesn't make for a cheap hobby.

 

[delb0y]

Good exposure triangle simulator here:

http://www.canonoutsideofauto.ca/play/

 

[Crotal Bell]

@Sangoma @tijuana taxi @d00d @woof woof
Had a good day today, kept the aperture lower (no blobs on the sky shots) It's a beautiful walk but not full of feature, however, here's the best with a few comments for your critique.

Lets start with the star of the day. I kept still and it moved pretty close, the 100-300 did the rest. I shot burst about 5 frames and picked the best.
1/1000 sec. f/5.6 300 mm ISO 320. I lifted the shadows to get the sunlight sheen and sharpened slightly.

As we left I saw this Mustang. This is where the lens was too big and despite every effort I could not get far enough back to catch the whole car. I was blown away though by the clarity and colours and was very impressed. I think this image has swayed me to keep the camera (and add a 12-60 lens.)
1/200 sec. f/5.6 100 mm ISO 200. Cropped away lower bushes and think it works in widescreen.

A closer side shot. The forum shots take away a bit of the colour pop from my desktop pics but I think they still look great.
1/200 sec. f/5.6 100 mm ISO 200

So where did I go wrong with this one. I wanted to try and get DOF and it's obvious where I placed the focus.
1/320 sec. f/8 108 mm ISO 200. I did one with F6 it wasn't really any better.

Not a bad close up from the long lens. No idea what this web is. 1/50 sec. f/4.5 100 mm ISO 200

 

[woof woof]

If you don't mind me saying so Keith, looking at your pictures I think you've come on really quickly in such a short time. That bird and the 1st car picture are outstanding. Well done.

I'm glad you're liking the kit and getting used to it too

 

[who?]

@Sangoma @tijuana taxi @d00d @woof woof
Had a good day today, kept the aperture lower (no blobs on the sky shots) It's a beautiful walk but not full of feature, however, here's the best with a few comments for your critique.

Lets start with the star of the day. I kept still and it moved pretty close, the 100-300 did the rest. I shot burst about 5 frames and picked the best.
1/1000 sec. f/5.6 300 mm ISO 320. I lifted the shadows to get the sunlight sheen and sharpened slightly.
View attachment 356998
As we left I saw this Mustang. This is where the lens was too big and despite every effort I could not get far enough back to catch the whole car. I was blown away though by the clarity and colours and was very impressed. I think this image has swayed me to keep the camera (and add a 12-60 lens.)
1/200 sec. f/5.6 100 mm ISO 200. Cropped away lower bushes and think it works in widescreen.
View attachment 357011
A closer side shot. The forum shots take away a bit of the colour pop from my desktop pics but I think they still look great.
1/200 sec. f/5.6 100 mm ISO 200
View attachment 357013
So where did I go wrong with this one. I wanted to try and get DOF and it's obvious where I placed the focus.
1/320 sec. f/8 108 mm ISO 200. I did one with F6 it wasn't really any better.
View attachment 357023
Not a bad close up from the long lens. No idea what this web is. 1/50 sec. f/4.5 100 mm ISO 200
View attachment 357030

Some nice pics there. I like the web as well as the excellent bird.

On the shrubbery and the DOF were you after a narrow dof or wide/deep?
remember that bigger apertures are smaller numbers. its f divided by 6 being a bigger aperture than f/8. I wouldnt expect the jump from f/6 to f/8 to make much difference,
If you want more of the pic in focus then I would say bump the iso up (only because if you're shooting hand held then you dont want to have the shutter speed getting to the point that you get shake) and reduce the aperture more.

Hope that isnt coming across as condescending - not intended to be.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Some nice pics there. I like the web as well as the excellent bird.

On the shrubbery and the DOF were you after a narrow dof or wide/deep?
remember that bigger apertures are smaller numbers. its f divided by 6 being a bigger aperture than f/8. I wouldnt expect the jump from f/6 to f/8 to make much difference,
If you want more of the pic in focus then I would say bump the iso up (only because if you're shooting hand held then you dont want to have the shutter speed getting to the point that you get shake) and reduce the aperture more.

Hope that isnt coming across as condescending - not intended to be.

I was after as much as possible in focus near and far, it's something I struggle with.
All comments welcome and taken in the right spirit.

 

[Crotal Bell]

If you don't mind me saying so Keith, looking at your pictures I think you've come on really quickly in such a short time. That bird and the 1st car picture are outstanding. Well done.

I'm glad you're liking the kit and getting used to it too

That means a lot to me Alan, thank you.
I find the shot burst can be hit or miss, there was another string I took and they were all blurred, could have been me. It does help being able to shoot a rolling number of shots especially on moving objects. Assuming the shot count per second is fixed, does it matter what shutter speed you set?

 

[Ed Sutton]

I was after as much as possible in focus near and far, it's something I struggle with.

This is more difficult to achieve with longer focal lengths than shorter ones.

 

[who?]

I was after as much as possible in focus near and far, it's something I struggle with.
All comments welcome and taken in the right spirit.

Good stuff.

three factors - aperture, shutter speed and iso.


I use the bucket analogy.

Taking a correctly exposed pic is like filling a bucket with water.

How much water/light you need depends on the size of the bucket (or the ISO - which is just the sensitivity - how much light the sensor needs in order to react)

you control how much water/light goes in by varying how long the tap runs for (shutter speed) and how far you open the tap (aperture)

There are lots of combinations of the three factors that give you a photo. So why use one rather than another?
aperture controls depth of field, shutter speed controls motion blurr.

In the bucket analogy if the tap is only on a tiny bit (small aperture, eg f/16) then the surface of the water in the bucket is fairly smooth - the picture is all in focus.
Tap wide open gets you turbulence in the bucket - not much of the pic in focus.

If your chosen settings don't fill the bucket then the pic is underexposed; if the bucket overflows then the pic is overexposed.


Its not a perfect analogy but it works for me. You've got all the stuff about exposure measurement etc that isnt accounted for, but hey....

 

[woof woof]

That means a lot to me Alan, thank you.
I find the shot burst can be hit or miss, there was another string I took and they were all blurred, could have been me. It does help being able to shoot a rolling number of shots especially on moving objects. Assuming the shot count per second is fixed, does it matter what shutter speed you set?

Are you using tracking?

Bursts and tracking aren't things I normally do but if you're not using tracking maybe it could help and be worth experimenting with?

No, if you're shooting bursts the shutter speed won't matter, well, obviously it would matter if you were shooting long exposures into the seconds, that'd slow the bursts down

With different focal lengths depth is the same for the same framing as with shorter lenses you'd be shooting at closer distances to get the framing and closer distance gives you the effect of less depth and with longer lenses you stand further back to get the framing and that should give you more depth but the greater magnification of the longer lens gives the effect of less DoF so the depth ends up the same for both shorter and longer lenses because of the distance changes to get the framing. Of course although the depth will be the same the perspective will be different as perspective is decided by the camera to subject distance.

 

[Crotal Bell]

This is more difficult to achieve with longer focal lengths than shorter ones.

So a 12-60 lens would help and be better at DOF than my 100-300?

 

[woof woof]

So a 12-60 lens would help and be better at DOF than my 100-300?

No. If the framing is the same the depth will be the same. You'd need to be much closer with the shorter lens and that reduces the depth, assuming the framing is the same. Alter the framing and yes, you can get deeper or shallower depth.

PS.
Years back I saw a good piece on this with example pictures somewhere on line. You may be able to google your way to something or you can do your own test at different focal lengths.

PPS.
As I said above, but thinking more about it... If you change the camera to subject distance to get the same framing with different lenses the depth will be the same but the perspective will be different and the different perspective may give the impression of shallower depth but it's not really a change in depth, rather just a change in magnification of some things in the frame looking like a change in depth.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Are you using tracking?

Bursts and tracking aren't things I normally do but if you're not using tracking maybe it could help and be worth experimenting with?

No, if you're shooting bursts the shutter speed won't matter, well, obviously it would matter if you were shooting long exposures into the seconds, that'd slow the bursts down

With different focal lengths depth is the same for the same framing as with shorter lenses you'd be shooting at closer distances to get the framing and closer distance gives you the effect of less depth and with longer lenses you stand further back to get the framing and that should give you more depth but the greater magnification of the longer lens gives the effect of less DoF so the depth ends up the same for both shorter and longer lenses because of the distance changes to get the framing. Of course although the depth will be the same the perspective will be different as perspective is decided by the camera to subject distance.

I haven't tried focus tracking yet, it needs to be small steps for me or my brain starts to melt.
I think my biggest problem with DOF is focus point, the best way for me to learn is take photos. I'm not great at reading advice because i'm a very visual person, I have to see it to understand it (if that makes sense) I also think i expect too much sometimes.

 

[woof woof]

I haven't tried focus tracking yet, it needs to be small steps for me or my brain starts to melt.
I think my biggest problem with DOF is focus point, the best way for me to learn is take photos. I'm not great at reading advice because i'm a very visual person, I have to see it to understand it (if that makes sense) I also think i expect too much sometimes.

With digital experimentation isn't exactly free as it costs you time but experimenting may well be the best way to see what's going on with your own eyes, and it might be fun too

 

[who?]

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/ has some good articles.

In terms of lens choice, most people are looking for a small depth of field in order to make a specific part of the pic stand out.
Which is also why you see the arguments over the quality of bokeh (the smoothness of the blurr of the parts of the image which are not in focus) from different lenses.

Lenses with wider apertures are (often *much*) more expensive. You'll find that one of the standard kit lenses will be much cheaper than the 12-60. Its more expensive to make lenses with wider aperture.
If you look around you should be able to pic up one of the kit lenses cheaply. (theres loads of variants 14-42, 14-45, etc, etc typically with a max aperture of f/3.5 or f/4.

 

[Crotal Bell]

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/ has some good articles.

In terms of lens choice, most people are looking for a small depth of field in order to make a specific part of the pic stand out.
Which is also why you see the arguments over the quality of bokeh (the smoothness of the blurr of the parts of the image which are not in focus) from different lenses.

Lenses with wider apertures are (often *much*) more expensive. You'll find that one of the standard kit lenses will be much cheaper than the 12-60. Its more expensive to make lenses with wider aperture.
If you look around you should be able to pic up one of the kit lenses cheaply. (theres loads of variants 14-42, 14-45, etc, etc typically with a max aperture of f/3.5 or f/4.

I've noticed that, lenses at F1.2 are expensive.

This is something that confuses me, you have 22 F stops on the camera but the lenses have far less, are they basically restricting what the camera can do ?

 

[woof woof]

I've noticed that, lenses at F1.2 are expensive.

This is something that confuses me, you have 22 F stops on the camera but the lenses have far less, are they basically restricting what the camera can do ?

Lenses are normally labelled as maximum (biggest) aperture. For example a zoom might be f3.5-5.6 (f3.5 at the wide end, f5.6 at the long end) but you might be ale to stop it down to f22.

A prime may be labelled as f1.2 (eg. 50mm f1.2) but you might be able to stop it down to f16.

What you can stop down to, f16 or f22 or whatever depends on how the makers have made it. Some lenses stop down further than others. Normally the widest aperture will be printed on the lens but you might have to read the spec sheet to see what it stops down to.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Lenses are normally labelled as maximum (biggest) aperture. For example a zoom might be f3.5-5.6 (f3.5 at the wide end, f5.6 at the long end) but you might be ale to stop it down to f22.

A prime may be labelled as f1.2 (eg. 50mm f1.2) but you might be able to stop it down to f16.

What you can stop down to, f16 or f22 or whatever depends on how the makers have made it. Some lenses stop down further than others. Normally the widest aperture will be printed on the lens but you might have to read the spec sheet to see what it stops down to.

So are the lenses F stops the best settings for the lens, but not necessarily all you should/can use?

 

[woof woof]

So are the lenses F stops the best settings for the lens, but not necessarily all you should/can use?

Lenses are sometimes better stopped down a bit from wide open. Years ago some lenses weren't at their best until f5.6 or even f8 but these days new lenses are often very good even from wide open.

If you read some lens reviews they might state at what point the image stops improving... and then as you stop down further image quality will start to degrade as diffraction kicks in.

I have some old film era primes and some are frankly rubbish at wider apertures by todays standards but some of the newer lenses I have are excellent from wide open. Sometimes the centre of the frame is good but the corners are weaker and there may be a point at which stopping down doesn't improve the central area of the picture but does improve the corners. I use all my MFT lenses from wide open and only stop down for reasons of depth as I think they're easily good enough from wide open.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Lenses are sometimes better stopped down a bit from wide open. Years ago some lenses weren't at their best until f5.6 or even f8 but these days new lenses are often very good even from wide open.

If you read some lens reviews they might state at what point the image stops improving... and then as you stop down further image quality will start to degrade as diffraction kicks in.

I have some old film era primes and some are frankly rubbish at wider apertures by todays standards but some of the newer lenses I have are excellent from wide open. Sometimes the centre of the frame is good but the corners are weaker and there may be a point at which stopping down doesn't improve the central area of the picture but does improve the corners. I use all my MFT lenses from wide open and only stop down for reasons of depth as I think they're easily good enough from wide open.

This is where it confuses me.
If you're shooting a person or single thing, them wide open will give you the bokeh.
If someone is standing there and there's something in the background that is equally important, surely you ned to narrow it - ie higher F Stop ?

 

[woof woof]

This is where it confuses me.
If you're shooting a person or single thing, them wide open will give you the bokeh.
If someone is standing there and there's something in the background that is equally important, surely you ned to narrow it - ie higher F Stop ?

Yes, that's right but remember that with a wide aperture lens you can still stop it down. You don't have to use a f1.4 lens at f1.4 all the time. You can use it at f16 or any other aperture if you want but if a lens is f2.8 or f3.5-f5.6 those are the maximum apertures and you can't use them at f1.4.

 

[Sangoma]

Very nice.
I like the car as it is, if you got the while car in, it may have been better to record the car, but to me it wouldn't have been a better photo, this one is pleasing to look at.

When you have time, why not take one shot with the lens wide open as per previous advice, the the same shot with it stopped down to say f11 (obviously with adjustments to shutter speed and or ISO) and see whether the increase in depth of field or the decrease in sharpness is the deciding factor for you?

I have found that there are times when the desire wider depth of field over rides any lack of overall clarity.

I suggested f11 as that gets you past the peak of measured performance, but you could try f16 just to see what happens.

Cameras have all the f stops available as different lenses have different ranges, but when you use lenses built for the camera, it will only show what is available for the lens attached at the time.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Using those larger apertures has made a big difference, bird and car are good examples of that.
Its hard to get front to back sharpness with a long focal length like the one used in no 4

Alan mentioned perspective, that's another can of worms and often not understood properly.
It changes the whole "perspective" if you keep the subject filling the same space in the frame.

My advice would be get the 12-60 and as you suggested try it at different focal lengths and apertures.
You will see the changes it makes and then commit that knowledge to memory or even a notebook for reference.

Going well and even the learning is fun, start to see things in a whole new way.
Concentrate on one aspect at a time, too confusing if you try to learn everything at once.
As you progress new issues will crop up and they can be dealt with then and the knowledge already accrued.

One other thing might be to find someone local who is more experienced to give you a few tips.
Ages ago I went for a stroll with a novice and hopefully passed on some useful advice, think it helped a bit.