1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. Willo

    Willo

    Messages:
    623
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    I was planning on going to Jessops last week to check the GH5 out but something came up. They have more dates so will try and pop in to have a look. Been hearing good things about the EVF, also the samples look good. Like you I’m not very interested in the Video side.


    Had a play with the E-M1.2, really liked it apart from the price tag.
     
    srhmoto likes this.
  2. srhmoto

    srhmoto

    Messages:
    1,140
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The key thing for me will be the image quality. If it is a big step up, then I could see me being tempted by it in front of the EM1 mk II. However, my main lenses are now all Olys, so I'd also not be able to take advantage of the DFD focusing etc. At the end of the day, right now my GX8 does everything that I ask of it extremely well so I'm in no hurry to rush out and buy a new camera body. All things being equal, I think I will wait until the EM5 mk III and / or GX9 hit the street, and see what they bring to the party.

    Simon.
     
  3. Willo

    Willo

    Messages:
    623
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Agree, I think we'll see features from GH5 filter down to the GX9 and the same for the E-M5 III.
     
  4. ian-83

    ian-83

    Messages:
    1,159
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Tried some shots at f5.6 and they look a lot better. Think I need more practice to get the best out this camera. Did think about going back to a Nikon D7000 but decided it would be a step backwards.
     
  5. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    13,520
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Great stuff. But...

    I don't know if you're being too critical? I've shot at smaller apertures and whilst there is doubtless a drop in image quality if we can stop pixel peeping and being hyper critical maybe the results are still acceptable?

    I have one shot somewhere I took with my (now sold) Panny G1 and a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro lens at f16... it's perfectly fine although in normal circumstance I try to shoot somewhere between wide open and f4 or 5 with only occasional forays to f8.

    I think it's also worth thinking about the most suitable aperture for the scene as f8 may give DoF that exceeds the scene.

    Anyway, glad you're feeling better about the quality :D

    PS.
    I should have mentioned before... I like those pictures.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2017 at 3:38 PM
    ian-83 likes this.
  6. ian-83

    ian-83

    Messages:
    1,159
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Cheers, I think it's mostly user error more than the cameras fault. Need to get used to how it works and how to get the best results.
     
  7. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    13,520
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I had a G7 but sold it as I had too many cameras. I do think it's a very good camera and I still have a GX7 and a GX80 which as far as I can see give identical image quality which is IMO very good, so I'm sure you'll get there IQ wise :D
     
  8. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    13,520
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Just found this on my pc, taken about 4 years ago with my G1 and probably a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro.

    I don't remember taking this and it's a bit of a nothing shot but I've decided that I quite like it :D

    Whole image followed by a 100% crop.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  9. ian-83

    ian-83

    Messages:
    1,159
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Would the 14-45 and 45-200 give me better IQ than my 14-140 lens?

    Or would I be better off saving up for a 12-35 f2.8?
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2017 at 3:43 PM
  10. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    13,520
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Dunno about 14-45/45-200 v 14-140 but just wanted to comment on the 12-35mm f2.8.

    For me the MFT system needs the wider aperture lenses to give the best image quality because the f3.5-5.6 zooms lead you quickly into diffraction and higher ISO's and although a full image can look very nice when you've processed it for best effect once you start to look closely the effect of smaller apertures and (possibly) higher ISO's may be more visible.

    With f3.5-5.6 lenses there's also the difficulty / inability to match the sort of look you'd get from a 35mm camera and an equivalent lens. The variable aperture MFT zooms are fine if you shoot in good light and want deep depth of field (or if you use a lower ISO, a tripod and longer exposures) but I used to mostly use my 35mm cameras and still do use my FF digital camera at apertures somewhere around f4 to f8 and obviously you're not going to get the same look from MFT at f5.6 which would give an equivalent depth of field of f11.

    This is for me where the primes and f2.8 zooms really come in handy as they enable a FF look, DoF wise, in my most used aperture range and give the chance of keeping the ISO down and the image quality up.

    I've been impressed with the Panny 12-35mm f2.8, it's the first MFT zoom I've been happy with but of course it doesn't go from 35-200mm.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2017 at 4:23 PM
  11. wellyboot

    wellyboot

    Messages:
    923
    Name:
    Marcia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    My daughter has the 14-140mm and has taken some really nice images so far! If the new 45-200mm is as good as the new 100-300mm giving dual IS it should be pretty good, but if I remember the old 45-200mm is quite slow.
    If you get the 12-35 f2.8, then you will be losing a lot at the long end compared to your 14-140mm. I suppose it depends on what focal lengths you use the most. Not sure that was much help!!
     
  12. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas

    Messages:
    1,965
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If your 14-140 is s sharp on, then the big old 45-200 is unlikely to better it in any way except having a longer reach.
    If you get a good sharp 14-45 then yes, it is likely to give you better IQ/sharpness than your current travel zoom.
    I have a really great 14-45 and a decent 45-200, but don't carry either of them around.
    I like the 20mm and Olympus 40-150 as a pair.
     
  13. ian-83

    ian-83

    Messages:
    1,159
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Think I'll stick with the 14-140 and see what focal lengths I use the most. Am tempted to get some of the primes that are about they seem reasonably priced.
     
  14. gcogger

    gcogger

    Messages:
    291
    Name:
    Graeme
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I've had all those lenses and, based on mine, the 14-45+45-200 would be better all round. The difference with the 45-200 was very slight, however (the 45-150 would give similar results to the 45-200, but without such a weight penalty). The 14-45 is a great lens and clearly better, but that may not be as important as having the full range available at all times.
     
  15. srhmoto

    srhmoto

    Messages:
    1,140
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    One from a day around Ullswater on Saturday. Conditions were best described as '10 stopper and monochrome' LOL

    [​IMG]Waiting to Sail by Simon Harrison, on Flickr

    GX8 + Oly 12-40mm - oh and a welly boot full of water thanks to the (relatively) big waves the wind was generating blowing down the lake.

    Simon.
     
    mikew likes this.
  16. wellyboot

    wellyboot

    Messages:
    923
    Name:
    Marcia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Long Tailed Tit using the GX80 and new 100-300mm II
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2017 at 3:16 PM
    mikew and srhmoto like this.
  17. srhmoto

    srhmoto

    Messages:
    1,140
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Well caught Marcia. They don't tend to settle for long in any one place. How are you finding the new 100-300 mk II?

    Simon.
     
  18. wellyboot

    wellyboot

    Messages:
    923
    Name:
    Marcia
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thank you Simon. You're right about them flitting around. There was also a Goldcrest in the same tree, and neither myself nor my husband (with his D750 and 300mm f4) got a decent shot of that one! I find with bird photography it's patience, and being in the right place at the right time!
    I am really pleased with the 100-300 mkII. It is so much quicker to focus, and really sharp throughout the range, compared to the original I had some years ago. The zoom ring is also much smoother. All in all I would say that it's definitely worth the money.
     
    srhmoto likes this.

Share This Page