1. stickytape

    stickytape

    Messages:
    740
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  2. tijuana taxi

    tijuana taxi

    Messages:
    10,106
    Name:
    Rich
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have indeed Bob, one click off the maximum +ve setting
     
    BT Bob likes this.
  3. Malfis

    Malfis

    Messages:
    665
    Name:
    Malcolm
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  4. BT Bob

    BT Bob

    Messages:
    333
    Name:
    Rob
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Just checking, Rich. Mine seems really sharp (I'm a glasses-wearer, but not sure if that's a factor).
     
  5. tijuana taxi

    tijuana taxi

    Messages:
    10,106
    Name:
    Rich
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Could be Bob, although my Fuji's are ok, just assumed this one was a lower resolution.
    Not the end of the world, but one of those things that you notice along with the Black bars down either side
     
    BT Bob likes this.
  6. the black fox

    the black fox

    Messages:
    6,547
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I got the tamrac pro 8 which is more than big enough for my needs ,2 bodies a 12-60 ,45-150 ,and 100-400 plus my normal odds and sods ,blower ,brushes ,oh and a rogue safari flash extender . not even sure whether to keep my backpack which is a think tank streetwalker pro . which took my sigma sport with a 1D body attached plus lenses
     
  7. the black fox

    the black fox

    Messages:
    6,547
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    cant really tell from just a couple of shots and without knowing which camera you have . I suspect it could be something in your settings every one else with this lens including me raves over it .so as stated I do suspect user error . I have used mine on both my panasonic g80 and Olympus 10 mk2 with superb results I think if you gave more info we might be able to help more. as for being closer figures are deceptive the way it actually works is you now have 400mm x 2 == 800mm but before you had 400mm x 1.5 = 600mm so a increase but not as great as the comparison to full frame distances would have us believe
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2018
    Bobsyeruncle likes this.
  8. BT Bob

    BT Bob

    Messages:
    333
    Name:
    Rob
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Depending on what you're looking or and budget, takes look at the Ona bags (https://www.onabags.com). I have the Brixton and use it as my everyday to-and-from work bag to carry laptop, documents, accessories, etc. Then chuck all that out, put the dividers in when I want to use it as a camera bag. Not cheap, but superb quality. There's smaller ones than the Brixton - I think Bowery or Union St may be suitable for your needs.
    They're a US company but a few UK retailers stock them.
     
  9. mikew

    mikew

    Messages:
    3,192
    Name:
    mike
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Must say looking at this compered with my own and others results i would like to know a bit more, crop size settings ect, i would still say you need longer with it, 800mm fov is not always an out of the box no work needed set up.
     
  10. tijuana taxi

    tijuana taxi

    Messages:
    10,106
    Name:
    Rich
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Looked at their bags, nice enough, but grossly overpriced when you consider they are made in the Dominican Republic, one of the world's poorest countries
     
  11. stickytape

    stickytape

    Messages:
    740
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Cheers! Have a another play this morning with an obliging Peregrin and had the three to hand; So had the RX10 3, G80 and 100-400 and M6 and 100-400 IS. I understand about the focus length increase, being 2x over 1.6x, I was just expected 800mm euiv. to look a lot "tighter" if that makes sense! Its growing on me.. I'll say that! Results wise, I'll post up a few shortly!
     
  12. stickytape

    stickytape

    Messages:
    740
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sure; So just using a G80 and Leica 100-400. Aperture priority, medium drive rate and around about 500 ISO. It was tough light yesterday and a bad day overall in the marital department, so maybe I was feeling unsympathetic. Will pop up some from a recent encounter this morning shortly :)
     
  13. the black fox

    the black fox

    Messages:
    6,547
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    the one thing I have found is that despite the i.s with that lens its quite important to use a higher than normal shutter speed ,I guess that any slight vibration at the front end is magnified ,can I suggest you use shutter priority, auto iso and set your speed to at least 1/1200 sec . also do NOT use c.af its bloody hopeless use AF.S instead
     
  14. Gandalf

    Gandalf

    Messages:
    536
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Question for GX80 owners....

    When I go into the 3 custom settings and set my preferences is there a save button to save the settings. I ask this because once I set the preferences and then change the dial to either PASM and then back tor the Custom settings they are no longer saved...

    Have I got to initiate something in the menu to do this?
     
  15. stickytape

    stickytape

    Messages:
    740
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Cheers!! Surely AFC is better for moving things though..? With focus priority over release priority on?
     
  16. stickytape

    stickytape

    Messages:
    740
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    So this morning there was an obliging peregrine opposite; thankfully I had the RX10 3, G80 and Leica 100-400 and M6 and 100-400 to hand... here are some results!

    IMG_0751.JPG
    IMG_0756.JPG
    DSC06476.JPG

    First was with the G80, second M6 and third RX10 3! All cropped to a similar ish size! Surprised and impressed how the RX10 exhibits barely any not able difference despite having a far smaller sensor. These are all RAW files processed in Photoshop for basic NR and sharpness and slight color enhancement. Noticeable when zoomed in to around 200% the similarity between the resolution on the G80 and RX10 3
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2018
    J H Foto likes this.
  17. srhmoto

    srhmoto

    Messages:
    1,664
    Name:
    Simon
    Edit My Images:
    No
    jakeblu, F70100, macvisual and 12 others like this.
  18. the black fox

    the black fox

    Messages:
    6,547
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    in theory yes in practise nope ,I also think that in your g.80 shot theres a lot of leeway for uplifting the shot in p.p ,theres a surprising amount in the files ,almost as good as nikon
     
    stickytape likes this.
  19. J H Foto

    J H Foto

    Messages:
    1,425
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Common Blue

    P1007503.jpg
     
    jakeblu, trevorbray, Cagey75 and 4 others like this.
  20. Gandalf

    Gandalf

    Messages:
    536
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hi Jeff,

    That’s a fantastic shot, can I ask what the exif data was?
     
  21. ian-83

    ian-83

    Messages:
    1,467
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If the menu of my G80 is similar under the custom menu (spanner with a C) the top item is Cust.Set mem, click this then you should get three options click one and it'll ask to overwrite current settings.
     
    Gandalf likes this.
  22. ian-83

    ian-83

    Messages:
    1,467
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Well after some thinking recently and looking at moving back to Nikon I have decided to stick with my G80. Used it on two recent holidays and have been glad I took it, not really noticed having to carry it around. Battery life if the eco mode has been great. And picture quality is more than enough for me.

    Decided to treat myself to some extension tubes to have a go at macro and also a Joby Gorillapod 3k, currently have the hybrid but was using it with almost it's max recommend weight capacity.
     
    Cagey75 and woof woof like this.
  23. J H Foto

    J H Foto

    Messages:
    1,425
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Believe or not I had the wrong lens on the camera for this one. I normally use my 14-140mm + Fotga extension tubes for insects, but this day I had to shoot with my 100-300mm II. Not too bad I think.
     
    the black fox likes this.
  24. the black fox

    the black fox

    Messages:
    6,547
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Cagey75 and mikew like this.
  25. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,578
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I've only really shot family stuff the past week or more, so had nothing special to upload. But thought I'd up a few from the wonderful little Pana-Leica 15mm, it really is a special little gem of a lens. Really enjoyable to use for travel. I didn't want anything bulky on this trip, it was a few days down home and I wanted to keep it as neat and tidy as possible. More snap shots than anything, and that's what I was after, but the lens has impressed me a lot. Just a bit wide for people stuff at times.

    My Older bro, I just like his cold expression here - click through to check the detail on this one, hair, eyes, wrinkles :D this lens does cry out to be shot in B&W too, even though it produces stunning colour contrast
    [​IMG]Brother by K G, on Flickr

    Me and her
    [​IMG]Us by K G, on Flickr

    Faith - My newest niece
    [​IMG]Innocence by K G, on Flickr

    Beer bubble
    [​IMG]Beer bubble by K G, on Flickr
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2018
  26. ian-83

    ian-83

    Messages:
    1,467
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Has anyone on here used extension tubes for macro? If so I am looking for some pointers, i have a 25mm f1.7 and the 12-60mm f3.5-5.6. Which would be best to use?
     
  27. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,578
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No

    With extension tubes shorter lenses work better, with an add-on like a Raynox longer is better. The typical AF macro ext set usually comes with 10mm and 16mm tubes. With both of these attached you will get just over 1:1 macro with your 25mm, but the working distance will be very short. The 60mm on your kit lens would work better with a Raynox 250 attached, you'll get a bit less than 1:1 - more like just over 1:2, I used to do this with my Sigma 60mm and it gave really nice results. Just not 1:1

    The AF macro sets are cheap enough to just give a go for fun, and they can help produce great results. I used them a lot with my old Fuji 35mm. Here's a set for M43: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fotga-Auto...3203&sr=8-5&keywords=macro+extension+tube+mft
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2018
  28. ian-83

    ian-83

    Messages:
    1,467
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Cheers have replied in the other thread also. Went for extension tubes over a Raynox as just wanted to dip my toe in the water. So far I am impressed with them on the 25mm.
     
    Cagey75 likes this.
  29. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,578
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    In case you didn't see it for some reason I pm'd you about this
     
  30. SsSsSsSsSnake

    SsSsSsSsSnake

    Messages:
    9,009
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    2nd from top ,scary,now I know why I feel interesting controversy in your posts .kool :rolleyes:;)
     
  31. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,819
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    They're all great :D
     
  32. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    18,819
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    There's been a couple of interesting pieces on The Online Photographer relevant to MFT recently.

    First he posted this one about the number of elements in lenses...

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...nderful-s-marvelous-olympuss-lavish-lens.html

    He sparked an equivalency spat and someone insisted that f1.2 isn't and is really f2.4. He then posted another piece in which he explains at length how DoF is a shifting thing...

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/08/readers-weigh-in-on-the-olympus-25mm-ƒ12-and-the-pentax-hd-fa-50mm-f14-sdm-aw.html

    Some time ago he posted an article on getting the DoF right, something that I definitely agree with. I reread this piece sometimes just to remind myself that there's an alternative (and IMO a better one) to what can seem on internet forums to be the endless pursuit of razor thin DoF.

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

    Razor thin DoF seems to be the thing these days and I like the odd thin DoF shot but I think it needs to suit the picture and can be overdone with many examples I see having such thin DoF that it spoils the picture, IMVHO. As an example, forgive the FF intrusion :) I took this yesterday with my Sony A7 and a 35mm lens at f2...

    DSC01239.jpg

    I was aiming for a picture of Mrs WW with the wind farm on the right and the tower on the left to send to her family overseas and this shot fails miserably and would have been much better at something like f11. f8 might be a bit thin for a large picture but would probably be ok for small screen tablet or phone viewing, there's that moving DoF target again.

    My point is that at times for some pictures/compositions/viewing f1.x to f2.8 or even f5.6 or so may be unsuitable with a lens in the 28-50mm or so range and f8 may not be enough for larger pictures even when only viewed normally and even more likely not to be a good choice if there's any close viewing or cropping. Use a longer lens and you may need smaller apertures again for DoF that suits the picture. IMO if there's enough light for many pictures the appropriate working aperture range for FF may often be something like f5.6-11 or so and if that's the case the look you'd get could be pretty much replicated with MFT and a f2.8 zoom let alone a f1.4/f1.8 prime.

    Sorry if all that was a bit dull but I sometimes get a bit bored with the deluge of FF zero DoF pictures and the repeated criticisms of MFT re DoF.
    :D

    I failed at f2 but this is better at f8, she wanted a full body picture so her sister would notice her new shorts and shoes :D This would have been at f4 with MFT. Easy Peasy :D

    DSC01240.JPG
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
    wezza13 and Cagey75 like this.
  33. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,578
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    What's scary, me or her? :D I'm not driving by the way, I'm in the passenger seat

    On the equivilancy thing, it's been done to death. FF shooters love to sneer at smaller sensors over dof and wider view, I don't get on with wide angles so that's that one sorted for me. I also don't need extreme shallow dof, see the beer bubble image above, it's not hard get it when you want to. But as woof points out, they forget that we get great sharp dof at lower apertures and still get the same light, which closes the gap when it comes to low light. I don't ever bother listening to anyone who tries the aperture doubling bs when it comes to that. A 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens no matter the format. Also, why does nobody double numbers when it comes to FF and MF?
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
    SsSsSsSsSnake likes this.
  34. SsSsSsSsSnake

    SsSsSsSsSnake

    Messages:
    9,009
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Oh I thought it was you driving,bit of tongue in cheek from me,I like how you don't hold back on some of the threads :D
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
  35. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,578
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I was going for a bit of a Dexter look alright :D It's not in me to hold back, I may get myself in trouble more often than not but If I can't be straight, then I've nothing to say ;)
     
    the black fox and SsSsSsSsSnake like this.
  36. ian-83

    ian-83

    Messages:
    1,467
    Name:
    Ian
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have to agree with woof woof I really don't understand this desire to be at wafer thin DOF all the time, yes for certain shots it works but 95% of the time I must set my G80 to f5.6 and just shoot away happily knowing its the right amount of DOF for what I want. Maybe I am not a "bokeh" whore!!

    Also the whole MFT v FF for DOF/F-stop/focal length equivalence crap. It get's so boring reading it on a few Facebook groups. I am sure most of the people who bring up the equivalence thing on there have a G9 or EM1-II with the Leica or Pro lenses purely for posing status and probably don't know how to achieve the best from it.
     
    Cagey75 and the black fox like this.
  37. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,578
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
    We live in the era of the gear head sadly. It's not so much about end results now, it's how flashy you can be when shooting - gotta impress your elitist peers y'know? This is why I never could get along with camera clubs. I found the people in the one I joined at least, nauseating, cliquey and snobbish - and I had FF gear at the time. They all shot the exact same s**te, not an ounce of imagination or originality among them either.
     
  38. the black fox

    the black fox

    Messages:
    6,547
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
    killy, Simon Blades, ian-83 and 2 others like this.
  39. Cagey75

    Cagey75

    Messages:
    9,578
    Name:
    Keith
    Edit My Images:
    No
  40. the black fox

    the black fox

    Messages:
    6,547
    Name:
    Jeff
    Edit My Images:
    No
    got more to post but flicks got tits up
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice