- Messages
- 9,106
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's a manual focus only lens, isn't it?and have bought a nearly-new Laowa from Ebay.
That's a manual focus only lens, isn't it?and have bought a nearly-new Laowa from Ebay.
I mainly use my GX9 with an Olympus 12-45, also carry a 15/1.7 and 9/1.7 for those low light occasions.
G9 plus 12-100 and 8-18 is the larger heavier option, all depends where i'm going and how I feel on the day.
Thinking about getting the 25/1.4 again or maybe the 20/1.7, never had the latter although others seem to like it.
Never really thought about either 12-60, can't say they really appeal to me so its stick rather than twist.
Got that oneare you bragging?
Before I had a chance to read your post I bought a 25/1.4, sounds like it was the best choice then.It's a compact and nice lens but focus is slow and I don't think it does continuous focus so it's ok for static shots but anything else can possibly be a problem. I have one but the other primes and indeed zooms I have are all much faster focusing.
Sorry !!Well, this topic has been a wake-up call for me. I originally went back into m4/3 as a weight-saving exercise, but as usual GAS intervened, and I ended up with a G9 body and two Leica-branded lenses; the 12-60 and the 8-18. This setup is not particularly light. Whilst I am not prepared to forsake the ergonomics of the G9, this conversation has prompted me to examine the exifs of shots taken with these 2 lenses. As a result I am disposing of both lenses in favour of the Lumix 12-60 and the Laowa 7.5mm. Got what I think is a good price quote from MPB in exchange for the Lumix and have bought a nearly-new Laowa from Ebay. This should result iin a much lighter bag.
Yes, but auto aperture. On such a wide lens (14mm equivalent) it’s not a problem to zone focus.That's a manual focus only lens, isn't it?
Before I had a chance to read your post I bought a 25/1.4, sounds like it was the best choice then.
Really good price and another tenner off for subscribing to their newsletter.
Well, looking at my keepers from that lens, all are under 12mm and most at 8mm, and of those at 8mm in the majority of cases I could have used a little bit wider. I should add that I have a clutch of fixed-length lenses for wide apertures. Don’t apologise, you’ve done me and my painful shoulders a favour!Sorry !!
I’d keep the 8-18 though ! Too me it feels very light and small compared to the Oly 8-25 I had before !
I’m going to try the LUMIX 12-60 but am keeping my Oly 12-45 just in case the LUMIX disappoints.
The Em 1 mk iii is a little smaller and lighter than the G9 but still has great ergonomics !
I used the proceeds from the Leica 12-60 to get a Lumix 12-60 and a Lumix 7-14. Very nice lens too with very little distortion without the lens corrections applied.Well, this topic has been a wake-up call for me. I originally went back into m4/3 as a weight-saving exercise, but as usual GAS intervened, and I ended up with a G9 body and two Leica-branded lenses; the 12-60 and the 8-18. This setup is not particularly light. Whilst I am not prepared to forsake the ergonomics of the G9, this conversation has prompted me to examine the exifs of shots taken with these 2 lenses. As a result I am disposing of both lenses in favour of the Lumix 12-60 and the Laowa 7.5mm. Got what I think is a good price quote from MPB in exchange for the Lumix and have bought a nearly-new Laowa from Ebay. This should result iin a much lighter bag.
Given the close co-operation between the current Leica company and Panasonic for the last several years, it wouldn't surprise me if I learned that all three lenses were designed by the same group, using the same software and made using the same tools and machines. Leica is simply A. N. Other brand, these days...I used the proceeds from the Leica 12-60 to get a Lumix 12-60 and a Lumix 7-14. Very nice lens too with very little distortion without the lens corrections applied.
Yes, the difference between the G80 and the G9 is very noticeable when cropping, and negligible when not.Advice needed please.
I have the G80, and like it a lot, however, I am on a tight budget and therefore 100-300mm pana power OIS is as big as I'll be going.
I like shooting wildlife and often need to crop a fair bit.
If I traded in for a Pana MFT with 20MP would this help me retain image quality when I crop, is it significant enough to make a trade?
Or am I chasing rainbows?
Yes you would get more cropping ability from 25% extra pixels, its that or use fieldcraft to get nearer.Advice needed please.
I have the G80, and like it a lot, however, I am on a tight budget and therefore 100-300mm pana power OIS is as big as I'll be going.
I like shooting wildlife and often need to crop a fair bit.
If I traded in for a Pana MFT with 20MP would this help me retain image quality when I crop, is it significant enough to make a trade?
Or am I chasing rainbows?
Advice needed please.
I have the G80, and like it a lot, however, I am on a tight budget and therefore 100-300mm pana power OIS is as big as I'll be going.
I like shooting wildlife and often need to crop a fair bit.
If I traded in for a Pana MFT with 20MP would this help me retain image quality when I crop, is it significant enough to make a trade?
Or am I chasing rainbows?
That would be very helpful Alan, thanks. Generally speaking I find bird in flight shots need a healthy crop. I realise that I won't be getting award winning photos either way, but if the added pixels enable me to retain a bit more sharpness, then that's going to help me enjoy my photography.I have 16 and 20mp cameras and I don't think the difference is significant enough to make a difference for me but others do. If you like I'll take two pictures and send them to you so you can judge for yourself. Would that help?
That would be very helpful Alan, thanks. Generally speaking I find bird in flight shots need a healthy crop. I realise that I won't be getting award winning photos either way, but if the added pixels enable me to retain a bit more sharpness, then that's going to help me enjoy my photography.
I've mentioned this before but I think it bears saying again: it's entirely possible to get attractive A0 or even bigger images from a 6MP or even a 3.4MP original.I think the print size has to be directly relevant to digital cropability.
Shouldn't you be showing them at the same magnification to show the difference in crop factor rather than image quality.Just for interest.
The light is different but that's what happens.
16mp GX80 at 120%.
20mp GX9 at 100%.
Yes David, clearly the extra MP makes a tad of difference.I think the print size has to be directly relevant to digital cropability.
Ironically I think the G80 looks better, but as you say, the light is different. Thanks for taking the time to do this.This sign is 100' away, I have cropped until pixelation in obvious on the G80, but not obvious on the G9
Bit difficult to get a better comparison as the light changes a lot in between changing cameras
View attachment 362577
G80
View attachment 362578
G9
Forecast is for sun later, so will repeat it if possible
Both ISO 200 and f8
If you want to see great examples of birds in flight using m4/3, may I suggest you visit the Olympus section, especially @the black fox and @RedRobinIronically I think the G80 looks better, but as you say, the light is different. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
The other thing I have to consider is whether I am simply pushing these cameras out of their comfort zone, I mean birds in flight with MFT and a 100-300mm lens, even with an added 4PM is this really going to make a real difference given what I'm trying to achieve?
The hardest part for a beginner is not having experience of other cameras to draw on.
I originally looked at the GX8, and preferred the DSLR shape of the G80, on reflection though, the higher MP probably should have been the priority. The GX8 was a considerably more expensive camera but good used ones are affordable now. My main worry is going through the trade in and not really feeling any better off for it.
Thanks Stephen.If you want to see great examples of birds in flight using m4/3, may I suggest you visit the Olympus section, especially @the black fox and @RedRobin
Frankly, I don't think it will make as much difference as just concentrating on getting the picture....is this really going to make a real difference given what I'm trying to achieve?
There's not much in it is there, the G90 still holds a somewhat hefty price tag in the used market. The GX8 can be bought a lot cheaper and seems to tick all the same boxes?20mp will let you print with out upscaling 300dpi at A3 and the crop would in theory give you an extra 25% leeway.
Image quality may not be that different at first look, but more detail is evident to my eyes.
If you use jpeg the improved processing algorithm in the newer cameras gives nicer results.
This review highlights some differences between the G80 and G90
Shouldn't you be showing them at the same magnification to show the difference in crop factor rather than image quality.
.... That's very kind of you Stephen but Jeff @the black fox is better than I am on birds in flight on m4/3 - He has a particular talent for it. I'm a bit lazy about going for birds in flight nowadays although I am finding the Olympus OM-1 more reliable for it than the E-M1X. Cheers!If you want to see great examples of birds in flight using m4/3, may I suggest you visit the Olympus section, especially @the black fox and @RedRobin
But all is never what it seems.Yes David, clearly the extra MP makes a tad of difference.
Ironically I think the G80 looks better, but as you say, the light is different. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
On the other hand, it might be said that smaller but newer tech pixels are better than larger but older pixels …When I bought the GX80 over the GX9 is was because the GX80 had less but bigger pixels, and bigger pixels are better.
I don't know where I got that from exactly.