"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Still getting to grips with the GH2 but liking the results: 100-300 at 300mm

P1010222.jpg


P1010042b.jpg
 
I've been taking pictures in low light recently and getting ever annoyed that there's no distance scale on my lenses, 20mm f1.7 and 14-42mm.

I've read that some cameras have an electronic distance scale, my LX5 does, do any MFT have this? I hope I haven't missed it in my camera menus, GF1 and G1, but I can't see one anywhere.
 
Why is a distance scale so important? Is it for manual focusing? Do you just guess the distance and put it in on your lens?
 
Janice said:
Why is a distance scale so important? Is it for manual focusing? Do you just guess the distance and put it in on your lens?
Click to expand...

Yes. Scale focusing. If you've a good feel for the depth of field that the current aperture is going to give you it works well.

Particularly useful if you're shooting street photos where you don't want to draw too much attention and nor do you want to wait for the AF to catch up, or don't think it will focus on the right spot...

or you don't want to stand around like a plonker looking through the viewfinder waiting for the right moment to take the shot

at your leisure

- estimate the distance
- dial in the focus on the lens

when the moment is right

- raise camera, frame quickly and fire the shutter
- lower camera

Did exactly that for this


Where shall we go today? by cybertect, on Flickr
 
The problem I have is that when shooting in low light or very low light or darkness the chances of achieving focus lock are pretty much zero plus I sometimes do hyperfocal too so instead of guessing and taking multiple shots and just hoping that something is in acceptable focus I like a distance scale so that I can zone focus or set it to focus on infinity, avoiding beyond would be nice too.

The Panny lenses I have have no distance scale and therefore all I can do is turn the focus ring the opposite way to which I'd turn the zoom ring for more zoom and then get somewhere near focus on infinity but of course anything less than that is pure guesswork as there's no real sense of where the hell the focus is set to so setting the focus to infinity is just about possible but setting for focus at 2, 3 yards or whatever is simply impossible.
 
Musicman said:
Yes. Scale focusing. If you've a good feel for the depth of field that the current aperture is going to give you it works well.

Particularly useful if you're shooting street photos where you don't want to draw too much attention and nor do you want to wait for the AF to catch up, or don't think it will focus on the right spot...

or you don't want to stand around like a plonker looking through the viewfinder waiting for the right moment to take the shot

at your leisure

- estimate the distance
- dial in the focus on the lens

when the moment is right

- raise camera, frame quickly and fire the shutter
- lower camera

Did exactly that for this...
Click to expand...

Yes. There are many times when zone focusing is better than focusing on a point.

In olden times...

Lots of times you wouldn't actually focus on anything at all, you'd set the distance and aperture and shoot... of course you'd probably get a shot in which nothing was actually in critical focus but at normal print sizes and viewing distances you'd never know. These days people pixel peep and zone focus might be rejected as being a load of crap.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
The problem I have is that when shooting in low light or very low light or darkness the chances of achieving focus lock are pretty much zero plus I sometimes do hyperfocal too so instead of guessing and taking multiple shots and just hoping that something is in acceptable focus I like a distance scale so that I can zone focus or set it to focus on infinity, avoiding beyond would be nice too.

The Panny lenses I have have no distance scale and therefore all I can do is turn the focus ring the opposite way to which I'd turn the zoom ring for more zoom and then get somewhere near focus on infinity but of course anything less than that is pure guesswork as there's no real sense of where the hell the focus is set to so setting the focus to infinity is just about possible but setting for focus at 2, 3 yards or whatever is simply impossible.
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
Yes. There are many times when zone focusing is better than focusing on a point.

In olden times...

Lots of times you wouldn't actually focus on anything at all, you'd set the distance and aperture and shoot... of course you'd probably get a shot in which nothing was actually in critical focus but at normal print sizes and viewing distances you'd never know. These days people pixel peep and zone focus might be rejected as being a load of crap.
Click to expand...

Thank you both for your explanations. Always something new to learn each day.(y)
 
I started out being very enthusiastic about MFT as they're smaller, lighter, quieter in operation and generally much less conspicuous than a Canon APS-C DSLR. I would love a quieter shutter but even so my GF1 and G1 are much quieter than my 20D and it's anvil thrown into a metal bath tub shutter/mirror mechanism. However, the lack of lenses that I find appealing, the featureless lenses and the multitude of standard kit zooms is beginning to wear me down to the point that I don't see much point buying a new body when I'm disappointed with the auto focus lens range.

As Canon don't seem to be going in a direction that interests me either I don't think I'll be spending too much on gear in the near future.
 
Last edited:
But don't you have to sort out you aperture and/or shutter speed for a correct exposure, therefore keeping the camera up to you eye or a while anyway??
 
Janice said:
But don't you have to sort out you aperture and/or shutter speed for a correct exposure, therefore keeping the camera up to your eye for a while anyway??
Click to expand...

This was a reply to music man saying about quickly popping the camera up to the eye to get the shot of the London couple
 
GF1 did me proud at Goodwood last week.


Esprit 2011 by IamJno, on Flickr


Quattro 3 by IamJno, on Flickr


E-Type 1 by IamJno, on Flickr

Oh, and case wise. thanks all for the suggestions, I ended up getting a new Crumpler Pretty Boy XS which is a perfect fit for the GF1 & 20mm. Plus I am a bit of a Crumpler whore :nuts:
 
What tripod would people recommend for a Lumix G2? Idealy it should be sturdy but lightweight as I am likely going to take it trekking with me.

..great shots by the way
 
illegalfunk said:
What tripod would people recommend for a Lumix G2? Idealy it should be sturdy but lightweight as I am likely going to take it trekking with me.

..great shots by the way
Click to expand...

I bought the Slik Sprint Pro II. I tend to take it on short walks but not up mountains, basically just because I'm a wimp, but I think it would be suitable if you wanted to. It fits down quite small 470mm when folded, and weighs 0.94kg. It attaches quite neatly to the back of my LowePro Flipside 200. Since buying it I only use my Manfrotto 190XB Pro in the house or garden.
 
I took my GF1 with 20mm pancake lens to the local sensory garden to see how it worked with EZ Optical zoom selected. I know I could have used other lens to get these shots but it was just an experiment. If it's there you just have to try it.:thinking:

1.

Yellow Poppy by hillwalkinggirl, on Flickr

2.

Coming to an end by hillwalkinggirl, on Flickr
 
Right ... I have been saving this blonde question up for ages. So if I buy an adaptor I can run different lenses through the G1 ... and if I do, what difference if any will it make to the focal rate i.e. will a Canon 50mm 1.8 work as a 50mm 1.8 on the G1? And aside from the price as these lens can be picked up on ebay, is the picture quality still up to G1 standard and is it a good option to buy instead of dedicated Pana/Oly m43 lenses.
 
Not sure what you mean by 'focal rate', but....

First up you have the crop factor to take into account, so a 50mm lens will give you the same angle of view as a 100mm lens on a 35mm full frame body.

If you're talking about the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, I wouldn't bother, as you'll have no control over the aperture. Nor any autofocus as there's no electrical control of the aperture diaphragm - manual focus only.

However, with the FD version, which is cheap as chips (~£20) you put the camera into aperture priority mode and it'll work out the exposure for you based on the aperture setting you set the lens at. Or you can go full manual exposure.
 
If you're not used to shooting with other [SLR] cameras, don't worry about it.

It's a 50mm lens, so it will give a bit longer 'zoom' than the 14-42mm kit lens does at 42mm.

e2a: If you're thinking about other focal lengths, older, manual focus lenses that at the wide end on your G1 (less than 24mm) will tend to be relatively expensive for anything decent. However, if you're looking for a long lens for the G1, there are any number of good options between 50mm and 200mm that won't cost an arm and a leg. While there are are exceptions, older zooms tend to be lower on image quality (and certainly light gathering ability, i.e. low f/stop numbers) so I'd check out some prime (fixed focal length) lenses as a cheap intro.
 
Last edited:
im looking to take the plunge and get a gf2 to replace my 50d. just one question. is the 14-42 kit lens any good, or am i better off just going for the 14mm pancake, instead of the twin lens kit
 
titch124 said:
im looking to take the plunge and get a gf2 to replace my 50d. just one question. is the 14-42 kit lens any good, or am i better off just going for the 14mm pancake, instead of the twin lens kit
Click to expand...

Optically the 14mm prime is better but I'd probably get both if your buying a kit, depending on where you buy the value of the 14-42 is more than the increase in the cost of the kit, if you get it and decided you didn't want it you'd find plenty of buyers!
 
Musicman said:
If you're not used to shooting with other [SLR] cameras, don't worry about it.

It's a 50mm lens, so it will give a bit longer 'zoom' than the 14-42mm kit lens does at 42mm.

e2a: If you're thinking about other focal lengths, older, manual focus lenses that at the wide end on your G1 (less than 24mm) will tend to be relatively expensive for anything decent. However, if you're looking for a long lens for the G1, there are any number of good options between 50mm and 200mm that won't cost an arm and a leg. While there are are exceptions, older zooms tend to be lower on image quality (and certainly light gathering ability, i.e. low f/stop numbers) so I'd check out some prime (fixed focal length) lenses as a cheap intro.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation - that's just what I needed! Think I'll be looking into a nice 50mm f/1.8 then!! :exit: heads off to ebay
 
hillwalkinggirl said:
I took my GF1 with 20mm pancake lens to the local sensory garden to see how it worked with EZ Optical zoom selected. I know I could have used other lens to get these shots but it was just an experiment. If it's there you just have to try it.:thinking:

1.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hillwalkinggirl/5926202161/
Yellow Poppy by hillwalkinggirl, on Flickr

2.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hillwalkinggirl/5926204069/
Coming to an end by hillwalkinggirl, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Love the DOF on the second one, Barbara. How do you find the fact that to engage the EZ you must use jpg at medium quality? Do you still find it workable?
 
Janice said:
Love the DOF on the second one, Barbara. How do you find the fact that to engage the EZ you must use jpg at medium quality? Do you still find it workable?
Click to expand...

Thank you Janice. I didn't really find it to be a problem. I think that if you were printing at up to A4 it would be perfectly acceptable. Although they say it's no different than shooting in normal mode and then cropping I found that it was much better when I was trying to shoot birds in the garden as I could look through the viewfinder (g1) or Live view GF1 and see what I was actually shooting.
 
From the previous page, I'd like to echo what was said about the adaptors from Ciecio7 on eBay. Really well engineered items. Worth the extra over some of the Chinese adaptors.

That and a Canon 50mm f1.8 was my favourite lens on my G2 until I got the Leica 45mm lens.
 
hmmm, i seem to be going round in circles with my choice of new camera here, so im going to put it to you lucky guys

gf2,nex-5 of e-pl2 i really cant decide, one min its the gf2 , then the sony (and so on)

so , if you had the choice , which would you go for?
 
GH2 & 14-42mm heavily cropped & now the GH2 has been hacked i look forward to great things to come from the already awesome video capability
5930357390_9da8de012c_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was meant to be in Belgium this week but a disaster on Sunday prevented me going so as consolation I bought myself a new toy and here's some test shots with it, in each case the whole image is followed by a 100% crop centred more or less on what I was focusing on (as usual with my stuff they look good on my screen but here they've all been mangled by photobucket)...

nl1.jpg


nl1c.jpg


nl2.jpg


nl2c.jpg


nl3.jpg


nl3c.jpg
 
Last edited:
nl4.jpg


nl4c.jpg


nl5.jpg


nl5c.jpg


nl6.jpg


nl6c.jpg


The indoor shots were taken at f0.95, which seems to be sharp enough but with some blooming, but not much, and the outside ones were taken at the widest aperture that the max shutter speed of 1/4000 allowed, f2.8 in all but one case of f2 although I think that I managed to take one shot wide open.

I was a little peeved to lose auto ISO but it wasn't really an issue as the indoor shots were all taken at ISO 100 or 200, no more was required. The max shutter speed is a little more disappointing as my DSLR will go to 1/8000 and I quite often hit the max so being limited to 1/4000 is a disappointment.

The manual focus is a doddle even though I never use the x10 zoom thiny and zone focus results seem to be very good with lots of detail possible and if you just select f8 and a bit less than infinity anything beyond something like 15 or 20 feet seems to be in the zone.

All in all I'm very, very impressed and I think that this lens might just live on my G1. The build quality seems to be very good and a couple of nice surprises are the close focus performance and that apertures between those marked are selectable... although I don't know what they are exactly as they're not marked. The only downside to the lens itself seems to be the bokeh and although that's a big deal with a lens like this I'm still happy.

(It's a Voigtlander 25mm f0.95.)
 
Last edited:
Interested to know how the Canon S95 compares to the GF1 +14-45mm lens. I found a GF1+14-45 for £300.

I find the handling of the S95 a bit fiddly sometimes and would like the possibility of changing lenses. Some of the GF1 shots on this thread are stunning, looks like a great little camera.
 
I don't have an S95 but perhaps my LX5 is about the same? Anyway, I think that my GF1+20mm f1.7 beats my LX5 for image quality by quite a margin. If that help you... :eek:)
 
woof woof said:
I don't have an S95 but perhaps my LX5 is about the same? Anyway, I think that my GF1+20mm f1.7 beats my LX5 for image quality by quite a margin. If that help you... :eek:)
Click to expand...

Thanks, I may in fact just go for a G3 (good Panasonic offer with free lightroom 3). Then I'll probably sell my S95
 
You sure that selling the S95 is a good move?

I kept my LX5 as it's smaller and gives the option of taking a camera when even the GF1 is too big plus the LX5 has a zoom lens which my GF1+prime doesn't have. Actually, I probably end up taking both and using the LX when I need the zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top