Micro Four Thirds Landscapes

Panasonic GH1 Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm Zoom Lens





Panasonic GH1 Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm Zoom Lens





Panasonic GH1 Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm Zoom Lens





Panasonic GH1 Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm Zoom Lens
Multi Image Panoramic Stitch

Panasonic GH1 Olympus 50mm f/2 Macro

Multi Image Panoramic Stitch

Panasonic GH1 Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm Zoom Lens

Multi Image Panoramic Stitch

Panasonic GH2 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens

Panasonic GF1 Olympus 9-18mm Zoom lens

Images - David and Ann

Comparison between Olympus 50mm f/2 Macro and Panasonic 45mm f/2.8 Macro lenses

I took some shots on Sunday with my GH2 and my recently acquired Panasonic Leica 45mm f/2.8 macro lens. I was staggered by the sharpness of this lens.





I have been thinking about using it as a replacement for my Olympus 50mm f/2 macro four thirds lens. Particularly since the GH2 hasn't really improved things in terms of AF for that lens. Before coming to a final decision I decided to do a comparison test between the two.





There is a larger version of this if you click through to flickr.


What I found is that I couldn't tell the difference between the lenses. Apart from a slightly warmer colour balance on the Panasonic lens, they were almost identical. Certainly in terms of sharpness. Both are excellent, top quality lenses. The Panasonic offers fast AF on m4/3, the Olympus a faster f/2 aperture. Certainly my test showed there is no advantage in terms of image quality from the Olympus on m4/3. 


Whether I can part with the Olympus I don't know. Its a great lens, though difficult to work with. Whether I continue with four thirds with either my Panasonic L10 or even an Olympus E-5 which I'm still considering, I haven't yet decided. Very much a heart versus head thing, as four thirds seems to be a dying system, and offers me virtually no advantage over what else I use. I just love those four thirds lenses, and a four thirds camera would enable me to use them with full-speed AF. Whether I continue with this or sell all my four thirds gear is open to question at the moment.


David

White Christmas Day

Firstly may I wish a Happy Christmas Day to those of you that celebrate it.



Panasonic GH2 Olympus 50mm f/2 macro.


I really can't remember the last Christmas Day I saw where the reality matched the Christmas cards. Last night a few miles from here the weather station at Pershore recorded -17 celcius. Records are being broken everywhere in the UK. However in the scale of things that doesn't mean much since records only began in 1890. 



Panasonic GH2 Olympus 50mm f/2 macro.


Whether this means climate change (Global Warming seems somewhat inappropriate!) is a reality or whether its just a combination of circumstances I cannot say. However it is obvious that as a country we are not prepared for weather this extreme. Despite this being the third winter in a row where we have had a spell of weather like this, there still seems to be no preparation by those who are responsible for keeping our transport system open. While such severe weather can defeat even the best plans, we really should do better than this.



Panasonic GH2 Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton


It does however provide some amazing photographs. These pictures are all taken at a local lake and country park. The water is frozen solid and the sailing club needs an icebreaker to resume its activities.



Panasonic GH2 Olympus 50mm f/2 macro. Multi image stitched Panorama. 


There is a forecast for an improvement next week with temperatures moving above zero. We can only hope that happens.



Panasonic GH2 Olympus 50mm f/2 macro.



Panasonic GH2 Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton



Panasonic GH2 Olympus 50mm f/2 macro.


Words - David
Images - David and Ann

Panasonic GH2 - Part 6 Jpgs, 50mm f2 macro, 50mm F2 Planar

OLYMPUS 50mm f2 Macro



As I work my way through the lenses I use for m4/3 my appreciation for the results that the GH2 produces grows. The above is a montage of the point of focus from various (messy and badly lit!!) shots taken on a tripod using my Olympus 50mm f2 macro lens. "the nearest we've yet found to a technically perfect lens" Dpreview. This is going to sound repetitive, but yet again the camera produced very sharp images. This time I shot jpgs, and the images here are straight from the camera. At ISO 160 these are very good. I'd have to do a comparison but I think that these jps look better than those from my GH1, GF1 etc.





Because of the long exposures needed, between 4 and 10 secs at f8 or f10 there's some long exposure noise reduction kicking in. There was still some slight colour noise that had to be removed, but the images were very good with regard to overall appearance. 


Another interesting thing seems to be happening, with regard to dynamic range. I felt that the camera was underexposing some of the shots and I increased the exposure. Looking at them on the screen I did see some burnt out highlights. It seems the GH2 may be trying to produce an exposure from its metering that avoids this. This is an approach that Nikon, amongst others, took to avoid dynamic range problems. This led to some shots looking underexposed on many of their cameras. The idea of protecting the highlights at all costs is not new. If indeed the GH2 has better shadow detail, then this would make sense, as another way for the camera to produce the most usable dynamic range possible. I will investigate further.


Finally, its nice to be able to report that the superb 4/3 lens range that Olympus produce, at last have a decent sized sensor to work with. 4/3 is a dying format. I'm sure the E-5 is a decent camera and Olympus may (or may not) decide to continue with the format, but I think there is no doubt that 4/3 (as opposed to m4/3) is on its last legs. This will leave the 4/3 lens range high and dry. Whether Olympus continue to make them (or indeed are still making them) is open to question. Whatever the case, there is no doubt that they are amongst the best (if not the best) digital lenses ever made. (I must stop putting things in brackets!)


I know that I'm going to be scouting around my favourite second hand dealers to see what turns up. I'd love a 14-35 f2 for example, even taking into account the weight, but finding one at a decent price is difficult. Many people forget you can use these on m4/3, and most work very well. The 50mm macro is just amazing on the GH2. Slow focusing it may be, but the image quality is breathtaking. 


ZEISS 50mm f2 Planar



My sharpest M-mount lens. I've often said that I personally don't think its worth it to go out and buy expensive m-mount lenses for m4/3. I've never been sure that the difference is that noticeable over the best of the native Panasonic and Olympus lenses. While by no means saying to anyone, go out and buy m-mount lenses, the GH2 does seem to show up the differences between lenses more than I've been aware of on other m4/3 cameras. I tested the 14-42mm kit lens first, and the more lenses I test, the worse it looks. 


The Zeiss f2 Planar has a different look to the Olympus lens. Its a typical M-mount look. Its very sharp but with a smoother graduation between colour. You probably think I'm doing a "kings new clothes" thing here, and its a subtle difference but I do see it. I've put the two montages on flickr quite big, so have a look and decide for yourself if you think I'm talking complete rubbish. 


It does again produce very sharp results (Yawn!!) and makes very impressive images. I will be trying some of my Voigtlanders in the near future to see how they perform.


WHATS LEFT?
The 20mm f1.7 and the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 plus some video. Ben and I were going to go out and try the 14-140mm yesterday but chickened out and stayed in the warm! Hopefully  that will get done soon. Since the 14-140mm is the other kit lens for the GH2 it should be looked at.


I was sold on the GH2 on day one and I think its a superb and potentially game-changing camera. Everything else is a bonus. This new Pansonic sensor makes ordinary lenses look good and good lenses look great. Great lenses like the two discussed here today look absolutely astounding. 


It's been mentioned that I have a certain enthusiasm for m4/3, and that is indeed true. But that enthusiasm is based on the fact that it really does the job. If I don't sell pictures, I don't eat and I don't pay my mortgage, so I wouldn't make the decision to dispense with my Nikon and Canon systems if I didn't think the alternatives I have can do the job. I'm satisfied that they can and as far as the GH2 is concerned it "does the job" very well indeed.


David

Panasonic L10 by Sony A55

This is a Panasonic L10 shot with a Sony A55 plus 18-55mm kit lens. 


While the GH1 probably has the best quality for video footage, the Sony A55 has some very useful handling features. It may seem a small thing but there is a manual focus confirmation light that works. This makes focus pulls very easy. You will see from the video how accurate this is. 
I was also able to do some reasonably smooth zooming in and out, which has always been very difficult before. Plus I think that the A55 does smoother pans. 


I was pretty pleased with this. Its the best result that I've ever achieved for these kinds of camera movements, and while some way away from what an experienced cameraman can do, it gives me something to build on.

Leicas by Panasonic

Shot with a Panasonic GH1 fitted with my Olympus Zuiko 50mm f2 macro. One of the problems of a pin-sharp macro lens is that it shows all the dust!. 

Pimped my Panny

Complete with Travor Battery grip (£40 new from ebay) and fitted with my Leica D Vario-Elmar 14-150mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom I have a "pimped" Panasonic L10 that looks big and heavy, but in fact is very light. It will work very nicely as a "front" camera, i.e. turn up for a job, stick this on a tripod and then get out the (much smaller) cameras that I'm really going to use. 


Its cheap, looks good, takes the 4/3 lenses I use for m4/3, & takes a good snap too, though no good for hand held in low light as ISO800 & 1600 aren't very good. A tripod and/or flash will keep it in the workable zone. Should do nicely as my stand-in DSLR.


























D

Panasonic GH1 20mm f/1.7 50mm f/2

I wanted to try the Olympus 50mm f/2 macro on my GH1. So I added my 20mm f/1.7 and yesterday headed off to my favourite old ruin, Witley Court in Worcestershire.





The Olympus 50mm doesn't AF on the GH1 but it wasn't as much of a problem as I imagined. As soon as I  touched the focus ring, the view magnified in the viewfinder and it was then easy to focus. A little slower than AF but I did get a 100% success rate, something I've never achieved with this lens and AF before.





The results were even better than on my Olympus E-P2. I can't remember seeing anything sharper than this and that includes images shot on the Leica M9. To my eyes the GH1 has the best sensor (so far) of all the m4/3 cameras. It doesn't have the colour richness and depth of the M9, but at low ISO's the clarity and resolution are very impressive. Something most of the DSLR's (and other cameras) I've used have struggled to produce. The 50mm macro f/2 is the best lens I've ever used. The Nikon MF 50mm f/1.2 and Zeiss 50mm f/2 M Mount are terrifically sharp but the Olympus wins because of its performance wide-open which is the best I've ever seen. If Olympus can make a lens like this, why have they never produced a camera with a sensor that does it justice? Maybe the E-5 with the right raw development programme could produce a true reflection of its quality, but none of the samples I've seen so far shot with this lens come close to what I was getting yesterday.





The 20mm f/1.7 also performed extremely well. I realised when editing these pictures that in all the time I've had the GH1 and 20mm lens I don't think I've ever used them together for stills on a "serious" photographic shoot. I've used the combination for video and I did shoot some test shots with it for various comparisons, but never on a stock shooting trip. B used the lens on his GH1 for the last wedding we did, and I said at the time that I was impressed with the sharpness of the images, now I know why.





Above is an image shot with the 20mm. It wasn't wide enough to get everything in so I shot four images and combined them in Photoshop. 100MB + and staggeringly sharp.


I enjoyed using the camera and lenses enormously, it was a very light, small combination that produced incredible results. 


I read a few comments over the weekend on various forums and in a magazine that should know better, that again asserted that m4/3 and 4/3 in general can't produce results as good as even a "low-end" DSLR. Its a commonly held view. But then I even saw a letter in the same magazine recommending that someone starting out in stock photography should use film rather than digital because it was "better". Theres no real answer to these kind of views. They are as laughable as they are inaccurate, and usually the result of ignorance and prejudice purporting to be informed opinion. 


From my point of view:-


The images I shot yesterday are amongst the best I have ever taken in terms of sharpness and resolution. I blew several of them up to 56MB and they still looked great.


I prefer them to anything I've ever shot on a DSLR (excluding the NIkon D3X)


By using the best lenses I can, shooting raw and processing in Photoshop I'm able to produce files that are close to the quality that I get from my Leica M9.


My images shot on m4/3 sell just as many (if not more as I shoot most of my output on it) as my images shot on DSLR's.


Its a much more enjoyable photographic experience for me because of the reduced size and weight.


While m4/3 may currently suffer from some speed and robustness issues, for most of my work this is something I can live with. The GH2 may address the first point and to be honest I've yet to encounter problems with my m4/3 gear, though I do know people who haven't been so lucky.








Yesterdays experience has made me even more impatient for the GH2. I can't wait to try the Olympus 50mm on that camera. If its only the same quality as the GH1 within a 45MB file I'll be pleased, if its better then that will be a real bonus.





Words - D
Images D & A

DSLR - yes or no?

Before the Rawker tests from yesterday I was considering getting an Olympus E-5. If I am to keep a DSLR it seemed to make sense. It has all the speed, build quality and operational features I would need, in fact it has more than I would need. Most importantly it would allow me to use the 4/3 lenses I have already for both the E-5 and my m4/3 cameras. 


Though its not out of the question that I may still choose that option, yesterdays tests were somewhat discouraging. I have no problem with Olympus choosing to correct and improve the images from the E-5 with software, but I was disappointed with the overall sharpness of the images when processed in Rawker. I realise that I didn't shoot the images, but the jpgs were very sharp. Most of them were shot on an Olympus 12-60mm zoom which is an excellent lens. 


What made me most concerned was the Panasonic L10 shot I posted as a comparison looked as sharp, if not sharper. With that in mind I did more tests on the L10.








The Rawker conversions from the L10 files are superb. Sharp, noiseless, virtually no CA or fringing and no fringing. The E-5 files were showing noise at the cameras base ISO 200, plus moire and CA etc. 


I will admit that the E-5 files converted in Olympus Master 2 were very attractive. Nice colour and apparent sharpness, though when looked at closely there was a fair amount of "smoothing" done, which became more apparent in the high ISO pictures. I've seen some wildly conflicting high ISO samples from the E-5. Some look fine, some look terrible. 





With this in mind I returned to the L10. ISO 1600 is as high as it will go so I decided to shoot at that and underexpose. This gave me the opportunity to assess its use in low light, simulating how it would work in the ISO 1600-3200 range. I used the Olympus 50mm macro fixed at f2 and shot the following pictures.






































I used Adobe Camera Raw to convert them and varying degrees of Photoshop noise reduction. There is luminance and chroma noise visible, particularly in the black areas. However these are all shot at the approximate equivalent of ISO 2000-3200, achieved by underexposing at ISO 1600 by varying degrees. Personally I don't find them unattractive. They look more "natural" than the E-5 shots I've seen. They are certainly sharp, the 50mm has seen to that. I should say that I've never been able to get anywhere near this level of sharpness using my Canon lenses wide open at high ISO's. 


So in the meantime while I decide what to do the L10 has earned its keep for a while. On the Canon front my colleague B is considering either the 7D or 550D with some lenses. If he does choose one of the cameras I will decide whether to keep the other or go for something new, or indeed get an E-5. I am of course hoping that the Panasonic GH2 may solve all of these dilemmas, and I won't come to any final decision until I have one of those.


Finally its interesting how an obscure discontinued camera is still able to perform very capably. With new equipment coming thick and fast its sometimes easy to forget that the pace of change is somewhat slower than we think. I severely underestimated the L10 when I bought it. Its an excellent camera and I'm warming to it by the day.


D