Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2010, 1:45 PM   #21
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdcs View Post
Thanks, now that's clear. Another thing is WB, see how different between Panny 20mm and 45-200mm posted by Turbines:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/pa...-compared.html
That one is a bit of speculation. White balance can be a sensitive thing, especially indoors, because indoor light is such a mix of light, from lamps and from ambient light through the windows, etc.

to better test that, would have to take many more images throughout different settings. and see if there is any trend that is consistent. is one consistently warmer vs cooler than the other, or is this example just an isolated incident.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2010, 4:53 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 312
Default

This WB stuff is what I'm researching on right now. It affects video hugely.

It was evening, only one light, but only the kit lens got WB right, all other old lenses got yellowish images. If I set the WB profile to match the light, the kit lens still get it about right, but old lenses become too cold (too white, like the 45-200 above).
sdcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2010, 5:31 PM   #23
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

when you add those adapters, white balance can be funny. for your manual lenses indoors, you will have to use a custom white balance and adjust it to your liking. its time consuming, yes.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2010, 5:48 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 312
Default

A glassless adapter affects WB?
sdcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2010, 6:09 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

It might and might not, I have the panasonic 4/3 adapter which is glassless so I can use the zukio 35mm 3.5 macro. And the WB works fine.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2010, 6:12 PM   #26
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

it could just be the yellowing of the coatings or rare earth elements in the older glass.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2010, 8:14 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdcs View Post
Tullio, two questions: 1) Is C-AF available on EPL1 for this 45-200? 2) Does it get auto WB correctly like the 14-42 kit lens? Thanks.

...
Yes and yes. The EPL1 actually performs better with the Pana 14-45mm then with its own kit lens. When the EP1 was released, everybody complained about the slow AF. I bought the body only since I already had the two Pana kit lenses from my G1 and found the EP1 AF to be very fast with them. The Oly lenses are much slower.

I did not notice much CA (if any) at all when using the 45-200mm on the EPL1.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 4:42 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 312
Default

If the 14-45 can really do C-AF, it has more use than the 45-200 (45 is too long for every stuff), but the price is the same and I already have a 14-42. Maybe I should do what you suggested: get a GF1, but I'll keep both body and lens for video.
sdcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 11:06 AM   #29
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdcs View Post
Maybe I should do what you suggested: get a GF1, but I'll keep both body and lens for video.
with video being such a priority for you. why not just go with the GH1, the price is coming down after they introduced the gh2, and it is still one of the best cameras for video made, and has a great sensor for stills too. and if you find the kit, the 14-140 has the stepless aperture for video.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2010, 12:25 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I would not say the 45-200 is to long for general things, some shoot mainly long lenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdcs View Post
If the 14-45 can really do C-AF, it has more use than the 45-200 (45 is too long for every stuff), but the price is the same and I already have a 14-42. Maybe I should do what you suggested: get a GF1, but I'll keep both body and lens for video.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.