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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 11, 2013, 10:23 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 21
Default

As someone who hasn't delved into landscapes much yet. Is 14mm wide enough for most landscapes? If so that would probably be a good option.
Axanar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2013, 8:13 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

14mm is equivalent to 28 in film which was pretty wide. Below 28mm in film lenses quickly become slow or expensive or bad, but most brands had an affordable 28mm f2.8 lens. The diagonal field of view for the 14mm on MFT is 75 degrees.

The easiest way to see if it is wide enough for you is to try shooting with your kit lens at 14mm and see what you think. There is an argument to be made that the 14mm is not better enough than the kit lenses (esp Panasonic) to justify using it over the kit lens, slrgear even notes that the 14mm has more CA than the Panasonic kit lens http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1389/cat/68 . That said I personally find the IQ of the 14mm to be better and also find that the faster aperture and light weight pancake size of the lens make it more than worth the expenditure. I'd also say that slrgear user ratings support the conclusion that it is a good lens. It's one of my favorites and many of my best landscape photos were taken with it. Here's a set of shots with it by me on flickr;

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7598817...7630280991664/

Going wider than 14mm will cost you. For primes you have the M. Zuiko 12mm f2 which is a premium lens. For zooms you have the M. Zuiko 9-18mm or the Lumix 7-14mm f4 which makes the 9-18 look affordable.

Until you get to the fisheye lens like the rokinon. Folob has some really nice work with the fisheye.

Don't forget that you also have the option of stitching multiple frames using microsoft image composite editor (MS ICE - free!)

This is a three shot stitch made using the 14mm at sunrise, on the grand canyon


P4232223_stitch 3 by ramcewan, on Flickr
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2013, 3:03 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Beaver, PA
Posts: 903
Default

Just saw at http://www.43rumors.com/ that BH has a coupon that will get you a G3 for $219. I know that's a Panny and this is the Olympus forum, but that's a hell of a lot of camera for just over 200 bucks. The Panasonics bodies seem to nosedive in price much more quickly than the equivalent Olys.
SammyKhalifa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2013, 3:49 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,380
Default

Nice buy if you don't have a M43 camera but I doubt whether it would be better in IQ than a E-PL2 for instance.
__________________
Olympus OMD-M5, HLG6 grip, Olympus 4/3rd 35mm macro lens, Panny/Leica 25mm, f1.4, Olympus 17mm, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer, Canon MP990 Printer, Slik U212 Tripod, Manfrotto monopod, MMF3 converter.
James Emory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 13, 2013, 4:41 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa View Post
Just saw at http://www.43rumors.com/ that BH has a coupon that will get you a G3 for $219. I know that's a Panny and this is the Olympus forum, but that's a hell of a lot of camera for just over 200 bucks. The Panasonics bodies seem to nosedive in price much more quickly than the equivalent Olys.
That is quite a buy. But that is an earlier model, I think released around 2010.
So, it's not the latest and greatest -but a solid camera none the less.

The one thing that is common to almost all of the reviews that I've ever read regarding the earlier Panny m43 cameras is that the out of camera jpegs are simply not as good as the Oly m43 cameras. Another common complaint is that reds generally are not rendered accurately.

Now, I've not tested one out personally, so I can't prove it. But, those comments come up far too often for me to have gone ahead and bought a Panasonic m43 body.
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 14, 2013, 9:00 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Beaver, PA
Posts: 903
Default

Yeah, I'm not going to go out and buy it as is, but if my E-PL2 were to die or something . . .

It's better but not by that much from what I can tell. Maybe a generation newer than the e-pl2? I remember it being one of the newest cameras when I first started shopping for my refurb.
SammyKhalifa 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 5:25 AM.