GAS GAS: Please Share your Latest Acquisitions Big and Small

Bought on evilbay 4-5 weeks ago but just arrived. Thought I'd pair it with something a little odd (its not at all unbalanced!) -

View attachment 204287

View attachment 204288

View attachment 204289


The adapters were shot with the Nikon lens (at f5.6) and roughly the same distance away - so the Viltrox with a cheap Nikon/M43 adapter and the cheap Nikon/M43 adapter was shot with the Viltrox. I didn't adjust the IS so theres not a lot of point zooming in. Intrigued to try this out on some of my lenses over the next few months.

I know this wasn't the point of your post - but the semi-turquoise snakeskin covering on your Olympus is seriously cool...!
 
Probably, especially if you mean the original 12 mp sensor in the EP1. Do you mean a better version of the 12 mp sensor?There was a big improvement going to the 16 mp sensor. The 20 really isn’t much better.

With total respect, and with the understanding that I am really a technical moron (when it comes to understanding the finer points of most aspects of electronic cameras, as opposed to analog ones, which took me years to semi-master), I think there was one very fine 20mp sensor - the Sony IMX 269 - which only came out in a handful of micro four thirds cameras, at least some of which have now been discontinued (the GX8 and the Pen F have been DQ'ed, but the G9 and GX9, the E-M1 Mk II and the GH5 are all still around) - and which I have to say have given me some of the nicest digital negative files I've ever shot.

Mike Johnston of The Online Photographer even said he thought the sensor was 'addictively good'.

And, hell, to be honest, I've gotten nice pictures with a whole lot of different mu43 sensors, everything from the 12mp thru the 16mp and up to and including the 20mp in my GX8. But the GX8, especially when combined with Leica-branded PanaLeica lenses, seems to really stand out from the rest in a pretty good pack :)
 
I can understand the sentiment of wanting a 12MP with the same advancements in sensor tech that have gone into the newest M4/3 sensors. If R&D had gone into squeezing a bit more out of the larger photosites it might have made for better IQ. But in reality, weren't pretty much all the 12MP sensors of the time pretty poor in terms of dynamic range?

I think M4/3 sensors try to be good at everything, and so they suffer a bit being great at nothing. I'd love a base 100 ISO sensor that was tuned for DR and the absence of noise, even if it got noisy at 1600 like the old Ricoh GR sensor.

But, at the end of the day, the current 20MP sensors look better than the 16MP ones when you PP correctly and display the photo at the same size. Pixel peeping only goes so far, real world use is another thing.
 
What I meant was - 12MP is generally enough for everyday and/or casual use. 12MP can well and truly cover A3 or larger with ease.

By staying with a 12MP sensor, today's improved sensor technology can then go into maintaining large photosites within the sensor itself, which will in turn give us improved ISO performance. Small sensors need all the help they can get in less-than-optimal lighting conditions.

I acknowledge that current small sensor technology can handle low light reasonably well, but imagine if they kept it at 12MP (eg. see the A7s series). We'd have a powerhouse small sensor camera with everything that improved technology can offer.

The only thing that small sensor can never provide is shallower depth of field but that's totally fine under the circumstances.

It's a bit like every iPhone or Android phone that gets released - they preach all kinds of new apps, new functionality, new this and that. But I daresay most people just want improved battery performance so we're not all hunting for a charging point all the time. All these new apps and functionality are just zapping battery power.
 
Yeah... this should be interesting. Will be very disappointed in myself if I don't give a fighting chance for the system this time...
You've got the primes too so your hands are going to be quite full between the two systems. I do see Leica owners maintaining their Fujis but with zooms. Take your X-T3 into the store and try the 35 and 16 F1.4 primes. There are no bad Fuji primes but those two are the very best.
 
With total respect, and with the understanding that I am really a technical moron (when it comes to understanding the finer points of most aspects of electronic cameras, as opposed to analog ones, which took me years to semi-master), I think there was one very fine 20mp sensor - the Sony IMX 269 - which only came out in a handful of micro four thirds cameras, at least some of which have now been discontinued (the GX8 and the Pen F have been DQ'ed, but the G9 and GX9, the E-M1 Mk II and the GH5 are all still around) - and which I have to say have given me some of the nicest digital negative files I've ever shot.

Mike Johnston of The Online Photographer even said he thought the sensor was 'addictively good'.

And, hell, to be honest, I've gotten nice pictures with a whole lot of different mu43 sensors, everything from the 12mp thru the 16mp and up to and including the 20mp in my GX8. But the GX8, especially when combined with Leica-branded PanaLeica lenses, seems to really stand out from the rest in a pretty good pack :)
I agree completely that the current 20mp sensor is excellent. I still think the improvement going from the 12 to the 16 was bigger, however. I had a G3, but the EM5 was a huge leap for mu43.
 
Just to note, I plan to try some shooting with my EP1 and maybe the EPM1 and the 17 2.8. This has been inspired by my recent acquisition and study of The Decisive Moment. I’m considering my possible over-concern with sharpness.
 
Last edited:
I will admit that I have a completely irrational love for the 17mm f2.8. I've owned a silver and a black one, but moving to only Panasonic cameras made me get rid of the most recent one. In the past I picked up a new in box EP1 with 17mm f2.8 and VF-1 viewfinder, that was a kit with limited absolute image quality but tons of panache.

The only real issue with owning the 17mm was that I convinced myself to take it for too many situations where it didn't shine. A trip to Crater Lake, and a few photos I took on Lake Crescent in Washington string to mind. That lens really lacked the sharpness and microcontrast that I needed for those scenes. But it has a sort of 'macrocontrast' that looks really great for grittier processing of street, cityscapes, deep shadows, and the like.
 
I will admit that I have a completely irrational love for the 17mm f2.8. I've owned a silver and a black one, but moving to only Panasonic cameras made me get rid of the most recent one. In the past I picked up a new in box EP1 with 17mm f2.8 and VF-1 viewfinder, that was a kit with limited absolute image quality but tons of panache.

The only real issue with owning the 17mm was that I convinced myself to take it for too many situations where it didn't shine. A trip to Crater Lake, and a few photos I took on Lake Crescent in Washington string to mind. That lens really lacked the sharpness and microcontrast that I needed for those scenes. But it has a sort of 'macrocontrast' that looks really great for grittier processing of street, cityscapes, deep shadows, and the like.
I also have the 20 1.7 which is almost a perfect complement for the 17 2.8. Faster and very sharp. It's biggest drawback is slow focus which is completely consistent wht focus speed on the EP1 or EPM1.
 
I think the 20mm 1.7 is reasonably quick on my GX8. Not blisteringly fast but also not glacially slow. But of course IBIS helps a lot.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, the 20 1.7 behaves much better on Panasonic bodies than on Olympus ones. It will never break any speed records, but where I often cursed at the slow AF speed on my Olympus cameras it never bothers me on Panasonic bodies. And I do love the output and focal length of that lens. That’s why I bought it a GX9.

As for the O17 2.8: I still have the EP1 17 2.8 and OVF combo. In January 2016 I did a SiJ with that combo. It was still very enjoyable. I did like going back to more modern cameras later, but wouldn’t mind another month with that lens. It may be technically flawed, but in my opinion renders beautifully.
 
As for the O17 2.8: I still have the EP1 17 2.8 and OVF combo. In January 2016 I did a SiJ with that combo. It was still very enjoyable. I did like going back to more modern cameras later, but wouldn’t mind another month with that lens. It may be technically flawed, but in my opinion renders beautifully.
Interestingly, I feel much the same about the 17mm f/1.8 - mainly when comparing it to the 20mm f/1.7 (which the 17mm clearly outperforms in terms of focus speed - but the 20mm has superior optics) and the 15mm f/1.7. The latter is a really impressive little lens and nice to shoot with, but I can't seem to like it quite like the 17mm f/1.8. Maybe a reason for a "Single in" deployment? Quite compelling idea ...

However, I had another minor epiphany when comtemplating selling or trading the 100-300mm II I also own. I put it on the gripped GX9 today, so I got Dual I.S. ("only" version 1). Man, this lens is so *small* for what it offers, and futhermore, I managed sharp images at 300mm (600mm-e!) at 1/10" ... I'd be a real fool to let it go, even though I may only use it once or twice a year (at the moment - things can change, as they have before). Now, how crazy would a "Single in" with that lens be? Probably very, but not to be ruled out, given the dynamics of that game ...

Also, Hugh Brownstone ("Three Blind Men and an Elephant" on YT) has done a very helpful video on the A6100 and A6600 ... I'll not reiterate here, but I think I'll postpone any further gear decisions until I know what the next couple of months will bring. :mu43: still is a completely viable system with very compelling bodies and glass. Pushing it out just to reduce inventory isn't a wise move, especially not in the long run. Call it a "G.A.S. leak"...

In short, most probably *no* A6600 for me, and neither the 16-55mm, obviously. The 12-40mm PRO has always been good enough for me anyway :)

I do like the direction things are taking, though, and I think we'll see very interesting products in the near future. And that might change a lot of things - once more.

M.
 
I have the 17 1.8 as well. I do like it, especially on the Pen-F (my main body). Even when it renders a bit more clinically than the 2.8, it's still not overly sharp. I also have the 15, which is a nice lens on the GX9. But still, I almost always grab the 20. I guess normal is more my thing than wide angle.

Sharpness does not always interfere with lovely rendering of course. For a weatherproof system (living in The Netherlands, you sometimes need that) I use a zoom based system (EM1.1, 12-40 PRO, 40-150 PRO, 50 1.2 PRO). The 50 1.2 is very sharp, but still renders very nicely. It is a bigger lens though and I prefer smaller cameras. Never was a fan of that EM1 so skipped the V2. A tradeoff might be a (when necessary gripped) EM5.3 coming out hopefully sometime this year. If not, there's a chance I'm in the market to pack everything up and try something new. Nikon Z? We'll see.
 
I feel the need for Speed. Already in love with the 50-140.
Lens-X2.jpg
 
I've used APS-C sized swabs for full-frame sensors, no problems at all. I find the smaller swabs easier to manoeuver in the sensor chamber, the fact that I have to do two strokes to clean the whole surface doesn't seem to have any ill effects.

The usual recommended routine seems to be to take a swab, swipe from left to right, turn the other side around and swipe right to left. No need to manouver :)

But seeing APSC swabs are so cheap compared to FF swabs I gotta try them. Ordered 40 for 9 €. Couldn't find FF sized swabs for less than 1.70 € each.

And these things are supposed to be once-used right? What's the idea that you buy a sensor cleaning kit as I did, the kit is very complete and full with goodies but there's usually only 2 swabs in the entire box :(
 
Back
Top