Personal gear review

[agentlossing]

I'm quite surprised at how much I like the TTartisans 23/1.4 on M4/3. It's a pleasant focal length, and bokeh is pretty alright, but more than that it is really scratching my itch for a lens with character. Wide open, or close to it, the center is still really sharp but light takes on a painterly, dreamy look due to glow. Stopped down it is razor sharp, as long as I nail the focus. But the biggest surprise is how fantastic the colors look. I am shooting it on the EM5II on natural JPEG profile, which is not an overly saturated or contrasty look by default, but the lens adds in a pile of saturation and warm colors that really bloom on the Olympus. The focusing is not as hard as I thought it would be, and the EM5II facilitates it fairly well with the button that sits atop the 1/2 switch. I do wish it could be as simple as one press to magnify, one to go back, but you have to press the button twice, once to select the magnified area, and once more to magnify. It's not a big deal at all, of course, but since the button is close to where my eye is, I'd like it if I only had to press it once. Anyway, in a world of mostly awesome lens sharpness and consistency, I enjoy quirkiness.

 

[agentlossing]

Here is a gear review that isn't equipment, but software. I currently have Lightroom (v.6.14 but currently what's on my computer is a CC subscription which I needed for a project... Adobe has me locked into a year unless I pay a fee for early termination, which irks me just to think about so I stubbornly won't do it, even though it would save me a few bucks), DXO PhotoLab 5 Elite and the Nik suite. So I've got good, up to date (for the most part) software. Some of it, like the DeepPRIME noise reduction from DXO, is really powerful (yeah, I know, the "cult of DeepPRIME" is a thing, but I don't actually use it unless needed). And I've always found Lightroom handles fine detail the best for DNGs like I get from my GR. Nik of course has some very pleasant and powerful plugins. But... for some reason, my post processing lately has been leaving me feeling a bit empty. The thing is, I'm not getting what I want, exactly, but I don't really know what it is that I want.

I like getting what I want in-camera, and the GR series of course provides me with some excellent JPEG tools, but sometimes you need more than a camera's JPEG engine can provide. In those cases, it's good to be able to emulate what you get in the camera, but with a more powerful tool, one that's more able to tame highlights, raise and clean up shadows, pull out fine detail, etc. I can do some of those things with what I have, but only in a way which reduces the authenticity of the image the way the camera renders it, if that makes sense. I can't put a finer point on it than that, but it has been bothering me lately when I spend time in front of the computer. I also have more basic and concrete issues at times, such as working with highlights on the edge of being blown out from the Olympus EM5II, where there's just not much leeway. That just takes careful work and sometimes doesn't end up giving me what I want anyway, and I just have to accept the limitations of the old 16mp M4/3 sensors.

I might, actually, fire up my old On1 Effects program. I always really liked the way it extracts fine detail using the dynamic contrast filter on its subtler settings, and I really knew my way around that program when it was the only plugin I had in addition to Lightroom. I took things a little over the top back then, when I wasn't as experienced at PP, but I still like the cheerful can-do attitude of On1's Effects app.

 

[pdk42]

I've got a lot of m43 lenses - 12 in total. It's mostly Olympus but with a Sigma (30/1.4) and a few Panasonics (8-18, 20/1.7 and 25/1.7) thrown in for good measure. But despite that arsenal of glass, 90% of my photos are taken with either the 8-18, the 12-40, or the 12-100. The 40-150/2.8 gets a fair amount of use, as does the Oly 8mm f1.8 fisheye, but the rest spend way too much time in the gear drawers. I can't even remember the last time I used the 60mm macro. Maybe time for a clear out...

 

[drd1135]

K1 is big and heavy. It may also be more of a computer than a camera, depending on what you want from your tools. KP vs K1, you know, was it a nice enough camera without hindrances to you? Did you have other digital Pentax cameras in your past?

From the same people that brought you the Pentax 67.

 

[agentlossing]

From the same people that brought you the Pentax 67.
View attachment 312261

I'm actually sort of thinking of the K-1 as a digital medium format camera. Not literally, of course. But I tend to think about M4/3 as basically analogous to 35mm film for my purposes... Nonscientific, loosey-goosey. I mean that mostly in terms of the amount of detail I can get from a scene, compared to my own film development and scanning process.

So, in the same way that medium format film would vastly expand the level of detail over 35mm, I'm thinking a 36mp FF sensor would have a similar amount of extra resolution. Of course, there are other things which don't compare, such as MF bokeh, and focus transition, all that. But this is just a sort of crackpot theory I want to test.

 

[John King]

I'm actually sort of thinking of the K-1 as a digital medium format camera. Not literally, of course. But I tend to think about M4/3 as basically analogous to 35mm film for my purposes... Nonscientific, loosey-goosey. I mean that mostly in terms of the amount of detail I can get from a scene, compared to my own film development and scanning process.

So, in the same way that medium format film would vastly expand the level of detail over 35mm, I'm thinking a 36mp FF sensor would have a similar amount of extra resolution. Of course, there are other things which don't compare, such as MF bokeh, and focus transition, all that. But this is just a sort of crackpot theory I want to test.

It won't, Andrew.

For a 135 format camera to equal the resolution of a 20 MPx mFTs camera, it needs an 80+ MPx sensor, assuming that the lenses have equal performance.

The 135 format sensor will give greater latitude in exposure parameters in PP, and better high ISO performance, but even these come with significant, serious caveats. Even 14 bit RAW vs 12 bit RAW is not miraculously better.

The best printers out there will give about 6.5-7.5 stops of DR; the best monitors about 7.0-8.0 stops, but at lower bit depth and narrower gamut. My R3880 prints 16 bit, ProPhotoRGB. My Dell UP2516D has a 14 bit colour lookup table, a 12 bit panel, and 100% aRGB.

Most 135 format lenses cannot equal even the best of the mFTs kit lenses, corner to corner.

I have yet to see the magic weapon firing magic bullets.
The phrase "X blows Y out of the water" should be interpreted as "at 400% magnification, there may be a just noticeable difference, in some cases".

All just IMHO ...

 

[agentlossing]

It won't, Andrew.

For a 135 format camera to equal the resolution of a 20 MPx mFTs camera, it needs an 80+ MPx sensor, assuming that the lenses have equal performance.

The 135 format sensor will give greater latitude in exposure parameters in PP, and better high ISO performance, but even these come with significant, serious caveats. Even 14 bit RAW vs 12 bit RAW is not miraculously better.

The best printers out there will give about 6.5-7.5 stops of DR; the best monitors about 7.0-8.0 stops, but at lower bit depth and narrower gamut. My R3880 prints 16 bit, ProPhotoRGB. My Dell UP2516D has a 14 bit colour lookup table, a 12 bit panel, and 100% aRGB.

Most 135 format lenses cannot equal even the best of the mFTs kit lenses, corner to corner.

I have yet to see the magic weapon firing magic bullets.
The phrase "X blows Y out of the water" should be interpreted as "at 400% magnification, there may be a just noticeable difference, in some cases".

All just IMHO ...

Okay, okay, you're taking me a little too literally. I shouldn't have said "resolution" because what I really mean is "larger format characteristics." I don't want, or need, more actual resolution than what I get from the 24mp GR series. Which, by the way, have acquainted me with what 14-bit RAW files are like - you're right, they don't work miracles. They're better than the best 20mp M4/3 sensors, and far better than the one in the EM5II, however.

By using the wrong term I came across as a resolution hound, which I am very much not. I do love lots of DR. But resolution I don't care much about. I'd always rather have character than straight resolution, even when it means features of an image which are typically thought of as bad things, as long as the main subject comes out well.

 

[pdk42]

I'm actually sort of thinking of the K-1 as a digital medium format camera. Not literally, of course. But I tend to think about M4/3 as basically analogous to 35mm film for my purposes... Nonscientific, loosey-goosey. I mean that mostly in terms of the amount of detail I can get from a scene, compared to my own film development and scanning process.

So, in the same way that medium format film would vastly expand the level of detail over 35mm, I'm thinking a 36mp FF sensor would have a similar amount of extra resolution. Of course, there are other things which don't compare, such as MF bokeh, and focus transition, all that. But this is just a sort of crackpot theory I want to test.

I think by any objective measure m43 already significantly exceeds medium format film in IQ. And digital FF isn’t that big an improvement over m43 if you’re shooting at base ISO in decent light. As @John King points out, resolution gains aren’t such a big step up and even DR, whilst better, is still not enough to deal with typical real-world landscape DR, so some work on behalf of the photographer is needed (e.g. bracketing and stacking). Of course, the larger format does bring potentially useful benefits in terms of subject isolation, and lower noise at high ISO, but how useful that is will depend on what you shoot and how important pixel peeking is to you!

 

[rayvonn]

I'm actually sort of thinking of the K-1 as a digital medium format camera. Not literally, of course. But I tend to think about M4/3 as basically analogous to 35mm film for my purposes... Nonscientific, loosey-goosey. I mean that mostly in terms of the amount of detail I can get from a scene, compared to my own film development and scanning process.

So, in the same way that medium format film would vastly expand the level of detail over 35mm, I'm thinking a 36mp FF sensor would have a similar amount of extra resolution. Of course, there are other things which don't compare, such as MF bokeh, and focus transition, all that. But this is just a sort of crackpot theory I want to test.

I think you will love it. I'm no participant in any format war, but in my experience, the difference in the sensor output in practical terms is immediately obvious. I would normally say that amount of megapickles necessitates a disciplined approach to shooting but even there, you'll have image stabilisation in the camera, if you need that to shoot. But it's the in camera HDR/ stacking mode on a FF sensor that *may* result in something MF that you're seeking. You won't know till you try (go on!).

 

[drd1135]

It won't, Andrew.

For a 135 format camera to equal the resolution of a 20 MPx mFTs camera, it needs an 80+ MPx sensor, assuming that the lenses have equal performance.

The 135 format sensor will give greater latitude in exposure parameters in PP, and better high ISO performance, but even these come with significant, serious caveats. Even 14 bit RAW vs 12 bit RAW is not miraculously better.

The best printers out there will give about 6.5-7.5 stops of DR; the best monitors about 7.0-8.0 stops, but at lower bit depth and narrower gamut. My R3880 prints 16 bit, ProPhotoRGB. My Dell UP2516D has a 14 bit colour lookup table, a 12 bit panel, and 100% aRGB.

Most 135 format lenses cannot equal even the best of the mFTs kit lenses, corner to corner.

I have yet to see the magic weapon firing magic bullets.
The phrase "X blows Y out of the water" should be interpreted as "at 400% magnification, there may be a just noticeable difference, in some cases".

All just IMHO ...

Your post brought back some memories. Right around the turn of the (21st) century, I spent my idle time on the PDML with the other Pentaxians. As digital loomed larger on the horizon, I remember some initial estimates from the members of how may MP it would take to replace the "resolution" of film. I clearly remember numbers like 20 MP. Of course, these were actually pretty close given that the first digital bodies to really clobber film were the 6 MP APS-C bodies like my beloved *ist D.

 

[John King]

Your post brought back some memories. Right around the turn of the (21st) century, I spent my idle time on the PDML with the other Pentaxians. As digital loomed larger on the horizon, I remember some initial estimates from the members of how may MP it would take to replace the "resolution" of film. I clearly remember numbers like 20 MP. Of course, these were actually pretty close given that the first digital bodies to really clobber film were the 6 MP APS-C bodies like my beloved *ist D.

Agreed.

Even my 5 MPx E-1 is at least as good as 35mm film. I have several A2 prints from it hanging. They stand up to eyeballing at minimum distance. I still have excellent corrected vision (20/5) in my dominant right eye.

 

[mnhoj]

I've been exploring/enjoying the older EF L lenses via adapter on the R6. The old school rendering(love), accurate AF, IBIS and price provide a really nice alternative to the top tier RF and slower entry level primes.
Sold the amazing RF 50 1.2 and with the proceeds picked up a 50 1.2L, 85 1.2Lii and 135L. Now looking for a fast 35 to complete the foursome.

 

[Brownie]

I've been exploring/enjoying the older EF L lenses via adapter on the R6. The old school rendering(love), accurate AF, IBIS and price provide a really nice alternative to the top tier RF and slower entry level primes.
Sold the amazing RF 50 1.2 and with the proceeds picked up a 50 1.2L, 85 1.2Lii and 135L. Now looking for a fast 35 to complete the foursome.

Absolutely. I love it when someone tells me that higher resolution cameras will reveal the flaws in older lenses. Piffle.

 

[jiannazzone]

I'm planning a bit of a turnaround in my m43 gear. As I've just bought an LX7 to use as my EDC on dog walks, I don't need both an E-M1 and a GX80. So I'm strongly considering selling both and getting a GX8, which I've craved for a long time. I toyed with quitting m43 and trying another system, but I can't be faffed working out which one to go for!!

I also recently picked up an LX7 as a light and compact carry around and travel camera. I had a surprisingly hard time adapting to the lack of a viewfinder compared to the ease of using my iPhone camera. The IQ is surprisingly good for old, small sensor technology.

 

[P9F4]

So, this is isn’t going to be your classic review; in fact, maybe more random ramblings than anything else.

I want to talk about my love-hate-relationship with the Panasonic Leica 15mm.

First off, I’d like to say that I think this is an outstanding lens - one of the best available for M4/3 and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it.

There is A LOT to like about the PL15:

• build quality is exceptional
• form factor is very nice and works with a lot of bodies
• the manual focus ring turns butter smooth
• the aperture ring is a godsend for the small Panasonics which don’t have two control wheels
• the AF/MF switch is a very clever and good feature
• DFD with Panasonic bodies, autofocus in general is very fast
• good performance wide open
• very fast max. aperture
• very sharp
• it’s a perfect indoor lens

However, I’m simply not that fond of it and while I certainly don’t suffer from buyers remorse (it’s not faulty and way too useful), the PL just doesn’t blow me away.

• the optical performance is very good, but my P20 performs better - while that isn’t a dealbreaker (the P20 is just ridiculously good), it doesn’t make me happy, either
• talking about the before mentioned aperture ring: while it’s nice for the smaller bodies, it’s a nuisance on others, because you’re going to nudge it and mess up your settings
• its image rendering is very clinical - I’ve liked my P14 a lot more in that regard (thinking about it, this might be the main point)
• while the autofocus is very fast, it also misses a lot more than I like it to, and we’re not talking about highly difficult background lighting situations here. The P20 is slower without a doubt - but it’s very accurate and reliable

I know I’m nitpicking here, and that’s exactly my problem: I don’t have a logical reason to dislike this lens, but still…

Now, you may say: dummy, it’s the focal length!
And I would like to agree with you, but I DID like the P14 - in fact, I like it so much, if I would have to choose between the two, I would take it over the PL15. While I gravitate more towards longer lenses like the P20, I don’t think it’s the core of my conundrum. Maybe it’s the price tag, maybe it’s simply illogical personal bias, but it’s a great lens that just doesn’t make me happy. The images it produces just ‚don’t speak to me‘, if you catch my meaning. If it wouldn’t be so useful, I would sell it and buy a P14 in a heartbeat.

Does anybody else have a really good piece of equipment and isn’t happy with it or am I alone in this?

 

[MoonMind]

So, this is isn’t going to be your classic review; in fact, maybe more random ramblings than anything else.

I want to talk about my love-hate-relationship with the Panasonic Leica 15mm.

First off, I’d like to say that I think this is an outstanding lens - one of the best available for M4/3 and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it.

There is A LOT to like about the PL15:

• build quality is exceptional
• form factor is very nice and works with a lot of bodies
• the manual focus ring turns butter smooth
• the aperture ring is a godsend for the small Panasonics which don’t have two control wheels
• the AF/MF switch is a very clever and good feature
• DFD with Panasonic bodies, autofocus in general is very fast
• good performance wide open
• very fast max. aperture
• very sharp
• it’s a perfect indoor lens

However, I’m simply not that fond of it and while I certainly don’t suffer from buyers remorse (it’s not faulty and way too useful), the PL just doesn’t blow me away.

• the optical performance is very good, but my P20 performs better - while that isn’t a dealbreaker (the P20 is just ridiculously good), it doesn’t make me happy, either
• talking about the before mentioned aperture ring: while it’s nice for the smaller bodies, it’s a nuisance on others, because you’re going to nudge it and mess up your settings
• its image rendering is very clinical - I’ve liked my P14 a lot more in that regard (thinking about it, this might be the main point)
• while the autofocus is very fast, it also misses a lot more than I like it to, and we’re not talking about highly difficult background lighting situations here. The P20 is slower without a doubt - but it’s very accurate and reliable

I know I’m nitpicking here, and that’s exactly my problem: I don’t have a logical reason to dislike this lens, but still…

Now, you may say: dummy, it’s the focal length!
And I would like to agree with you, but I DID like the P14 - in fact, I like it so much, if I would have to choose between the two, I would take it over the PL15. While I gravitate more towards longer lenses like the P20, I don’t think it’s the core of my conundrum. Maybe it’s the price tag, maybe it’s simply illogical personal bias, but it’s a great lens that just doesn’t make me happy. The images it produces just ‚don’t speak to me‘, if you catch my meaning. If it wouldn’t be so useful, I would sell it and buy a P14 in a heartbeat.

Does anybody else have a really good piece of equipment and isn’t happy with it or am I alone in this?

Not regarding the 15mm that I actually like a lot (personal tastes at work here), but this feels extremely familiar. I've been through quite a few instances of this - they're getting rarer, but that took a lot of trial and error ... plus I finally found a system I seem to just be happy with (Nikon Z - I've yet to acquire anything from that system I honestly don't like). I've had that happen with quite expensive pieces of gear, too (one or two M mount lenses among the "culprits"). Not the nicest spot to be in, but it could be much worse - after all, you seem to know a lot about your own expectations, and all things considered, the 15mm f/1.7 doesn't seem to be a huge dissappointment, just somewhat underwhelming - or, more to the point, just not the ideal lens for you at this point in time.

I found that most of the time, moving on is your best guess (it took a while before I accepted that!) - if only to discover whether you are seeing issues where there are none (leading to seller's remorse, at the worst). If you like the 20mm focal length, why not try the OM System 20mm f/1.4 instead? It's a great lens, not small, but also not monstrous for what it delivers. However, I'll admit that personally, I've always been mystified by the fact that Panasonic has so far never tried in earnest to combine the optics from the 20mm f/1.7 with a slicker focusing system (I'd settle for faster motors, I think - though DFD or tracking in general would be nice). The 20mm f/1.7 is the lens I immediately bought for my first camera and will only sell with my last, if ever. Still, in everyday use, I far prefer the 15mm f/1.7 - on my GX9, it overwhelmingly nails it ... Fun fact, the combo is the key reason why I felt I could skip the Leica CL ...

Anyhow, YMMV - maybe it's also worth mentioning that most of us tend to overthink gear by an enormous margin.

M.

 

[gordo]

I'll agree with Matt's post, and add that for me it has happened more than I like over the space of 40+ years. Including a lot of seller's remorse.

Most current example of me not gelling with gear would be the Fuji XF 70-300. I was looking at it as a possible lightweight replacement for my 100-400. After using the two side-by-side, I decided to let the 70-300 go even though I was sure if it was a good lens I'd keep it and sell the 100-400. Smaller, lighter, OIS, WR, most used focal range of my 100-400, etc... Nothing wrong with the 70-300, and it had better MFD and better IQ at MFD than the 100-400. But no matter how I tried I just kept returning to the 100-400. Go figure.

 

[MiguelATF]

So, this is isn’t going to be your classic review; in fact, maybe more random ramblings than anything else.

I want to talk about my love-hate-relationship with the Panasonic Leica 15mm.

First off, I’d like to say that I think this is an outstanding lens - one of the best available for M4/3 and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it.

There is A LOT to like about the PL15:

• build quality is exceptional
• form factor is very nice and works with a lot of bodies
• the manual focus ring turns butter smooth
• the aperture ring is a godsend for the small Panasonics which don’t have two control wheels
• the AF/MF switch is a very clever and good feature
• DFD with Panasonic bodies, autofocus in general is very fast
• good performance wide open
• very fast max. aperture
• very sharp
• it’s a perfect indoor lens

However, I’m simply not that fond of it and while I certainly don’t suffer from buyers remorse (it’s not faulty and way too useful), the PL just doesn’t blow me away.

• the optical performance is very good, but my P20 performs better - while that isn’t a dealbreaker (the P20 is just ridiculously good), it doesn’t make me happy, either
• talking about the before mentioned aperture ring: while it’s nice for the smaller bodies, it’s a nuisance on others, because you’re going to nudge it and mess up your settings
• its image rendering is very clinical - I’ve liked my P14 a lot more in that regard (thinking about it, this might be the main point)
• while the autofocus is very fast, it also misses a lot more than I like it to, and we’re not talking about highly difficult background lighting situations here. The P20 is slower without a doubt - but it’s very accurate and reliable

I know I’m nitpicking here, and that’s exactly my problem: I don’t have a logical reason to dislike this lens, but still…

Now, you may say: dummy, it’s the focal length!
And I would like to agree with you, but I DID like the P14 - in fact, I like it so much, if I would have to choose between the two, I would take it over the PL15. While I gravitate more towards longer lenses like the P20, I don’t think it’s the core of my conundrum. Maybe it’s the price tag, maybe it’s simply illogical personal bias, but it’s a great lens that just doesn’t make me happy. The images it produces just ‚don’t speak to me‘, if you catch my meaning. If it wouldn’t be so useful, I would sell it and buy a P14 in a heartbeat.

Does anybody else have a really good piece of equipment and isn’t happy with it or am I alone in this?

Interesting perspective on these two lenses, Dennis.
My own take is similar to yours but slightly different: the they are probably my two favorite mu4/3 lenses ever, but in my case, I love the PL15 a shade more than the P20. It focuses more quickly and I am addicted to the click-stop aperture which functions beautifully on my GX9. I get what you are saying about its slightly more 'clinical' nature - for me that would be a synonym for a bit sharper - but depending on processing, I would actually rate some of my PL15 photos as having an extra special degree of some nameless photographic magic (a je ne sais quoi, so to speak) that the P20 comes very close to but doesn't achieve always. The PL15 also is a speed demon in AF focusing - while the P20, while not quite as slow as some detractors insist, nonetheless seems to require a bit more patience.
The biggest differences for me have to do with the all-important but elusive areas of FOV or field of view - I love the wider perspective of the PL15, but I also like how the P20 is wide enough to be wide but closer to the so-called 'normal' lengths.
As a result, both lenses stay pretty much full-time on two of my most-used (and favorite) M43 bodies - my GX9 and my E-P5 - though I swap them occasionally, just for fun.
One final note - years back, I owned a P14 as well and really liked it - but not quite as much as either of these two. It was a fine lens, though. Go figure...

Thanks for your post about these 2 lenses. It made me think, again, what it is about both - and each - that I like, and that, occasionally, I can criticize.

 

[JensM]

Does anybody else have a really good piece of equipment and isn’t happy with it or am I alone in this?

Somewhat in the line-up of this, I had and loved the Oly 17mm f:1.8, bought a second hand copy of the PL 15mm, had a look at the results and off to market the Oly went. I also have the P14 MkI and II and the 20 MkII, second hand copies and cheap as chips, so even if I dont use them much, the MkIIs will stick around. The 14mm MkI was sold last week.

 

[John King]

I personally like 'clinical' lenses.

However, I mostly prefer zooms, even though I have a number of relatively fast primes.

Even with the increase in apparent DoF with FTs /mFTs, I am almost always shooting at f/5.6 and smaller to give me the DoF I prefer.

e.g. prunus blossom with the 12-100 at f/11:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)