Taking my new G2 out for a spin around York

chromatin64

Veteran
Apr 26, 2011
A Leekist in York, UK
I picked up the G2 with a 14-42 kit zoom for 295 GBP.

My original intention was to buy adapters for my legacy MF glass, which I've done, but the results from Wifey's Lumix lenses I've used are so much better than even good-but-old fast glass that I'm actually now going to build up a travel kit with native lenses - probably a 14/25/45mm set up - so I can leave my Nikon gear at home.

Thanks for the comments.
 

Luckypenguin

Hall of Famer
Dec 24, 2010
Brisbane, Australia
Nic
First two are great! I love the exposure differential between foreground and bacground in the first, and the composition of the second. The last is a dramatic perspective, but I must admit that I have never seen a fisheye image that I wouldn't have preferred to have seen taken with an UWA lens, even if the coverage is less minus the fish effect.

With adapted lenses I found that it was good to mess around with them if you already had them or could find them cheaply, but I could never seriously build a system around adapted lenses. They're still fun to use, but the native m4/3 lenses do it so much better.
 

chromatin64

Veteran
Apr 26, 2011
A Leekist in York, UK
a lens not to be under-estimated in it's own right (assuming the first version with the metal mount)
That's the 14-45, generally felt to be far superior to the newer 14-42. And I've just bought a used 14-45 on Amazon - should get it Tuesday. I'll sell the kit lens.

An adapted Canon FD 50/1.8 and CV 25/4 Snapshot Skopar are performing well at the moment. The Jupiter-8 50/2 (bought 5 years ago for 10 quid) is none too shabby either.

Next on list is a wide-zoom, most likely the Oly 9-18 rather than the frighteningly expensive Panny 7-14.
 

chromatin64

Veteran
Apr 26, 2011
A Leekist in York, UK
First two are great! I love the exposure differential between foreground and bacground in the first, and the composition of the second. The last is a dramatic perspective, but I must admit that I have never seen a fisheye image that I wouldn't have preferred to have seen taken with an UWA lens, even if the coverage is less minus the fish effect.

With adapted lenses I found that it was good to mess around with them if you already had them or could find them cheaply, but I could never seriously build a system around adapted lenses. They're still fun to use, but the native m4/3 lenses do it so much better.
Thanks. I agree about the adapted lenses - I've got a bit of a collection from my film days and friends unloading unwanted kit on me :2thumbs:

As to the Fisheye it's something to play with - there'll be better uses for it. On the other hand, there are already a million-and-one images of York Minster taken with UWAs... :wink:
 

Jock Elliott

Hall of Famer
Jan 3, 2012
Troy, NY
Russ,

I like the way the Coins and Cards booth pops relative to the Cathedral in the background. I thought it was a post-processing effect.

As to the bottom shot, obviously the catherdral builders were sampling some of the grapes that grew during the Medieval Warm Period -- the building is bent!

Cheers, Jock
 

chromatin64

Veteran
Apr 26, 2011
A Leekist in York, UK
Russ,

I like the way the Coins and Cards booth pops relative to the Cathedral in the background. I thought it was a post-processing effect.

As to the bottom shot, obviously the catherdral builders were sampling some of the grapes that grew during the Medieval Warm Period -- the building is bent!

Cheers, Jock
Thanks Jock - all these shots are straight out of the camera, Dynamic B&W jpeg setting. The phonebooth was in shade and the Minster (Cathedral) was in bright sunlight; I exposed for the interior of the booth and the available light did all my post-processing for me.

As to the bendy Minster, you should see the shots I've got from head on! (too ugly to post here).
 

Latest posts

Latest threads

Top Bottom