wayne_murphy8

<p>It could just be dirt in the mirror box. It was common in the SL models. If you are very careful, you could try easing the mirror away from the screen and see if it springs down. If so, it is dirt. You could then try blowing the dirt out. If it's not dirt, then probably a component in the mirror system has failed. In any case, you will need to have it serviced.</p>

<p>It could just be dirt in the mirror box. It was common in the SL models. If you are very careful, you could try easing the mirror away from the screen and see if it springs down. If so, it is dirt. You could then try blowing the dirt out. If it's not dirt, then probably a component in the mirror system has failed. In any case, you will need to have it serviced.</p>

<p>It is unusual for a manual focus wide angle or standard lens to focus "beyond infinity", but with autofocus lenses, the auto focus system does not care. Unfortunately, if you focus manually, you need to judge the focus yourself and cannot rely on the focus stop to be at actual infinity. Plenty of zoom and telephoto lenses allow the focus ring to rotate beyond infinity, generally to compensate for thermal expansion of the lens system. This is not a sign of second rate design or quality - some Nikon, Leica and Hasselblad lenses do it.<br>

Similarly, in the old days, manual focus zoom lenses (generally) kept a constant focus during zooming. This was very difficult(and expensive) for lens designers to achieve so when auto focus became standard, this correction went out the door and now, focus shift during zooming is very common. <br>

So with modern auto focus lenses, if you focus manually, you need to focus by eye and at the actual focal length you are shooting at. Unfortunately, the old rule of focussing at the longest focal length and then zooming out, no longer applies. The focus will shift when you zoom.<br>

I would guess that most auto focus systems can focus a standard or wide angle lens more accurately than by eye but if you have no reference point or contrast difference for autofocus, then focussing by visual judgement is the go. Alternatively, focus just inside infinity and allow the depth of field to carry the focus to infinity.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I didn't want to start a discussion on brands but I originally bought a Panasonic GF2 and now have a GH2, so my experience is limited to those bodies with the 14-45 and 45-200 lenses. I had a 20/1.7 but I wasn't very impressed with that either, so I must be too hard to please. I think that the new 12-35/2.8 might be the next step. <br>

My next step is to go back to raw and try that as a base for post processing, but I will need to upgrade from Photoshop CS2 for the GH2 raw converter. It's a shame that Nikon and Canon did not take up four thirds. That would have seen some real progress. Instead, they created their own weirdo formats to lock customers into their own lenses. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I didn't want to start a discussion on brands but I originally bought a Panasonic GF2 and now have a GH2, so my experience is limited to those bodies with the 14-45 and 45-200 lenses. I had a 20/1.7 but I wasn't very impressed with that either, so I must be too hard to please. I think that the new 12-35/2.8 might be the next step. <br>

My next step is to go back to raw and try that as a base for post processing, but I will need to upgrade from Photoshop CS2 for the GH2 raw converter. It's a shame that Nikon and Canon did not take up four thirds. That would have seen some real progress. Instead, they created their own weirdo formats to lock customers into their own lenses. <br>

Thanks again. </p>

<p>Sorry, the camera was actually a Nikon D70, almost an antique now. The image quality seemed better though, even then.</p>

<p>I have been photographing for lots of years, using film obviously, and printing both in darkroom, and later using scans, printing digitally. I have used Photoshop since 2003 for digital processing. I now print from digital files only.<br>

I have used most film high end film cameras and some good digital SLRs (Nikons). I sold my C sensor DSLRs because I was tired of the weight of the body plus lenses. Better than a Hasselblad to be sure, but still not light enough for me. Yes, I have compact digital cameras for fun, but they are not very good.<br>

I bought into the four thirds system and have upgraded, but the results disappoint me. Although the sensor is reasonably large and the resolution is now 16MP, The image quality seems not too good. Brittle highlights, crumbly tones and poor colour management.<br>

My fairly old and basic Nikon D700 seemed to give me better overall image quality than my brand new 16MP four thirds camera. Certainly, the processing was far easier and produced better prints, even from jpeg files.<br>

I am not a fan of Nikon. The opposite, in fact, because of the arrogant and poor customer service that I experienced.<br>

I put the image quality down to pretty average four thirds lenses compared to the high end lenses that I used previously but the difference seems to be more than that. I was hoping that the new Panasonic 12-35/2,8 might solve the problem, but I am unsure.<br>

Without starting a rant, is anyone else slightly disappointed with the promise of four thirds and the reality of quality? Maybe it's just me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The placement of the rear control dial causes me to constantly press the white balance or the iso button with my thumb when I am lifting the camera to shoot. This is incredibly frustrating because the setting is easily changed and I need to then check the setting and fix it if has changed. <br>

Yes the buttons allow quick adjustments, but perhaps a lock on the white balance/ iso settings would be helpful.<br>

Is anyone else having this annoying problem? If there is a solution, apart from getting a different camera, I would be delighted to know. Getting a smaller thumb is not on the agenda.</p>

<p>Yet another con job. WHEN will the mock-up 2.8 lenses become reality? Next week, next month, next year? Never? It's just another PR exercise to try to pump up Panasonic when they actually do very little. <br>

Am I cynical? You can bet on it. When Panasonic actually delivers some quality pro quality zoom lenses, let me know. I will be the first to say thanks. WM.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here we go again. Just like the mythical Panasonic 12-50 mm 2.5-3.3 Zoom. Non existent. So these lenses are mock ups? The equivalent of vaporware. Non existent and just a cynical marketing exercise when Panasonic has nothing to contribute. I have been waiting years for some decent wider aperture M4/3 zoom lenses. Nothing.<br>

Panasonic has dropped the ball on lens development and still persists in selling ONLY kits with bodies and lenses (in Australia), even though most people already own one of these lenses. WHY? WHY? The G series is supposed to be a system. How many freaking 14-42 lenses does anyone need? Sell the bodies only. Gosh, I feel almost subversive. Humbug. </p>

<p>Everyone has their own views and preferences. This is just mine: I have use both systems over a number of years and have owned many lenses both M and R. Most later M lenses are sensational. Some R lenses are also. <br>

If you want an R system, I would suggest the R9 or a late R8. I had both and never a problem. The metering is outstanding, the build is superb and the controls are great. For lenses: 19 second version (excellent - the lack of distortion has to be seen to be believed), 28 last version (excellent), 90 asph (Excellent), 180/2.8 apo) second version (excellent incl with teleconverter), 280/4.0 (incredible but super expensive if you can even find one). I couldn't afford any of the super telephotos.<br>

I found the 35/1.4 to be outstanding despite the mediocre looking performance charts. Again difficult to find but worth it. The 135/2.8 was considered to be a poor lens always but I didn't ever own one. <br>

In my opinion, the reasonable cost of the R8 and R9 is worth it. If I were buying lenses now, I would buy the 19, 28, 90 asph and a teleconverter, plus the 180 apo if affordable. You could probably find a 50/2.0 as well for a good price. The cost of this outfit would still be considerable and possibly many people wold not invest that much in a discontinued system.<br>

The 80-200/4.0 zoom was also good, as was the 35-70/4.0. I tested a 35-70/2.8 and despite its astronomical cost, it was all but unusable due to it's severe focus shift. Just my opinion. </p>

 

<p>I have a Mac G5 and Silkypix 3.1 was included with my Panasonic GF1. It loaded from the supplied disc without a problem onto my computer. I tried it and it opens raw2 files on my Mac. I can manipulate them OK but Silkypix is clunky rubbish. It is slow ands awful. I saved the file as a tiff without a problem but it took 30 seconds.<br>

My suggestion is to get something else. I am surprised that the Photoshop raw converter does not have an update to open Panasonic raw2 files. Sometimes you need to go to their site and download the latest update. Good luck. </p>

<p>What I would like is a top quality "professional quality" zoom lens with a faster speed. Generally they go together, along with a higher price.<br>

Any search will reveal where the stories came from. Generally they appear to be reasonably credible. Greg, If you aren't interested, then why not just ignore my post? Why bother being aggressive and rude? People use these forums to seek information. I try to help if I can. I don't trash people's questions because I'm having a bad hair day. Thanks for the positive comments. </p>

<p>No further mention of the rumored Panasonic 12-50 2.5/3.3 zoom lens it seems. It's well past time for a better faster micro 4/3 zoom than the slow 3.5-5.6 aperture zooms. Is this lens another myth or just production delay? It would be nice if Panasonic would at least state whether it is going to happen or not. Any thoughts?</p>

 

<p>The G3 seems a logical step up from the G2. However, will you ever be able to buy one? I have had a GH2 on order since the beginning of this year. It's now mid May and still no delivery date even in sight. Not only that, if you want GH2 in Australia, Panasonic will sell it to you ONLY with a lens. No doubt, the G3 will also be sold only with a lens. How many duplicate lenses does anyone need or want? I have enough G lenses. I just want a new body. Having to sell these excess brand new lenses and taking a loss is just stupid. <br>

These are supposed to be system cameras. How can anyone upgrade a body when this stupidity by Panasonic extorts money for unwanted lenses? This is Panasonic Australia and yes, I could buy a body online, but I prefer to have a local warranty. </p>

<p>Maybe the G3 will be available in 2012. Maybe.</p>

<p>The G3 seems a logical step up from the G2. However, will you ever be able to buy one? I have had a GH2 on order since the beginning of this year. It's now mid May and still no delivery date even in sight. Not only that, if you want GH2 in Australia, Panasonic will sell it to you ONLY with a lens. No doubt, the G3 will also be sold only with a lens. How many duplicate lenses does anyone need or want? I have enough G lenses. I just want a new body. Having to sell these excess brand new lenses and taking a loss is just stupid. <br>

These are supposed to be system cameras. How can anyone upgrade a body when this stupidity by Panasonic extorts money for unwanted lenses? This is Panasonic Australia and yes, I could buy a body online, but I prefer to have a local warranty. </p>

<p>Maybe the G3 will be available in 2012. Maybe.</p>

<p>I have a Panasonic micro 4/3 camera and it is pretty good, but the biggest failing in my opinion is that there are virtually no professional zoom lenses available for micro 4/3. Using large other-brand pro lenses with adaptors defeats the purpose, I think. The 4/3 Leica lenses don't get good reviews for reliability and neither Panasonic nor Olympus makes micro 4/3 professional quality zoom lenses (apart from the Pan 7-14). I don't really understand why the micro 4/3 systems is being promoted as semi professional when no attempt is being made to deliver pro/semi-pro zoom lenses, preferably with constant apertures. </p>

<p>Can anyone tell me how to find the number of shutter actuation for Panasonic G series cameras (GF1, GH1, etc)? Thanks for any advice. </p>

<p>I have the 14-45 and the 45-200. The 45-200 is much better than I thought but be prepared to use high shutter speeds to stop movement blur, even with the (pretty crumby) image stabilisation.<br>

The 20/1.7 is more promise than delivery in my opinion but some people love it. I would really like a top quality MICRO 4/3 zoom with a constant aperture. Yes, I know it would cost more and be heavier, but that's OK with me. I don't want the Leica 4/3 with adaptors and poor quality control at huge prices thanks.</p>

<p>Well, what do you know. After I emailed all of the major photo dealers here about Panasonic's tricks, Panasonic miraculously "found" one only silver GH2 body. Perhaps I am naturally suspicious but there are some questions to answer here. Like, is this a demonstrator/sample body brought in for the rep to play with and show to dealers? My bet is yes. If not, why only one? and why silver? In fairness, the dealer who forced Panasonic's hand has done a great job. However, I am yet to get to the bottom of this sudden "miraculous" find of one body. If Panasonic can find me a black body, new, not a sample, then I will happily give them credit. </p>

<p>Well, what do you know. After I emailed all of the major photo dealers here about Panasonic's tricks, Panasonic miraculously "found" one only silver GH2 body. Perhaps I am naturally suspicious but there are some questions to answer here. Like, is this a demonstrator/sample body brought in for the rep to play with and show to dealers? My bet is yes. If not, why only one? and why silver? In fairness, the dealer who forced Panasonic's hand has done a great job. However, I am yet to get to the bottom of this sudden "miraculous" find of one body. If Panasonic can find me a black body, new, not a sample, then I will happily give them credit. </p>

<p>Thanks for the replies and advice. I have bought lots of gear from Hong Kong over the years. However, I would like the Australian guarantee for a complex digital camera with no track record. Even Nikon had huge problems with sensor banding until they were forced to admit to it and fix it. This site's Nikon forum had a lot to do with that.<br>

My complaint is not with Australian dealers, it is with Panasonic for forcing customers to buy a lens that many won't want. If they can make it available as a body only in most other countries, why not Australia? It just smacks of price gouging. The Australian dealers are none too happy about this either, now that I have told them what is happening. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. <br>

Why should I have to buy a lens I don't want and then sell it at a substantial loss? Does not seem reasonable to me.<br>

Taking a $1000 flight to Hong Kong is far more than any possible saving. These days, the absolute best you will do in HK is 25% saving on the local price. Because the camera is so new, you are likely to find that there is no saving at all until the market is flooded and prices come down. I lived in HK for 4 years. In HK, a new product equals a top price, sometimes even more than the suggested list price because the dealers perceive that because the supply is far less than the demand, they can extort money from those stupid enough to pay the premium.<br>

My main issue is the guarantee. Having learned the hard way with Nikon, an Australian guarantee is important, especially for new digital cameras. By the way, you will only get any service for these cameras from Panasonic itself, and if the camera is imported, they will not even touch it, even if you are prepared to pay for the repair. So you face the hassle of trying to get service from the original dealer/distributor. Postage costs, insurance costs, fighting with customs over duty, tax, etc when the camera is returned. <br>

Surely it shouldn't be like this. if they have to order 50 or 100 bodies, so what? Panasonic is not a small company operating on a shoestring. One further thing is that they have the camera on their Australian website with a suggested list price for the body without the lens. The only problem is that you can't buy it. In Australia, we call that bait and switch and it is considered to be misleading advertising.<br>

No doubt I will eventually buy one from overseas but it is Panasonic's "get stuffed" attitude that I particularly object to. </p>

<p>I want to buy a Panasonic GH2. I have a GF1 with several lenses and want the GH2 body only. In Australia, Panasonic will only supply the GH2 with the 14-140 lens, which I don't need and don't want. I have explained this position to them but they have no interest whatever. Their attitude seems to be "pay the money sucker and that's it". <br>

Their alternative suggestion was for me to buy the body offshore. I can easily do that but I don't get a warranty and don't get the Australian charger, and the Australian dealer loses the sale. <br>

This is pathetic and just shows how Panasonic Australia treats its customers (and dealers) with contempt. Almost enough for me to go back to Nikon.</p>

 

<p>I have a Panasonic GF1. The downloaded files always open at 180 ppi resolution in Photoshop. Is there any way I can adjust the camera settings to always download at say, 320 ppi? I can't find anything in the manual. I realise that the on-screen resolution is no different, but I normally print at 320 ppi and it would save time. Thanks for any advice.</p>