hakon_soreide

<p>Thanks for the responses. All helpful in deciding to keep my Canon 70-200 - for now.</p>

<p>Autofocus is so slow on the 50-200 that I can actually manually focus my 70-200 in about the same time, with less time for follow-up shots of moving subjects. I did a focus test a few nights ago, and the GH2 really is wonderful to work with in manual focus with non-MFT lenses: Rough focus first, then point on the screen where one wants fine focus, fine-tune focus, half-press and shoot - quick and easy.</p>

<p>Not the most comfortable thing handheld because of the front-heavy lens, but works fine when shooting from the hip on a tight neck strap or on a tripod.</p>

<p>Now, if Olympus make a MFT version of the lens, or - better yet - Panaleica get their act together and make something like a 50-150 or 50-200 constant f4 or f2.8-4, with lightning-fast autofocus and preferably with useful IS as opposed to the other Panaleicas - then I'll have to consider my options again.</p>

<p>Thanks for the answers so far. <br>

I have used the 70-200 handheld, so I am used to basically carrying a lens with a camera attached to it, and it works fine for me. I will be using a tripod more often, though, for which purpose I also have a tripod bracket for my 70-200. <br>

Autofocus comparisons with the Pen aren't really relevant since the GH2 has the best contract detect autofocus system, as we know, so most likely the 50-200 will focus better on that than on the current Olympus bodies.<br>

The pictures I've seen so far from the 100-300 haven't really convinced me that it is a lot better than the 45-200, and the resolution at 300mm looks to me like someone has taken the 200mm image, cropped and enlarged it. Also, IS isn't so much of an issue as much of my use for a long tele is to take pictures of animals, and I would have more use of wide apertures and shorter shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Perhaps it's an unusual question. I have decided to let go of my old Canon gear in favour of MFT (My complete kit is so much lighter and more compact now), having had a Panasonic G1 for about a year and now having upgraded to a GH2.</p>

<p>Coming from a 5D with a 70-200 f4 IS lens, anyone else who has tried that as well as the Panasonic 45-200 lens will know how unsatisfying the latter is to use in comparison, so I quickly sold that and have since ocasionally used the Canon 70-200 f4 on my G1 with much better results.</p>

<p>Now, as good as the 70-200 is on the G1, it still requires very precise manual focusing and is stuck at, an albeit very sharp, f4. </p>

<p>I have been looking at the Zuiko 50-200 before, but realising it would also just be manual focus on my G1, I gave up the thought of moving to that, but now that I know it will autofocus on the GH2, though not as snappy as it would have done on an Olympus SLR, I am interested again.</p>

<p>The questions: Has anyone, like me, used the Canon 70-200 f4 as well as the Zuiko 50-200 SWD on the G-series Panasonics with any experience in the differences (if any) in image quality?</p>

<p>Has anyone got experience with the autofocus speed and reliability of the 50-200 lenses on the GH2? I have seen a test on video indicating it might take about 3 seconds to go from infinity to close focus lock-on with the 50-200 with the GH2, which isn't too bad, but that was a flat target with multi-area AF. What about spot autofocus in a three-dimensional scene where there are other things that might fool the CD autofocus?</p>

<p>As tempting as the 50-200 is, its faster speed, larger max aperture, possibility of autofocus etc, it also means a bit more weight and an expensive investment - though when it comes to the latter, I would hope to get quite a bit for my 70-200 when I sell it if and when I move to a 50-200.</p>

<p>Oh, and one more thing. I have heard that there is a weight limit to how much one should let dangle from the lens mount of a G1 at 1kg to avoid lens mount warping. Presumable it won't be any less on a GH2, but the 50-200 really is borderline. Has anyone experienced the lens mount being bent slightly from using too heavy lenses, and how heavy were they?</p>

<div></div>

<p>In Norway we say the correct no. 2 for Nikon - might be just dumb luck. Interestingly, as Japanese words get longer, people tend to mess them up, though. Lots of Norwegians say Mitsu-bitchy instead of Mitsubishi for the car. And I suppose only Japanese people pronounce Tokyo correctly. I know how to do it, but I just get funny looks if I do it in general conversation.</p>

<p>Canon we pronounce as in English, Leica, we pronounce Lay-ca rather than the correct Lie-ca - perhaps it's to avoid confusion with the first dog in space.</p>

<p>Interestingly, many Japanese people would struggle with pronouncing "Olympus". Konnichi wa Orimpusu-san.</p>

<p>Even without considering the quality of its interface and pictures, I think this will easily be the most beautiful digital camera out there. If I hadn't recently bought into the micro 4/3 system, I would probably have waited for the Fuji.</p>

<p>If the photographic qualities match the looks, I might get one yet.</p>

<p>100-400-800-1600, I'd say, provided the megapixels are about the same.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I've used an Epson 4990, which is fast and easy for medium format or bigger, but for 35mm, the results I got rephotographing my negatives and slides with my digital camera (5D and 100mm f/2.8 macro) were superior. The negatives outresolve the flatbed, but the 5D outresolves the negs, including the ones from my Leica M6 and Summicron days.</p>

<p>It is quite possible the photographer's estate would still be the copyright holder for another 70 years or so after the photographer's death, so they would not be public domain until 2050 or thereabouts. You should check this with someone versed in copyright law to avoid potentially costly misunderstandings.</p>

<p>As the owner of the slides, you still do not own any copyright for these images since you didn't create them. If you can do what you will with them (provided they turn out to be public domain), so can anyone else.</p>

<p>You should get a Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2, perhaps? Not an AF lens, but it's 40mm. Apparently, you can't have both at the same time.</p>

<p>The old 5D beats 7D in terms of per-pixel sharpness, and in noise characteristics (from the samples I have seen). Also it is full frame with the consequence that has for your lens focal range setup, though that might be in the favour of both cameras depending on what you do.</p>

<p>Anyway, I wouldn't have minded if Canon made a new 5D Classic, with the same megapixels and low-pass filter, but with all the improvements in processing, sensor light-gathering abilities, bigger microlenses, noise relative to photosite size, 14 or even 16-bit processing, bigger buffer and otherwise kept everything that was brilliant on the original. And which still is brilliant on the original and makes it a great buy if you get a little-used one second-hand.</p>

<p>By the way, just discovered when it comes to 7D vs 5D this comparison: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=623805&page=2</p>

<p>I like to think of my camera, lens and other photo gear purchases together, divide by the number of pictures taken and that's the price per photo - and when I do that, it all runs rather cheap compared to my film days.</p>

<p>I'd probably have spent more, but now I finally(?) have a girlfriend who has a say in how I spend my money, and we're supposed to save up a bit for buying a new house a few years from now, so I'll probably make do mostly with what I have.</p>

<p>What's the P mode?</p>

<p>No, seriously. I'm at Av 95% of the time - DoF control is essential. Manual when I shoot people indoors or handheld shots of really dark interiors. I still want to be in control of he aperture, but I know I have to underexpose to get the shot, and so I just set it to the slowest shutter speed I know I'll get sharp results from 80% of the time.</p>

<p>Depending on the subject matter, I often find I get very artistically acceptable results underexposing by four stops at ISO 1600 on my 5D</p>

<p>I also use manual for panorama shooting, though sometimes I am lazy and just meter the same spot over again and recompose.</p>

<p>I own the 5D myself, though I have on occasion considered a 50D as a companion camera - for my 70-200 lens where I often find myself wishing for more reach - and leaving the 5D for low light and wide angle work.</p>

<p>I have been looking at all the developments since getting the 5D, and despite being a veritable dinosaur in digital technology terms, it is still - as many dionsaurs were - a giant compared to what is both before and after.</p>

<p>What I wouldn't have minded seeing was Canon releasing a new 5D with the same resolution and anti-alias filter as the original, add a better screen, larger viewfinder, improved microlens technology and image processing, live view, why not throw in a movie mode too. They could call it 5D Classic (why not?) and it would be an amazing camera for its 2-3 stop low-light improvement over the original as well as for its other improved features.</p>

<p>I'd buy one. If they don't make one. Well, I'll keep my old 5D for now.</p>

<p>Wouldn't it be better just to go down to the fruit market or the fruit section of your local grocery shop to pick up whatever you like the look of rather than asking here?</p>

<p>I know there are many astrophysicists that wouldn't have minded a lens (on a camera or a telescope) that actually could focus beyond infinity and get a sharp picture of what was beyond the perceived universe (which technically isn't infinite either, of course).</p>

<p>Well, seriously making a lens able to focus slightly beyond the infinity mark is in one way a good thing as it might compensate for temperature differences and the way the plastics expand and contract. Metal lenses tend to focus almost dead-on the infinity mark - at least the ones I've used.</p>

<p>If you manual focus your lenses, wanting to use infinity focus, it is a pain in the posterior with the extra rotational potential as you can so easily focus too far, making the horizon you want sharp slightly fuzzy.</p>

<p>Oh no! this means all photos taken with the 7D now has to be thrown out and new shots have to be taken using a D90.</p>

<p>To make B&W pop, you should use the channel mixer, set output to monochrome and adjust the levels for individual colour channels - which will more closely mimic the look of chemical B&W film. If you haven't tried that already, I suggest you give it a shot.</p>

<p>If you have the lens, why don't you simply just use it and see for yourself how good it is?</p>

<p>Despite what many people might think, hyperfocal distance is first of all dependent on print magnification as well as sensor resolution (on digital sensors), and so the correct numbers might be different for different users dependent on what kind of print size is their finished product.</p>

<p>There is no such thing as everything in focus - focus is just in a plane, no matter what focal length a lens is, but there is such a thing as everything being acceptably sharp, or sharp enough that you cannot distinguish whether it is in focus or not, and so the best thing to do is to try out different focus points yourself and compare - not just pixel peeping, but actually print at least small test swatches in your usual maximum print size.</p>

 

<p>The best thing would be a camera with built-in ND filters, something that can slide in front of the sensor and not obstruct the viewfinder. How about a filter that adds two stops, the next four, the next eight (more than three might be pushing it?), so they can be combined for cumulative and gradual ND effect of up to 14 stops. Once at it, why not make the IR cutoff and anti-alias filter slidable too for when you don't want them there?</p>

<p>PhotoAcute can in some cases add detail that will not be present in just one picture, but it works better for some cameras and sensors than for others. That said, it is by far the best noise removal software since it can remove all noise without killing a single detail and even adding detail in some cases.</p>

<p>For adding detail, I have found it worked very well with my old Fuji F30 (might be the Fuji SuperCCD), but not so well with my old EOS 350D, and with my present Canon G10 the level of detail that the camera manages to make on its own is so high it adds little resolution-wise, but does wonders for the noise that is already there even on iso100 on the Canon G10, though. So I do use it for landscape photos, night shots and other shots that could easily have been ruined by the G10's excessive noise.</p>

<p>If you really want to add detail, PhotoAcute can only give you a slight increase of 5-10% or so, perhaps even 25-30% texture and fine detail in a best-case scenario (which would be on cameras with poor resolution and lots of noise to start with - so not the place you'd want to start from).</p>

<p>If you really want added detail, stitching is the way to go, and in terms of processing times it isn't necessarily more time consuming either. It does take more time and effort when shooting, though, especially for close subjects.</p>

<p>PhotoAcute lacks batch processing, unlike the Panorama stitching programs I have used, and it generally takes me longer to process with PhotoAcute.</p>

<p>Anyway, it is worth trying to see if it works for you. Also, you'll have very clean shadows after a PhotoAcute processing, and you can add more fill light and increase exposure a lot without getting noise. It's definitely a tool worth having.</p>

<p>If you want instant point and shoot and upload to Facebook pictures, I don't think the picture on the left is in any way unacceptably red. In fact, I prefer it to the photo on the right. I like slightly warm colours rather than pictures that look as if they were taken with a flash. Also, on Facebook, people who see the photo will most likely have uncalibrated displays and the colours will be off in any case.</p>

<p>Anyway, if you guys use something like Lightroom to organise pictures - and I am sure other programs can do the same - it should be possible to batch process the slight adjustment of white balance needed to make the photo on the left look more like the photo on the right.</p>

<p>When I want similar colours as the ones seen in those pictures, in Lightroom, I increase black point a bit, add a bit of exposure, contrast, a tad of fill light if needed, and usually that does the trick if the picture is otherwise well exposed. I find that an increase in contrast and having some more black in the picture tends to help making the colours pop, even without touching the saturation slider.<br>

When doing that with people shots one has to be very careful not to turn anyone's faces red, of course, so white balance has to be fine-tuned so it is spot on.</p>