paul_verwer

Hi William,

Returning to the original subject...

> £500 lens that is useless at small apertures.

>(how come my old Zuiko primes were pin sharp across the aperture range? My 135 F3.5 was sharp at f22 and that cost £20)

Your old Zuiko primes (and all my Zuiko primes as well!) are not really pin sharp up to f/22: at f/16 or so resolution starts visibly going down due to diffraction. As a result of physics, not lens quality. On a small sensor, this effect becomes obvious at larger apertures compared to using 24x36mm: 50 lines/mm means 1200x1800 lines resolution for film. It means 650x900 on a 4/3 sensor, simply because the sensor is so much smaller. So you need about twice the resolution in lines/mm on a 4/3 sensor to get the same sharpness in the final picture. It also means that diffraction is limiting the sharpness of the final picture much earlier.

> How am I supposed to get long exposures? Invest in a range of neutral density filters because a £500 semi-pro lens is rubbish closed down.

Yes, an ND filter would help. You already set the iso to its lowest value, so there is no room in that area. But before buying the filters, I would check if the results are indeed better if you set the aperture to f/8 or 5.6 or so.

If you want hard numbers on the maximum resolution you can get depending on aperture and sensor/film size, look at table 3 on the following web page: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

As you can see there, Patrick's comment that "f/11 on a 4/3's "normal" range lens will basically be similar to f/22 on a 135 film normal lens" is true, when the detail that can be captured is concerned (I suppose he was referring to that, and not the amount of light reaching the film).

Hope this helps,

Paul.

Hi William, You probably already took this into consideration, but anyway... Could it just be the small aperture? I notice the picture you have shown is taken at f/11, which is great for 35mm, but not so great for a 4/3 sensor, due to diffraction. Or is sharpness disappointing at any f value?

Paul.

There is a compatibility list on the Panasonic web site: http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/connect/l1k.html. It lists the fl36 and fl50 as compatible.

Paul.

For those of you still checking this thread: after giving it another week of thinking, i ordered one, which I received yesterday.

Paul

Thanks for all your replies, I found them very useful!

Paul

I have been using an OM-2n for years, which I like a lot because of its easy

control over exposure, its small size, and the excellent zuiko optics. But I

find myself scanning most of the slides I make anyway, so I have been looking

for a digital camera offering a similar level of control and quality for some time.

The L1 seems to offer most of the things I am looking for, and prices have

dropped spectacularly recently, but apart from its nice features (such as simple

control over shutter speed and aperture), it also received some criticism regarding:

1. the small, dim viewfinder

2. the ergonomics (in particular the shutter release button)

3. noise at higher iso values.

In particular the first point worries me; according to some the viewfinder makes

manual focusing almost impossible. On the other hand, the photos shown here on

the list taken with this camera (e.g by Godfrey) look magnificent.

Does anyone have an opinion on this camera, e.g. compared to a more recent

camera like the Oly 510, which is still less expensive than the L1, including

the 14-14 and 40-150 mm kit zoom? Is the L1 viewfinder really that bad? Or is

the Leica/panasonic 14-50 mm by itself already worth the 700 euro they are

currently asking?

Paul.

Matthew, Ron,

I had the same problem with my 50mm 1.4, and did not want to take it all apart, especially because the diaphragm was only slow on return. However, after reading Ron's hint I did take the lens mount off, and cleaned the ring. Indeed, this solved the issue with just a few minutes of work!