zhang_wei2

<p>Has anybody compared the image quality of the Panasonic 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom to the Olympus 12mm f/2.0 prime? I wonder how good the Panasonic kit zoom really is. Let us know.</p><div></div>

<p>I had an Olympus E-M5 and some photos were ruined because of shutter shock. I had an Olympus E-M1 too (before the firmware fix) and it suffered badly from shutter shock (and that was without even using the sensor stabilisation). It was a lot worse than the E-M5 and I had to return the camera. It was that bad. I now use an E-M10 and this camera does reasonably well (with or without the new anti shock setting) compared to the other two. I would love to try another E-M1 now, but only the shutter shock issue is solved. Are there any E-M1 owners that want to share their experiences?</p>

<p>I'd go for a secondhand Olympus E-M10 body. Small, lightweight and it has all the bells and whistles you can think of. The camera delivers excellent image quality, because it has a modern sensor and it's fast and responsive. Personally I prefer Olympus over Panasonic in this price range. Everything just looks, feels and works a bit better (not just the in body image stabilization).</p> <p>The slow Panasonic 14-45mm zoom is reasonably versatile in good light and somewhat useable in low light. Image quality is decent (if you have a good copy). I think you'll enjoy having a fast prime in your photo bag too. Such a lens will give you the possibility to isolate your subject a little (unsharp background) and the fast aperture will help you keep the ISO low. Personally, I'd skip the slow focussing Panasonic 20mm. The Panasonic 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 17mm f/1.8 and the Olympus 25mm f/1.8 are better options. </p>

<p>Well, I can say I was very tempted, until I say the hefty price tag. Of course the price will come down quickly and significantly over time. The Panasonic 42.5mm is a big and heavy lens. Makes the Olympus 75mm look compact and lightweight (in fact it is, for a super fast 150mm equivalent).</p> <p>The comparison below helped me to decide that this Panasonic 42.5 lens was not the one for me. Not at this price anyway. Maybe in a year or so, when people have started dumping them on the market. I decided to go for a mint Olympus 75mm f/1.8 instead. It's not directly comparable to the Panasonic, because the focal length is different, but it will do just fine for now. And there's the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 of course. Clearly a lesser performer than both premium lenses, but adequate and it is small and lightweight.<br /> <br />Check this out:<br /> <br /><a href="http://admiringlight.com/blog/fuji-56mm-f1-2-vs-panasonic-leica-42-5mm-f1-2-nocticron/">Clickerdeclick</a></p>

<p>I have the latest firmware on my Sony a7r. Starting the camera up when I haven't used it for a while takes relatively long. First the LCD stays black, then I see the image on the LCD and then, seconds later, the focus box and the other information appears and I can start using the camera. It's slow, but only the first time. For me it's not a problem at all, since I work slow and relaxed with the a7r. Just like I did in the past with my Pentacon Six, Yashica 124G, Mamiya C330, Hasseblad 500cm, Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya RZ67. I don't need to quickly turn the camera on to grab a photo. However, I can imagine that it is a problem for some people. I doubt Sony has a solution for it. Maybe in a future firmware update.</p>

<p>This is an old thread, but I think I have some tips about how to fabricate a large softbox to mimic the light coming from a big north facing window. You can construct a nice durable and rigid frame from square 20mm aluminium profile and nylon or metal connectors. There are several systems and often a lot of accessories are available like wheels, foot plates and hinges. People use them to build bird cages and about anything else you can imagine.<br> If the ceiling of our (home) studio is not too high, you can hang a big piece of translucent material from the ceiling and shine a strobe head through it. If you build some sort of top frame you can cover the sides and back with black and white material too. It will be a bit like a hanging Lastolite HiLite. Of course you can buy one of those ready HiLite thingies, but they are expensive.</p>

<p>The a7r is compact and lightweight and with a good lens it resolves more fine detail then a D800. It has an articulating LCD and it's cheaper too. Both are excellent cameras.</p><div></div>

<p>I think there's one thing you should always keep in mind, no matter what producers or fans of X or Y say. A bigger sensor gives better overall image quality. I'm talking about <strong>RAW</strong> image quality, not the in-camera <strong>processed</strong> JPG files. I'm convinced the base RAW files should be good. You can always later process photos the way you like on your own computer.</p> <p>You can compare the RAW output from cameras here at the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_df&attr13_1=fujifilm_xt1&attr13_2=nikon_d7100&attr13_3=nikon_d610&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&normalization=full&widget=46&x=-0.22052096388647544&y=-0.6122634176323558">dpreview</a> website. Take a good look, pick the cameras you are interested in, try higher ISO settings and draw your own conclusions.</p> <p>Another important question is; what level of quality do you actually need for your photography? How big do you want to be able print or publish? Do you often need the higher ISO settings of your camera? What is acceptable image quality for you or your clients?</p> <p>How important is the smaller size and lower weight of the camera system for you? If it's your number one concern, then you should pick a smaller sensor (equals smaller camera and lenses). Micro Four Thirds is a good system. APSC not so much, because the lenses for that sensor are relatively big and heavy. If image quality is most important, a medium format camera of course is the best, but a smaller full frame sensor could be a good starting point for you.</p>

<p>I think this is a very nice wide angle. If you set it at f/5.6 - 8 you get great performance for your money. You get about the same performance as the 16-35mm f/4. Maybe a little less contrasty. Sharpness, vignetting, contrast and CA are fine. Better then the D version. Zooming is smooth, autofocus is silent, accurate and reasonably fast. The focal lengths are evenly spaced on the zoom ring too. I wouldn't want to carry the large AF-S16-35mm all day (or spend that much money on it), but this AF-S 18-35mm feels just right on a D610. Combined with a 70-300mm and a fast prime it makes a nice kit.</p>