The GF2 and 14-42mm is my standard cycling outfit. What is the "1/160 & 1/200
shutter speed issue"? Never heard of it.
All the pictures from Tabarca last week, except a couple of the cat ones at the
end, were taken with this combo.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/
YNWA
On Mar 18, 2013, at 7:15 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 3/17/2013 7:23 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> Paying close attention here. Hmmm, that is interesting. Even the central
>> portion of the image at the long end of the
>> Panny 14-42 X is reported to be slightly less sharp than the wide end, but
>> may still be better than the compact cam
>> competitors. As you say it is the only game in town for MFT.
>
> I think you may be picking at nits. SLRgear rates it as a better performer
> than the other three 14-4x zooms available
> for µ4/3 and concludes:
>
> "If you can look past the 1/160 & 1/200 shutter speed issue, the lens offers
> excellent performance, and provides a very
> small package in the process."
>
> And one can indeed look past the shutter shake problem on the Oly bodies, as
> there is a solution. (Read on.)
>
> This is just the opposite of the careful tests to which you've posted links.
> On two consecutive days, as I walked out of
> the house, camera in hand, I turned and took shots of the same camellia
> blossom. I had no agenda to do any comparative
> testing. The first shot was the first photogenic thing I saw and was my first
> shot with E-PM1 and Panny 14-42 X.
>
> Slightly different times of day, different light, different angle, both
> rather casually hand held. But, by some chance,
> the first is at 42 mm, and the dreaded 1/200 sec., the second at 14 mm, 1/80
> sec., both with 1/8 sec. anti-shock shutter
> delay and at ISO 200 and f8.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Panasonic_14-42X/_3150001-4.htm>
>
> I'm pretty sure both were focused on the same spot, but it was just hand held
> AF. All the caveats aside, the 42 mm image
> is simply sharper, showing more detail.
>
> Doesn't prove much, except perhaps that in the kind of use I anticipate, and
> I imagine you and Marnie would anticipate
> for this combo, there isn't a practical difference between long and short end
> and it's a very good lens.
>
>> Horsin' around in a few weeks. Still procrastinating, Mike
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|