Are you not entertained? David Thorpe has the right idea...

scb

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
115
Location
North Ridgeville, OH
Real Name
Steve
I've enjoyed watching quite a few of David Thorpe's videos. With his experience dating back to the age of film, I think many of us can learn quite a bit by watching his videos. With today's technology and the fact that it keeps evolving so quickly, it's very easy for photographers to be over pre-occupied with the technology and fail to spend enough time with composition, lighting, etc. As is said frequently, every camera on the market is capable of capturing fantastic images if the person behind it has the necessary abilities. Likewise, anyone can create a crappy image with the most expensive lens or camera body.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
1,838
Location
Charente Maritime, western France
Real Name
Roddy
Well that is a pretty vague statement with no other explanation to go with it. What does "better performer" mean to Dave?

I wouldn't dismiss any lens based on one person's vague statement. I used the 12-35/2.8 for years and was very happy with it. I never used the 12-32 but I can not imagine how it would be better. Maybe it could equal it at 12mm, but Dave didn't say "as good" he said "better". Without something more I am going to say "doubtful".
Obviously by 'better' he means it takes better photographs. That's why it intrigued me. I might try and drop him a line and see if he can elucidate a little.
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,656
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
All the laboratory testing, all the in hand testing, is irrelevant in the face of an element of serendipity that is present in each and every image taken.

Better gear and better technique and knowledge improve one's competence, but do not influence any given shutter press. They do gradually improve one's chance of hitting that magic moment.

The ability to press that button once, then go home, is an extreme rarity, no matter what.

Bruce Postle had it (using only film ... ). Most of the rest of us struggle, to one degree or another.

If photography were simple, most of us wouldn't bother with it!
 
Last edited:

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,441
All the laboratory testing, all the in hand testing, is irrelevant in the face of an element of serendipity that is present in each and every image taken.

Better gear and better technique and knowledge improve one's competence, but do not influence any given shutter press. They do gradually improve one's chance of hitting that magic moment.

The ability to press that button once, then go home, is an extreme rarity, no matter what.

Bruce Postle had it (using only film ... ). Most of the rest of us struggle, to one degree or another.

If photography were simple, most of us wouldn't bother with it!
Nail, meet hammer :)
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,656
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Thank you. @speedy

If only one more person understands the significance of this, it is important.

Bruce delivered his book to me after I bought at copy direct from him. It features many of his iconic shots. I asked how many shots it took to get 'that one' about quite a number of them. He replied "Just one". Lovely man.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,134
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Obviously by 'better' he means it takes better photographs. That's why it intrigued me. I might try and drop him a line and see if he can elucidate a little.

Even if he meant better photographs, better how? There is no one parameter that defines the quality of a photo and "better" can mean different things to different people. Sharpness, color rendering, contrast, center to edge variations, distortion, pin cushioning, curvature, bokeh, etc. Hard to tell what exactly he means. Heck to him "better performer" could simply mean he just prefers the ones from the 12-32 with no qualifier of why.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,674
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
IMHO if the current gear is not good enough for you to produce museum quality images or Indy Movies, you probably need a new hobby or profession:)
Well, I know what you mean and agree up to a point. However, something that happened to me makes me hesitate somewhat.

We have a rare "folk art" painting at a small museum that I volunteer at. The painting is about 24" x 18", if I remember correctly. A big museum found out about it and wanted a high-quality image of it. I talked to them and when I said I would be photographing it (with a Canon 80D - 24MP) they were kind of unhappy. So I was kind of scratching my head wondering what the hell they expected that I would do. I then talked to the director of our museum and she said that the big museum had large table-sized scanners that could do such a thing and produce really large images. That's what they wanted! (they couldn't scan the painting themselves because it is pretty fragile and we didn't want it to be moved). This was only about 2 years ago.

OK, fast-forward to today and yes, I could use high-res mode on my E-M5.3 and give them the kind of results they are wanting (probably not telling them how I did it!). And people wonder why I am so interested in hi-res mode - this kind of thing comes up some times!

So forgetting about hi-res mode for a second, even today you'd have to spend some big bucks for a camera that would produce what they wanted.

But I agree with you generally - what we have right now is very good and mosst folks have more than enough imaging power to get the job done (except, um, I'd really like a 24 or 30MP E-M5 or E-M1, with hi-res of course!!).
 

D7k1

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
2,770
OK, fast-forward to today and yes, I could use high-res mode on my E-M5.3 and give them the kind of results they are wanting (probably not telling them how I did it!). And people wonder why I am so interested in hi-res mode - this kind of thing comes up some times!

And they would have never known that you didn't use a "better" camera. I've been amazed by my G9's highres settings (type II has that feature is like the Adobe "remove ghosts" setting) and I don't think they could have guessed what camera you used (with the right lens of course). We have so much capability in our current gear that goes unused. Heck I'd given one from your camera and let them check it against their scanner:)
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
396
Location
New Jersey
Real Name
Mike Peters
I'm intrigued by one of David's comments in his replies on another post on that blog. In it he states:

"With modern Micro Four Thirds lenses, the difference in build quality remains but sharpness is not different. The 12-32mm Panasonic at 12mm is a better performer than the 12-35mm f/2.8."

I can put my lust for that 2.8 lens on the back burner, I guess!

[edit: the link above does not take you to the comment direct, you have to scroll down. sorry!]

And then you have sample variation. And here you also have different lenses built for different use scenarios. I'm sure if you looked at the distortion of the 12-32 compared to the 12-35 you would see the tables tilted more to the latter. Horses for courses.
 

b_rubenstein

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
1,506
Location
Melbourne, FL
Yeah, the 12-32 is such a great lens when its zoom ring falls off. I had one of them, and there was nothing particularly great about it.
 

Biro

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
1,888
Location
Jersey Shore
Real Name
Steve
My problem is not that I'm chasing photographic nirvana or using gear to make up for my deficiencies as a photographer. I just love different types of cameras, lenses and gear. As a result, I have been running three systems for many years.

At first, it was Pentax. Then, I jumped into Micro four-thirds from the start. I ran those two for a number of years and then replaced Pentax with Fuji... and then added Sony full-frame.

In all cases, I purchased a single camera body and a lens or two... and then slowly added more gear over the years - usually on sale or closeout. Although since about 2016, those sales and closeouts have become quite rare.

Now with retirement only a few years away and relocation very possible, I need to pare down my collection of stuff. Not because I don't like it anymore - I just won't have the room. But deciding what stays and what goes is difficult.
 

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,841
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
Yeah, the 12-32 is such a great lens when its zoom ring falls off. I had one of them, and there was nothing particularly great about it.
The thing that's particularly great about it is that it's tiny. And that that doesn't automatically mean it's terrible. That's it (but why do we keep asking for more than that?).
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,134
Location
Massachusetts, USA
And that that doesn't automatically mean it's terrible.

Well no one said it was terrible (@agentlossing 's beef is of course with the build quality rather than photo quality).

What was stated above and some of us are discussing is that a person did claim it was a "better performer" at 12mm than the 12-35/2.8 which some of us (well me anyway) find a little hard to believe. That doesn't in anyway imply the 12-32 is terrible.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,674
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I have a theory about why the ring falls off. I don't use the lens very often, but when I do, I can never remember which direction to turn the zoom ring to deploy the lens (get it expanded to be used, like with the m43 9-18). My theory is that if you repeatedly turn it the wrong way you gradually cause damage to it, especially considering that it takes a little effort to turn it to get it to come out even when you do know the correct direction. So I always try to very gingerly twist it on my first guess (50/50 chance, like with a micro-USB plug - usually I get 75% wrong! ;) ).
 

Biro

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
1,888
Location
Jersey Shore
Real Name
Steve
I read a number of yerars ago that the 12-32s that came as a part of camera kits had plastic mounts while the ones you could buy separately had metal mounts. I'm wondering if that's true - and whether there were other assembly quality issues with the kit versions. That could explain some of the problems that have been experienced.
 

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,841
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
Well no one said it was terrible (@agentlossing 's beef is of course with the build quality rather than photo quality).

What was stated above and some of us are discussing is that a person did claim it was a "better performer" at 12mm than the 12-35/2.8 which some of us (well me anyway) find a little hard to believe. That doesn't in anyway imply the 12-32 is terrible.
Sorry, I meant that "It is tiny - yet not automatically terrible for that reason." Poor wording on my part.
 

Darmok N Jalad

Temba, his aperture wide
Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
1,475
Location
Tanagra (not really)
I have the metal mount version of the 12-32. It seems very solidly built. When I started off the the GX85, I can only vaguely recall the quality of the 12-32 kit it came with. When I got the metal mount version, I remember thinking that it felt better quality than I remember. I dunno.
 

Replytoken

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
3,781
Location
Puget Sound
Real Name
Ken
I read a number of yerars ago that the 12-32s that came as a part of camera kits had plastic mounts while the ones you could buy separately had metal mounts. I'm wondering if that's true - and whether there were other assembly quality issues with the kit versions. That could explain some of the problems that have been experienced.
I have two 12-32's and both came in kits. The black one that came with my GX85 has a plastic mount and the silver one that came with my GF7 has a metal mount.

--Ken
 

Replytoken

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
3,781
Location
Puget Sound
Real Name
Ken
I used to shoot all of my personal work with MF film cameras, both Rollei's and Hasselblad's until 2013. I did a direct comparison between my Hasselblad and 80mm lens and my GH3 and 20mm lens. It was NO CONTEST, the GH3 and 20mm lens combo blew the film images right out of the water in terms of sharpness, grain, clarity and well, everything. I made prints on an Epson 7900 that were 24 inches square, and the difference was as clear as day. At the time, I was using an Imacon scanner for all of my film, so the scan was not the problem. It was very apparent from my tests that shooting m4/3 with good lenses wide open, or close to it, would render a very similar look at shooting medium format lenses at their best shooting apertures, or apertures dictated by the limitations of their top shutter speeds. Except that the m4/3 images would have no grain, and with the lenses as good as they are, better sharpness and clarity too.

Same spot, different cameras...

View attachment 871996

View attachment 871997
Great shots, and I like the look of both images. I guess that I appreciate good film-based prints as much as good digital prints. It is not unlike a good analog recording on an album and a good digital recording file. They are different mediums and they reflect the properties of those mediums. Having said that, I do not have any interest in going back to film as I find I produce better images from digital bodies and a digital workflow.

--Ken
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom