1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

GX7 - 35mm equivalent in Aperture

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by redcapestudio, Nov 29, 2013.

  1. redcapestudio

    redcapestudio Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Sep 1, 2011
    Los Angeles
    Robert
    I recently purchased a gx7 with the 20mm II lens. I have been shooting with the 20mm II and the 45mm macro. The 35mm equivalent EXIF info for both lenses is incorrect in Aperture. I previously had a GH2 and the listed 35mm equivalent was always correct with both the 20mm (version I) and 45mm macro.

    The Panasonic 45mm macro shows a 35mm equivalent of 132.0mm in Aperture.
    The Panasonic 20mm initially showed a 35mm equivalent of 41mm and is now showing 58mm in Aperture.

    Does anyone know why this might be happening?. It seems very odd and all the more so that the same 20mm II lens has given me two different 35mm equivalents on the same camera body. Has anyone else experienced this?

    Thanks for your help.

    -Robert
     
  2. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    I've never seen this, but you could try rebuilding your Aperture database. When Aperture is not running, click and hold on the database icon. A pop-up menu will give you several choices including rebuilding.

    Fred
     
  3. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    Typical apple quality control.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    no need for that zapatista....not helpful

    K
     
  5. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    Is your Aperture and OS X Camera Raw fully up to date?
     
  6. redcapestudio

    redcapestudio Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Sep 1, 2011
    Los Angeles
    Robert
    I'll double check that everything is up to date. I also need to check the exif data in another piece of software. This should help determine if the problem is with Aperture or the camera?

    Thanks, Robert
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. zapatista

    zapatista Mu-43 Top Veteran

    668
    Mar 19, 2012
    Denver, Colorado, USA
    Mike
    Pot, let me see if I can get a good HDR shot of that kettle. :drinks:
     
  8. redcapestudio

    redcapestudio Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Sep 1, 2011
    Los Angeles
    Robert
    Hi,

    I've checked my software and everything is up to date. I checked the exif data of a photo pulled directly off the card (not imported through Aperture). I used a few different pieces of software and they all presented the 35mm equivalent as 58mm.

    Can someone check their photos (GX7 with 20mm II) and let me know if their exif data is correct showing 40mm as the 35mm equivalent?

    It appears that the camera is including the incorrect data.

    Thanks, Robert
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Duncan

    Duncan Mu-43 Regular

    110
    Oct 31, 2013
    Just took a quick JPEG with the Panasonic 20mm II lens on my GX7 and looked at it in Windows Photo Viewer. It correctly reports the 35 mm equivalent to be 40mm.
     
  10. redcapestudio

    redcapestudio Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Sep 1, 2011
    Los Angeles
    Robert
    Hi Duncan,

    Which camera and lens firmware do you have?

    Thanks, rob
     
  11. Chazzz

    Chazzz Mu-43 Regular

    115
    Sep 2, 2010
    Washington State
    I've looked back through my photos in Aperture… My GF1, GX1 and GX7 + 20mm (first version) all report 41mm.

    The GX7 (firmware v1.1) + 12-35 f/2.8 (firmware v1.2) - in Aperture - reports the following:
    12mm => 24mm (@ 35mm equivalent)
    25mm => 51mm
    35mm => 72mm

    So, to see if Aperture was the culprit, I did the following: instead of shooting RAW and importing to Aperture, I just shot JPEG then checked 35mm equivalents in both Aperture and Preview. But when checking in Preview, I opened the images directly from the SD card. Preview's Info (Command + I) reports the same things: 12 => 24, 25 => 51 and 35 => 72…
     
  12. Duncan

    Duncan Mu-43 Regular

    110
    Oct 31, 2013
    I used the GX7 with firmware 1.2.
     
  13. redcapestudio

    redcapestudio Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Sep 1, 2011
    Los Angeles
    Robert
    Hi Chazz,

    Are you going to upgrade your gx7 firmware to 1.2? If you do I'd like to know if the 35mm equivalent numbers change.

    Thanks, Robert
     
  14. Chazzz

    Chazzz Mu-43 Regular

    115
    Sep 2, 2010
    Washington State
    SO: I updated my GX7 to firmware v1.2 and took test shots with three different lenses, all with up-to-date firmware versions. I shot only JPEGs and looked at the EXIF info directly from the SD card using Preview on OS X. Results are as follows:

    20mm f/1.7 (v1.1)
    20mm => 41mm​

    12-35mm f/2.8 (v1.2)
    12mm => 24mm
    25mm => 51mm
    35mm => 72mm​

    14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 (v1.2)
    14mm => 29mm
    25mm => 51mm
    35mm => 72mm
    45mm => 93mm​

    Nothing changed with the latest GX7 firmware, but I didn't really expect it to. And as you can see, only 12mm reports an exact 2x 35mm equivalent @ 24mm.

    (Technically, I own the 45-200mm lens, but a friend of mine several states away has been borrowing (??) that for over a year, so I couldn't test that lens.)

    That's all I got.
     
  15. redcapestudio

    redcapestudio Mu-43 Rookie

    24
    Sep 1, 2011
    Los Angeles
    Robert
    This weekend I discovered why I was having the problem with the 35mm equivalent. The teleconverter function was turned on and this was providing the file with a different 35mm number. With teleconverter turned off my 20mm files now give an equivalent of 41mm and my 45mm gives an equivalent of 93mm. I don't know why this minor difference is still there but at least it matches what others have said.

    Thanks for you help, Robert
     
  16. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    good catch on the teleconvertor thing.... good to know

    as for the minor discrepancies on the 35mm equivalents.... think that lens manufacturers round up the actual focal length of lens to round numbers for marketing purposes

    though the forthcoming panaleica nocticron does buck this trend being labeled a 42.5mm lens :)

    K
     
  17. Duncan

    Duncan Mu-43 Regular

    110
    Oct 31, 2013
    I think they did that so that the 35mm equivalent would be 85mm, which is a classic focal length. Sounds better than an 84 or 86mm equivalent lens.