David babsky on Steve Huffs blog 'bout the Panasonic GF1, the GF2, the Leica's, and why Leica has to put a sticker on the new GF2 Fun to read (I mean that I enjoyed reading it) “Leica M9.5″ – The Small But Excellent Panasonic GF1 by David Babsky | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS
eh... A lot of what was written is pointing out the obvious and not particular to Leica but to all manual lenses. Things Specific to using the gf1 as a secondary to the M9 were glazed over lightly..... Those are the topics that would be interesting. As a leica shooter with an EPL1 as a second or third camera, I was a little disappointed and ended up skimming. Also, what's with the very first photo? The goggled 135mm f2.8 on the M9 is THE largest and heaviest M lens made.. basically a modified 135mm lens from the R system. It's not a popular lens because of it's size. If you took the 12mm Heliar photo taken with the M9 and cropped it down to the 24mm (or even wider), you'd crop out the magenta corners and end up with roughly the same data size to work with in post. Even better, simple fix it in post. At those wide focal lengths, you need optics designed for digital; sending the light rays into the sensor at less of an angle. 12mm Heliar is still designed for film....which is more forgiving.
Some interesting claims. I had the CV 21mm on my E-P1, but both the Olympus 17mm and Panasonic 20mm lenses are sharper. The CV 21mm is a nice lens, but it is not performing better than the other two. As far as the question about the discrepancy of the angle of cropped 35mm wide-angle lenses and there focal length, that has a simple answer. A single focal length does not really describe a lens with a rectilinear projection--magnification increases as you move away from the optical axis and, since focal length and magnification are two sides of the same coin, focal length cannot describe the image across the image plane. So with very wide-angle lenses, manufacturers have a target angle of view. The target AoV is related to the extreme edges of the frame, but will most likely not be proportional as you crop in. So these lenses can have a greater angle of view on a m4/3 camera than simply halving the focal length would suggest. The CV 12mm is a case in point, it is closer to a 21mm lens than a 24mm which is why there are so many photographer recommending the CV 21mm viewfinder for it over a 24/25mm viewfinder.
That is very interesting, thanks for posting the info. I have noticed field-of-view discrepancies among my various 50mm-ish lenses on my m4/3rds body too but I suspect there's a different mechanism in play there.
