Moved from Canon 5DMkII to GH2

Welcome. Looking forward to see some of your pictures.

Sf

 

Well that makes me a happy camper today!
OP

 

I did the same thing. I won't deny my 5D2 has better IQ, but it's WAY too small a difference to justify carrying. I used to carry a 5D, 17-40, 24-70, and 100-400 around most days out. Add a 100/2.8, MT-24EX, and tubes onto that if I wanted to do macro. It took my ThinkTank UD40 bag to even handle that kit, and the bag alone was almost 3lbs. Carrying an 14lbs bag on my shoulder was not worth the IQ. And don't even get me started about the 300/2.8!  

These days I can actually pack a comparable M43 kit into a winter coat. Perhaps I should break out the old photo vest this summer to complete the retro photog look.

I've still got my 5D2, but it has been relegated to chasing my daughter around the house with my 24-70 and 580EX. I'm still waiting on that M43 14-35/1.4.  

 

Great shot. I do like pictures of big structures, and this is particular nice. I think it should also be in our https://www.mu-43.com/f56/show-your-bridges-8083/ thread.

Sf

 

I am holding onto my 5dm2 and d700 for now. I have taken the G2 and recently the G3 by themselves on several trips and the convenience is nice (I have the 7-14 and 14-140). But I like to shoot wide and the distortion on the micro 4/3 lenses are terrible and the battery life and the shutter lag is not that great either. In low light the micro 4/3 are catching up but they need some faster and more choice of lenses (I am using the Oly 17 and 45) In great light the difference is negligible but its no substitute especially if you are using a tripod or you want minimal depth of field. I just recently got the G3 and the bigger sensor is great but I like the controls on the G2 better. I think I should have gotten the GH2 instead.

 

I can imagine you say that for the 14-140. How do you think about the 7-14? Personally I can see distortion, barrel/moustache at 7mm and cushion on 14mm and next to nothing on ~10mm, but altogether I think it's not that bad. When needed I correct distortion with a very old PTLens plugin in Photoshop.

 

Actually I can live with the distortion on the 7-14, I was surprised by the amount of distortion on the Oly 17 and the 14-140. That said I probably should start using the available lens correction plugins that are available.

 

The 17 I can understand. But the 14-140 has less distortion than any of the other superzooms I've used. The 14-45 is quite a bit better at 14mm though.

Of course this presupposes you're using a supported RAW converter that applies the corrections specified in the m4/3 standard.

DH

 

John, I highly recommend making use of distortion-corrected RAWs. I don't know what processor you use, but Lightroom does it automatically, and I know some others do too.

The distortion on some M43 lenses is pretty offensive if left untouched, but the good news is that the automatic correction does a really good job straightening things out.

For overall output my Oly (micro) 9-18 measures up very well against my old Canon 17-40, Tokina 12-24, and Olympus 21/3.5. Distortion and sharpness are very similar, and the 9-18's wide aperture corners are much better than any of the full frame lenses.

I put my money where my mouth is some time ago for UWA--my 9-18 is my only UWA lens now. It was a bitter pill to swallow to "downgrade" from UWA on my 5D2 to my M43 cameras. The 5D2 was a camera born for landscapes if there ever was one. But I can still get good 24x36's with my M43 kit. I don't print larger than that, so anything beyond that is pixel peeping for me.

But yeah, you gotta kill that distortion. Straight OOTC you might confuse some of the lenses for a fisheye crop!