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

Panasonic wide angle adapter vs Olympus 9mm Fisheye Body Cap

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by davidzvi, Dec 5, 2014.

  1. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Panasonic DMW-GWC1 Wide Angle Conversion Lens vs Olympus 9mm f/8.0 Fisheye Body Cap

    I think both would do the job I'm looking to do, something wide for casual travel landscapes. They're also both right around the same price ($100 - $120). And the reviews seem to be about the same, good for non pixel peepers and better than you might think. Right now I'm leaning toward the converter. At 11mm it's about the same as the body cap de-fished, it can auto focus and will just attach to the 14mm Panasonic I have and use most often.

    Thoughts? Anyone do a direct compare? Anyone have a converter for sale in the US? :wink:
     
  2. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Hi,

    Advantages of the BCL:
    1. (much) wider angle. de-fishing is not needed for many landscapes, etc.

    2. small enough that it's always in my TT MM10 bag (in a side pocket).

    Disadvantages:
    1. F/8 only

    2. Manual Focus (but see below)

    Other comments:
    1. the BCL doesn't need a lot of focusing; the middle setting is fine unless you've got something close in the foreground (e.g. people) at which point you focus manually.

    2. if you've got IBIS (like in your E-M1), you'll have to set the Focal Length to 9mm for the BCL. You can leave it at 9mm if you have no other manual lenses.
    However, you won't be able to get this right with a conversion lens; the camera will set it to 14mm for the Pana lens, and I don't think you can override it.

    3. the 9mm has good image quality (I don't know how it compares to the 14mm+conv though)


    Sample Pic from the 9mm BCL, straightened a few degrees and colors adjusted (grass was yellowing), but not de-fished:
    E6073399-2-shrunk.

    Barry
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Thanks for the info, actually the E-M1 is gone and the E-P5 is for sale. Decided I didn't need the advanced features for what I use this setup for, so I have an E-M10. If there is something I think I can't handle with that I can always pull out one of Nikon bodies.
     
  4. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    I've got the 9mm BC but not the converter. Though I did follow a number of threads on that converter and others awhile back.

    The BC is surprisingly good for what it is. If you do get it be aware that turning on lateral CA correction in your RAW converter will improve the corners from awful to sort of ugly - it has a lot of CA but fortunately that is easily corrected. The BC will be smaller and lighter than the converter.

    It has been awhile since looking into the converters but my impression was that if you were doing landscapes where you often care about edge sharpness to that the converter is going to perform better at the edges. There were a few threads at DPR awhile back comparing the Panasonic and a variety of other converters. The Panasonic when attached to the 14/2.5 it is meant to be used on did quite well as I recall.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi

    well I don't have the body cap but the basic maths will tell you that its
    1) a Diffraction Limited system (meaning that its never going to give the clarity that a lens will)
    2) limited to f8 therefore: ok in full sunlight, complete crap in a dimly lit (say cathedral) interior. Something like the image below would be more or less impossible

    4240751130_f5288ce0a6_z.

    3) you don't need to change lenses (if that means anything to you ...) just add on the adapter which you can then pop back into a pocket ...

    IFF you already have the 14mm then its a no brainer ... get the GWC-1 .. its fantastic for the money.

    I used to use the Olympus 9-18mm (the 43rds one as I started using it on an adapter well before there was a native m43 option). After I bought the GWC1 I was so please I sold the 9-18 and never looked back

    well that's those boxes ticked ...

    Here is the angle of view differences between 9mm - Adapted 14mm - 14mm

    9-12-14.

    If you buy one, get it from a lad that sells on eBay from Japan. The one he sent me had a lens cap and the one I've bought earlier (and all the ones I've ever seen) have no lens cap.

    from my blog
    http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2013/10/panasonic-079-wide-adaptor-on-14mm.html
    http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2013/10/panasonic-079-adapter-on-camera.html
    and this post shows the new cap
    http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2014/12/thank-you-panasonic.html

    The eBay seller I used is this guy

    Having lived in Japan for some years I find them one of the most trustworthy peoples to do business with.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Hi, is that 9mm rectilinear or 9mm FE?

    Barry
     
  7. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    I don't know .. all I know is that as I said its the 9-18mm 43rds zoom ... if you went to the blog post you'd see this image of it on the adapter

    14+9-18adapted.

    I hope that narrows down which it is for you
     
  8. bikerhiker

    bikerhiker Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 24, 2013
    Canada
    David
    I own both -- Similar to GWC-1, I used a Nikon WA converter with both my 17 f/1.8 and 14/2.5. A converter is sharper than the body cap, but I also like the fisheye effect of the body cap for landscapes. If I hike, I carry the body cap with my 14-54 and 70-300. This way, I'm covered all the way from Fisheye UWA to super telephoto. If I plan to do night scapes, then I use the converter because it's a f/2.5 lens. For me, it was dead easy. I already had the Nikon WA converter, so I just had to add the 46mm adapter ring to it. If you search the forum here for alternative converters, you'll see that you can fashion other WA converter to work with the 14 f/2.5 and get 11mm. It's cheaper plus mine has a 77mm filter ring for polarizer or Grad ND which the GWC-1 can not accommodate. That was the deal breaker for me. Hope this helps.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    Rectilinear then, thanks.

    The 9mm FE BCL would be substantially wider.

    Barry
     
  10. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    No worries ... out of interest is there a 9-18 43rds zoom FE?
     
  11. barry13

    barry13 Super Moderator; Photon Wrangler

    Mar 7, 2014
    Southern California
    Barry
    I'm not aware of any fisheye zooms for 4/3 or mu43.

    I think I saw a Canon once.

    Barry
     
  12. listers_nz

    listers_nz Mu-43 Veteran

    256
    Nov 22, 2013
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Simon
  13. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Have you tried the converter on an Olympus body or only the Panasonic ones in your blog posts?
     
  14. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    What difference would that make? Both have the same sensor (micro 43), they are not really different cameras such as EOS vs Panasonic would be. if anything my tests on a GH1 will reveal more about the image quality at the edges because the GH1 has a slightly wider sensor area than the Olympus cameras

    http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2011/03/gh1-formats-and-raw-pixels.html

    But when I have tested legacy lenses between the GH1 and the OM-D I have found the only difference to be the in camera processing

    http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2014/05/generations-gh1-vs-e-m5.html

    I present the data for lens tests using draw to convert the image without the in camera processing. One such reason for that is that the camera can not know that the GWC is attached to the 14mm, and so it can not use its lens correction database for that. As such even IFF the Oly camera had a different algorithm for producing corrected JPG images for the Pana 14mm it could NOT have that for the combo of the 14mm and GWC.

    PTLens does however do corrections for the combo as it was me who submitted the test images to the developer.

    My findings of the various posts comparing the various add on wide adapters for the 14mm shows that the Panasonic purpose built one does a better job ... hardly surprising when you think about it.

    I'm also about to do a post on putting a 58mm polariser filter onto the GWC adapter as while it isn't threaded it will fit :)

    PS: as bikerhiker identified if you *already have* a Nikon or other adapter floating around you can put it onto your existing 14mm and get 80% of the benefits of a GWC with no cost. But if you are going to buy something you will have to fart around with adapting it and to save yourself what? $50 over the GWC?
     
  15. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    I do have Nikon stuff but not a adapter, other than m4/3 to Nikon lens mount.

    The only difference it might make is that some Panasonic and Olympus lenses produce better results (at least JPeg files) on their respective bodies. This because some if the inherent lens issues are corrected in camera. Since this is a Panasonic adapter made specifically for use on 2 lenses I could see where the in camera processing could have an impact.
     
  16. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    also, don't just take my word for it, this guy
    http://www.drawnwithlight.com/information
    seems to have one that he is also willing to use:
    http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52814785
     
  17. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi

    as I mentioned above:
    I've not heard of anyone saying the Panasonic 14mm performs observably differently on Panasonic bodies VS Olympus bodies ... have you? Also having just discounted the possibility of in camera corrections I think it'll be equal on both bodies..

    except there is no in camera processing for the adapter available on any body... the camera just doesn't know its there ... there is no electronic connection between the lens and the adapter lens, so if you were worried about squeezing out every last bit of CA and fixing the optical distortions as I said, try PT lens ... but either way its going to be streets ahead of the BodyCap lens for all the originally stated reasons.

    ultimately its your choice ...
     
  18. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    While I understand the camera might not know that the adapter is on I also have absolutely no clue what algorithms the processing engine uses to detect that kind of stuff. Is the image evaluated in some way or does it simply say "oh it's this lens run this process". Nope no idea at all.

    But your links have been great, I think I saw the picture of the bridge with the 14mm and converter in my search for info.
     
  19. D7k1

    D7k1 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    690
    Nov 18, 2013
    I just used the GWC1 on an extended trip with the 14 Pany, every image I've submitted to microstock agencies have been accepted. With its recent price drop, if you own a 14mm it gives you a 21 & 28mm f2.5 lens which is very useful in travel IMHO. I actually just leave it on my 14mm now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Hi

    ahh, I understand ... well its nothing sophisticated, the lens CPU reports to the camera what it is (and that is then also recorded in the EXIF data). It's a simple bit of data that is transferred ... nothing heuristic or evaluative.


    glad to help :)

    anyway, don't loose sight of your initial criteria:
    that was what I addressed in first answering your initial post.

    Best Wishes
     
    • Like Like x 1