The need to move forward with M43

[ac12]

@Peadingle I didn't see anyone mention this yet (apologies if I missed it), but I briefly had the O12-40 and had insurmountable difficulty reconciling the opposite direction of zoom turn with my Panasonic zooms (14-140 & 100-300). This may not bother you, but I thought it worth mentioning.

All the best with your decision,
Melanie

This depends on how you zoom and the situation.

If you zoom with muscle memory, as I do for sports photography, then it is CRITICAL that all my sport zooms turn in the same direction. Things happen FAST. You do not have time to correct and turn the zoom ring in the other direction. Turn the zoom ring in the wrong direction, and you could lose the shot. Been there, done that, and lost the shots.
If it for this reason that I will not use a Sigma zoom on my Nikon.

For casual photography, the fact that I turn the zoom ring the wrong direction just costs me a little time.
Most of my zooms are Olympus, but I use the Panasonic-Lumix 12-60 as my travel/light GP lens. That it's zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than my Olympus does not bother me.

 

[Peadingle]

@Peadingle I think your images are mostly fine, though I would echo the points raised by WT21. Do you shoot raw exclusively? If so, let your camera process a few for you and compare. The lack of crispness being discussed reminds me a bit of raw images that were not proficiently processed (first hand experience, I'm afraid).

But also consider that seaside images in hazy conditions will not be crisp. I doubt they would look correct if they were.

I do shoot both RAW and jpegs. I agree that I may not sharpen as much as the camera does.

And yes, I am aware that any moisture in the air will cause a lack of clarity, more so the further away the subject is.

 

[Peadingle]

@Peadingle I didn't see anyone mention this yet (apologies if I missed it), but I briefly had the O12-40 and had insurmountable difficulty reconciling the opposite direction of zoom turn with my Panasonic zooms (14-140 & 100-300). This may not bother you, but I thought it worth mentioning.

All the best with your decision,
Melanie

Thanks Melanie. Assuming that all Olympus lenses turn in the opposite direction to zoom, I have to say that I haven't noticed a problem with the 12mm f2.0. I think that the issue would be worse if it concerned focusing, but I believe that it is the same on both Panasonic and Olympus .

 

[Levster]

Nice pics, but please tell us more about them when they are presented to show what a lens can do. If you shot raw and processed them the results may be much more about your skills after the fact than the gear.

Here are some grabs from the Lightroom develop panel:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I leave Sharpnening at 40, Noise Reduction Luminance at 25 and Colur at 10. I’ve never felt the need to add sharpening but will add a bit of Clarity depending on how I feel.

 

[Bidkev]

Here are some grabs from the Lightroom develop panel:


I leave Sharpnening at 40, Noise Reduction Luminance at 25 and Colur at 10. I’ve never felt the need to add sharpening but will add a bit of Clarity depending on how I feel.

Personally, I never use noise reduction below iso 400. At iso 400 I find that luminence at 20 is sufficient and at iso 800 30 does for me.

 

[Peadingle]

Here are some grabs from the Lightroom develop panel:

I leave Sharpnening at 40, Noise Reduction Luminance at 25 and Colur at 10. I’ve never felt the need to add sharpening but will add a bit of Clarity depending on how I feel.

Are those shots taken using a tripod or hand-held?

 

[SojiOkita]

I leave Sharpnening at 40, Noise Reduction Luminance at 25 and Colur at 10. I’ve never felt the need to add sharpening but will add a bit of Clarity depending on how I feel.

Nice pics. No local settings?

I tend to use less and less clarity, because I don't like the side effect on colors (10 is not a big value anyway).
On portraits I even sometimes but the value to -5.
However all this is very personal... like the noise correction (I set it to 10 and use only high values for high iso. Typically 15 fo 1600 - 20 for 3200).

 

[Levster]

Are those shots taken using a tripod or hand-held?

1 and 2 are handheld, 3 and 4 probably are with a tripod. 3 definitely is because I can’t handhold for 20 seconds! I’m not sure what my use of tripod has to do with the lens character though!

 

[Peadingle]

1 and 2 are handheld, 3 and 4 probably are with a tripod. 3 definitely is because I can’t handhold for 20 seconds! I’m not sure what my use of tripod has to do with the lens character though!

I just wondered because , as was suggested earlier in the thread, one way to get 'better' images is to use a tripod.

 

[PeeBee]

12-32 on a tripod mounted GX80.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Peadingle]

Great shot PeeBee. The 12-32 may look like a toy, but given its size, it produces some great results.

 

[roelwillems]

one way to get 'better' images is to use a tripod.

As a heavy tripod user, I would say yes and no.

A tripod greatly improves image quality and sharpness if the available light is insufficient for handheld shutter speeds. IBIS does help a lot but, depending on your photography genre, there are many situations when you do need a stable base. It does also enable you to keep ISO low.

But (and in my opinion, this is very important) it slows you down when taking images, great for focussing more on a specific composition but also limiting as you start looking at a scene from the place you set up your tripod. For example, I recently went out to shoot seascape images. The first hour just wandering around shooting handheld (very diverse set of images, trying different compositions and scenes). The two hours afterward I shot on a tripod and came back with a hundred images where I only moved the camera/angle a few cm's or tried to time the shot.

So I wouldn't recommend using a tripod to get "better" images. I would shoot without so long as the shutter speeds alow and use the tripod only when needed.

 

[PeeBee]

Great shot PeeBee. The 12-32 may look like a toy, but given its size, it produces some great results.

Thanks. My point is that optically the kit lenses aren't so bad, giving acceptable results if you can keep the camera steady and the ISO down in the available light. Obviously premium zooms will do better, though only you can justify if the benefits are worth the extra cost and weight.

Here's another recent shot, this one taken with the Lumix 12-60. It was a dark, overcast day, but the available light allowed for a sharp handheld capture at f5.6 and iso 200. For me, the marginally faster PL12-60 is a hard sell. I see more benefit in the 12-40 f2.8 for lower light performance, but then reach is limited.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[saladin]

Both the 12-32 and 12-60 are excellent lenses, amongst the best "kit" lenses from any manufacturer.

 

[Bidkev]

Both the 12-32 and 12-60 are excellent lenses, amongst the best "kit" lenses from any manufacturer.

Great shot PeeBee. The 12-32 may look like a toy, but given its size, it produces some great results.

You folk need to stop bulling up the 12-32 A few months ago you could pick them up on ebay as split from kits for around AUS$180 so I bought a spare. They are now currently priced >$380!

 

[dirtdevil]

If budget is a priority, the Panasonic 12-60mm is very good for a "non-leica" lens. I had it for a month and shot one of my top 5 picture ever with it.

 

[Peadingle]

As a heavy tripod user, I would say yes and no.

A tripod greatly improves image quality and sharpness if the available light is insufficient for handheld shutter speeds. IBIS does help a lot but, depending on your photography genre, there are many situations when you do need a stable base. It does also enable you to keep ISO low.

But (and in my opinion, this is very important) it slows you down when taking images, great for focussing more on a specific composition but also limiting as you start looking at a scene from the place you set up your tripod. For example, I recently went out to shoot seascape images. The first hour just wandering around shooting handheld (very diverse set of images, trying different compositions and scenes). The two hours afterward I shot on a tripod and came back with a hundred images where I only moved the camera/angle a few cm's or tried to time the shot.

So I wouldn't recommend using a tripod to get "better" images. I would shoot without so long as the shutter speeds alow and use the tripod only when needed.

Yes, that's my experience. Only yesterday afternoon I was shooting our local lighthouse hand-held, and getting lots of different shots while three other guys waited patiently with their tripods, only to find that the one shot that they were set up for didn't happen because cloud obscured the sun on the horizon. Often it is a choice of best image quality or getting plenty of options to choose from. As ever, so much depends on the light.

 

[Peadingle]

OK, what I have learned from this thread is pretty much what I wanted to know. I'm not going to rush out and buy more expensive glass. Instead I will try and use what I already have better, and also accept that shooting in low light is not going to produce the very best quality images. Thanks again for all the input and roll on the end of this grey weather!

 

[nstelemark]

Is the 12-40 'that' much ahead of the Panasonic 12-35?

The consensus is the 12-40 is better at 12 and the 12-35 is better at the long end. Personally I prefer the 12-35 and I am primarily on Olympus bodies. The 12-35 is less front end heavy and handles better on smaller bodies.

 

[nstelemark]

Both the 12-32 and 12-60 are excellent lenses, amongst the best "kit" lenses from any manufacturer.

The 12-32 is excellent.