I'll be looking forward to posting some pics from my GF1/EOS combo - the adapter arrived today. It fits both EF and EF-S lenses, so I'll be trying it out with:
EF-S 60mm Macro (alot cheaper than the 45mm Panasonic Macro if it works!)
EF-S 10-22mm (pretty wide, and with the smaller sensor I get quite a bit of depth of field even wide open - 3.3ft to infinity)
EF 85mm 1.8 (I'm very interested to see how this performs)
Lensbaby 2.0 (especially given the upcoming contest! Seems cool, but needs to be on a tripod to hold steady)
I'm curious to see how the sharpness and corners look, since I have to either shoot these wide open or do the 'hold down the depth of field preview button' trick when I take it off my Canon body.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Power meter
Here is a shot of a power meter that I took with my new GF1. We had a new meter installed so it was sitting at very close to zero, and I thought I'd better get in there and grab a photo early on. The photos were pretty boring (see example above), so I spiced it up a bit with black and white and a zoom effect. The zoom helps to get rid of the logos, at the same time as it plays off the energy side of things. Happy to say it was approved for sale today - another stock shot with the GF1. DT isn't accepting Panasonic RAW files yet, so I've been converting to DNG - probably more useful to buyers anyways (they don't have to have the absolute latest to make use of the files).
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Tiny viewfinders?
I'm interested in the opinion of people who use point and shoot cameras... One of the criticisms levelled against the Panasonic GF1 and the like is that they lack an integrated viewfinder. While I agree that a viewfinder is better than not having one, all things being equal - the form factor of the GF1 versus my SLR is significant. If I need the stability of the larger camera held to my eye, I can pull it out - assuming I have it with me! Otherwise there are tripods...
The GF1 lends itself to all kinds of situations where I find I don't have my SLR with me. I'm curious how many people that use Point and Shoot sized cameras with viewfinders actually use them on a regular basis? I used to have a G10 that had a viewfinder on it, and aside from a couple of shots taken in bright light out a plane window, I almost never used it. So to me, losing the viewfinder wasn't a big deal. Anyone else agree?
Is it just that I live somewhere where there isn't as much direct sunlight? Sure I can go to the GH1 and get a viewfinder in almost the same size, but that adds a lot of cost to the package...
The GF1 lends itself to all kinds of situations where I find I don't have my SLR with me. I'm curious how many people that use Point and Shoot sized cameras with viewfinders actually use them on a regular basis? I used to have a G10 that had a viewfinder on it, and aside from a couple of shots taken in bright light out a plane window, I almost never used it. So to me, losing the viewfinder wasn't a big deal. Anyone else agree?
Is it just that I live somewhere where there isn't as much direct sunlight? Sure I can go to the GH1 and get a viewfinder in almost the same size, but that adds a lot of cost to the package...
Monday, December 7, 2009
Flash for GF1
I told you I'd bring Canon's EOS system back into the fold! With much trepidation, I followed a large number of online poster's 'advice' and tried my 430EX on my new GF1. Happily, it fired the flash. While I don't get eTTL, manual for flash is pretty common anyways. I can balance my exposre for ambient with on camera controls and then use the manual adjustment on the 430 or 580EX to adjust the flash level. In theory, the fact that this triggers at all means I should have no trouble using my wireless trigger and off camera cords, etc. Very exciting!
Here is a center crop of a test picture. Note that this doesn't illustrate much (nothing does on the web!) other than that I can get an exposure right with bounced manual flash on the 2nd try, and that the GF1 does what I'd hoped - delivers the resolution of an SLR or Canon G10, but without the noisy, grainy look of the G10 in unfocused areas. There is something odd about the GF1 - until now I've been excited about things working together in fully compatible auto modes - but now I'm getting excited about being able to use a lens without manual focus or aperture control, or a flash in manual only :)
Here is a center crop of a test picture. Note that this doesn't illustrate much (nothing does on the web!) other than that I can get an exposure right with bounced manual flash on the 2nd try, and that the GF1 does what I'd hoped - delivers the resolution of an SLR or Canon G10, but without the noisy, grainy look of the G10 in unfocused areas. There is something odd about the GF1 - until now I've been excited about things working together in fully compatible auto modes - but now I'm getting excited about being able to use a lens without manual focus or aperture control, or a flash in manual only :)
Friday, December 4, 2009
85mm f/1.8 Canon prime lens
After sort of moving to zoom lenses for most of my work, and only the 60mm macro as a prime, I rented the 85mm f/1.2 recently. While this lens is very much beyond any kind of reasonable price that I could ever justify, it got me interested in both primes, and the focal length again. I liked the ability to be a bit further away and get less in focus compared to my 60mm.
As well, when comparing the 135mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8 the depth of field difference was there, but not something I thought I would notice a lot if framed right. As well, when I rented the 135mm I found it nice, but a bit long for most use on a crop sensor camera. At the same time, I became convinced I would appreciate the 35mm f/1.4 L lens as well, but couldn't justify it, either. As mentioned previously, I ended up deciding on the GF1 instead of the prime lens - and I've been happy with that decision.
Then I found a refurbished 85mm f/1.8 and decided to give it a go. Since the alternative at 85mm in the Canon lineup is so outrageous, and even the 'cheap' 135mm is three times the price, I'm happy to have found a decent prime lens that should get some use. Here is a recent stock image taken with this lens. I like the out of focus background, and even her ears are showing some blurring at f/2...
One thing I haven't quite understood with primes is that they often seem to have poor results in tests wide open. One wonders why you would pay for such a lens over a zoom if you "can't" even shoot wide open with it. And there is the problem - the reviewers often ask the wrong question. They are asking how well does it perform taking shots of a black and white, high contrast target in bright light - what they get is a bunch of CA and fringing, and general lack of contrast. If you actually take such a lens and shoot in the kinds of conditions where you want a fast lens, you find that it performs admirably. Hence why there are so many reviews that primes aren't great, not sharp wide open, and then a whole bunch of people using it for professional use and swearing by it. You need to actually use it to rate it! How often will I shoot back lit leaves with this lens wide open? Never! How many wedding shots are blurry, slightly soft, but absolutely loved because they captured the emotion?
As well, when comparing the 135mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8 the depth of field difference was there, but not something I thought I would notice a lot if framed right. As well, when I rented the 135mm I found it nice, but a bit long for most use on a crop sensor camera. At the same time, I became convinced I would appreciate the 35mm f/1.4 L lens as well, but couldn't justify it, either. As mentioned previously, I ended up deciding on the GF1 instead of the prime lens - and I've been happy with that decision.
Then I found a refurbished 85mm f/1.8 and decided to give it a go. Since the alternative at 85mm in the Canon lineup is so outrageous, and even the 'cheap' 135mm is three times the price, I'm happy to have found a decent prime lens that should get some use. Here is a recent stock image taken with this lens. I like the out of focus background, and even her ears are showing some blurring at f/2...
One thing I haven't quite understood with primes is that they often seem to have poor results in tests wide open. One wonders why you would pay for such a lens over a zoom if you "can't" even shoot wide open with it. And there is the problem - the reviewers often ask the wrong question. They are asking how well does it perform taking shots of a black and white, high contrast target in bright light - what they get is a bunch of CA and fringing, and general lack of contrast. If you actually take such a lens and shoot in the kinds of conditions where you want a fast lens, you find that it performs admirably. Hence why there are so many reviews that primes aren't great, not sharp wide open, and then a whole bunch of people using it for professional use and swearing by it. You need to actually use it to rate it! How often will I shoot back lit leaves with this lens wide open? Never! How many wedding shots are blurry, slightly soft, but absolutely loved because they captured the emotion?
New images online
Had a group of images approved today, but for some reason the one below really appeals to me. I don't know if it is the old engine, the blues, or what - it just feels like it could as easily by 1970 as 2009...
The shots of the kids playing on the WII guitars are pretty cute, too:
The shots of the kids playing on the WII guitars are pretty cute, too:
Thursday, December 3, 2009
First GF1 shot approved
Well, 1 out of 1 isn't really a long term trend but I'm pleased to see the first shot I submitted to DT with my GF1 was accepted. I don't see another contributor using this camera yet - unless they've just left it off their profile details. Definitely some folks using the G1 or GH1 to submit. After processing a few photos from this camera, I can see it will have a significant reduction in workflow time compared to the Canon G10. The files it produces are just great!
I also find it is easier to use than my 40D on a tripod for manual focus work. Live view is its primary interface and it shows. Looking forward to getting my EOS adapter so I can put my macro lens on it :)
I also find it is easier to use than my 40D on a tripod for manual focus work. Live view is its primary interface and it shows. Looking forward to getting my EOS adapter so I can put my macro lens on it :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
