more trading of horses

I found someone with a GX1 and interest in our GM1. Neither of us was interested in parting with much cash, but in the end I get the body and a 14mm Lumix pancake. That's a lens with a good reputation and pairs nicely with the 30mm Sigma.

This nearly brings the team-camera concept back in alignment. Not quite though, as we have a 12-32 and 14-42ii for the two GX1 bodies. Close enough for now I think, and quite handy for trips where those wider or longer focal lengths would be missed! I do wish one were silver for the 14-42 though, both bodies are black.

The whole two-system mess was quite an accident, really. 

I planned to get another GM1 once the GX7 left, but nothing could be found for under $500! I then found the K-5 for just under $200, I already had lenses covering 28-300 in K mount, and a 50-200WR came silly cheap for $50.  Yaay! But then I decided the 12-60 sealed lens made little sense with a GM1 so sought out a trade - and a GX1 was offered a day after the K-5 deal. 

And why not give it a try?  The GX1 uses an older 16Mpix sensor compared to the GM1/GX7, but still a talented one. And the clip-on viewfinder came along in the trade, which was a nice touch since it can be removed for a simple camera. This made me wonder how much my wife really liked 'her' GM1 since a viewfinder has been a big deal to her. When the GX1 arrived I handed her both cameras and she immediately remarked that the GX1 was the best fit of any camera I had given her; that's important since we'd tried Pentax Q, Samsung NX300 and smaller K-body SLRs. The viewfinder clinched the deal - and here we are now.

• Pentax: K-5, 28-80 1:2, 55-200WR, 70-150, 100-300, 50/1.7 and 100/2.8

• µ43: GX1×2, Lumix 12-32, 14-42ii, 14/2.5 and 30/2.8 (also a 46mm adapter to make the 14 into a 10.5 and the 30 into a 23?) plus 45-150mm zoom and any Pentax lenses I choose to adapt!

switchback

Someone was selling their GM1 to make room for a GX85, so the GM1/12-32 is coming and ePL6 going. So much for plans to 'keep gear until next Christmas' - but Olympus menus are too much for me to bear. Hence the GM1 will hang out until a newer GX can be had, and my wife gets the GM1. Smart? Like a slug in a snowstorm, that's me! Wait that's rather uncomplimentary.. I think?

I really disliked having to let go of the last GM1, so that's a good sign that this one will stick with me.

micro's last stand

I've tried and enjoyed the micro 4:3 gear, but it's clear that Pentax gear fits my hand and brain just right. I've tried Lumix at least 3 times, and recently gave Oly gear a full workout. Since the NX300 is my wife's clear choice I let all that go, so we're pretty locked down for small-body big-sensor imaging.

from imaging-resource review

 A post recently spread around about the demise of the Lumix GM series. It's since been clarified to mean that Panasonic is redefining the product lines and only the letters "GM" may be demising. Anyway, the GM is truly as tiny as can be with the 4:3 sesnor, and especially when paired with the 12-32m, owners have really liked it.

As I was unable to sell all of my micro gear, a used GM1 is coming soon in order to make use of the 'spare parts'. It can be the telescope cam (with my 1¼" eyepiece to m43 adapter), the ultra-tiny cam (with 9mm body-cap fisheye lens), and a true pocket camera.

I chose to skip is the 12-32mm collapsible lens though. It's wonderful and all that, but the 20mme difference for longer shots is too much to bear. I found a 14-42mm lens at a great price - but which one is it?? It was labeled as the 14-42 II, which I've tried and liked; the shipping order shows the X-Vario 14-42, another collapsible design that would be handier for pocket travel & also gets good reviews. I won't lose as either 14-42mm will serve nicely.

In Samsung news the 16-50 PZ now has a 50-200 III to keep it company, and the 16/2.4 will be here in a bit. Other than the 30/2 that should be enough fun for that setup. Easy to say, now prove it..

updates, down-dates

I pulled two recent posts after seeing that they both referred to non-events.  A busy two weeks of gear swapping with no actual results to show.. well, not yet!

First up/down was the Sigma 60mm DN Art, whose purchase coincided with news of more medical bills in the near future.  A great lens was returned in preparation for that.  I must say that the Sigma Art series has an issue for shooters who use AF with MF override: with the entire lens now a focus ring I have no place for my left hand without actuating the MF zoom feature.  Turning off the zoom or going just AF or MF aren't great options for how I shoot. So I love the images the Sigma 60 takes but its design is a poor fit for me.
edit- the answer came later in the mu-43 forum: keep the hood on and hold the lens there.  Good idea!

Another recent non-deal was a K-7 with some AF issues.  I was unable to get a single image with the camera in any mode, and the seller agreed that was not how it was when he listed it - so another refund and more thoughts for later.  I also bid on a silver Limited K-5 but that was trumped as well.  That would have been cool to own, but budget limits are in play. My consolation in the Pentax world (and m43 as well) is a good deal on a smc-M100 f/2.8; it looks a bit worn but some day it will get a fresh coating!

However! A twice-used em5 came up at mu43.com with Three batteries, several valuable extra features and for a net cost of $120 - assuming the ePM2 sells.  So yes that deal actually did happen, and it might stick!  It should arrive on Monday. For now it will do fine with the 14-42 and 40-150, as the 17/2.8 should help the ePM2 sell.  I really like that little camera, but adding a mode dial, second control wheel, viewfinder and tip screen will be great steps up.  Bummer that the batteries are not compatible with the ePM2..

thanks kitties!

The Christmas gifts under our tree included two AF-able extension tubes from Duncan and Zuzu.  This is the one method of shooting close that I had yet to try: screw-on diopter lenses, Vivitar's 2xTC with 'macro' adjustment, true macros and tight cropping really did not 'take' with me.  It's curious that I had never tried tubes so it should prove interesting to see how often I bring them along.  For m4:3 just two tubes are common, 10mm and 16mm.

My first tests were using the 12-32 zoom; it's handy that these tubes include AF contacts, since no manual mode exists for this tiny zoom.  And wow are these closeups close!  I quickly backed off from the 16mm to the 10 in order to reveal a bit more context in the shots.  This image is of another gift (Carolans Irish Cream that came boxed with two glasses) and only a tiny part of the bottle can be seen!  That is fruit juice in the glass, BTW - not a creamy alcoholic mix..

I've yet to try them with the 45-150 (nor the incoming Sigma 30/2.8) so the results from additional tests will be informative.

the little kit takes shape

The miniscule Lumix 12-32mm retractable lens has arrived, so a team photo is in order.  That's an ordinary die for scale.. well maybe not.

The 45-175 and 12-32 square off here while the Bower 7.5 fisheye watches.  The new Tamrac Jazz 36 can handle all of this.  The shot was taken using the 14-42² that is most likely expendable with the 12-32 in town.

Other than the high level of noise reduction I'm seeing in shots like this, the G7 is doing quite well.  I really must get into the manual and see if that can be adjusted; smeary NR sucks.

In Pentax news, the K-50 and kit lenses just left - well it would have were the roads in fact passable.  An impressive windstorm hit the Longview-Portland corridor (further south too I'm sure) and getting around is pretty difficult right now.  It goes out tomorrow for sure!

why stop at ordinary Micro 4:3?

One of the main allures of the micro-4:3 systems is their compact size.  More typical sensors (36x24, 24x18) designed the mount and lens system to be the right size to fill their sensor but not go beyond.  The (17x13ish) Four Thirds sensor does the same but can scale down substantially more compared to either of those.  So small is a big deal for this system.  So that means smaller is even better then.. right?

Part of why it works is that a given lens' focal length means something different to a smaller sensor.  The 200mm lens that was a decent telephoto lens on film now yields a different scale on the smaller sensor.  My Pentax sees a 200mm lens as 300mme (mm effective) when the same shot is enlarged, and the still-smaller Four Thirds sensor would give an enlargement with 400mme.  So the same lens gives more telephoto punch on the micro4:3, or a 100mm lens can match the film-era 200mm when images are enlarged to the same print size.

Back in the film days 20mm was an exotic, absurdly-wide angle lens.  Now I'm about to receive a 7.5mm lens for the G7 (15mme) and it gets five-star ratings from several testing sites.  Technology has definitely changed how the imaging game is done!  I briefly owned an 8mm fisheye for Pentax; it was great fun but compared to this 7.5mm it's a big lens.  Designing for a smaller sensor has advantages at the wide end too, not just by using 150mm lenses to shoot 300mme images!

Even more tech has resulted in collapsible lens designs; bring a tiny lens along but "unscrew" it before shooting and it becomes a more typical size.  Pentax now has its  18-50mm RE kit lens that does this - but micro4:3 has been doing it for a while now.  My G7 came with a well-designed 14-42mm lens that does not collapse yet is still much smaller than their original version.
But wait, there's less!

For their smallest m4:3 cameras Panasonic designed the 12-32mm collapsing kit lens.  It's flat as a pancake in imsge-speak as the pancake-style prime lenses are about the size of this zoom when retracted.  Not only is it tiny but it has earned remarkable praise for what it can do.  Its 24-64mme range goes just enough wider than my 28-84mme kit lens to cover more situations, and many have claimed its images are really hard to beat by any kit lens from any manufacturer.
So..

image via photographyblog

A silver copy of the 12-32mm is coming here soon.  I was outbid recently on a copy but immediately bid on another, and that one came through!

Review sites do point out a few shortcomings of the tiny zoom.  Most notably is that it cannot be focused manually!  That could be a problem, we shall see - but for most wide images the depth of field will be a larger focusing issue than the specific point in focus.  Stopping at 64mme could be an issue for me also, especially since the 7.5mm fisheye can take up any slack when the 14-42 won't do. And finally the 14-42 and 45-175 zooms take the same filter size, which is handy; however, a step ring can turn the 12-32 into a match and double as a minimal hood!

Comparing  images taken with the 12-32 and 14-42 will not be a huge priority to me, but if the baby retractable zoom is worthy it makes the micro4:3 kit just that much smaller.  And as is so often the case, small is a big deal: just ask anyone who chooses their cell phone for imaging!