That worked well

The GX1 and GX7 have both sold, leaving me with my wife's GX1, the GX85.. and my K-50.

As recently noted I've rethought my prime setup in light of a few K-mount bargains. The 14mm Lumix cannot be swapped for a film-era ultrawide but others sure can. I picked up a 24mm Vivitar, a DA40 Limited and already own 50/1.7, 100/2,8, 135/2.5 & 200/4 SMC primes, and I said not to make me think about the DA 70/2.4 or I might sell the Sigma 60.

Well let the laughter commence: the gx7 just became a DA70.

No way a copy of the stunning 70mm Limited can be had as cheaply as that! Yeah I said the same about a DA40 Limited last month, so there. VG condition is fine by me, I am no perfectionist; if the optics are up to Limited standards I'm very happy!

. . Now to avoid using the 60mm funds seeking a DA21 Limited, or a rokinon 8mm fisheye!

Here is what happened when I sought K-primes for m43 bodies:

• 24mm $75? a Meike 25/1.8 is the only price match
• DA40 $120? nothing close in 42.5-45mm offerings
• DA70 $210?  don't bother asking the Only 75/1.8 price.

So I saved money, added a little bulk, lost some m43 automation (which I find irritating since dubious optics are autocorrected) - and recharged both my K-50 and GX85 kits!

Primes - some day. [Today?]

Perhaps some day I can fill in the µ43 kit with some primes. Not a bunch and surely not the best; f/2-2.8 is just fine and lighter on both shoulder and wallet.

The µ43 system is well endowed with steps one can choose to set up a primal kit, plus I have a Sigma 60 already.  ** Oops - I forgot my 8mm fisheye, which is the ultimate in bargain primes..

So how to make it work on a reasonably thin budget? The preferred option is to keep gaps fairly small, like these:
8-14-(19/20)-30-45-60, or perhaps 8-12-17-25-42-60

Hmm.. not all that cheap is it? Even going with the Rokinon 12 instead of the Olympus.

Plan B: bigger gaps, perhaps? Instead of using the multiple method (e.g. multiples of 8 = 8/16/24/32 &c) one could double each focal length and leave larger spaces between. Cheaper, and occasionally a problem - though a handy compact zoom like the 12-32, 14-42ii or 45-150 can take over when a gap feels like a hardship.

My Plan-B choice: 8-14-24-40-60.  This is good because

• the DA40/2.8 Limited is in hand, 
• it's incredible with any sensor and
• I paid under $130, and no native µ43 lens can beat that.

Don't make me think about this for too long - I could sell the Sigma 60 and for a bit more cash pick up the equally-excellent DA70/2.4 Limited to go with the DA40!

Bargain #1 is now in transit, as I found a Lumix 14mm for an excellent price. That will be my nearly-pocketable pancake option and my star-shooter (about a stop faster than my f/3.5 zooms).

Update: Bargain #2 has appeared! What a surprise, one need only look to find (and define) a bargain in today's elderlenses. I found a PK Vivitar (Tokina) 24/2.8 for about $70 to make all the steps feasible. That's cheaper than a Pixco/7Art/Meike 25mm options - and the K-50 will thank me too!

… . . . . . . . . . .  .  .   .   .    .    .    .

On the longer end I have Pentax' M100/2.8, Tak135/2.5 and M200/4 primes that can play nicely with internally stabilized bodies. To extend it wider isn't really practical though, as wide K-mount lenses (e.g.24/2.8) are not cheap either.

Why so many GX?

Yeah, "funny" story.
So we have two GX1 bodies as my wife fell hard for a cute pink GF2 instead of the matched-set GX1 I bought for her. The GX1 market is rather flat right now :~| so here they sit.

In the meantime I fell for a cheap-bid GX7 mark ii (aka gx85) at Auctions R Us..but the seller silence stretched out a few days. I sent a data request, fearing some incident had forced a w/d from the deal. At that moment a GX7 Classic was 2h from ending its auction so I added a low bid. Of course that won also - and soon I heard from the mk.ii owner, who was heading to the post office.

And so they all gathered before me.

First impressions were not as I hoped from either new acquisition until I reset both and fine-tuned a few settings to my taste. At that point images turned out very well, and I could make an informed choice.

Both vintages of the GX7 are excellent cameras. The original is the best overall body and most reviewers agree on that; the larger grip and extra buttons/AF switch/Custom settings make that body superior for making speedy adjustments.

The mark.ii added 4k video and still-image extractions at 8Mpixel resolution, in-camera charging and much improved stabilization inside, changed the grip and buttons, removed a couple of Custom setting slots and chose to use the same GX7 viewfinder but in a fixed position, and those choices disappointed many GX7 fans (especially since the GX8 had appeared with weather seals and a superior 'finder). Those improvements they did put in are pretty convincing though, so the mark.I is now for sale. I may not use 4k as a video option but I've already tried 4k post focus; my test wasn't great but it shows very nice possibilities!

Four GX bodies: fun while it lasted, I suppose.
And oh yes, the K-50 is still here too - and the wet season is upon me!

the GX trio

the GX1, GX7 and GX85 (henceforth aka GX7,ii)

Not shown (as I cannot afford more) - GX8, GX9

Image taken with the still-present K∙50

the crack in µ43's armor

The one disheartening issue in my tests of µ43 kit lenses stood out: the poor flare control when shooting into sunlight. I'd seen it before in the occasional shot, and it was clearly an issue for the three kit lenses that I tested.

This is on a camera that autocorrects many issues that are inherent in electronic lenses, such as distortion and chromatic issues. I have no doubt that the more expensive lenses do not have the kit lens problems that I see here -- however I am not at financial liberty to explore those better options. For my budget I can only manage what the lenses above can give me, unless a 14mm Lumix and something in the 17-20mm range become available on a fire sale.

Let's look at the K-50 and its $75 kit lens as a comparison. Taken on a different day but as the sun sank low into the same batch of trees.

Some issues are visible but nothing like what the µ43 lenses show. The DA18-55wr also has weather seals and a closer close focus of about 0.34x compared to 0.25x on the Oly 14-42ez. And the camera has no correction settings enabled for distortion or chromatics.

I suppose the next thing to check is how the 18-55 looks when adapted to the GX1 or EM10b. That would disable all autocorrections and let the game be played on the level. We'll see if I can get to that.

more new stuff..

Clearly I'm a Nikon fan-boy, it's obvious after that last post. The Canon R mirrorless system has been out for over a week and I've been silent about it.

While I'm here I should pump the mythical Panasonic 'full frame' mirrorless camera, which won't be available until spring - how's that for showing my true colours?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ah but what about my kit? Glad you didn't ask.
It may change soon, how's that for news?

Nikon mirrorless

No weblog will be taken seriously if it speaks of cameras but ignores the announcement from Nikon of its Z-series mirrorless cameras.

There - I feel better now.

µ43 kit lens testing

I always do lens tests wrong - yet here I go again. The contestants:

Lumix 12-32mm, Lumix 14-42mm II and the Olympus EZ 14-42mm,

Specs

Images - indoor
I shot indoors with three subjects about 10 inches apart front-back. I shot at widest and longest FLs only. I didn't race through the shots, yet by feel the II was the faster to focus with the other two close behind. Shot centered on closest object then kept focus the same and shot it at the edge of frame. Next shot was focused on furthest object. Final shot focused on intermediate object. Four shots for each lens at 14(12)mm and four at 42(32)mm.

Images - torture test (extreme)
Shot into the setting sun with no hoods.. oops the 14-42 was hooded! See why I hate doing this?
Once fully zoomed in, one intermediate, one wide.
For 14-42EZ I couldn't tell where 'intermediate' was - so I shot two of them (since then I've learned where the focal length is shown on the viewfinder).

Images - x closeup
Shot of car keys with the other two lenses in the background for reference

Specs - my personal evaluation

• I prefer the overall feel of the II best; it also feels like the fastest of the three to focus but all are quick.
• I dislike the stickiness of the 12-32 zoom ring, poor zoom for smooth video. No focus ring = points off in my book.
• The Zuiko has no real spec flaws and has the closest focus, which is nice. Also easiest zooming with video.

Indoor images - my evaluation
No clear winner. Each did a fine job and all similarly sharp with nice bokeh. This test did not seek decentering or other errors, just what was sharp and how things weren't.

Torture images - my evaluation
As shown here, also no clear winner: every image was awful! Clearly this test was too tortuous. The hood on the II did not affect the results so re-shooting with that lens was unnecessary.

Points to ponder:

• Can an Olympus body focus the 12-32 manually? Apparently not, and in fact neither can my wife's GF2. I can of course AF with touchscreen on other bodies so MF isn't really vital.. but I prefer to have control over it.
• Close focus is nice for a kit zoom, but I have an extension tube which will cover that nicely when closeups are needed.
• Also nice is having all zoom lenses zoom the same direction. I have a nice 45-150 Lumix that I plan to keep so the rotation is preferred. As I'm used to the Pentax system the Lumix direction is far more intuitive than the Canon/Oly's. 

The Olympus bodies allow you to choose which direction to focus but not which to zoom; that's a shame as otherwise the EZ would likely be my top choice. So far though the II is my favorite.

---

Next Up: A less-challenging outdoor scene to better evaluate focus across the frame + any fringing issues. I expect the camera autocorrects a lot of fringing though. We'll see about that!

Note - the mZuiko EZ works fine on my GX1, but no stabilization is available with that pair.