K5 versus the GH2

[Diane B]

In reality though, there still is no comparison to a DSLR kit. Be it FF or APS-c body, mount just any lens, even the smallest prime, and you have a camera a LOT larger than any of the MFTs with almost any MFT lens. When I sit my 5dI with a 50/1.4 beside my G1 with 14-45 or even 45-200 the Canon seems like a behemoth. When I put the 9-18 (4/3 not MFT) with adapter, 20, 45 and 45-200 (as examples, not necessarily what I would carry since I do shoot often with MF lenses) in a small bag and try to compare that FL range with the Canon, even using a Rebel body, there is a huge difference in size and weight. No, not pocketable if that's what you want, but what a difference in travel, hiking, urban shooting. Its just not just about small and light lenses IMO.

Diane

 

[rparmar]

Diane, the K-5 is significantly smaller than the Canon. If you haven't used it, figure that it's barely bigger than the G2 (though a lot denser). The smaller form factor m43 bodies (like the GF1) are in another realm again, admittedly, but with a big lens they are not going to fit into a pocket, so much of the advantage is lost. If I have to carry a camera in a bag I'll take my Pentax which fits into any sort of small handbag with the FA43 Limited.

Here are the actual numbers.

Canon EOS 5D
895g
152 x 113 x 75 mm

Pentax K-5
750g
130.5 x 96.5 x 72.5 mm

Panasonic G2
428g
124 x 84 x 74 mm

Panasonic GF1
285g
119 x 71 x 36.3 mm

Those dimensions point out that the main advantage in size is the thinness of the camera. Anything you are putting it in is therefore not going to be stretched in all three dimensions. A big lens ruins that.

I agree the difference in weight can be a great advantage, especially in extreme environments. That's why I am considering such a camera before I go to Asia. I also hope to draw less attention.

 

[m3photo]

Re: 20 f/1.7

Instead Panasonic compromised on 3.3% distortion, 1.5px CA, significant vignetting and soft corners, betting on the automatic software correction to firm things up. But that by definition distorts the original optical image -- which is why the results lose a little "life".
../..
The zooms actually have significantly better IQ, since they are not trying to grab so much light.
../..
No doubt I will end up with the Vario 20/1.7 and live with the compromises. I would have preferred it to be an f/2 with more resolution.

And when you end up (sic) with it, you'll realize all the aforementioned criticisms made by the "reviewers" is a load of rubbish and that coupled with that also criticized (although I still can't see why) software correction it produces excellent results, even - and I stress this point - at its maximum aperture; which puts it in a different league. Results "losing a little life"? Who conjures up this drivel?
In point of fact I have to thank these forums; precisely as it is here that inspires me to buy lenses like this one based on user results and satisfaction and obviously not figures placed on review websites based upon cold mathematics far from the sentiment of real photography.
With regard to the software correction, this is why the kit lenses work far better than the "numbers" say they do. If it works, then what's to criticize?
Should the same naysayers chastise Leica for their microlens arrangement in the M9's sensor? Of course not.

 

[rparmar]

Michael, I will address your three points.

First: What we can learn about lenses from tests? I have certainly criticised those who rely only on optical tests to characterise lenses, since there is more to a lens that what they can reveal. So too one needs to establish confidence that a given tester is using sound methods, implemented consistently and correctly. And then one must be careful not to compare the results across testing regimens.

However, I do not deny objective reality nor science. On can test light transmission objectively. One can test distortion objectively. Same with light falloff, resolution, contrast etc. Besides which, the tools used for testing are similar to those used for designing the lenses in the first place. Optical designers try everything out in software and model the results long before any glass is cut. To deny MTF graphs etc. have a place in determining lens characteristics is to deny exactly what optical engineers do! The "cold mathematics" you take issue with (bad time in grade school?) is what makes the lenses for you in the first place.

Photography is a science as much as an art -- in fact I don't even like to stress the difference between those two disciplines, since they are more similar than different. I think you need to re-evaluate your warm-and-fuzzy approach, before you cast more insults ("rubbish", "drivel") that in fact also attack the folk who design the lenses you are supposedly defending.

Second: Does software correction produce excellent results? Well, it can certainly help the final results look better. But you do not get something for nothing. Correcting 3-5% distortion means that you are re-distorting the image to get to a desired result. Not only does distortion reduce the quality of an image but it also changes your framing, so that parts of the image you thought were in frame are now cut off. This gets in the way of image composition in other ways: aligning verticals in architecture for example. In short, producing an accurate lens that puts the photons on the sensor where they optimally should be is far more desirable that post-processing.

This whole issue is a red herring anyway, since you can software correct any lens, even a good one. There is nothing special about the built-in m43 correction and other camera systems do the same.

To me an excellent normal lens is one that produces <1% distortion; I regularly use Pentax system lenses with one-tenth of that. The Vario 20mm f/1.7 produces 3.3%. But maybe we have different standards.

Third: I have no idea why you bring up the Leica microlens arrangement since surely this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

[m3photo]

Re: Niggles

I quite like my "warm and fuzzy" approach. I'll try and check my use of insulting words such as "rubbish" and "drivel" in the future - one does get carried away when fuzzy ...

I also quite like your images; as this is more important here than a dpreview-style forum niggle I'd rather battle it out with my maths teacher and ask you to post some of your work here

I do hope you like the 20mm f/1.7. I do.

 

[Paratom]

Re: OT Weather Sealing

Excuse me for jumping away from the subject for a moment. I've always been intrigued by Nikon's policy (?) of not confirming the extent of protection in their bodies against the elements. Is the D700 as safe from rain showers as, say the K-5? If so, what would their equivalent lens be to the Pentax WR 18-135?

Hi Michael,
I dont think there is an equivalent lens for the 18-135 .On the other side overall I feel that overall Nikon lenses would be more robust/solid than Pentax ones (for example if you compare the 16-50 with the 24-70 Nikon).
Is the D700 as weatherproof as the K5? No idea. I have both used in slight rain but not dropped into the water. I admit to not even have had a problem with any of my cameras caused by weather. Even the M9 can take some rain drops.

 

[m3photo]

Vielen Dank.

 

[rparmar]

Re: Niggles

I also quite like your images; as this is more important here than a dpreview-style forum niggle I'd rather battle it out with my maths teacher and ask you to post some of your work here

"Quite like" -- don't get all mushy on me!

Where would it be appropriate to post? My sig links to Flickr so people can check those out.

I do hope you like the 20mm f/1.7.

I hope to be able to afford one! Perhaps a trade.

 

[m3photo]

Re: Posting

"Quite like" -- don't get all mushy on me!

Where would it be appropriate to post? My sig links to Flickr so people can check those out.

Warm/Fuzzy/Mushy, how about 'Sheepish'?:

Just an excuse to post an image taken with the 20mm. (Not Vario; that's for zooms ...)
G1+20mm f/1.7 1/320@f/4 ISO100

And

G1+20mm f/1.7 1/125@f/5.6 ISO100

How to post?

Create an Album and then paste the BB Code under it here in your message panel.
From here, for example:
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/album.php?albumid=74&pictureid=2232

 

[m3photo]

Re: 20mm f/1.7

One more. This time wide open:

G1+20mm f/1.7 1/30@f/1.7 ISO 160

 

[rparmar]

I like sheepish. But this is what I mean by sharpish.



Taken with the K20D and FA77 Limited.

 

[rparmar]

And something wide, from the DA 12-24mm, the only zoom I regularly use.

 

[Rich M]

I like sheepish. But this is what I mean by sharpish.

Taken with the K20D and FA77 Limited.

Very nice Robin.....

 

[m3photo]

Re: River Traffic

And something wide, from the DA 12-24mm, the only zoom I regularly use.

Very nice Robin .....

 

[rparmar]

Thanks you both. Though the shots are totally off-topic, taken with a K20D, not a K-5.

 

[OlliL]

Don't care if it's OT, cause I never saw such a good looking sheep!

 

[rparmar]

Don't care if it's OT, cause I never saw such a good looking sheep!

It was at a donkey sanctuary near Guelph, Ontario. Cute thing! Speaking of which:



FA77 on K20D

 

[gmargo]

I have been following this thread with great interest. I notice though that it has landed up at sheep and donkeys. I will not make an *** of myself by interpreting this. Instead I have a question.
I have been learning about digital photography over the past 3 years; started with a K10 and got a used 5Dll last year. I cannot criticize the Canon since it is far more of a camera than I am a photographer, but as I use it I have been thinking of a smaller, lighter, simpler way to go. I got a GF1 on a whim a few weeks ago. I do not like the lack of built-in VF nor did I like the VF1, but I very much like what it does in good light; I cannot tell the difference on my screen between similar shots from the GF1 and 5Dll at low ISOs; this falls apart when I pushed the GF1 to 800, but that's allowed. I take landscapes, street shots, informal portraits. I am a birder and take some bird photographs but I do not have 1DlV, 800 mm aspirations, yet.

The upshot is that I am looking at the K5 and GH2. If the Pentax, I'll keep the old K10 as a backup. Likewise if I go m4/3 I'll keep the GF1 with a 20mm and optical VF if I can find one, to partner the GH2. Lens choices are fine with either system for my needs now. For bird photography, the few long lenses that are available for either system are enough to keep me going. I am pulled to the K5 because it seems more "serious"; I can't really say that my work truly needs the bigger sensor and increased DR of the K5. One issue I have noticed here though, and on other similar forum sites, is that while people love Pentax lenses, especially the primes, there are often comments about having to go through several copies to get a good lens, or reports of SDM motor failures. So the question: Please help me with some perspective on the Pentax lens QC issue. Is it a reason to avoid Pentax unless I am willing to learn the additional role of field lens tester? I worry about it because I have no such expertise and want to feel confident that if the picture is messed up it really is my fault because my equipment is beyond reproach!
Thanks for the great discussion on this thread.
Geof