Panasonic 7~14mm or Olympus 12mm ?

Started Jan 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: Thanks for all the replies and suggestions

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

slimandy wrote:

Anders W wrote:

ND? If you want to shoot waterfalls or things like that, set the camera to burst mode, fire away, and merge in post. You can then leave your ND as well as your tripod at home.

Interesting idea, I might try that. T.b.h. though I prefer to get it right in-camera. I'm happy to carry a tripod and filters if that's the kind of shot I'm after. I have a superb little tripod that is tiny.

Infrared? For what purpose? There is already an infrared filter on the sensor.

I think he wants infrared shots. The infrared filter on the sensor is to block out infrared which is the opposite of what you need if you want to shoot IR. I do a lot of infrared photography. I used to use infrared filters but I now have a Nikon D200 converted to infrared. However, I would still take an IR filter with me if I didn't want to take another camera.

Possibly. But as you point out, you'd have to convert the camera to IR by removing the infrared filter on the sensor first.

Not necessarily, but you will have very long shutter speeds. I have used non-converted cameras to good effect.

UV for protection? I used to do that but have stopped doing it. Unless you buy very expensive UVs, the coatings makes these filters very difficult to clean, far more difficult than cleaning the front element. They cause additional problems with flare and cost money. I do keep hoods on all my lenses for protection and that has hitherto proven sufficient.

I don't use filters for protection unless conditions warrant that I should. Sometimes they do. not often.

Polarizer? Of questionable value on UWAs because of the uneven effect. 28 mm equivalent is usually considered the limit for succesful use of polarizers. Exceptions might exist but they are pretty rare.

The effect is uneven across the frame, but I still use them. They are excellent for cutting through reflections on water. You can't replicate the effect in PP.

No you can't replicate the effect in PP and as I point out, there might be cases where it could be used to good effect even on a lens as wide as the 7-14. However, due to the uneven effect (on water as well as the sky), that would be the exception rather than the norm.

Filters ARE the exception rather than the norm. I don't use them all the time, but when I do use them it is good that I can.

Yes, but my point is that if you rarely find reason to use a polarizer with other lenses, then you find even less reason to use them with this lens (since it doesn't work so well most of the time).

I also use ND grads. I prefer grads to HDR or other PP. Unless you are highly skilled at PP (and I'm not) I think you are more likely to spoil a shot than enhance it. I've seen so many shots that people post to show off their PP skills where they have lost shadow detail and depth. Grads don't suit every situation but I find them much easier than PP and often much better results.

Here I disagree. If you want good results, it's far better to do this in PP than fiddle with ND grads. How often do you have a perfectly flat horizon, without any protrusions at all?

You can still PP the protrusions. PP seems to spoil shots more than improve them in my experience. So many people have shown me images to back up using PP, only to convince me I'm right. I prefer taking pictures to sitting at a computer too. I use PP because it helps, but I'd rather be taking pictures.

Our experiences when it comes to PP are worlds apart but I suppose that depends on preferences as well as PP skills. But if you have to PP the protrusions anyway, why not make do without the filter and just solve the whole problem in PP.

I also like to use achromatic close-up filters such as the Canon 250D.

So do I. But it's a bad idea to use those on a WA, let alone an UWA. The shorter the FL, the weaker the effect of a close-up lens. The standard rule is to use extension tubes with shorter FLs and close-up lenses with long.

On top of that, your working distance would be practically nil. If you could put a very strong close-up lens like the 250D (+4 diopters) on the 7-14, max magnification would increase from 0.08 to 0.15 (not much to write home about) and the working distance decline from about 15 cm to less than 4 cm.

That might be the effect I want. For genuine macro I prefer a dedicated macro lens and will buy the Olympus 60. A diopter on a wide lens allows me to exagerate the WA effect and put my subject very close to the lens. That's part of the fun of WA.

For that kind of fun, I'd rather use my Samyang 7.5/3.5 FE which goes to 0.09 m without any close-up lens.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow