Three lens kit

Sometimes I go extra lightwith my Thinktank Mirrorless Mover 10 with 1 body and 3 primes.

Sometimes I go light with my Domke F-5XB (is the B for Black?) with a body and 1-2 zooms plus 4-5 primes, maybe the FL-600R flash.

But I usually carry my small and overly padded Kata Gearpack-60 DL, it holds all I need.

Kata Gearpack-60 DL

Top zippered compartments left to right:

• Left zippered compartment
  • Filter pack (cord secures it to to back pack (I nearly dropped it once over a cliff)
    • 4 polarizers
    • Neutral Density ND 64 fits all my primes except the 45 1.8
  • Cord with clips to secure camera/tripod in precarious locations
• Right zippered compartment
  • Cable release
  • 2 spare batteries
  • Spare sd card
• Main compartment
  • Top row
    • Olympus 17 1.8
    • Olympus 60 2.8 Macro
    • Space for padding and E-M5 II (but haven't done this yet)
  • Middle row
    • Olympus 45 1.8
    • Olympus 12 2.0
    • E-M5 III + Olympus 50 1.8
  • Bottom row
    • Olympus 12-40 2.8
    • Lumix 7-14 4.0
    • Olympus 40-150 4/5.6
• Outer compartment (bottom photo)
  • Flash, FL-600R
  • Flash, FL-LM3 (kit)
  • Spare AAs for FL-600R
  • Lens cleaning fluid
  • Snacks (not shown)
• Outer bag (incedentally photographed)
  • mini bungee cord to secure tripod
  • pouched silk lens cloth clipped to zipper
  • more clips and hooks

I don't know how much the fully packed Kata weighs but it is no heavier than a notebook computer. The only MFT lens I have that doesn't go in this bag is the 17 2.8 that I took the above photos with. Hence, this bag is also where I store everything at home.

I hike and bike a lot as I live in an excellent area along the Potomac river for both. You could easily argue that the 12-40 obviates the primes it overlaps. First, my only ND filter does not fit the 12-40, so if I want to use it (often), I need the 12, 17, 25, or 60 (gotta get a step down ring for the 45). Second, the primes are 1-1/3 stops faster; not a lot but helpful in low light. I could keep the weather resistant 12-40 at home but what if it rains?

Guy Parsons wrote:

Can't see the lenses of course as all pointing down, but no more pesky lens changing to do......

CW from top left - P5-P5-P3-PL1-PL5-PL5

As I said, assembled just for fun some time back, now of course can add one more as a cheap E-M10 Mk2 has also joined the pack.

Gosh! And i am waiting on dying of my fz200 before i decide which body i add.

G90 or gx80/90.  😁

I like to have a small rangefinder for 15mmprime and my 14-140mm so my g80 can handle the bigger one's.

But but, i am restraining myself no GAS weakness.  First the dead of my fz200, so i lent i to my kids....😁

Regards..... Guy

My two lens kit is my EM1.2 with...

• Oly 12-100
• PL 8-18

I own other lenses but they are more specialized, like a 60mm macro, Rokinon fisheye, 45mm f1.8, Oly 40-150, both the Pro and cheap version. However, I could easily get by, and often do, with just the two above. Last week I was in New York City and only used/needed my PL 8-18 😃

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

All in a little Mirrorless Mover 20 bag...

gary0319 wrote:

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

All in a little Mirrorless Mover 20 bag...

From today with the 14-150, #9 from a 12 shot Hi Sequential burst at 30fps. (All 12 were in focus on the birds eye)

With the 8mm FE with in-camera correction..

gary0319 wrote:

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and

the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

Gary, when you use the in-camera correction to get 5mm FOV, is the file still 20mp? If not, how big, and does that mean the two other rectilinear settings are also smaller, but less small respectively?

Pretty much the same kit and covers everything for my type of shooting.  As a third lens, I'll add the PL15 F1.7.

Lately, for city shooting, it's just my EM10 III & PL 8-18.

Albert Valentino wrote:

My two lens kit is my EM1.2 with...

• Oly 12-100
• PL 8-18

I own other lenses but they are more specialized, like a 60mm macro, Rokinon fisheye, 45mm f1.8, Oly 40-150, both the Pro and cheap version. However, I could easily get by, and often do, with just the two above. Last week I was in New York City and only used/needed my PL 8-18 😃

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and

the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

Gary, when you use the in-camera correction to get 5mm FOV, is the file still 20mp? If not, how big, and does that mean the two other rectilinear settings are also smaller, but less small respectively?

I only do the widest setting and the rectilinear JPEG is 5184 x 3888. The Fisheye is the same.

I have 2 "Three Lens Kit" set-ups.

For street:

Olympus Pen F with Olympus 17mm 1.8, Olympus 45mm 1.8 and Olympus 75mm 1.8

All carried in a Wotancraft Trooper S bag.

Main kit:

Olympus EM1 MK II with Olympus 17mm Pro 1.2, Olympus 45mm Pro 1.2, and Olympus 40-150mm Pro 2.8 (with MC 14 teleconverter)

Carried in a Wotancraft Trooper M bag.

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and

the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

Gary, when you use the in-camera correction to get 5mm FOV, is the file still 20mp? If not, how big, and does that mean the two other rectilinear settings are also smaller, but less small respectively?

I only do the widest setting and the rectilinear JPEG is 5184 x 3888. The Fisheye is the same.

Thanks. Does it also do/defish raw files or just jpg?

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and

the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

Gary, when you use the in-camera correction to get 5mm FOV, is the file still 20mp? If not, how big, and does that mean the two other rectilinear settings are also smaller, but less small respectively?

I only do the widest setting and the rectilinear JPEG is 5184 x 3888. The Fisheye is the same.

Thanks. Does it also do/defish raw files or just jpg?

The raw files will be fisheye straight out of the camera. I use Olympus Workspace and it will defish the raw to give an almost exact match to the JPEG file. The gallery image I posted was most likely defished in WS, although I often use the JPEG, so not sure which I used, they look exactly the same.

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and

the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

Gary, when you use the in-camera correction to get 5mm FOV, is the file still 20mp? If not, how big, and does that mean the two other rectilinear settings are also smaller, but less small respectively?

I only do the widest setting and the rectilinear JPEG is 5184 x 3888. The Fisheye is the same.

Thanks. Does it also do/defish raw files or just jpg?

The raw files will be fisheye straight out of the camera. I use Olympus Workspace and it will defish the raw to give an almost exact match to the JPEG file. The gallery image I posted was most likely defished in WS, although I often use the JPEG, so not sure which I used, they look exactly the same.

Thanks, Good to know that a fisheye capture can be defished as a raw file or jpg and still be a 20mp file. I figured the defishing would also involve cropping and reduce the resolution. I assume that it cannot produce a defished raw file in the camera to be processed in another raw converter, but that is fine by me. Amazing that the virtues and firsts of the Olympus system exist yet still tend to get little respect. For myself, the system is king and has never made me yearn for anything else 😃

In your setup I miss two lenses.

A vintage 135mm. It was always my portrait-lens on 35mm film.  On M4/3 it's a cheap tele-lens ... and it still does portraits.

And since you're into manual lenses, I would pack the Helios-44. If you're going manual, you might as well get something the perfect AF lenses will never offer: swirley image distortion at $45.

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and

the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

Gary, when you use the in-camera correction to get 5mm FOV, is the file still 20mp? If not, how big, and does that mean the two other rectilinear settings are also smaller, but less small respectively?

I only do the widest setting and the rectilinear JPEG is 5184 x 3888. The Fisheye is the same.

Thanks. Does it also do/defish raw files or just jpg?

The raw files will be fisheye straight out of the camera. I use Olympus Workspace and it will defish the raw to give an almost exact match to the JPEG file. The gallery image I posted was most likely defished in WS, although I often use the JPEG, so not sure which I used, they look exactly the same.

Thanks, Good to know that a fisheye capture can be defished as a raw file or jpg and still be a 20mp file. I figured the defishing would also involve cropping and reduce the resolution.

When a fisheye image is “corrected” you do indeed lose information as the image is stretched to make it appear “normal”, to make curved lines straight.

If you’re going to shoot fisheye, why not work with and celebrate the fishiness of the images instead of trying to make them something they’re not. Drag queen photography… 😜

jeffharris wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and

the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

Gary, when you use the in-camera correction to get 5mm FOV, is the file still 20mp? If not, how big, and does that mean the two other rectilinear settings are also smaller, but less small respectively?

I only do the widest setting and the rectilinear JPEG is 5184 x 3888. The Fisheye is the same.

Thanks. Does it also do/defish raw files or just jpg?

The raw files will be fisheye straight out of the camera. I use Olympus Workspace and it will defish the raw to give an almost exact match to the JPEG file. The gallery image I posted was most likely defished in WS, although I often use the JPEG, so not sure which I used, they look exactly the same.

Thanks, Good to know that a fisheye capture can be defished as a raw file or jpg and still be a 20mp file. I figured the defishing would also involve cropping and reduce the resolution.

When a fisheye image is “corrected” you do indeed lose information as the image is stretched to make it appear “normal”, to make curved lines straight.

If you’re going to shoot fisheye, why not work with and celebrate the fishiness of the images instead of trying to make them something they’re not. Drag queen photography… 😜

I agree 100%. I do shoot fisheye for the virtues of fisheye, and have been for almost fifteen years over three systems. I was just inquiring for the perk of having more versatility with an Olympus fisheye vs my Rokinon fisheye, especially getting the 5.5mm FOV and the potential to someday shoot astrophotography with a faster lens. Since the Olympus fisheye is not cheap, I would need to be able to do more to justify the cost 😃

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

Albert Valentino wrote:

gary0319 wrote:

With the addition of the E-M5 III, I've now begun to use my 14-150 as my standard mount. So now my usual kit includes the 5.3, the 14-150, and

the Olympus 8mm FE Pro for the wide stuff (the 5.3 now has in-camera lens correction to give me a 5mm rectilinear view).

Gary, when you use the in-camera correction to get 5mm FOV, is the file still 20mp? If not, how big, and does that mean the two other rectilinear settings are also smaller, but less small respectively?

I only do the widest setting and the rectilinear JPEG is 5184 x 3888. The Fisheye is the same.

Thanks. Does it also do/defish raw files or just jpg?

The raw files will be fisheye straight out of the camera. I use Olympus Workspace and it will defish the raw to give an almost exact match to the JPEG file. The gallery image I posted was most likely defished in WS, although I often use the JPEG, so not sure which I used, they look exactly the same.

Thanks, Good to know that a fisheye capture can be defished as a raw file or jpg and still be a 20mp file. I figured the defishing would also involve cropping and reduce the resolution. I assume that it cannot produce a defished raw file in the camera to be processed in another raw converter, but that is fine by me. Amazing that the virtues and firsts of the Olympus system exist yet still tend to get little respect. For myself, the system is king and has never made me yearn for anything else 😃

Having used Olympus cameras now for about 5 years, I've come to realize that the true power of Olympus is not just doing what Canon or Nikon do in a smaller and lighter format, but doing the things that Canon and Nikon and Sony don't do.

However, too many people on this forum seem reluctant, or unable, to even explore the features they have at their fingertips.....and then complain about how Olympus fails to live up o the competition.