Suggestions for a good street photography setup?

jawbreaker wrote:

I have a GM5, and with the 20 it doesn't get much smaller. For low shots I palm it, chest for higher shots. Very discreet. I just take lots of shots and see what I get.

Other than my GM1 with either the PL15 or the O25/1.8. While the body is a touch smaller, the lenses are a lot smaller. The GM's are fun and deliver respectable files.

pannumon wrote:

pdelux wrote:

20mm did annoy me with its focus time.

Plus I didnt really like 20mm fOV and the pancake has some distortion on the edges, but its a good lense and many others like them.

20mm f/1.7 seems to AF better on Panasonic bodies. Distortion is automatically corrected, except perhaps on some older Olympus bodies.

I would prefer any of the other 17ish lenses which are faster to focus. Though not as small but still small.

Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 17mm f/1.8, Sigma 19mm f/2.8 are all good options, 20mm f/1.7 being my first choice. I would probably add a Panasonic 12-32mm pancake or 12-60mm (non-Leica) or maybe Olympus 14-42mm EZ pancake. This would mean a 400€-600€ budget for the camera, meaning something like Panasonic GX80, Panasonic G80, Panasonic G90(?), Olympus E-M5 mk II, Olympus E-M10 mk III/IV. I would first look at G80 and E-M5 mk II that are a bit older upper mid-range models.

Is the panasonic 20mm 1.7 corrected on the Omd Em10 make I?

pannumon wrote:

User7584811583 wrote:

Is the panasonic 20mm 1.7 corrected on the Omd Em10 make I?

All Olympus cameras should correct geometric corrections. OMD E-M10 mk I has TruePic VII so it should support also chromatic aberration correction and also vignetting correction.

if you shoot raw, the camera body should not matter as long as all the correction information is written to the raw file (as I believe it is with all Olympus µ4/3 cameras).

For more information, see this post:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63452695

Thank you for this information!

drmarkf wrote:

Yes, but if you use an M1ii or iii looking down on the screen, and move the focus points with a finger, you can move the focus and shoot (eg on Low Continuous) almost instantly: this is faster than doing it any other way, surely?

Not for me.  Zone focusing is always going to be faster because a) I'm fine with the deep depth of field (f/5.6 @ approx 3m) and b) there's absolutely no need to select an AF point.

On top of that, I walk around for 2-3 hours at a time with the camera literally in my right hand at all times.  Having the rear screen deployed for chest-height framing (I don't hold the camera up to my face) makes it too bulky and prone to catching the screen on something, which is why I prefer single axis screens.  And even then, I keep it angled out only as much as necessary (maybe 15 deg out)

Also, you can set the screen to tap focus and take a single shot instantly, too.

Yes, I've done that with my Panasonic cameras but after trial and error, I've found that zone focus works best for me.  It's simply faster and the focus more reliable.

Also relevant is whether you want to zone focus for deep depth of field (for Myerowitz-style ‘field’ images) or use CAF for narrow dof to get subject isolation.

You're right, that is quite relevant.

If the former, then the Olympus manual focus clutch (with focus peaking if you like) is a great advantage.

For me that would depend on how accurate and consistent its focus distance markings are.