420 and 25/2.8
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 | Next > |
 |
420 and 25/2.8
by My Gmail
::
Rate this Message:
Small, quick, plenty good enough:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8943748@N07/2670951323/ Tom ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by Chris Barker-3
::
Rate this Message:
Cool shot, Tom! But I reckon that you could get that with any combination of camera and lens ... Chris On 15 Jul 2008, at 17:21, Tom Fenwick wrote: > Small, quick, plenty good enough: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/8943748@N07/2670951323/ ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by My Gmail
::
Rate this Message:
That's more or less what I meant! It just weighs less than any of the other combinations I can't be bothered to carry when I go into town for lunch hence... Now I miss less amusing juxtapositions of similar eyebrowed but disproportionately sized faces. Tom 2008/7/15 Chris Barker <ftog@...>: > > Cool shot, Tom! But I reckon that you could get that with any > combination of camera and lens ... > > Chris > > On 15 Jul 2008, at 17:21, Tom Fenwick wrote: > > > Small, quick, plenty good enough: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/8943748@N07/2670951323/ > > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > ============================================== > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by Nathan Wajsman-2
::
Rate this Message:
Definitely good enough. I just finished looking through 87 pictures from Brighton and London last week, all taken with this combo. Not bad at all for an almost pocketable outfit. My only complaint is the lens has noticeable barrel distortion, not something I expected in a fixed focal length lens. In your picture it does not matter, but it is clearly visible in several of my images that have straight lines in them. My pictures of last week, which I will post tonight, will contain some examples of this. Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu http://www.greatpix.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog On Jul 15, 2008, at 6:21 PM, Tom Fenwick wrote: > Small, quick, plenty good enough: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/8943748@N07/2670951323/ > > Tom > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > ============================================== ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by Rob Harrison-3
::
Rate this Message:
i have been looking at this combo, for my first foray into DSLRs. Being an architect, a lot (most) of what I take photos of includes straight lines...so it is disappointing to hear about the barrel distortion. :-( Is this also a problem with the kit zoom? Sean Reid has an interesting take on distortion in wide angles. I'm still way in the rectilinear camp. Rob in Seattle On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote: > Definitely good enough. I just finished looking through 87 pictures > from Brighton and London last week, all taken with this combo. Not bad > at all for an almost pocketable outfit. My only complaint is the lens > has noticeable barrel distortion, not something I expected in a fixed > focal length lens. In your picture it does not matter, but it is > clearly visible in several of my images that have straight lines in > them. My pictures of last week, which I will post tonight, will > contain some examples of this. ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by Chris Barker-3
::
Rate this Message:
Indeed, but I meant that on your showings to date, _you_ could make it happen so well with any combination :-) Chris On 15 Jul 2008, at 18:01, Tom Fenwick wrote: > That's more or less what I meant! It just weighs less than any of > the other > combinations I can't be bothered to carry when I go into town for > lunch > hence... > Now I miss less amusing juxtapositions of similar eyebrowed but > disproportionately sized faces. > > Tom > > 2008/7/15 Chris Barker <ftog@...>: > >> >> Cool shot, Tom! But I reckon that you could get that with any >> combination of camera and lens ... > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by Jim Nichols-2
::
Rate this Message:
Rob, I can't speak for the cheapest kit lens, but, with the Zuiko 14-54 that I chose, I have seen no evidence of this. Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Harrison" <robhar54@...> To: <olympus@...> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:57 PM Subject: [OM] Re: 420 and 25/2.8 > > i have been looking at this combo, for my first foray into DSLRs. > Being an architect, a lot (most) of what I take photos of includes > straight lines...so it is disappointing to hear about the barrel > distortion. :-( > > Is this also a problem with the kit zoom? > > Sean Reid has an interesting take on distortion in wide angles. I'm > still way in the rectilinear camp. > > Rob in Seattle > > > On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote: > >> Definitely good enough. I just finished looking through 87 pictures >> from Brighton and London last week, all taken with this combo. Not bad >> at all for an almost pocketable outfit. My only complaint is the lens >> has noticeable barrel distortion, not something I expected in a fixed >> focal length lens. In your picture it does not matter, but it is >> clearly visible in several of my images that have straight lines in >> them. My pictures of last week, which I will post tonight, will >> contain some examples of this. > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > ============================================== > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by My Gmail
::
Rate this Message:
Ah. Oh. Blush. Tom 2008/7/15 Chris Barker <ftog@...>: > > Indeed, but I meant that on your showings to date, _you_ could make it > happen so well with any combination :-) > > Chris > > On 15 Jul 2008, at 18:01, Tom Fenwick wrote: > > > That's more or less what I meant! It just weighs less than any of > > the other > > combinations I can't be bothered to carry when I go into town for > > lunch > > hence... > > Now I miss less amusing juxtapositions of similar eyebrowed but > > disproportionately sized faces. > > > > Tom > > > > 2008/7/15 Chris Barker <ftog@...>: > > > >> > >> Cool shot, Tom! But I reckon that you could get that with any > >> combination of camera and lens ... > > > > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > ============================================== > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by My Gmail
::
Rate this Message:
It's a nuisance in some shots - not people, but lots of other stuff. I went as far as trying to correct one in photoshop the other day - it works. I've found it with all the zooms (14-42, 14-54, 12-60, 11-22) at the wide end. I reckon the 14-54 is probably the best in this regard, although the others are either a lot cheaper or quite a bit wider so it doesn't count. It would have been nice if the prime didn't have it, but I think size was their The 7-14 is the exception, in my limited experience so far - it is as nearly perfectly rectilinear as makes no difference. Tom 2008/7/15 Jim Nichols <jhnichols@...>: > > Rob, > > I can't speak for the cheapest kit lens, but, with the Zuiko 14-54 that I > chose, I have seen no evidence of this. > > Jim Nichols > Tullahoma, TN USA > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Harrison" <robhar54@...> > To: <olympus@...> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:57 PM > Subject: [OM] Re: 420 and 25/2.8 > > > > > > i have been looking at this combo, for my first foray into DSLRs. > > Being an architect, a lot (most) of what I take photos of includes > > straight lines...so it is disappointing to hear about the barrel > > distortion. :-( > > > > Is this also a problem with the kit zoom? > > > > Sean Reid has an interesting take on distortion in wide angles. I'm > > still way in the rectilinear camp. > > > > Rob in Seattle > > > > > > On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote: > > > >> Definitely good enough. I just finished looking through 87 pictures > >> from Brighton and London last week, all taken with this combo. Not bad > >> at all for an almost pocketable outfit. My only complaint is the lens > >> has noticeable barrel distortion, not something I expected in a fixed > >> focal length lens. In your picture it does not matter, but it is > >> clearly visible in several of my images that have straight lines in > >> them. My pictures of last week, which I will post tonight, will > >> contain some examples of this. > > > > > > ============================================== > > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > > ============================================== > > > > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > ============================================== > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by Moose-2
::
Rate this Message:
Tom Fenwick wrote:
> It's a nuisance in some shots - not people, but lots of other stuff. I went as far as trying to correct one in photoshop the other day - it works. > > I've found it with all the zooms (14-42, 14-54, 12-60, 11-22) at the wide end. I reckon the 14-54 is probably the best in this regard, although the others are either a lot cheaper or quite a bit wider so it doesn't count. > It would have been nice if the prime didn't have it, but I think size was their > Time for my unpaid, unofficial shill act for PTLens again. It's dirt cheap and astonishingly good. Reads the EXIF and makes the correction - like magic. Corrects distortion you might not notice until you see before and after. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/HearstCastle/CdM01.htm> Really crucial for architectural work where you are going to do perspective correction. If you don't correct lens distortion first, you can end up with nice horizontal and vertical lines that are bowed in the middle. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/HearstCastle/GStair.htm> Even with no straight lines at all, before and after make it clear that shots look more natural corrected. <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/Oak01.htm> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan01.htm I use it all the time and have never noticed any artifacts from the process. I do any NR before PTLens (or any perspective correction, etc.), so the noise pattern won't be distorted. I'm not sure if it makes a practical difference, but should in theory. I don't know if it violates one of Nathan's personal processing taboos, but should at least be of assistance to others. It currently has calibration profiles for these lenses: Zuiko Digital 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 ED SWD Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 ED Zuiko Digital 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Leica D Vario-Elmarit 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital 18-180mm f/3.5-6.3 ED Zuiko Digital 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 ED Zuiko Digital 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2.0 Macro One of you folks with the 25/2.8 should follow his specs for a calibration shot for that lens and send it to him. <http://www.epaperpress.com/ptlens/index.html> > The 7-14 is the exception, in my limited experience so far - it is as nearly perfectly rectilinear as makes no difference. > > Tom > > 2008/7/15 Jim Nichols <jhnichols@...>: > > >> Rob, >> >> I can't speak for the cheapest kit lens, but, with the Zuiko 14-54 that I >> chose, I have seen no evidence of this. >> >> Jim Nichols >> Tullahoma, TN USA >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Rob Harrison" <robhar54@...> >> To: <olympus@...> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 12:57 PM >> Subject: [OM] Re: 420 and 25/2.8 >> >> >> >>> i have been looking at this combo, for my first foray into DSLRs. >>> Being an architect, a lot (most) of what I take photos of includes >>> straight lines...so it is disappointing to hear about the barrel >>> distortion. :-( >>> >>> Is this also a problem with the kit zoom? >>> >>> Sean Reid has an interesting take on distortion in wide angles. I'm >>> still way in the rectilinear camp. >>> >>> Rob in Seattle >>> >>> >>> On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Definitely good enough. I just finished looking through 87 pictures >>>> from Brighton and London last week, all taken with this combo. Not bad >>>> at all for an almost pocketable outfit. My only complaint is the lens >>>> has noticeable barrel distortion, not something I expected in a fixed >>>> focal length lens. In your picture it does not matter, but it is >>>> clearly visible in several of my images that have straight lines in >>>> them. My pictures of last week, which I will post tonight, will >>>> contain some examples of this. >>>> >>> ============================================== >>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com >>> List nannies: olympusadmin@... >>> ============================================== >>> >>> >> >> ============================================== >> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com >> List nannies: olympusadmin@... >> ============================================== >> >> > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > ============================================== > > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by chucknorcutt
::
Rate this Message:
Not to worry. PTLens will straighten them out for all of $15.
<http://www.epaperpress.com/ptlens/index.html> Chuck Norcutt Rob Harrison wrote: > i have been looking at this combo, for my first foray into DSLRs. > Being an architect, a lot (most) of what I take photos of includes > straight lines...so it is disappointing to hear about the barrel > distortion. :-( > > Is this also a problem with the kit zoom? > > Sean Reid has an interesting take on distortion in wide angles. I'm > still way in the rectilinear camp. > > Rob in Seattle > > > On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote: > >> Definitely good enough. I just finished looking through 87 pictures >> from Brighton and London last week, all taken with this combo. Not bad >> at all for an almost pocketable outfit. My only complaint is the lens >> has noticeable barrel distortion, not something I expected in a fixed >> focal length lens. In your picture it does not matter, but it is >> clearly visible in several of my images that have straight lines in >> them. My pictures of last week, which I will post tonight, will >> contain some examples of this. > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@... > ============================================== > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.11/1553 - Release Date: 7/15/2008 5:48 AM > > > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by chucknorcutt
::
Rate this Message:
I sent some calibration images for lenses I own that weren't on PTLens'
list yet. After looking around for a suitable target I settled on a late 50's or early 60's grammar school. If you're in the US you probably know the style... all aluminum and glass and very, very rectangular. I got complimented on the quality of my calibration shots with the comment that they were much better than most and made it easy to do the calibration. Look for such a school building since I think it makes the shooting easier as well. Chuck Norcutt Moose wrote: .htm > > I use it all the time and have never noticed any artifacts from the > process. I do any NR before PTLens (or any perspective correction, > etc.), so the noise pattern won't be distorted. I'm not sure if it makes > a practical difference, but should in theory. > > I don't know if it violates one of Nathan's personal processing taboos, > but should at least be of assistance to others. > > It currently has calibration profiles for these lenses: > Zuiko Digital 7-14mm f/4.0 > Zuiko Digital 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 > Zuiko Digital 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 ED SWD > Zuiko Digital 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 ED > Zuiko Digital 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 > Leica D Vario-Elmarit 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 > Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 > Zuiko Digital 18-180mm f/3.5-6.3 ED > Zuiko Digital 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 ED > Zuiko Digital 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 > Zuiko Digital 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 > Zuiko Digital 50mm f/2.0 Macro > > One of you folks with the 25/2.8 should follow his specs for a > calibration shot for that lens and send it to him. > <http://www.epaperpress.com/ptlens/index.html> ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by Rob Harrison-3
::
Rate this Message:
Done and downloaded! Thanks Chuck & Moose. Rob in Seattle On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Chuck Norcutt < chucknorcutt@...> wrote: > Not to worry. PTLens will straighten them out for all of $15. > <http://www.epaperpress.com/ptlens/index.html> > > Chuck Norcutt > > > Rob Harrison wrote: > > i have been looking at this combo, for my first foray into DSLRs. > > Being an architect, a lot (most) of what I take photos of includes > > straight lines...so it is disappointing to hear about the barrel > > distortion. :-( > > > > Is this also a problem with the kit zoom? > > > > Sean Reid has an interesting take on distortion in wide angles. I'm > > still way in the rectilinear camp. > > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by Sandy Harris
::
Rate this Message:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Tom Fenwick <super.wide@...> wrote: > > It's a nuisance in some shots ... > > I've found it with all the zooms (14-42, 14-54, 12-60, 11-22) at the wide > end. I reckon the 14-54 is probably the best in this regard, .... Anyone tried the Russian 16 2.8 on a 4/3 camera ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: 420 and 25/2.8
by Nathan Wajsman-2
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Moose, Yes, it would violate my personal code of conduct, but it is also awfully tempting :-) However, the temptation is somewhat tempered by the fact that it would involve installing yet another piece of standalone software, which I really hate. It is bad enough having to use Olympus Master or Silkypix to convert the RAW images from the E420 since Adobe Camera Raw does not yet support it. But once Lightroom 2.0 comes out of beta status, then PTLens will be just a Lightroom plugin and then, who knows? :-) Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu http://www.greatpix.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog On Jul 15, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Moose wrote: >> Time for my unpaid, unofficial shill act for PTLens again. > > It's dirt cheap and astonishingly good. Reads the EXIF and makes the > correction - like magic. Corrects distortion you might not notice > until > you see before and after. > <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/HearstCastle/CdM01.htm > > > > Really crucial for architectural work where you are going to do > perspective correction. If you don't correct lens distortion first, > you > can end up with nice horizontal and vertical lines that are bowed in > the > middle. > <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/HearstCastle/GStair.htm > > > > Even with no straight lines at all, before and after make it clear > that > shots look more natural corrected. > <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/Oak01.htm > > > http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan01.htm > > I use it all the time and have never noticed any artifacts from the > process. I do any NR before PTLens (or any perspective correction, > etc.), so the noise pattern won't be distorted. I'm not sure if it > makes > a practical difference, but should in theory. > > I don't know if it violates one of Nathan's personal processing > taboos, > but should at least be of assistance to others. > ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@... ============================================== < |
