[joslicx]

Got a few additions to my mirrorless collection recently. My original gear was OM-D with the kit 12-50 lens. Had acquired the Olympus 45mm sometime back and was pretty happy with it. However it is practically useless indoors, esp in parties so:

1. Got the Panasonic 20mm f1.7! Procured in US for about $338 and got it hand delivered. Its such a nice, tiny marvel.

2. Panasonic 45-175 X lens for tele needs for about $362.00 Havent used it yet.

Also got cable remote trigger (Olympus official accesory) and few B+W UV filters for all the lenses and a hood for the 12-50 Olympus lens

To accommodate all this extra gear, acquired the very amazing Think Tank CityWalker 10 shoulder bag.
http://www.thinktankphoto.com/produc...-10-black.aspx
This bag is quite big (compared to my earlier Kata 433). But its quality (I didnt think anything could be better than kata but thinktank is!) and it can still accomodate any future additions to my lineup (mostly cheap experimental lenses and Olympus FL600R flash).

Will try to take a pic of all this gear and post here.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

after spending about 7 months with my nex 5R and a 50 mm F1.7 minolta lens, I am convinced that I need the 50 mm f1.8 E mount lens. I am missing some shots because of lack of autofocus, but I love the pictures I get from it.

The question is, should I go for 35 F1.8 or 50 F1.8? if I was to move back with 50 mm so both lenses covered the same area, which will give me a better subject isolation?

My guess is 50 mm will give me better isolation, but at the cost of increased shake. Not to mention I will have no place to move back indoors.

opinions?

Since I love to isolate single person and their expression - I would prefer a longer focal length. >50mm APS-C, it feels right. Anything less, and you would need to come closer to the subject - making the subject look weird!

So ultimately it boils down to what you want to capture - a lot of people or a single person? Everything in the room or a particular object?

Originally Posted by HellwratH

At the end of the day, it comes down to your preference I think. Sometimes, I set the WB to cloudy on purpose because it gives me pleasing tones than leaving it on Auto WB. A lot of photographers want to represent colors as close as possible to what they think they had seen. But, I feel the whole correction thing came into picture because of paid work where your client does not want skewed colors. If it's a white car, I am sure a lot of photographers would want it show up as white and not with a slightly warm tint.

(this is not directed towards you or anyone in particular)
I still find it a pretty stupid concept. The lighting should be controlled if you want perfect color. Or play around in image editing software ...
Why expect a camera to reproduce something that it never saw?
In fact why desire a camera to botch up a perfect capture?

"A lot of photographers want to represent colors as close as possible to what they think they had seen."
But we don't! Hold up a color T shirt of yours in fluorescent light, incandescent light, diffused daylight in a room, direct sunlight, moonlight, LED light, mercury vapor lamp, sodium vapor lamp, ... - every time you will see a different color and shade.

I don't buy the bollocks that is given on most websites that our eyes/brain "adjust" miraculously and produce a color that would've been visible in 6500K diffused daylight. And that's why we should have WB correction in cameras.


When I see out at night, everything appears yellow/orange because of the sodium vapor street lights ... my brain doesn't do any auto correction.
At dawn/dusk everything appears bluish to me. Again my brain doesn't do any auto WB correction.
Many times I have seen my wife in anger because the color that she saw in the showroom (purplish tint "white" light) is not what she sees at home (fluorescent or diffused daylight).

So I believe I am not the only defective piece with no auto WB correction in my eyes+brain system.

[vivekiny2k]

Thanks folks, I am leaning towards 50 mm now.

[Ragul]

Originally Posted by joslicx

Got a few additions to my mirrorless collection recently. My original gear was OM-D with the kit 12-50 lens. Had acquired the Olympus 45mm sometime back and was pretty happy with it. However it is practically useless indoors, esp in parties so:

1. Got the Panasonic 20mm f1.7! Procured in US for about $338 and got it hand delivered. Its such a nice, tiny marvel.

To accommodate all this extra gear, acquired the very amazing Think Tank CityWalker 10 shoulder bag.
http://www.thinktankphoto.com/produc...-10-black.aspx
This bag is quite big (compared to my earlier Kata 433). But its quality (I didnt think anything could be better than kata but thinktank is!) and it can still accomodate any future additions to my lineup (mostly cheap experimental lenses and Olympus FL600R flash).

Will try to take a pic of all this gear and post here.

I realized the folly of owning a 45mm for indoor photography on my vacations. It needs a room 18ft long to get a decent head to toe portrait of an adult with arms outstretched. Planning to get the 20mm f/1.7 now (anyone know the asking price in India?). I think the new 25mm 1.4 is only marginally better compared to its price and besides I never take face only shots so the 20mm close-up distortion would not be a problem.

That bag looks like a soft bag so it wont protect your gear from bumps.

Which bag would you recommend to acommodate an omd e-m5 with a 9-18, 45mm and 20mm lens kit + lens hoods and a tiny cleaning kit?

Thanks
--R

[HellwratH]

Originally Posted by alpha1

(this is not directed towards you or anyone in particular)
I still find it a pretty stupid concept. The lighting should be controlled if you want perfect color. Or play around in image editing software ...
Why expect a camera to reproduce something that it never saw?
In fact why desire a camera to botch up a perfect capture?

"A lot of photographers want to represent colors as close as possible to what they think they had seen."
But we don't! Hold up a color T shirt of yours in fluorescent light, incandescent light, diffused daylight in a room, direct sunlight, moonlight, LED light, mercury vapor lamp, sodium vapor lamp, ... - every time you will see a different color and shade.

I don't buy the bollocks that is given on most websites that our eyes/brain "adjust" miraculously and produce a color that would've been visible in 6500K diffused daylight. And that's why we should have WB correction in cameras.


When I see out at night, everything appears yellow/orange because of the sodium vapor street lights ... my brain doesn't do any auto correction.
At dawn/dusk everything appears bluish to me. Again my brain doesn't do any auto WB correction.
Many times I have seen my wife in anger because the color that she saw in the showroom (purplish tint "white" light) is not what she sees at home (fluorescent or diffused daylight).

So I believe I am not the only defective piece with no auto WB correction in my eyes+brain system.

Lighting can be controlled if you have complete control over it. Or, you make the changes in camera or in software depending on your preference. Also, not sure if you've seen/experienced WB changes causes exposure changes. In certain situations (http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.p...c,25556.0.html), WB correction becomes a pain to correct in PP. This has been my personal experience too. However, as I stated in my previous post, everything comes down to your preference and what you want to communicate through your photography. For example, see what David Hobby wanted to communicate throught this photograph:
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/05...-desserts.html

A blue/cold day to go with a warm cake. It was purely a play of WB even when he had the lighting under control. So, WB correction helps but it's upto us as to how we want to use it.

We are also assuming that we know what camera sees, how do we know how much PP it applies by itself before it shows us a photograph? I do believe that to some extent our brains correct the colors it sees but does not neautralize colors every time.


Ragul,
If you have the budget, get the 25mm f1.4. 20mm does show distortion at times if you are not careful. However, you won't go wrong with either of them. Both are extremely good lenses.

[Ragul]

Originally Posted by HellwratH

. So, WB correction helps but it's upto us as to how we want to use it.

We are also assuming that we know what camera sees, how do we know how much PP it applies by itself before it shows us a photograph? I do believe that to some extent our brains correct the colors it sees but does not neautralize colors every time.


Ragul,
If you have the budget, get the 25mm f1.4. 20mm does show distortion at times if you are not careful. However, you won't go wrong with either of them. Both are extremely good lenses.

I am currently struggling with the WB settings to use on my raw images from my recent vacation - many of them look yellowish or even greenish with the slider at anything around 5100K to 5500K when olympus recommends 5300K for daylight. So I am going to set it just below that, but it beats my why the recommended setting shows wrong color balance. I used AWB when shooting. Some ocean beach shots have a strange cyan hue and the sand is not a normal color no matter what I try. (Maybe the sand really was like that but I never noticed? LOL). Or the 9-18 lens has its own color balance. Monitor is Dell 2408WFP uncalibrated. I use Corel Aftershot Pro on Linux.

About the 20mm I think its a problem only at about 2ft distance, I dont expect to shoot that close.

--R

[HellwratH]

Originally Posted by Ragul

I am currently struggling with the WB settings to use on my raw images from my recent vacation - many of them look yellowish or even greenish with the slider at anything around 5100K to 5500K when olympus recommends 5300K for daylight. So I am going to set it just below that, but it beats my why the recommended setting shows wrong color balance. I used AWB when shooting. Some ocean beach shots have a strange cyan hue and the sand is not a normal color no matter what I try. (Maybe the sand really was like that but I never noticed? LOL). Or the 9-18 lens has its own color balance. Monitor is Dell 2408WFP uncalibrated. I use Corel Aftershot Pro on Linux.

About the 20mm I think its a problem only at about 2ft distance, I dont expect to shoot that close.

--R

It could be a mix of all of the things you mentioned. I have noticed that lenses have a big role to play how colors come out too. AWB is automatic, so camera will choose what it thinks is the right temperature of the light. If you have a white patch, you can use the paint dropper tool to set the WB on LR. Not sure how it works on other software. Yep, I am happy with 20mm but now mostly use 35mm on Fuji for my portraits indoors.

[joe1980]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

Thanks folks, I am leaning towards 50 mm now.

That should be a good choice. I have my 50mm since a month and I'm finding that it delivers tact sharp images. I love the IQ of this lens. It suits me ideally for portraits.

[Samurai]

How come nobody is considering Zuiko 17mm F/1.8, I am finding it to be a fantastic lens. It has become my primary walkaround lens.

This was shot indoor, at ISO250.

[ampere]

Now Samsung into it

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-came...-35796812.html

[aim120]

Samsung has been in mirrorless cameras for quite some time.

What a waste of space with no manual controls.

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by Ragul

I realized the folly of owning a 45mm for indoor photography on my vacations. It needs a room 18ft long to get a decent head to toe portrait of an adult with arms outstretched. Planning to get the 20mm f/1.7 now (anyone know the asking price in India?). I think the new 25mm 1.4 is only marginally better compared to its price and besides I never take face only shots so the 20mm close-up distortion would not be a problem.

That bag looks like a soft bag so it wont protect your gear from bumps.

Which bag would you recommend to acommodate an omd e-m5 with a 9-18, 45mm and 20mm lens kit + lens hoods and a tiny cleaning kit?

Thanks
--R

That 20 vs 25 is a great debate really. I hadnt used any but a war raged in my mind for long time as to which one to get. I browsed thru lot of pics taken with both and finally was convinced that 20 was the one for me! I am getting interested in street photography and people have posted some very nice street pics taken with it.

The downside is, it is not available in India! Panasonic does not sell it here. None of the stores stock it. I had a chat with Jayesh of Photo Circle who gave me a quote of Rs. 27k (Rs. 30k MRP - 10% discount) to get this with an advance payment! That is almost the price of 25mm in US! I am traveling again this weekend so maybe will get some time to use it. I want to see how it works in the evenings.

As for the bag, it is solid. there is a detachable compartment inside (sort of hard lining) that will protect your gear from bumps. If you are interested we can catch up sometime and you can check it out. But its a pretty big bag (it can easily hold FF cameras with 24-70 lens + 2 other lenses! I was actually interested in Retrospective lineup of Thinktank bags but there is only one issue with them - the flap that secures the bag has only Velcro locks and there is a provision for silent mode (by disabling the velcro) but it means if you are someone with poor memory (like me) you might forget about it and then the bag is unlocked and things can potentially tumble out. The City Walker has an additional clip type lock.

For your collection, if you want a small bag, then Kata 435 or 437 is good. I think Samurai has one of these ( i have 433 but it is barely enough for my camera + kit lens + 45mm so for three lenses you should go for slightly bigger one) Personally I like the Domke line of bags (perfect for street walking) but those are not at all available in India.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by HellwratH

Lighting can be controlled if you have complete control over it. Or, you make the changes in camera or in software depending on your preference. Also, not sure if you've seen/experienced WB changes causes exposure changes. In certain situations (http://www.jjmehta.com/forum/index.p...c,25556.0.html), WB correction becomes a pain to correct in PP. This has been my personal experience too. However, as I stated in my previous post, everything comes down to your preference and what you want to communicate through your photography. For example, see what David Hobby wanted to communicate throught this photograph:
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/05...-desserts.html

A blue/cold day to go with a warm cake. It was purely a play of WB even when he had the lighting under control. So, WB correction helps but it's upto us as to how we want to use it.

We are also assuming that we know what camera sees, how do we know how much PP it applies by itself before it shows us a photograph? I do believe that to some extent our brains correct the colors it sees but does not neautralize colors every time.

I my honest opinion, the first pic of the jjmehta forum appears to be much better and truer than the second with corrected WB.

The first one gives an impression of the yellow tinged stage lights, whereas the second one looks like shot in a studio with a cool white tube light (in fact quite unnatural)!

Dave Hobby thing is like special effects - and I agree playing with WB can make a dramatic change in the "feel". I wouldn't call it White balance correction.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by joslicx

That 20 vs 25 is a great debate really.

For me the debate was between 17, 20 & 25. Finally, the 17mm won.

These reviews clinched it for me.


http://robinwong.blogspot.in/2012/11...ew-street.html
http://robinwong.blogspot.in/2012/11...18-review.html

And it is as good as I expected, may be even better. The night shots I have taken in that has to be seen to be believed. Only the corners are soft.

More than 95% of the shots in my recent Japan trip were shot in 17mm and 45mm.

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by Samurai

For me the debate was between 17, 20 & 25. Finally, the 17mm won.

Yes 17mm 1.8 is very good too. The best thing about it is that it is actually available in India!

17mm Oly vs 20mm Pana is a toss for me. I went with Panasonic as it was cheaper of the two! I think the 17mm is a tad bit overpriced at $500. You can buy the PanLeica 25mm 1.4 for that much isint it?

It would be interesting to know why you chose 17mm over the 25mm (I assume both were same price).