[Klaus]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1310230701' post='9870']

What lenses do you use with the gh2 ? I'm seriously thinking about dumping my current system and getting a nex-5 or gh2. Maybe one of the new olympus with viewfinder is equal to the gh2 (question not statement) ?

-

I just find the current camera too large so i never take it with me; sometimes it is better to have something to travel. The nex-5 looks nice but not sure it is really any better than gh2/olympus and i definitely want a view finder.

[/quote]



I'm using the Leica 14-150 via adapter and I will either get the Pana 7-14 or Oly 7-14 soon. Plus the Oly 45.

[mst]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1310230701' post='9870']

Maybe one of the new olympus with viewfinder is equal to the gh2 (question not statement) ?

[/quote]



IIRC the Oly viewfinder is poor in comparison.



-- Markus

[Guest]

The oly evf viewfinder is poor compared to the gh2 (again question) ? I sort of prefer olympus body is and the jpeg engine but was assuming the stand-alone evf was as good or better than the gh2.

-

The 45f1.8 looks sweet. I'm not really interested in the wide range (7-14 Klaus mentioned) but something in the 14-50 range that is a bit faster than the kit lens would be nice. Doesn't seem to be much.



[quote name='mst' timestamp='1310235628' post='9872']

IIRC the Oly viewfinder is poor in comparison.



-- Markus

[/quote]

[mst]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1310248149' post='9878']

The oly evf viewfinder is poor compared to the gh2 (again question) ?

[/quote]



Sorry, I mixed the Pana and Oly external viewfinders here. The Pana viewfinder for the GF cameras has low resolution, while the Oly viewfinder (VF-2) also offers a resolution of 1.44 megapixels. So, please disregard my remark.



-- Markus

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1310214539' post='9860']

The numbers are absolutely meaningless for comparisons between two systems.

[/quote]



Yes, I know but imho 5 rating scales are enough, 7 rating scales like photozone did on the new Oly. 14-150, just does not help to get an overview. Also the rating scales are not rated <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I prefer the canon way, where you made the results directly comparable (forget about the numbers)



http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon?start=1

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff?start=1



http://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/645-oly_m14150_456?start=1



regards

[Klaus]

[quote name='Bjoern' timestamp='1310287598' post='9885']

Yes, I know but imho 5 rating scales are enough, 7 rating scales like photozone did on the new Oly. 14-150, just does not help to get an overview. Also the rating scales are not rated <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I prefer the canon way, where you made the results directly comparable (forget about the numbers)



[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon?start=1"]http://www.photozone...4_canon?start=1[/url]

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff?start=1"]http://www.photozone...14eosff?start=1[/url]



[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/645-oly_m14150_456?start=1"]http://www.photozone...150_456?start=1[/url]



regards

[/quote]



Yes, understood. I fixed it to some degree. I wanted to reduce the scale anyway because 2750 LW/PH were only achieved by the Pana 20 and the other lenses stood quite short of that. I was thinking of a [900, 2650] scale rather than [1000,2750]. It's now at [990,2640] - this is a bit odd, I know. However, the javascript engine is not that flexible at this stage (it takes 330 LW/PH steps from zero if you look deeper here but this is somewhat orbitary).

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1310289093' post='9886']

Yes, understood. I fixed it to some degree. I wanted to reduce the scale anyway because 2750 LW/PH were only achieved by the Pana 20 and the other lenses stood quite short of that. I was thinking of a [900, 2650] scale rather than [1000,2750]. It's now at [990,2640] - this is a bit odd, I know. However, the javascript engine is not that flexible at this stage (it takes 330 LW/PH steps from zero if you look deeper here but this is somewhat orbitary).

[/quote]



Thanks Klaus

Much better, I don`t mind odd numbers at all.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Bjoern' timestamp='1310290964' post='9887']

Thanks Klaus

Much better, I don`t mind odd numbers at all.

[/quote]



Yeah, but it should really be something like a [950,2650] scale so the charts would "look" marginally better still.



The new javascript engine isn't globally rolled out because of these issues.

In the MFT section the data is already fed from the database.

Eventually this will be the base for the often-asked-for sortable result table.

[Guest]

hmm something is wrong with the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH graphs now. If you scroll over it you will not get the highest number shown anymore.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Bjoern' timestamp='1310306107' post='9892']

hmm something is wrong with the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH graphs now. If you scroll over it you will not get the highest number shown anymore.

[/quote]



Yeah, this is one of the side effects of limiting the max. to 2650 LW/PH.