[mike]

ThinkTank bags are also my favourite. My oldest, a Sling-O-Matic 20, was with me on most of my travels and still works like on the first day. There products don't age quickly.

 

For the smaller cameras I used to have SpeedChangers or HubbaHubbaHiney (the names sometimes make me think what happens with a mind developing bags day-in, day-out  ^_^ ) but lately I'm happy with a Retrospective 6. With a battery grip on the X-T2, I need just a bit more space. But I was looking a bit envy on your magnet clips to close the flap. Velcro is too loud sometimes - and I can't always use the silencers, because then the flap doesn't stay in position.

 

 

I was really looking at the Retrospective 5, but after looking at pictures at the ThinkTank site and on-line, I felt the 25i was the perfect fit, which it is! I'm thinking of adding the Mirrorless Mover 5 to keep one body/lens in and keep one body nearby at all times. 

[wim]

I liked it so much I bought another one! My Kit consists of 2xPen F, Panny 20/1.7, Panny 12-32, Panny 35-100, and it all fits in with plenty of extra room for polarizers/flashes/extra batteries in a Think Tank Mirrorless 25i bag. I can't believe all that fits in that little bag. Which, btw, I highly recommend the Think Tank bags. Very well thought and an great quality. 

 

I've been amazed at what I can get away with hand holding. I was recently in Denver CO. walking around 16 street mall in the evening. 16th st mall is not really a mall, just a closed to cars street with stores, bars, clubs, etc and a free shuttle going up and down the street. About the only thing I can fault it for is low light focusing. But it's not bad either, and it won't shoot until it's in focus.

 

My first real trip coming up, Mexico City, next week. It should get a real workout there. Can't wait!

 

I suppose the next thing I want to add to the kit is a UW, something around a 9mm. 

 

Great to hear .

Currently the Pen-F is the camera I use most often, as I have it with me at all times, as it essentially replaced my Canon G10 . I have the Oly 14-42 EZ mounted to it as a standard lens, normally, which also is a pancake lens.

 

A tip for focusing under difficult circumstances (low light): use the option to focus by tapping the screen. You can also do that with your eye on the EVF; just need to switch off the automatic switch between EVF and LCD-monitor, to make them work simultaneously .

 

As to a 9 mm UWA, you could go for any of the UWA MFT zooms, they all are excellent to good, with the Oly 9-18 being the smallest, but the 7-14s being the best. The Panny 7-14 has been my favourite for a very long time, and although I now also own the Oly 7-14 Pro, it still is for traveling light with an UWA.

 

If you are looking for a prime, you may want to consider the Laowa 7.5 F/2, which is considered to be great indeed, in a way the MFT equivalent of the 10 mm F/2.8 for FF, although with a smaller AoV, obviously.

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/laowa-7-5m...iew.92121/

 

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

PZ calls it equiv. to a 15/4 on FF , that Laowa

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/1001-laowa75f2mft 

[Brightcolours]

PZ calls it equiv. to a 15/4 on FF , that Laowa

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/1001-laowa75f2mft 

Which is correct, of course

[mike]

Great to hear .

Currently the Pen-F is the camera I use most often, as I have it with me at all times, as it essentially replaced my Canon G10 . I have the Oly 14-42 EZ mounted to it as a standard lens, normally, which also is a pancake lens.

 

A tip for focusing under difficult circumstances (low light): use the option to focus by tapping the screen. You can also do that with your eye on the EVF; just need to switch off the automatic switch between EVF and LCD-monitor, to make them work simultaneously .

 

As to a 9 mm UWA, you could go for any of the UWA MFT zooms, they all are excellent to good, with the Oly 9-18 being the smallest, but the 7-14s being the best. The Panny 7-14 has been my favourite for a very long time, and although I now also own the Oly 7-14 Pro, it still is for traveling light with an UWA.

 

If you are looking for a prime, you may want to consider the Laowa 7.5 F/2, which is considered to be great indeed, in a way the MFT equivalent of the 10 mm F/2.8 for FF, although with a smaller AoV, obviously.

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/laowa-7-5m...iew.92121/

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

Thanks for the focus tips. They're the one's I figured out within the first few minutes of using the camera  What an awesome feature. 

 

I've also come to really enjoy the Super Control Panel, and how easy it is to switch between items like histogram, levels, etc. It's like everything I really need to ever change is at my finger tips    

 

Now that I'm thinking of it. Is there a way to disable the Creative Dial? I've got bit a couple of times accidentally actuating it... then trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

 

I was looking at the 7-14's. I have one more lens I can get reimbursed for. I can only imagine what an awesome landscape lens a 7-14 would be on an MTF! 

[wim]

PZ calls it equiv. to a 15/4 on FF , that Laowa

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/m43/1001-laowa75f2mft 

 

Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that it is really a 15 mm FF equivalent, and so is the aperture, from a DoF POV. However, the 15 mm F/4 Laowa is a completely different animal, being an UWA macro lens, so IMO, the 7.5 mm F/2 MFT Laowa currently comes closest to the 10 mm F/2.8 FF Laowa, as an UWA lens. Ideally one would liek to have a 5 mm lens obviously, as that has teh same AoV on MFT as the 10 mm on FF. Also, th e15 F/4 is not all that great, IMO, but the 7.5 actually is, as is the 10 mm FF .

 

I considered getting one myself, but since I already own two 7-14 mm MFT zooms (the Panny and the Oly Pro), I don't really gain anything other than a slightly smaller lens and a 1 stop faster aperture, which I do not necessarily need. The Panny is not all that big anyway, so I can live with that when I want to go even lighter than I already do compared to my Canon kit .

 

As to the equivalence bit, it is about time that people start realizing it is utter nonsense. It is all about shooting with the gear that is appropriate, for whatever reasons, and equivalence is only good fro showing the limits of systems rather than establishing whether one is better or not. There is a reason why there are so many different hammers in existence, from sledgehammer to the tiniest hammer for nails of 1 cm and less: it allows the selection of the right hammer for the job. The same is true for cameras. However, let me stop my rant here .

 

Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

Thanks for the focus tips. They're the one's I figured out within the first few minutes of using the camera  What an awesome feature. 

 

I've also come to really enjoy the Super Control Panel, and how easy it is to switch between items like histogram, levels, etc. It's like everything I really need to ever change is at my finger tips    

 

Now that I'm thinking of it. Is there a way to disable the Creative Dial? I've got bit a couple of times accidentally actuating it... then trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

 

I was looking at the 7-14's. I have one more lens I can get reimbursed for. I can only imagine what an awesome landscape lens a 7-14 would be on an MTF! 

 

It's only a pleasure.

 

As to the dial, no I do not think there is an option to disable it. One can set the profiles for each different option quite easily, yes, but disabling it is not possible AFAIK. You could possibly tape it with some gaffers tape, I guess .

 

Personally I use it to switch between monochrome and "normal" shooting for my SOOC jpegs, I don;t use it a lot either. I have never accidentally actuated it yet, however. Was this caused by placing it in your bag, or getting it out? Grabbing it the wrong way? Just wondering, as it hasn't happened to me yet.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

Yes, I am fully aware of the fact that it is really a 15 mm FF equivalent, and so is the aperture, from a DoF POV. However, the 15 mm F/4 Laowa is a completely different animal, being an UWA macro lens, so IMO, the 7.5 mm F/2 MFT Laowa currently comes closest to the 10 mm F/2.8 FF Laowa, as an UWA lens. Ideally one would liek to have a 5 mm lens obviously, as that has teh same AoV on MFT as the 10 mm on FF. Also, th e15 F/4 is not all that great, IMO, but the 7.5 actually is, as is the 10 mm FF .

...

Sorry Wim, no one was referring to a Laowa Macro lens. There are many other options for 15/4 FF lenses, some of them need to be stopped down. I agree the 15/4 Laowa is not great, the shift option is a joke and the handling is according to it's price (compared to serious shift lenses)

 

As to the equivalence bit, it is about time that people start realizing it is utter nonsense. It is all about shooting with the gear that is appropriate, for whatever reasons, and equivalence is only good fro showing the limits of systems rather than establishing whether one is better or not. There is a reason why there are so many different hammers in existence, from sledgehammer to the tiniest hammer for nails of 1 cm and less: it allows the selection of the right hammer for the job. The same is true for cameras. However, let me stop my rant here .

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

I agree, comparing different systems and creating "equivalence" simply doesn't work. It only would work, if everything could be scaled the same way, but pixel densities (as well as pixel arrays: X-Trans and Foveon sensor also are APS-C, not just the normal Bayer patterns), lens tolerances, noise behaviour (and strategies to minimize noise) are not enlarged the same way.

[wim]

Sorry Wim, no one was referring to a Laowa Macro lens. There are many other options for 15/4 FF lenses, some of them need to be stopped down. I agree the 15/4 Laowa is not great, the shift option is a joke and the handling is according to it's price (compared to serious shift lenses)

 

 

I agree, comparing different systems and creating "equivalence" simply doesn't work. It only would work, if everything could be scaled the same way, but pixel densities (as well as pixel arrays: X-Trans and Foveon sensor also are APS-C, not just the normal Bayer patterns), lens tolerances, noise behaviour (and strategies to minimize noise) are not enlarged the same way.

 

No need to apologize, I wasn't too clear I think on why I compared those two.

 

And you are completely right about how equivalence doesn't work, not now, and not in the past .

 

Kindest regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

Lens equivalence is not about "establishing whether one is better or not" (quoting Wim).

Nor is it about "pixel densities (as well as pixel arrays: X-Trans and Foveon sensor also are APS-C, not just the normal Bayer patterns), lens tolerances, noise behaviour (and strategies to minimize noise)" (quoting JoJu).

 

These two notions are, how to put it... ok, I'll quote Wim again: " it is about time that people start realizing it is utter nonsense."

 

Lens equivalence is just about understanding how lenses on different systems relate to eachother in the two fundamental properties of lenses: FOV and  the aperture properties of DOF and how much light they let through.

 

So no, lens equivalence is not about pixel densities. If one takes issue with different pixel densities, one can't compare a Nikon D3s with a Nikon D5, or D750, or even a Sony A99 II.

 

Again, it is just about understanding that.... for instance this 7.5mm f2 Loawa on MFT is equivalent to a 15mm f4 lens on FF (like an IRIX 15mm f2.4 set to f4). That those will give similar FOV, similar DOF and that the apertures are the SAME size, letting through the same amount of light and the sensors capture a similar cone (or rather a king of pyramid?) of light. You only have two options with lenses to shape your image... Selecting the FOV and selecting the f-stop. That is it. 

Of course, among similar lenses (or equivalent lenses on different platforms), one can choose which lens one likes best (using criteria like for instance coma performance, sharpness, CA performance, contrast, OOF rendering, size, price, weight, build quality or even AF performance). But that is not what lens equivalence is about It is about the understanding the two fundamentals (FOV and DOF), when the numbers are different (focal length and f-stop).

 

So it is about understanding how to get to fit a building in the frame with MFT, when one is used to FF, for instance (or the other way around). Or to understand how to get the right amount of subject isolation with APS-C when one is used to using MF.

 

Lens equivalence is about selecting the gear that is appropriate (right lens (focal length) and settings (f-stop)), for whatever reasons (FOV, DOF), and sometimes realizing that one can't do something with a certain camera and that then a different setup would be required.

 

One does have to wonder why some have such a big problem with wrapping their mind around the simple notion of lens equivalence. Do those who keep on fighting these fundamentals have problems understanding what it means to use a teleconverter between lens and camera? Or a focal reducer?