Video

You're very welcome.

Yes, but since the m4/3 sized sensor only sees the very middle of the image circle of a full frame lens, I feel the full effect is mostly lost so I think it's not worth it.

In 1979 Modern Photography Magazine called this one of the sharpest lenses ever made by anyone for any camera regardless of cost.

@@1kwords Modern and Popular were my jam.

The Olympus Zuiko 35mm f/2.

And the autofocus is better with brighter lenses. i had some fast response from panasonic lenses too.

After many months of internal turmoil, constantly weighing options, doing a shameful amount of window shopping, I am currently at that point you mention, where I just suck it up and use what I have. And it's starting to feel good, also helped by two things: 1. I can't afford to buy new cameras on a whim, it's something I can only realistically manage once every year, or two, at best and that with a considerable effort. Sure this year has been better than most, as far as finances are concerned, but the fact that I changed systems twice, wasn't without consequences and is now being felt. Things are somewhat tight. 2. I have reached a firm and clear conclusion that the look I am after for my images, the way I see them in my head when I look at what I want to photograph, is best, and perhaps only achieved by a full frame sensor and old manual lenses. As far as the a7C, if we're talking about the mark 1, there are several things wrong with it from where I'm standing. The lack of a fully mechanical shutter (EFCS deteriorates the quality of bokeh at high shutter speeds) the poor evf, the turn-around flippy screen, the insufficiency of customizable buttons, the AA filter, the fact that it's basically the same price as my a7R III and for practically the same money it's inferior in most ways that matter. If you mean the a7CII (or the a7CR) it's all the above and the fact that I can almost buy two a7RIIIs for what it costs...

@@1kwords I was thinking of the mark 1. That's a bummer about the shutter, I didn't know about that. Seems to me like you're in the right place with the a7R. I can't think of any other affordable FF mirrorless cameras that look similarly interesting (I guess that's subjective, though).

I understand where you're coming from and I would probably be of the same mind, but I can't afford having both a serious camera and a fun camera. I can only afford one camera and that is where the difficulty lies, that I need my camera to be both fun and serious...

btw

I may be in a minority as I only did film photography many years after starting photography in the first place. In fact, I started photographing with my phone, then apsc, then, years later only full frame. But it's true. The look I'm after, the way I want my images to look, how I see them in my head when I imagine a scene is easiest and most precisely achieved with a full frame camera and vintage lenses. As far as the nature of these assessments, of course they're subjective. It's the very point of this video, I stated from the get go that these are merely my personal opinions and subjective experience with the camera, and not a scientific, or technical review.

I was thinking more about how emotionally connected we are to certain images from our past and associate them with how a great image should look. This is similar to type of food you tend to like as you were eating it with your family and friends at a young age and which has little or nothing to do with an objective taste test (if indeed there is such a thing)

As stated before, I only had the 17mm f1.8 to use so my finindings and conclusions are based on this combo. What, pray tell, do you suggest I might be doing wrong?

@@1kwords oh, so you knew your setup was limited and not indicative of anything conclusive yet made a long video concluding that the Pen F is not perfect overall. Why bother then? Or maybe indeed you did something wrong, but how would I know. All I know is my results with the Pen F don't match yours at all, even with the same lens mate, sorry to say. Maybe your video was just a lazy rant mate, I went with the headline but the content didn't match. It is what it is, sorry, you have way better videos than this one.

@@randall.chamberlain can I not still have opinions, even when working with a limited setup? This is MY channel after all and everything here is about what I THINK of things. It's not meant to be scientific, or absolute.

@@1kwordsmaybe you are taking this too personal? You put a video up publicly, expect some criticism publicly. That's all mate. Chill up. Regardless of what I think your content is interesting still, but be open to remarks mate.

@@randall.chamberlain maybe...

I would be delighted if OM-SYSTEM launched a mark II.

I don't doubt it, but if you mean the PROs or the 1.2s they don't make sense for me for other reasons, mainly size, weight and cost.

@@1kwords I would stick to the 1.8 lenses and use the more telephoto ones for depth like thr 45mm and 75mm. Any wider and you gotta get close which is counter to street photography.

@@jmtphotographymedia If we're talking street photography, I like to shoot around 40-50mm, in full frame terms. Any longer than that and I find it very cumbersome. For instance, right now I'm testing the Konica Hexanon 100mm f2.8, an excellent lens for portraits, but it's a pain in the ass to use on the street.

Yes, the b&w profile is very nice.

You bring up interesting points. The whole argument about noise and ISO is not something I want to get into as I care very little about it. I don't mind noise, I can happily shoot the PEN-F at it's max ISO and be OK with it. My issue is with the flat, digital look. And that is not something any amount of good light can fix. I just tried cropping a full frame image to MFT size and they look nothing like each other. The cropped full frame image still retains that gentle, soft, natural look that's full of depth, while the MFT image looks flat and harsh and unsophisticated, harsh and digital. Is this all in my mind? Possibly, but improbably.

@@1kwords There's zero evidence to prove there's any difference in appearance between a Micro Four Thirds Sony sensor image and a same-size crop from full frame Sony camera. So yes, until you have that evidence, it's simply biased perception.

AFAIK the Pen F from the analog days was half-frame, right? I always wondered if the digital Pens have a built in collage maker that lets you "build" 2pics on one "print" in an instant. At least that would be cool.

@@lelandfitz1762 yes it was and no it doesn't.

@@1kwords cool thanks for the info

What I wonder myself is how much of an effect the lens has in this whole equation, beacuse all my experience is based upon using the PEN-F with a single lens, the 17mm f/1.8. I often wonder if I'd get the same look with other lenses...

@@1kwords The Olympus 17 mm f1.8 is a stellar performer. You just have to look at it's MTF charts. In fact all Olympus MFT lenses are superb performers. The pro range can only add better coatings in some cases, more robust construction, weather sealing and a more weight into the equation and not any worthwhile optical improvements, that is how good the non pro lenses are from an optical point of view. Your Pen F was designed a decade ago, so there are shortcomings in AF, processor power ( the majority of the noise shaping of the modern digital cameras are done by the processors ) and yes the EVF is not even as good as the old EM5. I think you have to learn to distinguish between camera specs and inherent quality of a photograph, or for ever you'd be chasing your tail. A great portion of really good street photography is still being done with old fully manual film cameras.

You're making quite a few assumptions regarding my knowledge (actually lack there of) and the tools I use. First of all, as far as lenses go, all I use is old, fully manual lenses. I shoot vintage glass exclusively and have done for many years now. I don't own a single modern, af lens. My most recent lens was made in the very early 80s. It's funny how you tell me to learn to differentiate between specs and actual image quality yet you base your previous argument on MFT charts.

@@1kwords I am an engineer but profession. Science does not lie. If a lens has poor optical performance it will show up in the MTF test. It's like going to a doctor to do a heart trace and then saying that I do not accept the results because I know what I am feeling.

@@1kwords I wish the 17mm 1.8 was better quality. I returned mine because when focused properly, the region of the image between the center and outer edges was noticeably softer than the rest, as though the glass wasn't ground properly. I have since read the same from other owners of this lens. No wonder why you find it flat. It's a shame because I prefer this field of view as I also own The Canon 35mm 1.8 RF, Fuji 23mm 1.4 and 2.0, and Nikon Z 24mm 1.7, all out perform the Oly 17mm by a huge margin. If you want the full frame look on M43, try the Oly 45mm 1.8 . It is cheap and extremely sharp and allows for good control over DOF.

I've wondered myself if the story would be completely different with other lenses. However, it's all I had access to so it's all I could base my opinion on. Then, there's also the case for most other lenses, especially the PRO line, being entirely too big for the PEN-F.

@@1kwords Agreed, the 17 1.8 is the best prime ergonomically and stylistically for the Pen F. I recall the PL 25mm 1.4 as being very good on that camera in terms of the output and its not too big. It did suffer a bit from slow and noisy AF and the infamous 'rattlesnake' noise under certain conditions, which detracted a bit. You can never really win, the manufacturers are pretty good at not giving you exactly what you want;-)

My pleasure!

Really honestly glad you enjoy my stuff. Thanks for saying so.

I would love to try the RX1RII and am very interested in it, but sadly it is way outside of my reach, financially. It's about twice the price of my a7RIII and even that was a considerable effort to get. The a7CII interests me less so. Much less.

@@1kwords I will second @catalin-ap regarding the a7CII but I would go one further and try the a7CR. Not to purchase but to try if it ever manages to jump into your hands. Your A7RIII would make a great second camera to it if you came to love it. Going to aps-c sensor size will still give you the downside of losing some of the charm of vintage lenses, regardless of the brand. The RX1RII is sexy af but I don't think it comes with interchangeable lenses. I'd love to own one.

@@seoulrydr the a7CR, while interesting on paper makes even less sense to me than the RX1RII. Much less. It's stupidly expensive, about three times what the a7RIII is, has a poor evf and that silly flippy screen that's worthless for stills.

@@1kwords I can't argue with any of that for you or myself. I suppose it boils down to truly understanding what you're (not me) after, and if it exists today. I'm thinking it doesn't.

@seoulrydr it really doesn't, however, for most intents and purposes, the a7RIII and vintage lenses combo is what's come the closest.

For me as well, the way the camera looks and handles, my actual physical experience and relationship with it is about half of what photography means to me, and if I were to compromise a bit of image quality for all that I would happily do it with an apsc size sensor. Like the Fuji, but sadly, I have an altogether different issue with Fuji so that doesn't work either. The image quality of an mft sensor is simply too low for me. Sadly enough.

today M4/3 seems gave up on street photography arena. pen f is not a perfect camera, you can name a lot of weak points of it, but you can really enjoy using it a lot, not just me，so many owner of pen f share the same. we just forgive what it doesn't do well. Lastly, with AI de noise of today, I don't worry about image quality of any camera made within a decade.

@@dw-et3gm yeah but my issue is not noise. My issue is something AI can't fix, and that is the actual size of the senzor which makes for harsh, flat, overly digital images.

Very interesting question. I'm sure it's variable, but I don't know anything more.

@1kwords you're right it would be variable for sure maybe that's why candlelight dinners make such good bokeh...

My pleasure.

You're very welcome.

Thanks for your comment.

Ai dreptate în ce privește faptul că a7RIII e puțin overkill pentru obiective vintage, mai ales că în trecut am avut și a7R I și RII și ambele au mers grozav. Totuși, îmi place să am scule bune și sunt câteva lucruri pe care le are RIII pe care acum le găsesc esențiale și indispensabile - vizorul, bateria, dual card și montura mult mai solidă. Acum că știu cum sunt astea, mi-ar fi greu să mă întorc la versiunile anterioare. Ai dreptate și că imaginile de FF sunt pur și simplu mai faine, mai naturale, mai cu profunzime și viață. Din cauza asta și pentru că am început să îndrăgesc din nou pe a7RIII am hotărât să îl păstrez. Contează mult și faptul că îmi place să testez obiective vechi din era de film, iar pentru ca alea să-și păstreze caracterul autentic e esențial un senzor FF. Totuși, Fuji a rămas cumva în inima mea... ca o feblețe...

Mi-am amintit de cateva fixe compacte si bune pentru street photography, daca nu le stii deja. Samyang 24/1.8 si 35mm F1.8, Sigma 35/2, Sony 40/2.5 si 50mm f2.5 G, Sigma 45/2.8, Sigma 65/2, Samyang 75/1.8 Poate ajuta...

@@niku21111 ohooo, am deja o listă de peste zece obiective ce aș vrea să le cumpăr în viitorul apropiat... Dar mersi de pont.

@@niku21111 sigma 45 2.8 l-am încercat - a fost ok, dar nu prea... mult prea soft la apropiere și aș prefera Sony G 40 2.8. Am încercat și Samyang 75 1.8 - nu mi-a plăcut deloc, nimic la el.

@@1kwords imi imaginez ca ai testat obiective pe montura E. Mai ales ca ai avut mai multe body Sony. Personal am avut 1. Samyang 35mm F1.4 prima versiune. Cam zgomotos la focus si nu foarte sharp wide open. Insa are un render frumos. 2. Samyang 85mm F1.4 FE - obiectiv bun, destul de sharp, usor pentru F1.4, cu render frumos. Am reusit sa gasesc versiunea pentru Canon RF, foarte rar, care are si AF/MF switch. 3. Sony ZA 55mm F1.8 care nu are nevoie de prezentare. Pentru marimea si greutatea lui, este superb. Minusul ar fi aberatiile cromatice in anumite situatii de contrast maxim. Stiu ca se gasesc obiective mai sharp decat acesta pe montura Sony FE. 4. Sony 35mm F1.8 FEn iarasi un obiectiv compact cu o constructie buna si autofocus silentios. Cand am revenit pe canon, am fost dezamagit de Rf 35mm F1.8 la cat de zgomotos este. Am crezut ca e defect si am vrut sa il returnez. Si l-am mai avut o data inainte sa trec pe Sony. Nu tineam minte sa fi fost asa zgomotos. 5. Tamron 17-28mm F2.8 - foarte bun pentru pretul lui. Compact, sharp, silentios cu bokeh placut pentru un zoom. Pacat ca nu am apucat sa.il folosesc mult. PentruCanon nu gasesti asemenea obiective. Da, sunt L-urile solide insa voluminoase si grele si depasite optic.de ce au scos mai nou Sony , Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Viltrox. In fine, avantajul Sony e clar in gama larga de obiective. De multe ori am regretat intoarcerea la Canon pe.acest motiv.

It's not supposed to be as "magical" and "characterful" as the 1.4/57, but there's no doubt in my mind you will enjoy this lens. AFAIC, a package with the Konica 100mm f2.8 is to arrive later today and I'm pretty excited.

You're welcome.

I didn't sell it either and I think I'm slowly learning to love the a7R III. Reliability can grow on you.

I also said it's good. But it's not great.

Seeing how I'm done with it and see no other reason to use it again, you can have it back anytime you want.

Is the Pergear a full-frame lens? As far as the Thypochs go, I've had my eye on those for a while now, I love the way they look, but I agree, a bit expensive.

@@1kwordsYes it is - I have one. IMO, aside from the fast aperture, the MFD is good enough to help justify owning it. heavy vignette wide open per usual, and not quite as clinical as modern glass, but definitely sharp enough for landscape. I also have a Rokinon AF 35mm f1.8 which I gravitate to more often. Compared to Sony lenses, the autofocus stutters just enough to annoy until you get used to it.

I agree. As far as the Zf, I too am quite interested in it, at least on paper, but I see several issues with it. While it certainly is a beautiful camera it's large and heavy and it really only has the 40 f2 that goes well with it. Put anything else on it, the sexy look goes out the window and so does the handling with its practical lack of grip, large size and heavy weight. For stills l also really dislike a flippy screen.

There is also 28mm f2.8 which goes very well with Nikon. Except that there is the line of 1.8S series 35, 50, 85mm, 135mm although a little bit bigger has a very good optical performance. You will find also brilliant manual focusing leans from Voigtlander like 50mm f2 APO and Voigtlander 35 mm f2 APO. To improve the comfort of handling there are variety of grips so you can find perfect for your needs. Also you can use adapters with almost every leans mount. The flip screen is also not my favourite, but you can close it and use is the EVF (by the way, much more better than that one used by Sony cameras).

@@tomaszpopiel8450 it's also almost doube the price of the a7R III, which is the main reason why I'm not seriously considering it. I simply can't afford it. The a7R III was enough of a financial effort as it is.

Yes, it is true it a little bit more from expensive side also for me. Except that I have made my decision and I want to share it with you because I thought it might suit your needs too. Anyway, I keep my fingers crossed for any choice you will make, and I hope some day have a chance to meet you and have a beer 🍺 together and a conversation about photography. Greetings.

@@tomaszpopiel8450 no doubt, I would love to have a beer with you. Back to the Zf, all that said, size, weight, lenses, prices, I would love to own it. If not for keeps, at least to try it out for a week or two... It sure is a very pretty camera.

Indeed that seems to be true. I've not tried many, but they have all been at least good, if not great.

but i did not like it mine 28mm f3.5 and i have sold it

You're very welcome! I plan on doing smaller, more specific and more advanced tutorials in the very near future. Be sure to sub.

Thanks.

Yeah, that's the gist of it. However it feels like I'm slowly learning to love the a7R III. Using vintage lenses with it certainly helps. Not only are the images beautiful, but they contribute to the look and feel I was after in the first place.

​@@1kwordstotally agree with you, I'm starting to enjoy using vintage glass with the Sony a7r3