really wide lenses (sort of a Bambi vs Godzilla redux)

premise

I feel that the Micro43 system (m43) is the low hanging fruit of camera equipment, it provides a level of compactness which is more or less unchanged by further dropping down sensor size, like the Nikon 1 Series which didn't really provide more compact cameras nor lenses. The lens range of the system is huge and indeed the availability of legacy 35mm lenses is presently far in excess of what the market can soak up (literally tons of good 35mm lenses can be bought and adapted) and adds to the system too.

The sensor isn't too small to afford reasonable focal plane control (shallow DoF), and indeed is almost the same as the very popular APS format (which indeed Canon released its first DSLR in way back in 2000 with the EOS D30 camera.

Its ability to do High ISO is of course limited compared to larger formats like Full Frame and or Medium Format Digital, and while latest m43 sensors will indeed go almost as high in ISO, you will be losing in colour fidelity and general bit depth (hello blowouts and posterisation).

I'm no longer on the path of having the latest and greatest (principially because I think we're already close to the crest of the diminishing returns crest) and so when I picked up the A7 it was a $500 experiment (rather than a $2000 experiment just 6 years ago) to allow me to see and confirm if there was something of value in this for me.

---

One of the things I enjoy having in my camera outfit is a very wide lens. Myself I've been inclined to this for decades, however anything wider than 24mm has often been outside my budget.

Micro43 brought along the equivalent of a 22mm lens (in the guise of the GWC-1 adapter for the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 lens) , which has been both my widest lens (lets ignore my Olympus 21f3.5 for the moment, not least because I sold it years back and I've only tried it on a 5D mk1) and a mainstay of my wide angle photography. Its enabled me to get some shots I enjoy in places, like this one in the Czech Republic in a dimly lit subway under maintenance.

Certainly no phone would have done that (either in angle of view or high ISO performance.

So given that I'm testing out the limits (and how I sit with the results) of my new (to me) Sony A7 I felt the need to find an equal for that angle of view.

Having read and seen good things about the FD 20mm f2.8 I decided to buy one. Sadly the prices have gone up since the A7 came out. This is probably because a 20 is within what one calls "normal" on m43 and almost nothing else can manage its shorter (for 35mm) flange distance.

Appearance

This is what one (mine) looks like on a A7

which may not be what you were hoping to see, but actually isn't too far away from what modern 20mm lenses (and wider) are looking like today.

Another angle makes it clearer that this is not a compact lens:

The amount of "stand off" taken up by the adapter also makes clear how much "space" was taken up by the mirror box on the FD cameras, or indeed any SLR or D-SLR camera.

However it does make for a nice firm grip of the lens with the left hand while holding the controls of the camera with the right.

In comparison the above mentioned Panasonic m43 with the GWC-1 and 14mm lens compares like this:

and

The A7 is indeed a bloody compact camera (as indeed is m43), however its a fact that the lenses are needed and make the entire system thus different.

A key difference also being that the GWC-1 comes off (it essentially screws onto the filter thread) and leaves the very compact 28mm equivalent 14mm lens  ... which is pretty nice for general picture taking (although about the same angle of view as most modern phones). If you want to know more about the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 and the GWC-1 I recommend my blog post over here as a starter.

aside:

 I'd rather have my camera nicked or broken in the field when out touring internationally than my phone, so think about that when saying "I do everything with my iPhone"...

image quality

Well for a starter the A7 produces a 6000 x 4000 pixel image over the 4000 x 3000 that the m43 camera has, and so that's going to perhaps give it an advantage. However I'd argue that the optical system of the FD20f2.8 vs the combination of the P14f2.5 &GWC-1 (note, for simplicity I'm just going to call the combination of P14 & GWC-1 the GWC-1 from now on in this post) is such that the m43 system is limited by the optical resolution not the amount of pixels ... but lets have a look.

First its important to understand that in modern cameras and lenses lens corrections are built into the JPG files and stored in metadata on the RAW files. With a legacy lens like the FD20 there is no such thing available, it must be chosen and applied in post processing ... so to even up the playing field I always photograph in RAW and then develop my file with DCRAW.

So  lets have a look at the FD20 on the A7 . This shot represents the scene taken for all these tests

now the GWC-1:

... which is a camera JPG not a RAW sourced image. Its worth showing an overview of the GWC-1 as sourced from RAW file, as you'll see that the Panasonic corrections for the 14mm are not insignificant (and of course make a difference to what the GWC-1 produces.

So you get a bit more image width now, nearly as wide as the FD20, but with substantially more barrel distortion ... if you correct in software in post it will look closer to the JPG sourced, and of course you'll (as always) loose some of the width.

I think its worth pointing out that Panasonic designed the GWC-1 specifically with the 14mm f2.5 in mind (well and a PZ 14-42 as well), so its quite likely that they knew what corrections would occur and worked to fit in with that.

The FD20 is a little bit wider and needs less attention as its a nicely corrected rectilinear lens right out of the box (which isn't surprising because it was made for the days of film when there just wasn't an easy way to correct for this stuff - and buyers thought it important back then.

You'll probably have spotted some vignetting visible in both (the Panasonic corrects this in JPG a little, but not fully as there is no electronic coupling between GWC-1 and P14mm so it can't know its there to correct it. So lets look at vignetting

FD20

So strong at f2.8 and clearing up well by 5.6 but not observably better at f8 and (not shown) f11 is barely cleared up at all

GWC-1

where I didn't go past f5.6 because the lens system is already at it sharpest at f4 and starts to go down hill a bit due to diffraction around f8

You can see that the GWC-1 also has more barrel distortion, which depending on the subject may need some correction in post, the FD20 is much better out of the box.
Image details
As expected the FD is poor on the edges but not bad in the center from wide open, and gets better all over as you stop down. Again like vignetting I didn't see much in the step from f8 to f11

The following are 100% pixel crops from the TIFF files developed by DCRAW, what is interesting is how much smaller the same features are between the A7 and the m43 camera (yes, that 6000 pixel vs 4000 pixel makes a difference), so make sure you open these images full screen to observe that.

FD20 Corner

and by f8 the text of the ARSE postcard is visible (and the print of the plastic food container too).


GWC-1 (raw) corner

FD20 Center

The center however clears up so that even by f4 you've got quite good details on the black torch, the tooth picks and the swiss army knife.

GWC-1 center

and even at f5.6 (about the sharpest its ever going to get) its neither as large nor as sharp as the FD20 image at f4.

At this point I think it would be of benefit to anyone still curious to go and look at some other A7 lens comparisons and compare these both to my results and to other lenses. I happen to think the (excellent) blog of Phillip Reeve has some great tests which I strongly suggest you look at. Even if you're not a "Full Frame" person and instead are reading this because of the m43 content. I recommend reading his posts about

• the Canon FD20f2.8 (look at his edge and center shots which are close to my own findings)
• the Tokina Firin 20f2 
• and the Zeiss Batis 18f2.8

Consider the prices of those lenses and then that I paid

• $350 (including shipping) for this FD20f2.8 
• $150 for my GWC-1 (and I already owned the 14f2.5)

Discussion

So what does this mean? Again as I've mentioned I don't feel that this means "I'm going to dump my m43 outfit" (as is often said on internet fora) , what it does instead is highlight to me that my choices for a light weight camera which would also sit as an equal against my EOS APS camera (a 20D back then) has proven viable.

It shows me that the compact and light weight m43 system is far more than adequate, but virtually indistinguishable from my A7 in all but the largest of prints. For anything that will be web delivered (although 4K may change that a bit) the A7 is un-necessary.

I prefer to carry on holidays and day trips the Panasonic GF-1 and its small lenses, but when I want to go out and take an image I've planned and I know I'll want either bigger prints or to take advantage of higher ISO or to take advantage of more shallow DoF that Full Frame gives, then I'm glad I've got the A7

hope that helps someone else

 ... something else ...

Ouhh, and about the title, nearly 10 years ago I compared my Panasonic G1 (the very first m43 camera) to a Canon 5D MkII which I dubbed Bambi vs Godzilla ... so this is a nod to that article. I wrote that because I wanted to also examine what was the limits of sensors, as I knew that per square centimeter the G1 had a denser packed sensor than the 5D did. Indeed scaling up the density of the G1's m43 sensor I predicted that a Full Frame of the same density of 42 megapixels was possible. The A7 is only 24 megapixels, but indeed the Nikon D850 is  right there at 45 megapixels ... a standout camera even today.

Panasonic 0.79 adapter on camera

well after looking at my post on the image quality of this adapter (over here) I thought I'd add a little of what the adapter looks and feels like on the camera as well as putting it onto the camera.

From the image below you can see that it adds a little onto the front of the GF1 with the 14mm mounted. 

Since the 14mm is already a snuggle little lens its actually not a big issue but certainly means I can't just stuff the camera into my backpack side pocket. Fortunately its really quick and simple to take the lens on and off the front but brings with it a small issue. You can't just put the lens cap back on the 14mm because the plastic adapter is in the way.

As it happens I don't find that a big problem because the plastic adapter is itself a functional protector of the lens, as the front of the 14mm lens is recessed back in there a little way. It almost acts as a sort of lens hood anyway.

NOTE TO PANASONIC

it would be a simple thing for Panasonic to make another plastic cap to include with the kit, that attached to the lens side of the adapter to click on and click off, giving you a lens cap to use when you leave the adapter ring on the 14mm lens.

{update: Panasonic has now addressed this issue, see my quick review of that here}

The wide adapter with its caps on slips into a pocket no problems.

One of the things which bewildered me when I was first researching this lens was the comments on various forums about how clumsy it was to use. People remarking that it unscrewed when you removed the GWC1 from the lens side mount. Clearly they aren't looking or reading the manual. I think that the lens is so intuitive to use, that even if you can't read (to be able to write on a forum) you should see the symbols on the lens side of the adapter which make it clear what to do. <shrug>

Basically after you thread the adapter ring onto the 14mm, the GWC1 attaches with a twist. You twist in the same direction to put it on as you do to get it off. In this image green is on, red is off.

• put down, 
• twist
• use
• twist same way
• lift off

 

This has the effect of tightening the plastic adapter collar to the right tension, so any questions on how tight should I screw it on are answered by the device itself.

Simple. I've put together a quick video of this to show this (as well as why I'm not involved as a TV presenter) in case it wasn't obvious my meaning in the above image.



So there you have it. A low priced alternative to get you into wide angle on your micro 4/3 camera. Of course if you already have the 12mm lens in your focal lengths its hardly worth it, but if you have instead the 14mm prime (as it came with your camera ... or even just the 14-42) this adapter will give you that extra width for minimal weight penalty and just a few bucks.

For instance:

• $800 for the 12mm f2 (130g)
• $1000 for the Oly 12-40 f2.8 (382g)
• $1300 for the 12-35 zoom f2.8 (300g)
• $500 for the 12-50 zoom f3.5 ~ 6.3 (211g darker and quite a bit bigger too) 
• curve ball : $330 14mm f2.5 + $150 0.79 adapter = $480

or just $120 to put this onto your existing pancake 14mm when you just want that wee bit wider than the 14 gives. The adapter only weighs 70g so including the 55g of the 14mm lens you have a total weight of 125g (which you don't have to keep on the camera at all times). This is lighter than anything in the zoom range and about on par with the 12mm f2 (and actually nearly exactly the same size too).

Think of it as nearly the Olympus 12mm f2 but as a 2 for one lens and cheaper ;-)

Here is a composite showing the GF with (left to right) the 12mm, the 14mm and the 14mm + the GWC-1

Bugger all difference in size between the 12mm and the 14mm + 0.79 ... and you can take it off making it a "more compact lens" without taking the lens off the camera...

In fact, I like it so much I've sold my 9-18mm zoom

:-)

Panasonic 0.79 wide adaptor on the 14mm (image quality)

background: why?

I happen to like wides. As a kid with 35mm I just couldn't afford wide enough, the typical zoom back then was 35-80 or perhaps 28-70 and most affordable wide primes were 28 anyway.

When I got my first 24mm lens I was quite happy, finally I could see things as I liked to see them.

Some people see things up close only in 'mental macro' and focus on the details, but as I move in closer to things I like to look around and see the shapes, the relationships to the backgrounds and to see the perspective of being close.

28mm (on a full 35mm frame) is just not wide enough for me, 24mm or 21mm is where I like it most, although modern lenses have shown me that sometimes I like it that bit wider.

Sadly I just can't afford the 15mm or the 12mm lenses which can really only be used for very specific subjects (to me). Of course most of that sort of thing can now be done with stitching. Stitching images also gives increases in resolution which is good too.

Anyway, on my G series cameras I have lamented that there isn't really much in the wide area which is compact (and affordable). For some time I have been using the Olympus 9-18mm zoom via an adapter on the G series cameras and have been really happy with it optically. I've written about that lens back in 2009, and found it to be a great lens except for its bulk. Note that this comparison shows my 9-18mm on its adapter ready to use alongside my 14-45 and my friends 7-14 beside his 14-45 ... it was the only way to compare them ... its a long story (read the blog post from 2009 if you are interested ;-)

So you can see that the Olympus 9-18mm on the adaptor is actually a bit larger than the kit 14-45 and even bigger than the 7-14 Panasonic.

With my G1 / GH1 the 7-14 may be attractive, but with my GF1 its not an attractive alternative (and certainly not a cheap one) because its not compact. When I bought the GF camera it had the 14mm f2.5 pancake lens on it, which is exactly what I was looking for as a compact camera. However its not really very wide, it being the equivalent of a 28mm lens, which isn't what I'm really fond of.

Enter the Panasonic DMW-GWC1 0.79x adapter

I was initially skeptical that the adaptor would be optically any good, as my experience in the past was that such things were not any good. The adapter would turn the 14mm lens into a 11mm lens or in full frame context a 22mm lens. This is right in my ballpark. So, rather than keep wondering I bought one to see. The image below shows the 14mm with the adapter already mounted on it, beside my Olympus 9-18mm 4/3 lens.

As you can see even when the adapter is mounted on the 14mm its significantly smaller than the Olympus 9-18mm 4/3 lens. Now the 9-18 there is the ZD lens for 4/3, which of course needs an adapter to use on micro 4/3 (you know, because its gone without the mirror to make everything more compact) With the 9-18mm on the adapter it looks less attractive.

Now the purpose of the adapter is to hold the lens that bit further away from the sensor to allow the mirror to flap around (recalling SLR cameras have mirrors between the sensor and the eyepiece). this of course adds to the price of the ZD 9-18mm zoom.

The reason I mention this is that it has been an option for me to consider getting a compact regular 4/3 body (like the Olympus E-420) and putting the 9-18mm onto that ... as when its mounted on the body the whole thing really just doesn't feel much bigger than it did on my G1 ... and the laughingly called "micro" 4/3 lens isn't really that micro at all. Sure when you see it sitting beside the three lenses (the ZD 9-18 without an adapter, the "new" 9-18mm and the Panasonic 7-14) it looks a bit smaller than the old Oly ...

However when you consider that to actually use the stupid thing it has to 'unfold' and telescopes up, it becomes more or less exactly the same size as the ZD 9-18mm for 4/3 cameras anyway.

So much for the promise of compact.

All marketing bullshit if you ask me, which drives me spakko. Worse than this from what I read the new 9-18mm designed for micro4/3 is not optically as good as the older ZD lens anyway ...

So we're back to the wide angle adapter on the pancake 14mm as the most compact alternative (and lower cost too).

So getting back to the 14mm with the 0.79x VS the 9-18mm zoom what do images look like?

Well below is an overlay of 3 shots taken with camera on a tripod just the other day, widest is the 9mm end of the 9-18mm zoom, middle (orange frame) is the wide adapter on the 14mm and the inner most image the segment (green frame) of the image that the 14mm sees.

So the step from 9mm to 14mm is huge, but the 11mm is (as expected) right in the middle. Knowing that I'm already happy with the view of a "24" (full frame) then this 11mm (equaling a 22mm) will be wide enough for me, and as you can see is quite a bit wider than the 14mm view. The overviews are taken from the JPGs

So, lets have a look at some of the edges. To make this 'even' I have used dcraw to convert the RAW files.

Why dcraw? Well dcraw can produce regular exposures and uncompensated images this allows me to see the lens as it is, without any corrections. It is important to remember that with micro4/3 (especially Panasonic) that lens corrections are recorded in the camera system and JPG images are developed in-camera including these corrections. Many RAW converters also use this metadata to build in the corrections into what you see too ... thus using dcraw allows me to side step this and see exactly what the lens produces. Essentially it means also that final images can be improved from there.

Below are 100% crops from the images above. Tone and contrast vary from the above because these come from linear TIFF conversions from the RAW files.

9mm LHS

adapted LHS

You will need to load these in windows and look carefully to see the differences. This of course means that the reality is you won't see differences on anything other than the largest prints...

Now, over to the right hand side:

9mm RHS

adapted RHS

Again there is some subtle difference in quality between the two images, but its not chalk and cheese. One is really pixel peeping here, and so unless its a prize shot which you are going to blow up to A3 sized print its going to be neck and neck really.

The Olympus 9-18mm zoom has a long standing reputation as being a solid performer and a well corrected optic. It comes from back in the days where lens corrections were part of lens design, not post processing. The 14mm requires corrections and with the adapter more so again. While the 14mm is corrected in JPG (and you can really see the differences when you look at the uncorrected RAW files) it is not corrected in combination with the adapter (well, and if you think about it it can't be as the lens won't know that its looking through the adapter).

So what this means is there is room for improvement in the images with the simple addition of a tool like PTLens. I've used PTLens on other lenses in the past with very pleasing results. As it only costs $25 to buy you can then essentially get even better output from the 14mm + 0.79 adapter than we see here.

Currently the combo is not part of PTLens's database of lens combos, but I will hopefully submit some test images to the author of PTLens soon and then it will be supported.

Conclusion

The 14mm is a compact lens, and if you already have it the 0.79x adapter makes it into a nice wide lens. The adapter is quite modestly priced (about $150), so bang for buck this gets you into the area of a 9-18mm at less than 1/4 of the price!

If you happen to be after a wide and don't want to spend a lot of money then this pair is the ticket. The adapter dismounts from the 14 when you don't want it on there, so you essentially get a "28" walk around wide lens for your micro4/3 camera with a slap on conversion to make it a "21" for those times when you want that wider look.

The down side is that you have to handle an adapter ring and put the lens on and off. That sort of required a blog post of its own, so I'll do that soon ;-)

Part 2 now done

And that post is here
PPS after having sold this set I bought another (because I found I missed it, and liked it so much) so I've added another brief comparison here.

new Olympus micro 4/3 wide angle zoom

While I appreciate digital cameras (and the G1 is a favourite) for what they are and how well they work with standard and telephoto angle of views they lack in the area of wide angles. My 10D for instance required me to use a bulky Tokina 12-24 to get nice wide angles, but was much much bulkier than my sweet little Olympus 21mm lens.

Now looking at a press release image I noticed that the new Olympus 9-18 looked really compact. See the image below, the soon to be released 9-18 is on the left ...


In fact it looks like its really close to the size of the Olympus 14-45, both in width and height. Which of course got me to thinking, you see the Oly implementation of the 14-45 is even more compact than that of the Panasonic Kit 14-45.

Now this is really interesting as the present state of play in Micro 3/4 is you have the kit 14-45 (middle) the ultra wide 7-14 or the use of the legacy regular 4/3 lens with an adaptor under it to space it off enough to make it fit onto the micro 4/3 (which have a reduced flange distance).

Of course without the 4/3 to micro 4/3 adaptor the Olympus 9-18 is closer in size to the kit. Here they are both together this time without the adaptor on the 9-18.


Of course you can't use it on the G1 or EP-1 without the adaptor ... making the entire package larger on the small cameras. I like the extra wide angle of view that the 9-18 gives over the 14-45, but certainly is slow to focus and especially with the adaptor stands out from the camera looking and feeling a bit bulky.



so, comparing the Oly 14-45 with the Panasonic ...

Although it is a little fatter ... So if the new 8-19 is as snuggle small as the 14-45 then even if they don't address the poor AF performance I'll be buying one.

G1 (or any smaller sensor) and wide angles

I happen to like wide angle lenses, back when I used 35mm film I usually liked 24mm or (used carefully) 21mm. The first thing I found when I picked up digital cameras in the year 2000 was that I didn't like what options existed for wide angles. To this day the options in wide angle for 4/3rds are quite restricted ... I can think of only the Panasonic 7-17mm and the Olympus 9-18mm lenses.

So in this article I'll compare the same angle of view on full frame and the 4/3rds. I say angle of view as focal length is really a meaningless measure unless you clearly understand the relationship between that and format ... not everything in the world is 35mm you know. Thus we are talking about a wide angle of view in this article.


Before I moved over to the Panasonic G1 I was a Canon EOS user for many decades (well since about 1990 actually). I have owned the EOS 10D and 20d but I have not owned a full frame digital, I of course still have 35mm bodies lying around.

One of the things which is true with smaller sensors is that to get the same angle of view you need a shorter focal length lens.

So looking at the diagram to the left to get the same 73 degrees angle of view the smaller sensor (yellow line) needs to be much closer to the lens than the larger sensor (blue line).

This means that for the smaller sensor you need a much shorter focal length to get the same angle of view.

So more or less if you use a 21mm lens on your 35mm camera you need a 10mm lens on the 4/3rds.

If all things were as simple as this then there would be no problems, but they of course are not so simple. For a start the difference between the 35mm frame and the 4/3rds frame means that to get the same angle of view you need about 1/2 the focal length (again since the aspect ratio is different its not exactly that, but lets leave this simple).

As it happens designing a zoom lens of such short focal length that will work on a digital camera is not simple and is as such more complex than a 21mm on a 35mm. This means that your lenses may be more expensive.

I used for this experiment an old Olympus 21mm f3.5 lens on the full frame and an Olympus 9-18mm Zoom for the Panasonic 4/3 camera. As I said I don't have a full frame digital camera, so the full frame images are scanned 35mm film. I used 200ISO negative. Actually this turned out to be an interesting basis for also comparing the latest digital with 10 year old film based digital photography (yes, I call scanned film digital ... no ni).

So firstly lets have a look at the overall image from the 35mm:



Next (not quite the same angle I'm sorry) the image from the G1.



Looking at the overviews I think you'll agree i got the colour quite close ... to get the same look I started with the RAW file and processed that significantly using a few steps which I've learnt. Its interesting to see how the shadow details are similar on both but the digital still managed to have trouble with the white of the birch trunk. That might look ugly in printing if your not careful.

I still find that negative film has much better recording capacity when you need to deal with strong light. I certainly found this in my previous explorations with my 10D and 20D, but its interesting to see that nothing has changed, and even careful use of RAW files does not stop this.

Secondly I am immedately struck by how much nicer the background "bokeh" looks on the 21mm lens ... to me the 10mm looks harsh and distorted. The little Olympus 21mm is a sweet lens for sure.

Now onto the detail. Below is a screen shot of the images at 50% res on the screen. I find this a useful determination of how a print will look at close inspection. Bear in mind we're essentially looking at a print which would be 34.0 x 25.5 cm ...


Its really close isn't it ...

If you think that the top of the mushroom is looking a little fuzzy, thats because the 21mm lens has a shallower depth of field at f5.6 than does the 10mm lens, and the focus was 'just slightly' ahead of the mushroom ... need to be careful in focusing manually!

But depth of field will be effected as the important criteria there is the diameter of the aperture, not the f-stop. Please take a moment to read my article here to confirm that for yourself.

So to have an 10mm lens giving the same DoF as I get with my 21mm @ f3.5 I would need around f1.8 The Olympus 9-18 zoom is simply not that bright, its f4 so to get the same DoF I would need to stop the 21mm down to f8 From this I'm sure you can see that the "look" of images between the lenses focused on something close will not be equal if we get the f-stop the same.

I thought I'd try another angle, one that requires distance this should eliminate DoF and get rid of the significance of any Bokeh.

Full Frame



G1



I think you'll agree that aside from colour matching them (close but no banana) the images look more or less the same (well and aspect ratio).

Differences in colour rendition is significant though as I think that the digital image (lower one) handles the subtle grades in the sky better than negative does ... this is something I've found before, that digital is better suited to capturing subtle shades than Negative is, and that negative works better when you have a wide dynamic to capture.

Looking at the detail there is surprisingly little in it. There is of course no difference between Depth of Field (as infinity is all thats in the focus here) but its also quite significant that the film scanned with the Nikon LS-4000 holds so well against the digital (or is it that the digital does so well against the film? you pick).




So, this cements in my mind that larger format (sensor or film) works best for wide angles. I would very much like to compare a 5D or other full frame sensor camera to the G1 as I think that it would be just fantastic. On the other hand the G1 costs so little that if you pop that onto your 300mm lens then instead of needing to buy a 600mm lens on a full frame camera you'll get better wildlife shots, this for example was a legacy FD series 300mm lens on my G1:



Bang for buck that's cheaper than buying anything for the full frame.

My summary is that

• If you want wide angle and want nice Bokeh then use a full frame camera and a 21mm lens
  
• neg has better handling of sunny contrasty conditions,
• wide angle on the G1 (small sensor) is ugly compared to full frame, but telephoto on the G1 or APS sensor is advantaged
• unexpectedly the G1 pulls very close to the 35mm in outright resolution (which means that the main advantage of digital is still workflow and materials costs)
  
• if desiring of shallow depth of field, when using lenses wide open aperture favors larger formats like full frame (but 6x7 and large format really needs movements to correct for and is harder to manage)

Wide options on a G1

Once upon a time there was film, and we tended to think in Formats, 35mm was a format (mainly because almost noone has heard of half frame), 120 roll provided a number of formats like 654, 6x7 and 6x9 and of course there is a number of so called "large formats".

Most people's DSLR cameras are 4/3, APS or Full frame; all of which refer to things smaller than and up to the size of 35mm. Most are however APS.

The diagram to the left shows the comparison in size between APS and 4/3rds (green and yellow) over the Full frame. There really isn't much difference between them in comparison to Full Frame.

One of the things which is an issue for using a smaller format camera like the G1 is how well it works with wide angle photography.
You see, to get a wide angle view you need short focal length lens, but as the format gets smaller you need to have that focal length shorter and shorter.

People seem to get all lost on photography (perhaps because they get caught up in thinking in terms of brands features and functions rather than just grasping the elementary basics, but hey where is the fun in learning the facts when you can be dazzled more easily by magic right?).

It goes like this: you're after wide angle, meaning you want to capture more of left to right than you think of as 'normal' ... To pick an example wide angle I'll choose 24mm focal length on a Full frame camera. This works out to capture 73 degrees of view.

Pretend that the lens is a single pinhole in a flat pate (heard of pinhole cameras?), so depending on the sensor format you are using you need to put the sensor at a specific distance from the 'lens'.

Looking at the diagram to the left you can see the blue line represents the width of the full frame sensor, and is at 24mm from the center (lets keep this simple here). A 4/3rds camera has a smaller sensor right? So for a 4/3rds camera (with its smaller sensor) it needs to be closer to have the same image projected on the sensor. This works out to needing a 12mm focal length lens.

So essentially a wide lens such as a 24mm on a Full Frame system works out to be a 12mm on a 4/3rds.

For ages a "standard wide" length in Full Frame was 28mm, but many people (rightly) feel that this is not really wide enough. It may not seem like a lot but in fact going from 28mm to 24mm makes a difference.

So with the "kit" lens being 14-45mm (similar to 28-90) wide angle fans are left scratching their heads. There really isn't much in the 12mm or less focal length range.

Two potential lenses are Panasonic's 7-14mm lens which is really wide but at over €1000 leaves people wondering if there are other options. Olympus makes a 9-18mm lens which is perhaps the next logical choice and at less than €600 is often considered. I paid about €100 for the adaptor, so this brings them closer together in price.

There are several tests of the Oly which you can find on the net, not much yet about the Panasonic and very little to say what people think about each. A common question though is what they look like and how do they compare to each other.

To answer that question I have written this page.

On the left is a picture (kindly provided by a member of a good forum on 4/3rds cameras) of the Kit 14.45 beside the Panasonic, owners of a G1 will likely be familar with the kit lens so it makes a good reference. You can see that the Panasonic really is very very similar in size to the kit lens.

Its important to note that the Panasonic 7-14 has a very bulging front element, thus it has a permanently mounted hood (as much for protection of the element as anything in my opinion). This however detracts from the lens in that you can not use any filter with the lens (yes, no polarizer, no Cokin gradutated filters ... nothing).

I have taken an image to compliment the one above and place my 14-45 so that we could compare them side by side. As this image shows, the Olympus is a little larger and a little fatter. Notice that I have got the lens mounted on the required 4/3rds to micro 4/3rds which is needed to use this lens on the G1.

Sorry if the perspective is not perfect, and I left the filter on my kit lens, but apart from the shock transfer between the 14-45's middle you can easily compare the Panasonic to the Olympus at the exact same scale.

To me the Panasonic looks quite similar in size to the kit lens, and the Olympus looks larger but not really by much. I remember when I first opened the box and pulled the Olympus out that it looked small ... much smaller than my previous Tokina 12-24 which I used with my 10D

But the surprise came when I put it on the camera ... you need to see how they look on the camera to get the point, so here this is below:
(please be patient with this image loading, blogger doesn't host animated gif (converts them to something else) so its coming from a slower server).



Its really interesting to see it mounted on the camera, as while the Olympus looks a little larger than the Panasonic you really need to keep in mind just how compact the G1 Camera is.

In use it makes the camera more like a viewing screen for the lens. The camera becomes insignificant and the whole thing kind of reminds me of the Sony F717 I used.

I didn't mind it, and in fact it made a nifty handle for shooting at different angles.

If you only have the 14mm wide kit lens and are wondering how different the two are I've put a couple of images below to show you how much wider you get when going from

14mm

to 9mm



This can be tricky to handle but works well in tight indoor situations. Clearly there are good outdoor wide angle opportunities too. Getting rid of foreground can be tricky and depending it might be as good for single shot panaroma like below.



Perhaps stitching and panorama is better use of the camera, but of course can't always be used in every situation. So when you need wide the 9mm is wide enough to get it all in one shot. The image quality of the lens will cope with it too and I am totally satisfied with what it gives, I was at a conference during the week and used the lens to make some interesting images there.




the ability to hold the camera in different ways (with its tilting swiveling screen) is excellent for working creatively with this lens. Although you do need to be careful with people shots as the strength of how wide it can be may give effects some may not like such as below ...



What I can say, he isn't really an Egg head.

However after using the lens for about 2 months is that it focuses really slowly, and it hunts quite a bit if you are in lowish light. Now I'm used to a diversity of cameras, from EOS 35mm SLR cameras (and yes, with wide angle lenses like the EF24 f2.8 which is not USM) through to to a little Nikon "prosumer" camera from 2001 (an era not noted for making fast focusing digital cameras).

So when I say (in the above company) the Oly can focus slowly (with a little machine like whirring) and hunts about a bit I really mean it.

Further you don't get Continuous AF only AF-S.

On the upside, the Panasonic G1's manual focus system (with its engagement of zoom focus in the focus point) really comes in handy, so you can intervene or simply leave the camera on manual focus and keep the aperture to f8 or something.

Neither lenses provide image stabilisation, and both weigh about the same. Technically the Panasonic is slightly heavier, but with the Olympus you need to add in the adaptor.

summary / conclusion

The Olympus is a nice lens gives great images and isn't too bulky. I like that I can mount filters like my Cokin system on it and that it is wide enough for my preferences.

Its well priced although with the adaptor required isn't so far away from the Panasonic lens in price.

So in the end I think its not an easy decision. I feel that the price for entry into Wide Angle lens is high on the G1, enough so that you can really consider getting an EOS 5D with a 24mm lens for not much more. So if you are considering this you need to ask youself a number of questions, not just about cost and filters but about handling ease of use and system compatiblility.