wsymington
New Member
I was using my G2 in Beijing last January in temperatures of -7°C (and up on the Great Wall where it was somewhat colder) and it worked flawlessly. I wouldn´t worry about it.
-
Quick access all forums:Photography and Techniques Nature & Wildlife Landscape & Travel City, Street & Transportation People, Portrait & Wedding Black & White Macro & Still Life Sport & Action Everything else Editing / Hardware & Software
Assignments & Critique Images I took this week Photo Critique Challenges Challenge Discussions
Gear-Talk General Gear Talk Canon Nikon Sony & Minolta Fujifilm X System & DSLRs L-Mount Alliance MicroFourThirds (MFT) Pentax & Ricoh Medium Format Leica M, Leica R, Leica Q Other brands Contax MTF Charts, Broschures etc Information Contax & Zeiss Sigma SA/ DP/DPMerrill/Quattro Others Smartphones, P&S and Drones Adapted Lens Talk Classifieds
General stuff Announcements Forum-Help/ "Have you seen...?" Introduce yourself DPRF Cafe Suggestions regarding this forum
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G2 Newbies Observations
- Thread starter keoj
- Start date
Just a quick update on my G2 leraning curve saga....after 3 months with this camera and roughly 10 rolls, a couple of more observations;
1) I've still exclusively using the 45 lens. Debating whether to get the 28 or 90 next. In the end, it'll be a what will I use the most question. Appreciate any comments from people who use both lenses....what do you use the most?
2) I've shot primarily Astia and Velvia (50 and 100). Okay, here comes the subjective part....this camera takes sharper pictures than my Contax SLR with CZ primes. These pictures are tack sharp over a broad lighting range. I really can't get over it. My CZ primes that I use are primarily the 50/1.7 and 85/2.8 (both typically shot at f4 and above) and the G2 45/2 just blows them both away. I don't want to sound like a bigot/zealot on the subject, but this G2/45 lens combo is that good...consistently getting excellent contrast and resolution results. I will note that I digitize all my work using 4000 ppi scanner so my level of review is pretty tight (I'm not sure that one would see this in real life prints that never go above 8x12). In any case, continued big thumbs up on the lens.
3) I have not shot any flash pictures yet. That comes next.
4) The light meter seems to do an excellent job. Slides are usually perfectly exposed. I rarely need to compensate. Again, I think that the metering seems to do a great job of providing a good balance of spot/center...emphasis seems a little spot-like. It works for me. I took a roll of shots of objects in the snow and no issues.
5) I'm still leraning how to drive the AF on this camera. It false focuses every so ofter so I still don't trust it. I ALWAYS check the distance in the viewfinder before I snap. Again, this is very tolerable to me as the % of shots that are ultimately infos seem to be close to 100%. I would never trust the G2 for fast action sports though, the AF is just a little to finicky.
As an aside, we have a camera club where I work. I'm the only analog guy left.....all others have gone digital. Most with the Canon 10D and a few on Nikon. It's kind of interesting, I come into the room with my teeny-tiny G2 in this little pouch and they have backpacks full of gear. (I also have a digital camera but I use it as a P&S and love it for that reason.) They argue about how to get WB and the MP wars and I just talk about composition. Diversity is good.
keoj
1) I've still exclusively using the 45 lens. Debating whether to get the 28 or 90 next. In the end, it'll be a what will I use the most question. Appreciate any comments from people who use both lenses....what do you use the most?
2) I've shot primarily Astia and Velvia (50 and 100). Okay, here comes the subjective part....this camera takes sharper pictures than my Contax SLR with CZ primes. These pictures are tack sharp over a broad lighting range. I really can't get over it. My CZ primes that I use are primarily the 50/1.7 and 85/2.8 (both typically shot at f4 and above) and the G2 45/2 just blows them both away. I don't want to sound like a bigot/zealot on the subject, but this G2/45 lens combo is that good...consistently getting excellent contrast and resolution results. I will note that I digitize all my work using 4000 ppi scanner so my level of review is pretty tight (I'm not sure that one would see this in real life prints that never go above 8x12). In any case, continued big thumbs up on the lens.
3) I have not shot any flash pictures yet. That comes next.
4) The light meter seems to do an excellent job. Slides are usually perfectly exposed. I rarely need to compensate. Again, I think that the metering seems to do a great job of providing a good balance of spot/center...emphasis seems a little spot-like. It works for me. I took a roll of shots of objects in the snow and no issues.
5) I'm still leraning how to drive the AF on this camera. It false focuses every so ofter so I still don't trust it. I ALWAYS check the distance in the viewfinder before I snap. Again, this is very tolerable to me as the % of shots that are ultimately infos seem to be close to 100%. I would never trust the G2 for fast action sports though, the AF is just a little to finicky.
As an aside, we have a camera club where I work. I'm the only analog guy left.....all others have gone digital. Most with the Canon 10D and a few on Nikon. It's kind of interesting, I come into the room with my teeny-tiny G2 in this little pouch and they have backpacks full of gear. (I also have a digital camera but I use it as a P&S and love it for that reason.) They argue about how to get WB and the MP wars and I just talk about composition. Diversity is good.
keoj
Joe, thanks for the update. You wrote, "I would never trust the G2 for fast action sports though, the AF is just a little to finicky." I have found the same, though I am not sure exactly what makes it this way. Have you figured that part out such that you can predict its issue? Maybe it is because the AF square in the viewfinder is too big? Maybe it is something else?
Scott
Scott
R
rickd
Hi keoj,
Nice summary. A few responses to your points:
1. Let your need dictate the lens choice--both lenses are excellent, and clearly have very different uses. When I had just the 28, 45 and 90, I used the 28 quite a bit more than the 90. Today I have all the G lenses and mostly use the 28 for chasing my 2-year-old around. I use the 21 for scenery and architecture, tasks that fell to the 28 before I expanded my collection.
2. It's not just your imagination. The 45 is arguably one of the best lenses available for the 35mm format, ever. It's too bad the G system remains such a "secret."
3. G flash presents some challenges. Which flash do you have (or have you bought one yet)? If you have the TLA 200, be prepared to experiment with home-made diffusers and/or an off-camera extension cord.
4. I too have good luck with the metering, and I shoot 90% chromes. Don't be shy about using exposure compensaion and auto-bracketing, though.
5. CAF works well with subjects that don't fool the autofocus system. It's a matter of discerning which types of subjects *do* fool it and using Plan B.
--Rick
Nice summary. A few responses to your points:
1. Let your need dictate the lens choice--both lenses are excellent, and clearly have very different uses. When I had just the 28, 45 and 90, I used the 28 quite a bit more than the 90. Today I have all the G lenses and mostly use the 28 for chasing my 2-year-old around. I use the 21 for scenery and architecture, tasks that fell to the 28 before I expanded my collection.
2. It's not just your imagination. The 45 is arguably one of the best lenses available for the 35mm format, ever. It's too bad the G system remains such a "secret."
3. G flash presents some challenges. Which flash do you have (or have you bought one yet)? If you have the TLA 200, be prepared to experiment with home-made diffusers and/or an off-camera extension cord.
4. I too have good luck with the metering, and I shoot 90% chromes. Don't be shy about using exposure compensaion and auto-bracketing, though.
5. CAF works well with subjects that don't fool the autofocus system. It's a matter of discerning which types of subjects *do* fool it and using Plan B.
--Rick
I am always a bit puzzled when I read recommendations for ultra-wide lenses to be used in landscape photography. In my experience, such lenses are of value primarily when there is an area of interest is in the foreground, which certainly does not describe the landscapes that most people take. More often, the subject is off in the distance and is made to look even smaller, farther away and possibly distorted by an ultra-wide lens.
I live in the American West, where the wide open spaces really are just that. My favorite lenses for landscapes are, in order, the 45mm, 35mm, 90mm, 21mm. I have taken some extraordinary shots with the 21mm, but I still consider it to be a specialty lens--a truly great one, I might add.
I live in the American West, where the wide open spaces really are just that. My favorite lenses for landscapes are, in order, the 45mm, 35mm, 90mm, 21mm. I have taken some extraordinary shots with the 21mm, but I still consider it to be a specialty lens--a truly great one, I might add.
R
rickd
Hi Robert,
It surely is just a matter of personal preference, with no right or wrong approaches. I see a lot of nice landscapes taken with the 90, for that matter.
The 21, for me, opens up many possibilities in both shooting truly wide vistas (e.g., in the mountains or inside interesting buildings) and attaining extrordinary depth of field. There are also some benifits to shooting using the auxiliary viewfinder.
I'm only half joking when I add that if you use the Hologon for a little while, the 21 seems pretty normal!
Regards,
--Rick
It surely is just a matter of personal preference, with no right or wrong approaches. I see a lot of nice landscapes taken with the 90, for that matter.
The 21, for me, opens up many possibilities in both shooting truly wide vistas (e.g., in the mountains or inside interesting buildings) and attaining extrordinary depth of field. There are also some benifits to shooting using the auxiliary viewfinder.
I'm only half joking when I add that if you use the Hologon for a little while, the 21 seems pretty normal!
Regards,
--Rick