People pictures with shallow depth of field

I am not particularly interested in portraiture that entails setting up lights and diffusers, umbrellas, reflectors, etc. in a studio or even outside.  My photo club has offered workshops in this genre of photography in the past, and I have not even been interested enough to attend and listen, let alone participate in the photographing of models in front of lights.

Candid people pictures are a little more my style.  But I am not very good at it.  I would never make a good street photographer, in fear that I would be observed by my subject and reprimanded. 

Until recently, all my people pictures were taken with point and shoot cameras using natural light when available and the little pop-up flash when more light was required.  And you know how ugly those flash photos can be: a black background with the people looking like deer-caught-in-headlights.

I viewed these "candid" images pretty much as snapshots: great for family and friends to look at online or in 4" x 6" prints.  These images recorded memories (which in itself is a good reason to take a picture) but are not much in the way of art.

However, this all changed last fall at my step-daughter's rehearsal dinner.  I had just become a new owner of a micro-four-thirds (m43) camera, the Panasonic G2.  [I no longer have this camera, having loved it so much that I upgraded to the GH2, and more recently I added the Olympus E-M5 to my toy chest.]  M43 cameras are thinner than dSLRs so with a small lens adapter you are able to use almost any old lens, as long as the adapter has been designed for that particular lens. 

For $20 on EBay I bought a m43-to-Nikon adapter.  I then attached an old Nikkor 58mm F1.4 lens.  Because the sensor on a m43 camera is 1/2 the diagonal dimension of a full frame (FF) camera, the 58mm lens gives a more telephoto view, equivalent to the field of view of a 116mm lens on a FF camera.  This made for an awesome people lens with great light collecting ability and a pretty shallow depth of field. 

Below are a few shots I took in the bar after the dinner.  Nothing outstanding, but I loved the shallow depth of field I got by using the large aperture of F1.4, F1.8 or F2.  Mostly shot at ISO 1600, the G2 was a bit grainy.  A fill flash would have been a great addition, and likely the first recommendation any accomplished portrait photographer would recommend, but I didn't want to attract attention to myself nor appear to be annoying.

The large aperture lens meant a far blurrier background than what I could get with a point and shoot camera, where the depth of field is bigger at any given F-stop due to the physics of the small point and shoot sensor size.  The blurry background (and foreground) that I was able to achieve helped draw attention to the main subject, as the eye goes naturally to the sharpest part of the image.

This image more than the others would have been greatly helped with a little fill flash.
It would have eliminated the racoon eyes  (i.e. shadows created by the overhead
lights) on this party-goer who was "haming it up" for the picture.

I was excited by these pictures.  I had so much fun.  All would have been better with fill flash, but with a flash I would not have been able to move around unnoticed.  I took a number of images of the groom and his entourage shown above in black and white, and not once did any of them notice I was clicking away.  I am sure the excitement in part was from using an old manual lens designed for a 35mm film camera on a new digital camera. That made the exercise a bit challenging, but also rewarding.

Why I bought the GH2 and sold the G2

I had owned the Panasonic G2 for perhaps six months, when I sold it earlier this year.  I loved the camera and found that it pretty much ate the lunch of my Olympus E-620. I am not saying the image quality was better: as far as I can tell, the IQ is essentially equal.  This shouldn't surprise anyone, as they have the same 12mp Panasonic sensor.

I gave the G2 the nod over the E-620 even though I own no Panasonic or m43 lenses.  As a result, every lens I used on the G2 was unstabilized.  Nevertheless, I found that my favorite regular 43 lens, the highly acclaimed Olympus 14-54II, worked just fine without stabilization.  You see, by using the 43-to-m43 adapter on the G2, the camera body could read the focal length of each shot I composed, and it provided me automatically with a shutter speed of at least 1/focal length.  I typically use aperture (A) priority mode or programed automatic (P) mode.  I also use auto ISO.  So, in both of these modes the camera protected a shutter speed that was sufficient to eliminate camera motion.  It protected this speed by bumping the ISO if there was insufficient light.  I set the ISO max at 1600.  This set up worked fine for me. What I have found is that 95% of the time my required ISO is 400 or less. Incidentally, the 14-54II focuses slower on the G2 than it does on the E-620, but for most of my images it is still plenty fast enough.

Another big bonus of the m43 system is the ability to use a Nikon-to-m43 adapter to attach any of my four old Nikon lenses.  Because the G2 uses an EVF instead of an OVF, I can use the magnification feature when manually focusing these old lenses.  As I stop down the lens, the EVF "gains up" (increases brightness automatically) so that I can continue to see what I am capturing.

A third feature I liked about the G2 is the availability of  buttons and levers for a couple of my favorite items: (1) easy access to bracketing and (2) several custom modes on the mode dial. (The bracketing system on the E-620 is a multi-step and inconvenient process, and there are no custom settings on the mode dial.)

All of the G2 benefits are also available on the GH2.  The GH2 adds more bracketing options and speeds up the frames per second performance.  I like the multi-aspect sensor which I had previously become familiar with on my Panasonic LX5.  Plus the GH2 has higher resolution and better high ISO performance.  (I've set the maximum ISO to 3200.)

I had wanted the GH2 even when I bought the G2,  but couldn't justify it's high cost.  Oh, and the GH2 has great video, though I don't use it.

So this is how the whole purchase and sale thing happened: 

Both cameras were bought at great prices.  The G2 body was purchased brand new for $378 from Amazon late last summer (2011). It was a deal that lasted perhaps two days.  The GH2 became available earlier this year (2012), also from Amazon, at $999 with the 14-140 zoom lens, by using a discount code I learned about on the Internet.  This was a fantastic deal and I jumped right on it.

As soon as the GH2 arrived, I took the 14-140 zoom and sold it on Amazon for $625, as "like new".  I explained that although it had never been used, that because it had been purchased as part of a kit, there was no separate box for the lens so it wasn't exactly the same as buying the lens itself "new".  It sold within a week.This transaction brought the cost of the GH2 body down to an unbelievable $375. 

My final step was to list the G2 on Amazon for the same amount I paid for it, $378.  It also sold within a week.

The GH2 is a fabulous camera.  (Especially at $375!) The high ISO performance is the best I've ever experienced.  I realize it is not as good (from what I read on the forums) as cameras with bigger sensors, especially those with the highly capable Sony 16 mp APS-C sensor, but it is good enough for me. 

GH2 with Olympus 14-54II regular 4/3 zoom.  There's no image stabilization but as long as I keep it at 1/100th second or faster, I don't think it is necessary.

I don't know if this effects RAW files (I shoot either RAW or RAW+JPEG), but I've turned off the in-camera NR (noise reduction).  Even so, when post processing in Lightroom 3, I rarely touch the noise reduction slider even at ISO 3200, and then only minimally (slider set at 10, out of 100.)  With the G2 and E-620 I had always applied noise reduction in Lightroom starting at ISO 800.  It seems like the GH2 gives me about 2 more stops of performance.

I think more people would leave the noise untouched if they were to recalibrate their minds to think of "noise reduction" as synonymous with "detail smudging".

I haven't had much time to use the GH2 camera outdoors.  After all, it's winter here.  But I have been pleased with indoor performance.  Below are some samples of images taken indoors in available light, at ISO 3200.  Only the closeup of the mosquito fishing fly had any noise reduction applied, at that was only 10 out of 100 on the Lightroom slider.  These were shot in RAW.

I know these are small files and are only 650 pixels wide.  I have larger files on my Web site, though they can only be viewed at a maximum dimension of 1550 x 960 pixels, depending on your monitor's size.  I'm very pleased with the 8" x 10" prints I made of a couple of these.  I haven't yet tried anything bigger.

The larger images are here:

http://www.peterfraileyphoto.com/p101832967

GH2 plus Olympus 14-54II at 54mm. Set at 1/100, F3.5, ISO 3200.

GH2 plus Nikon 58mm F1.4.  Set at F2, 1/100, ISO 3200.

GH2 plus Nikon 58mm F1.4.  Set at 1/125, F2, ISO 3200.

GH2 plus Olympus 50mm F2 Macro.  Set at 1/100, F2, ISO 3200.

Olympus 45mm F1.8 versus Olympus 50mm F2 on the Panasonic G2

In an earlier post I wrote about the use of lens adapters on the Panasonic G2 that provide for the attachment of "legacy" and other non-micro four thirds lenses.  One evening I tested several "portrait" lenses:

• Olympus 50mm F2 macro (with Panasonic 43-to-m43 adapter)
• Nikon 58mm F1.4 (with Cowboy Studio's Nikon-to-m43 adapter)
• Rokinon 85mm F1.4 in 4/3 mount (with Panasonic 43-to-m43 adapter)
• Olympus 45mm F1.8 (this lens is a m43 lens and did not need an adapter)

In this post I will compare the Olympus m43 45mm F1.8 lens and the Olympus 43 50mm F2. 

CONCLUSION FIRST

I will state my conclusion first, then show some sample photos. 

I found the new m4/3 Oly 45mm to give essentially identical image quality to the older, regular-4/3 Oly 50mm macro, when images were taken at F2, F4, and F8. With the 50mm I stepped back from my subject slightly to provide a similarly framed image to what I captured with the 45mm.  The images were taken indoors under limited light, because that is how I mostly use fast prime lenses.

The Panasonic Lumix 43-to-m43 adapter

With both lenses, there was excellent sharpness in the center and excellent sharpness at the edges. Color and contrast seemed identical as well.  I did not use a tripod, as that would not be a "real world" situation for me; however, the slowest shutter speed I used was 1/320th so there should be not camera shake. I shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom 3 at default settings.

I compared both images taken at F2, then both taken at F4, then both taken at F8.  I compared by viewing at up to 300% on my monitor.  If I were forced to pick the sharper lens at F2 I would pick the 50mm, but only when viewed at 200%-300% and only in the center.  At 100% I can't see the difference.  I also printed at 8x10 and couldn't see a difference. At F4 and F8, I would have to flip a coin.  (Let me make it clear that I was only comparing F2 versus F2, F4 versus F4, and F8 versus F8.  I was not comparing F2 versus F4 versus F8.)

For all I know, if I shot additional samples, I'd get different comparative results.  But I really don't care, as both lenses are sharper than I am.  Every day I shoot with lenses less sharp than these two, and I am perfectly happy.

COMPARISON

Note that the Oly 50mm, because it was designed for regular 4/3 bodies, requires a 43-to-m43 adapter.  The adapters made by Panasonic and Olympus provide electrical connections between the lens and body.  Either will work fine.  They are expensive, so buy whichever is cheaper.  Either adapter will allow the 50mm to use many of the automatic features offered by the G2 body, such as autofocus (albeit, as slow as molasses), and automatic exposure.  The autofocus is so slow and noisy with the 50mm, that I use manual focus.

G2 with Olympus 50mm F2 macro, connected with Panasonic 43-to-m43 lens adapter

The 45mm is specifically designed for m43 and has screachingly fast and very quiet autofocus.  With a maximum aperture of F1.8, it has a half-stop advantage over the 50mm F2.  But you need to give up the macro capability of the 50mm.  It is very small in size; but I disliked using it on the G2.  Frankly, it looks ugly on the G2 (little silver lens attached to a black body).  More importantly, I don't like the ergonomics and balance of this small lens on the G2 because I can't comfortably hold the lens barrel with my left hand.  Probably with more time, I would get used to holding the camera body with two hands like a point and shoot as there is no (or limited) need to use the focus ring and there is no aperature ring. 

G2 with Olympus 45mm F1.8. Even without the blue plastic packing tape this combination is ugly and the ergonomics unenticing

I ended up returning this lens.  Its value to me would be the fast autofocus.  But because I already own the 50mm, I decided that it just wasn't worth the money for my needs.  If I ever buy a smaller m43 camera, like a silver PEN, it is possible that I will re-purchase this lens.

WHICH ONE WOULD I BUY?

If I didn't own either lens and could afford to buy only one, which would I'd buy? 

Actually, for me the answer is neither.  That's because they are expensive at $450 (50mm) and $385 (45mm).  And I suppose if I didn't already own the $100 Panasonic 43-to-m43 adapter, that would completely put the 50mm off limits.  The thing is, I am currently having fun covering the same territory with two old Nikon lens:  My nearly 50 year old 58mm F1.4 (inherited in 1975-ish from a friend of my dad's; according to the serial number it was built about 1963) gives me a portrait lens and my 55mm F3.5 micro (from eBay for $100) gives me macro capabilities.  I don't mind that everything is manual, including flash settings.  It's actually kind of fun, and I think it makes me a better photographer... or at least more focused (clichéd pun intended).

Digesting what I just wrote in the above paragraph, it seems that I ought to consider selling the 50mm.  After all, I just wrote that I wouldn't buy it if I didn't already own it.  Hmmm.

SAMPLES

Six images (two each at F2, F4, and F8) are viewable as downsized images and can also be downloaded as full size images on my Zenfolio-powered site here:
http://www.peterfraileyphoto.com/oly45mm50mm

Using "legacy" lenses on the G2

One of the really cool capabilities of the micro four thirds (m43) cameras built by Olympus and Panasonic is the ability to use old manual lenses from almost any maker via inexpensive lens adapters.  The design of the m43 cameras makes this possible by removing the traditional optical viewfinder (OVF), mirror, and mirror box found in SLRs and dSLRs.   This makes the cameras smaller.  In the case of the Panasonic G-series and GH-series the removed items have been replaced with an electronic viewfinder (EVF), representing a significant net space savings.

Another result of the m43 design is that the distance between the sensor and the lens-mount is shortened and the cameras are thinner.  By using an adapter ring to "add back" the distance required by old manual lenses, often called "legacy" lenses, we are able to get these old optics to (generally) focus correctly on the new bodies. 

For example, so I can use my old Nikkor lenses, I purchased an adapter ring sold by Cowboy Studios via Amazon for about $20.  EBay is another good source for these inexpensive adapter rings.  The length of the Nikon-to-m43 adapter ring is 25mm (about 1").  It's nothing fancy.  Just a black metal tube with a m43 lens-mount on one end, and a Nikon body-mount on the other. You can find adapter rings for nearly every brand of lens.  Each will be sized little differently.

Nikon-to-m43 adapter from Cowboy Studios

I think the results with my Nikkors are very good, but I have read many reports of soft images, especially with other brands.  It must be remembered that these old lenses were built to be used with film.  They are not optimized for digital.

Some G2 camera features are disabled with the legacy lenses.  Because the lens adapter ring provides no electrical connections between the camera body and the lens, you will need a legacy lens that has an aperture ring.  You will then switch the camera to Aperture-Priority Mode.  After you manually set the aperture using the aperture ring on the lens, the camera's metering system will then pick the speed required to get the "correct" exposure at the ISO you've selected for that image.  The G2 also seems to work well with AutoISO, which I have set to a maximum of 1600.  I notice some underexposing, sometimes 2/3 to 1-stop, in lower light situations when using smaller diameter apertures like F8, so watch the histogram and be prepared to use some EV compensation.

One disadvantage of the G2 (and all Panasonic m43 cameras) is that there is no in-body image stabilization.  Meanwhile, Olympus builds image stabilization right into the m43 body.  This means that any legacy lens you attach to an Olympus will be image stabilized.  On the other hand, Olympus has yet to make a m43 camera with a built-in EVF; though there are rumors of one being announced this year.  If they build one, I'll buy it.

In the meantime, I don't view this Panasonic disadvantage as a big deal, at least for the legacy lenses I own.  My four Nikkor lens have focal lengths of 55mm, 58mm, 85mm and 105mm.  The G2 appears to maintain a minimum speed of 1/125th before bumping up the ISO.  This works for me, as I feel I can satisfactorily hand hold the 55, 56 and 85 at 1/125th.  And since these lenses are used primarily for candids, a speed of 1/125th is about as low as I would want to go, even if I had image stabilization available. 

Panasonic G2 + Cowboy Studios' "Nikon-to-m43" adapter ring + Nikkor 58mm F1.4 circa 1963

The 105mm F2.8 is a different story, but I am still happy with the results.  It is a macro lens (Nikon calls it a "micro").  Theoretically, to get a sharp image I should shoot an unstabilized 105mm lens on a 2x crop factor camera at a shutter speed of 1/200th second.  Coincidentally this is my preferred  lens speed for this lens, and would be my preferred speed even with image stabilization.  That's because I use this primarily for flowers outdoors, and without a flash.  Because even on calm days I believe there is some subject movement, I am happy with this shutter speed even if it requires ISO1600, though admittedly I might follow up such a shot with a shutter speed of 1/125 and lower ISO (1250?), as it's always preferable to use the lowest ISO possible.

A final cool feature that will help you with your manual focusing is the magnified view offered by the EVF.  I don't use it all the time, but when you do need it, just press the thumb dial (it clicks "in" like a button) to get a magnified view of the subject inside the single-point focus box.  As a second step, your magnification can be increased further by turning the thumb dial wheel one click to the right. You can also move the focus box to any other area of the viewfinder using the four-way pad.  When using the LCD you have the added choice of using the touchscreen feature to relocate the focus box. 

For candids, I like to move the focus box so it is centered horizontally and down 1/3rd from the top, because typically the subject's face will be in the 1/3rd  position.  As far as I can tell there are no settings to make this selected position "sticky", not even within one of the Custom Settings modes.  So you will need to reset it every time your turn the camera on... so, if you are not using a tripod, perhaps its will be easier to leave the focus box in the absolute center and just focus and recompose....

In the future, I plan to compare some "old" lenses and some "new" lenses.  Generally, I think the old lenses are fun to use if you already own them.  I'm not sure, however, if it is worth buying old legacy lenses.  It seems that the price of old lenses has increased dramatically as owners of m43 bodies and now Sony NEX bodies have discovered them.

My new Panasonic G2 is beating up on my Olympus E-620

I have been happy with the Olympus E-620, and the purchase a few months ago of the Panasonic G2 was a spontaneous purchase prompted by one of those one-day deals on Amazon... body only for $290! Both cameras are built with the small "slr-look", and they share (I have read) the same 12mp Panasonic sensor. The E-620 is a 4/3 format (43) and the G2 is a micro 4/3 format (m43). The biggest difference (for me) is the optical viewfinder (OVF) of the Olympus versus the electronic viewfinder (EVF) of the Panasonic. The fact that the Oly does not shoot video is of no consequence to me.

I do not yet have any m43 lenses for the Panasonic, so I found myself comparing the image quality of the two bodies using my Oly 14-54II. On the Panasonic I needed a 43-to-m43 adapter to use this lens. I purchased the one made by Panasonic as it was a bit cheaper than the Olympus adapter. As I recall, the price was under $100.

Using my 24" computer monitor with HD resolution, I found that even at 100% magnification there was very little difference in image quality and noise levels between the G2 and E-620. However, I found this only to be true after I realized each camera "rounded" their ISO measurements differently. For example, F5.6 @ 1/100th @ISO400 on the Oly gave the same exposure as ISO200 on the Pany. Otherwise, if you shoot at identical ISOs you will assume the Panasonic is noisier. This conclusion was confirmed by the measurements at DXOmark which showed that both cameras would actually be shooting at ISO300 in the example described above. Each camera rounds its ISO numbers in opposite directions!

Once this was understood, I found that image quality was similar (all shots were in RAW and processed in Lightroom) when one adjusts for the different ISO rounding. I say "similar" and not "exact" because I found the 14-54II to result in slightly sharper images when mounted on the G2. I was expecting just the opposite; but my guess is that my results were due to the less aggressive anti-alias (AA) filter on the G2's sensor. That's just a guess based on what I have read on the Internet; in reality the difference may only be due to camera sample variations. Nevertheless, when printed as 8x10s I didn't notice the difference... well, maybe I noticed a slight difference, but it was only because I knew there was supposed to be a difference!

With the 14-54II attached, the E-620 is a pretty nice combo, as the Olympus body has image stabilization built into it. Panasonic body's lack image stabilization.  On the other hand after a one week vacation with the lens attached to the Panasonic I never found any shots out of focus. In my preferred P-mode or A-mode, the Panasonic nicely kept shutter speed at 1/focal length and I set maximum auto ISO at 1600. In the travel shots I took, the ISO remained at 400 or less perhaps 90% of the time. The lens itself weighs under 16 ounces and balances well on either camera. Anything heavier in my opinion would result in awkward ergonomics.


What I like about the E-620 that is missing in the G2

1) Auto ISO is enabled in manual exposure mode. I love this feature when shooting nature shots such as butterflies. With my Oly 70-300 I typically pick a speed of 1/250th and an aperture of F8. With auto ISO you can still get an automatic exposure, as the camera will pick the ISO required for a good exposure. This is a great feature now that most cameras provide ISOs in 1/3 stop increments and high ISO is getting better with each new generation of sensors. I don't understand why this feature is not available in the G2. I know its available on Nikon and Canon dSLRs, and I even have it on my Panasonic super-point-and-shoot, the LX5.

2) Camera build quality. The Olympus feels like it was built by a camera company. The Panasonic feels like it was built by a computer company.  For all I know the Pany is sturdier, but it has more of a plastic-y feel to it (to me). The Oly feels like quality.

3) Shutter sound. Oly's shutter sounds nice to me. Like a precision machine. The Pany has more of a "clunk" to it. The Pany sounds cheap to me, though I am getting used to it.

4) Vertical Grip. I have this. I like having a place for my pinkie finger to go, rather than having it curled up under the body.  The grip helps the ergonomics overall, because I shoot a lot of vertical landscapes. It is also helpful with the heavier 70-300.

Olympus E-620 + vertical grip + 70-300mm zoom

5) Presets. The E-620 has two "presets" that can be programed through the menu system.  Unlike custom modes on the G2 which are accessed through the command dial, presets on the Olympus require diving into the menu.  I counted 9 clicks of either the 4-way arrow pad or the "OK" button to access a preset.  Terrible.  On the other hand, it does have an advantage, and this is why it is listed here.  A preset can be programmed with all your preferred settings, and when accessed, the preset preferences can be used in any mode on the command dial (P, A, S, or M).  (Note:  with the custom modes on the G2, you need to program whether it will be operated specifically in P, A, S, or M.)

What I like about the G2 that is missing on the E-620

1) Viewfinder. The G2's electronic eye-level viewfinder (EVF) is larger than the optical viewfinder (OVF) on the E-620 and I find this a huge advantage. The difference is especially noticeable to me because I wear glasses. This results in my eye being further away from the viewfinder, rendering it smaller. With the G2's EVFEVF and the 3" LCD when shooting or for playback. One big advantage of this EVF is that you can magnify your image (there are actually two magnification levels). This is very helpful when focusing manually, and manual focusing is required with legacy lenses (see #5 below). On the other hand, you do give up clarity. The EVF is nowhere near as sharp and crisp as an optical viewfinder, because an OVF allows you to view your subject directly through the lens, rather than on a little television.

2) Direct Bracketing Button. To bracket with the E-620 you have to go into the menu and set two parameters: the sequential shooting speed rate and the bracketing desired. This is a real pain. The workaround is to use the "preset" function (see #5 above) but this must still be accessed through the menu, and about nine clicks.  Then nine more clicks to turn it off. On the other hand, the G2 has a slider (not actually a button) on the top plate with bracketing being one of the choices. I have it set for 5 shots at 1 EV intervals. I bracket a lot of my landscape shots, so the G2's slider is a real bonus for me.

3) Custom Modes. On the control dial on the top plate there are three Custom modes available. The Olympus has none. I have C1 set up with settings I prefer when using an external flash (fixed ISO, flash WB, A-priority, and center-weighted metering, for example). C2 is set up for my preferences while shooting legacy lenses in aperture priority.

4) Better automatic exposure settings. (This conclusion is based on my preference for P-mode or A-mode, and auto ISO.) I like the fact that the G2 exposure programming protects a speed of 1/focal length. For example, with a 100mm lens, the camera will maintain a speed of 1/100th sec. even if it needs to increase the ISO to the maximum you have set it for (my maximum is set for ISO 1600). Yes, I know about image stabilization, but I prefer to shoot at 1/focal length and not less, and would rather have the ISO increase than have the speed decrease. The E-620, on the other hand, will drop the shutter speed before maxing out at ISO1600. I don't like that. Other folks do.

5) Legacy Lenses. Using the appropriate lens adapter (my Nikon to m43 adapter was about $20), you can use all kinds of old manual focus lenses. You just need to be sure that the lens has an aperture ring. Because of the EVF, even if closed down to a small diameter aperture, the viewfinder will "gain up" to provide the brightness needed to see your subject. And the magnification feature can be very helpful with manual focus. I have loved using my old 5.8cm (58mm) Nikkor F1.4. This lens was inherited from a friend of my dad's back in the early 1970s. Based on the serial number it was built in Japan in approximately 1963. That makes it nearly 50 years old! I have had so much fun with this system (camera-adapter-old lens) that I've now bought three other old Nikkors on EBay: 50mm F3.5 micro, 105mm F2.8 micro, 85mm F1.4.

Panasonic G2 + Cowboy Studios lens adapter + Nikkor 56mm F1.4 circa 1963

Final Comments:

There are plenty of differences between these two camera bodies, but the above are the main ones for me. If I had to pick just one camera, it would easily be the G2. However, I have kept the E-620 for use with the 70-300. With a lens that big (21 ounces and 5+ inches closed) I want the image stabilization provided by the Olympus body. Interestingly the lens actually focuses faster on the G2. But without image stabilization, the G2 body is not the best solution for this lens.  I own the vertical/battery grip for the E-620 which makes using the 70-300 delightful. On the G2, this lens is a bit heavy. Also the ability to shoot with auto ISO in manual mode is a big help to me with the E-620/70-300 combination when shooting flowers and butterflies. That's because I can get an automatic exposure while at the same time determining manually my desired shutter speed and desired F-stop.

There's lots of new stuff coming out from Olympus and Panasonic, and I am looking forward to lusting over all of it!