Camera Questions

[Buffleheadbill]

I'm hoping someone will know. I have a Panasonic lumix g2 camera. What lenses would be best suited for taking shots of landscapes? Right now all I have is a 14-42.

[KankRat]

I'm hoping someone will know. I have a Panasonic lumix g2 camera. What lenses would be best suited for taking shots of landscapes? Right now all I have is a 14-42.

Short answer. Generally wide angle lenses are used for landscape. The 14mm of your zoom would work fine and you should just shoot with it for now to figure out what you need. I had that lens and a Lumix. It was just fine and don't let anybody tell you anything different.

Long answer :
So in 35mm film days a 50mm focal length lens was considered a "normal" perspective. Meaning it's similar field of view as to what you see.
Anything significantly less than 50mm was considered "wide angle". and anything longer a "telephoto".
Typical lenses for someone shooting landscapes would usually be somewhere say 20mm to 28 maybe 35mm. That's not to say you could not shoot landscapes with a 50mm, just generally a wider perspective is often what you need.
A digital camera does EXACTLY what a film camera does only in place of the light sensitive film there is a light sensitive sensor. They make several different sizes of sensors for cameras these days. The most popular are going from large to small:

Full Frame the exact same size as 35mm film-
APS-C aka "crop sensor" Nikon calls it DX
Micro Four Thirds (basically Panasonic and Olympus)

So if you have a lens with a 50mm focal length regardless if it was made for a digital camera or a film camera, if you mount it on a digital camera with a full frame sensor it acts like a normal lens.
If you take this same lens and mount it on a camera with an APS-C sensor there will be a "crop factor". It's because the sensor is smaller and it crops out the outer edges of the image. Think of it like this, if you went to the movies and there was an image of landscape on the big screen. If you replaced the big screen with one half the size, you would only see the center of the image. Maybe this would illustrate it:

https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-cont ... -vs-CX.jpg

The crop factor for an aps-c sensor is 1.5 X and Micro 4/3 is 2X

So a 50mm lens acts like a 75mm lens on an aps-c sensor and a 100mm lens on a 4/3 sensor.
Make sense?

So your 14-40mm is the equivalent of 28-80mm in full frame. It's an ideal range for general photography. The wide end should be good. I don't own anything wider.

Just so you know a lot of my pics are multiple images combined. Those ice fall shots are about 9-15 shots each. Because the lighting was so harsh and shitty, I had to bracket 3 exposures stack those, then I moved the camera a bit to gain more view. Then I merged everything in LR (which you do all that in Lightroom classic- AWESOME.)
it's kind of like when you put your phone on "panorama" only a shit ton more work

[KankRat]

Your lens is called a "kit lens". If you start researching it you are going to find lots of reviews on how awful they are. True they have some shortcomings, but those are usually far outweighed by skill and that includes me.
A far wiser investment for a budding landscape shooter would be to use the G2 with the 14-42. Purchase a good tripod (I like ones with a ball head). This would be a great place to blow a $100 if not more. I would not fault you for spending a lot more. if you can't afford that get a good one you can afford.
Get a good polarizing filter, (like a Hoya MC) used on Ebay for around $20.
Here is a shot I did years ago using my Canon Xsi (my first DSLR only 12mp) and the 18-55mm kit lens it came with. There is no stacking or anything weird going on here. i really just used everything I knew from film photography. I sold a couple of these (to friends, for a couple bucks over cost).
Wildcat Canyon Starved Rock State Park by Mark Kasick, on Flickr

[Rambler]

^^^ Great overview & info. Also explains why I miss the old days so bad.

[Buffleheadbill]

Thank so for all that info. Do you ever use a single leg stand or are they not good. Reason I ask is I have a primos trigger stick that I can mount the camera on and it really light.

[threeats407]

Good advice. I'd say a monopod is better than nothing and it's certainly a better choice for some things. Sports comes to mind but that's something I seldom shoot. Remember when doing wide angle landscapes one of the benefits is that you can add some real scale and depth by including something up very close. It's not always about getting so much in that nothing stands out.

[KankRat]

Thank so for all that info. Do you ever use a single leg stand or are they not good. Reason I ask is I have a primos trigger stick that I can mount the camera on and it really light.

No not really. There are a lot of reasons to use a tripod for landscapes, all of them require a rock solid mount. Something tough to do with 1 leg. photographers use monopods sometimes for balancing big heavy telephotos.

A tripod will allow you to use a slower shutter speed, not only for cool effects like silky waterfalls, but for normal shots having a slower shutter speed will drive down the ISO resulting in cleaner less noisy images. That will especially be a benefit with a M 4/3 sensor, especially an older one, one downside is they are noisy at higher ISO.. You'll get sharper, better looking shots too.

The tripod also forces you to slow down and thoroughly look the image over for composition and you can methodically change settings, like shoot at multiple f stops, or shutter speeds and learn the effect. You can do that hand held, but as you review images it's nice to see the exact same image everytime in register and it takes camera shake out of the equation.
Then there are night shots too.

You don't have to use a tripod, but it's a really good learning tool.

Research the term "Exposure", and try to learn what the relationship between ISO, Aperture and Shutter speed. It's also good to read up on composition. stuff like "the rule of thirds". Center is boring.

Nothing will do more for you photos than shooting a lot. If you can't afford a tripod now, just get out there with what you got and start shooting. Look up if there is a camera club anywhere near you.

[KankRat]

Good advice. I'd say a monopod is better than nothing and it's certainly a better choice for some things. Sports comes to mind but that's something I seldom shoot. Remember when doing wide angle landscapes one of the benefits is that you can add some real scale and depth by including something up very close. It's not always about getting so much in that nothing stands out.

Yep. But usually not easy, makes darn nice photos when you pull it off. Have you seen the Laouwa (sp?) wide angle macro? It's cool.

[KankRat]

Some nice G2 shots on Flickr

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Lumix%20G2

[JustinCarf]

All kinds of great advice here. Appreciate those answers, KankRat, and I didn't even ask.

[Buffleheadbill]

Some pictures from a few years ago.

[KankRat]

All kinds of great advice here. Appreciate those answers, KankRat, and I didn't even ask.

No prob. I looked at your YT channel. Nice job singin' and a pickin'.

[KankRat]

Some pictures from a few years ago.

Those look nice. You caught some kind of raptor on the first one. Long tail.
Man the colors are really natural. Did you tweak them or are those SOOC?

It's funny, I had a Lumix M 4/3. i remember night shots looking real nice like that. Cant remember what model, but it did not have a viewfinder so it got an automatic ejection seat. My boss (a M43 fanboy) sold it to me and he got it for $200 with I think, a 12mm f2.8. He bought the kit for the lens, sold me the body for $100. I bought the 14-42 on fleabay for like 50 bucks. I only took a few shots with it, then offed it to my nephew who needed a camera to go on his honeymoon to Hawaii. Really nice kit other than that viewfinder thing. My boss loaned me that little prime lens, and I took an awesome portrait with it.

[Buffleheadbill]

They are sooc. I have two more of the top on and a lot more of the bottom lol