User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Third-Party Products »

Digital Camera Chat


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Digital Camera Chat
Page 105 of 114 First Previous 101 102 103 104 [105] 106 107 108 109  Next Last Thread Tools
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-13, 21:33

So this shutter shock problem seems to exist across a few m4/3 cameras. Do we know if there's problem range (of shutter speeds) for the GX7. I think the Panasonic cameras have some significant pluses. Along with the GH4, the GX7 is the only other camera to focus down to -4ev, essentially full darkness. And while the Olympus 2.8 lenses get a lot of the attention, the 12-35 and 35-100 from Panasonic are admirably small, and probably sharp enough.

.........................................
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-15, 06:08

I just shot with the D750 and am looking at the files. I am very impressed, and thought some of the Nikon users here would appreciate the impressions.

This camera focuses faster and more accurately than my D800 in low light. I don't think there's a big difference in good light, but indoors under dim mixed lighting (incandescent especially) the D750 is more positive. The files are very good. When looking at the ISO6400-25600 range, it might be the best DSLR, period. Physically, I think it might be both lighter and smaller than my D7000! I'm not entirely sure if it's lighter, or if it just grips better, but it's got to be close. It looks about the same size, and though the viewfinder hump is taller, the body is thinner. I'll guess the overall volume is similar. The grip is very good, deeper and nicely scultped: my hand at least hooks in nicely. I like it a lot. It was attached to a 17-35 and that might have had something to do with it too, since I don't have this lens and haven't managed to buy one yet. I may be crazy, but it just might be possible to use this combination as a street shooting rig, though I'm not sure how much coughing I'd have to do to try to emulate Thomas Dworzak.

Part of me wants to sell both my D800 and D7000 and get two D750's for work and then try to make them work for my casual shooting. I have been looking around at m4/3 though, and I can put together a GX7, 12mm, 17mm, and 45mm quite cheaply, and get into all kinds of trouble with compact combinations like that.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-15, 12:13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
I think the Panasonic cameras have some significant pluses. Along with the GH4, the GX7 is the only other camera to focus down to -4ev, essentially full darkness. And while the Olympus 2.8 lenses get a lot of the attention, the 12-35 and 35-100 from Panasonic are admirably small, and probably sharp enough.
Those Panasonic lenses can be used on Olympus cameras too, of course. I agree they’re attractive (except in look and feel; I suspect they’ll be upgraded in that department before very long).

I’ve used a variety of contrast-detection autofocus systems, and Panasonic’s implementations have always impressed me for speed and reliability. Even my LX5’s focusing is very hard to complain about. It just works. I suspect the GX7’s focusing system is about as good as it gets, tracking aside. Certainly it seems very quick (though not with the 20 mm lens it’s often paired with).

But the E-M10 I tried also focused very quickly. And it was much quicker than the GX7 at providing an image in the viewfinder when I raised it to my eye. The GX7 was annoyingly slow in that regard. And when the GX7’s field-sequential view finally arrives, it’s not as pleasant as the E-M10’s conventional LCD view. The image is slightly bigger but more digital-feeling: the colour artefacts as you roll your eyeball to see various parts of the image are just weird. I also had more difficulty aligning my eye with the ocular – the off-centre lens within the eye-cup doesn’t help with this – and generally feeling comfortable with the GX7 viewfinder.

All that said, I much prefer the Panasonic menus to the Olympus menus, and not only because I’ve long used Panasonics. And I prefer the industrial design of the GX7 to the E-M10’s. Likely it’s stronger too, though it feels the opposite – more plasticky than the Olympus.

I can buy a GX7 for a good bit less than the Olympus here in Paris. That may not be the case everywhere.

That Olympus 17 mm f/1.8 lens is a beauty. As is the 12 mm f/2 (pricey, though). Panasonic has nothing like those, but they should work just fine on a Panasonic body.

Very hard to know what to do, which is why I’m in no great hurry to buy anything.

The D750 is smaller than a D800 but not by enough to really matter to me. With AF-S Nikkors (i.e. large lenses) it still looks like a big, brutish, professional camera. Some people like or need that, but I have long known I do my best work with smaller cameras.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-15, 12:24

One more thing: I tried an E-M10 at the Salon de la Photo yesterday. Incredibly, the people at the Olympus stand didn’t know about the 0-sec anti-shock setting or were trained to avoid talking about shutter shock. But I found it, engaged it, and took a few photos. Then switched it off and shot another few. Then turned it on again. At least on that noisey floor, using a camera I wasn’t familiar with, it was impossible to discern the tiny delay it introduces to allow the shutter-induced vibrations to die down (on the order of 1/40 s). The camera still felt like it took a picture when I pushed the shutter-release button.

That means shutter-shock is a non-issue for the E-M10, at least for me. There is no similar option on the GX7, and that is the main reason I am hesitating to buy a GX7 over an E-M10.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.

Last edited by Dorian Gray : 2014-11-15 at 14:37. Reason: spelling.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2014-11-15, 12:52

I'm surprised that you are looking at those two cameras, the E-M10 is kind of a lower end camera than the GX7 with less features. Wouldn't the E-M5 be a better camera to look at, since it has more features, basically the same size, and better image stabilization? It might be "older" but it is using exactly the same 16MP sensor, so that isn't a reason to over look it.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-15, 12:53

Around here the GX7 is at a nice discount. It's got some electronic shutter modes too, but the readout may be too slow to avoid other problems. I know very little about 4/3rds cameras. I do know that the lenses I mentioned are very small and very sharp, and not really that expensive when it all comes down to it, which makes it interesting to me. Olympus's primes are all aces it seems, including the 75mm. What I have noticed is that you can find the 17 and 45 at a nice discount from folks who maybe have tried them and moved to another system - that's a really nice pair to start with. The 12mm costs a bit more, but might be the ticket for tight spaces. I like the Olympus bodies a lot, maybe more than Panasonics, especially for their IBIS - which can be very useful in extracting fully sharp images. The GX7 is the only Panasonic with IBIS, otherwise I wouldn't consider it over an OM-D, I don't think. Rumour has both it and and E-M5 discontinued, so maybe prices will fall a little further in the next few months.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-15, 14:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
I'm surprised that you are looking at those two cameras, the E-M10 is kind of a lower end camera than the GX7 with less features.
But I’m not really into features. In fact, I usually wish my camera had fewer features!

They both have most features I would use, though the E-M10 has the 0-sec anti-shock setting, as I mentioned. And that is a big benefit of the E-M10 over the E-M5. Olympus hasn’t upgraded the E-M5 firmware to allow 0-sec anti-shock, and if they haven’t done it by now, they probably never will.

The E-M10 also has a noticeably better viewfinder than the E-M5. Greater eye relief and simply more comfortable to look through (I’ve compared them side by side.)

The E-M10 lacks weather-sealing, but that’s not a feature that greatly matters to me. I don’t stand around in the rain a lot.

The 5-axis stabilisation isn’t any better than the 3-axis stabilisation except for high-magnification work (macro). The two extra axes are for horizontal and vertical shift movements of the camera. These movements have no effect on sharpness at normal subject distances. (Imagine shooting a mountain at a distance where one pixel equals one metre on the mountain. You would have to move your camera up and down or left and right by ONE METRE to create a blur of one pixel!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
What I have noticed is that you can find the 17 and 45 at a nice discount from folks who maybe have tried them and moved to another system - that's a really nice pair to start with.
I hadn’t thought about second-hand prices. Will have to check. Having seen how some people handle lenses (and cameras for that matter) I’m always reluctant to buy second-hand. Often when I do check second-hand prices, they’re far too high to make sense to a cautious buyer. Warranties are typically untransferable, etc.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-15, 22:26

I think that there might be less to go wrong with the primes and cameras, while any zooms remain a little more problematic due to their complex mechanisms.

A couple of things bode well for buying mirrorless camera bodies second hand. Since AF happens at the sensor, they're less prone to misalignment, and should be less vulnerable to maltreatment. About the only physical damage could be a bent mount/flange resulting in a skewed focus plane. The AF point itself should still lock accurately, though unlike PDAF. The smaller overall size should make them less prone to damage from being torqued in a poorly packed bag. Electronic gremlins are a different story, some may not be immediately apparent. All the usual cautions apply, and a bit of luck...

From everything I've read/watched about mirrorless lens design for CDAF/video/live-view cameras, aka mirrorless, smaller focus groups are a key component to acceptable AF speed and positive action. That should mean less moving mass for a given design, and as a consequence less glass that could knocked out of alignment. Not impossible, but I haven't read a lot about problems here. The primes are small and sturdy looking.

The zooms get expensive and complex enough that you'll probably want the comfort of a warrantee.

Speaking of zooms, I like the 35-100, it's really very small and doesn't extend, making it a very good size for surreptitiously picking off candid portraits/details without drawing too much attention. I've done this with an FX+70-200 f/2.8. It takes commitment, sometimes you just have to put the camera away 'cause it draws too much attention.

I've been thinking through the following kit.

GX7 $800
12mm f/2 $700
17mm f/1.8 $500
35-100 f/2.8 $1259

Around $3500 after taxes, though I'm pretty sure I can shave this down under $2800 mixing in some used buys.

PS. I have a quirky idea here, maybe one of you smart guys that understands physics/optics can help me guess at the feasibility? Ricoh makes a .75x Wide Converter for the APSC GR camera: the GW-3. It mounts to a 49mm filter thread, and it's probably of good quality, considering the camera it's design for. I think it might just work reasonably well on a 12mm f/2 Olympus µ4/3 lens. The Ricoh is built for an f/2.8 aperture 28mm equivalent APSC. The Olympus is a 24mm equivalent; it's wider, but of comparable aperture... 6mm vs 6.53mm by my calculation. It could make for an interesting way to get a fast 18mm equivalent on m4/3 ? Can't find anyone who's tested it though...

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-16, 06:03

Good points about the robustness of mirrorless cameras and lenses. It may make more sense than usual to buy these items used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
I've been thinking through the following kit.

GX7 $800
12mm f/2 $700
17mm f/1.8 $500
35-100 f/2.8 $1259
Those two primes interest me too. A friend has the Olympus 25 mm f/1.8 and is very pleased with it, so I might consider that one too. Owners seem to like the Panasonic 15 mm f/1.7. But if you’re getting a GX7 it might make sense to get the 20 mm f/1.7, since it’s so often included in kits.

The question is which of these five lenses to get, since having 12 mm, 15 mm, 17 mm, 20 mm, and 25 mm lenses in one kit would make little sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Ricoh makes a .75x Wide Converter for the APSC GR camera: the GW-3. It mounts to a 49mm filter thread, and it's probably of good quality, considering the camera it's design for. I think it might just work reasonably well on a 12mm f/2 Olympus µ4/3 lens. The Ricoh is built for an f/2.8 aperture 28mm equivalent APSC. The Olympus is a 24mm equivalent; it's wider, but of comparable aperture... 6mm vs 6.53mm by my calculation. It could make for an interesting way to get a fast 18mm equivalent on m4/3 ? Can't find anyone who's tested it though...
It might work, but generally these afocal converters work better on lenses with narrower rather than wider angles of view than the lens they were designed for. Stopping down a bit might make it work better if vignetting or aberrations are a problem at f/2. Worth a try, perhaps. But you’d need to use a 46 mm to 49 mm step-up ring, and the GW-3 is huge and heavy compared to the Olympus 12 mm f/2, which may limit the practical appeal.

Kowa makes an interesting 8.5 mm f/2.8 lens for Micro Four Thirds (available in black, silver, or Kowa’s traditional green). The optics and mechanics look very serious, but the lens has no electronics for Exif data, etc., much less autofocus.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-16, 08:57

There's even a Fuji WCL-X100, a 0.8x wide convertor for the X100. It works very well on the X100, taking the 23mm (35mm equivalent) f/2 down to an 18.4mm (28mm equivalent). The physical aperture diameter of X100 lens is about 9.2mm, so maybe even more protection from shading, but as you point out, it's built for a lens with a narrower field of view overall and may introduce other issues when trying to mount it on wider FOV optic. Some guy online is using it on an RX1, which has the same field of view as an X100, though the aperture is twice as large at about 17.5mm. He has to stop it down to f/8 to work without bad vignetting. And, that's even more expensive than the Ricoh convertor. I could just buy a 20mm lens for the D800 and do a whole lot better.

Primes are relatively well covered in m4/3, all the traditional "street" work angles are covered, the ultra wide end isn't covered yet, unless you look at zooms. I think a 9 or 10mm is in order there, but otherwise it's probably appropriate to leave that range to well constructed zooms. I did some research for you, my version of window shopping Here's everything worth considering in native µ4/3 autofocus primes:

12mm f/2 Olympus $700
14mm f/2.5 Panasonic* since updated to version II - seems cosmetic only, but may have something to do with interoperability with Olympus bodies, and some other AF enhancements. V2 sells for $400, sometimes V1 can be found discounted about $80 to $320
15mm f/1.7 Pana-Leica $650
17mm f/1.8 Olympus $470
20mm f/1.7 Panasonic* since updated to version II - *same as 14mm, same price basically for either. Costs $400, but probably good value in a bundle.
25mm f/1.8 Olympus $400
25mm f/1.4 Pana-Leica $530
42.5mm f/1.2 Pana-Leica $1600
45mm f/2.8 Pana-Leica Macro-Elmarit $850
45mm f/1.8 Olympus $350
60mm Macro Olympus $420
75mm f/1.8 Olympus $800

I'm going to remove the overly expensive the macro options and the overly expensive Pana-Leica's, though I'd leave the 25mm f/1.4 and 15mm f/1.7 for consideration.

The cleanest straight paring, in my mind, is the 17mm and 45mm. The 45 is a screaming deal, offers most of what the 42.5 offers, but in a smaller size at 1/5th the cost. The 17mm is good by all accounts, and a fair price too. Then it's a question of "Do I tend to shoot more normal, or do I tend towards wide?" Where do you like to stand, how prominent are your foreground subjects, etc...

I'll write in 135 format equivalents for a bit. I find 28mm quite a bit wider than 35mm, but 24mm not that much wider than 28mm. I think it's best used to make compositions a little roomier, not to fit more into the frame. They don't have a fast 28mm equivalent, so maybe the 12mm makes the most sense. It's 2/3rds "faster" and a little wider, and you can get a 35mm to work tighter, though there is a 30mm equivalent that might be just right, as a slightly zoomed 28? And, it's again a 1/2 stop faster than the 24mm equivalent (the 12mm)

It doesn't get easier if you like a slightly more normal perspective.

I sometimes find 50mm tight for walk around, but good for environmental portraits. Maybe 40-42mm is just right? Neither 35 nor 50?

If the wider lengths are about the stage, by the time you're zoomed past 80mm you've clearly decided to isolate something or construct a tighter scene, makes the 90mm equivalent, the 45, easy to pick, if that interests you.

But back to normal for a sec. The 20mm gets good reviews for image quality, but I think focus speed may let it down a bit on some Olympus bodies, that don't have Panasonic's lens profile tricks. If you score a good deal on it, it is compact enough, not too pricey, good image quality, potential useful compromise between 35 and 50mm equivalents (the 17 and 25)... hmmm, maybe worth getting.

Ah, I give up, buy a zoom

.........................................

Last edited by Matsu : 2014-11-16 at 09:11.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-16, 10:02

Useful list of lenses. There are also Sigma f/2.8 lenses at 19 mm, 30 mm, and 60 mm. Cheap, reasonably small despite covering APS-C, and decent or excellent depending on whom you ask.

Now, update that list with shutter-shock notes for each lens, please.

The 45 mm f/1.8 seems good value, but I wonder if I would use it much, especially since I’d be keeping a Nikon FX system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
I'll write in 135 format equivalents for a bit. I find 28mm quite a bit wider than 35mm, but 24mm not that much wider than 28mm. I think it's best used to make compositions a little roomier, not to fit more into the frame. They don't have a fast 28mm equivalent, so maybe the 12mm makes the most sense. It's 2/3rds "faster" and a little wider, and you can get a 35mm to work tighter, though there is a 30mm equivalent that might be just right, as a slightly zoomed 28? And, it's again a 1/2 stop faster than the 24mm equivalent (the 12mm)
I’ve been doing similar mental puzzles. An additional thing to consider is that Micro Four Thirds has a 4:3 aspect ratio, not 3:2. So if you mostly think of lenses in terms of horizontal angle of view, the crop factor isn’t exactly 2 but somewhat greater. Without having extensively composed for 4:3 I don’t know if I would also use that aspect ratio in a slightly different way, perhaps favouring wider or narrower lenses than on 3:2 sensors.

Many artists seem to like the narrower aspect ratios of most film formats other than 135-format, but I quite like 3:2 and find it harder to compose for squarer formats. A Micro Four Thirds camera might give me a good opportunity to think hard about composition and develop my eye.

Speaking of composition, Mark Hahn uses Micro Four Thirds and takes photographs in a very deliberate way with very careful compositions that I often find intriguing and instructive. He seems to favour lenses around the normal. He sometimes posts on DPReview under the name mh2000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
But back to normal for a sec. The 20mm gets good reviews for image quality, but I think focus speed may let it down a bit on some Olympus bodies, that don't have Panasonic's lens profile tricks.
I’ve tried it on a GX7 a few times, and even on that camera the focusing speed isn’t impressive. It’s perfectly fine for a lot of uses, but not quick. The Olympus primes are vastly quicker (genuinely quick, in fact).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Ah, I give up, buy a zoom
Not a bad idea, but you’d lose the almost-magical smallness of the little primes. And that’s a big part of the appeal of Micro Four Thirds to me.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-16, 11:55

If that's the case, my gut says 12, 17, 45, 'cause they're going to be just a tad tighter than what you're used to with 3:2 anyway.

According to reviews, all fast focusing, all very sharp right from wide open, and bitingly so by f/2.8-f/4. All small.

I like to shoot with two cameras when I can, maybe even three if they were small enough and I had enough money. It's not that absurd really. The traditional focal lengths all sort of work for framing various elements at typical distances. I try to make reference too architectural elements and people, for example, if I'm standing about 8' from a doorway, and shooting horizontally, 28mm takes in the whole frame and a few feet on either side of it, 24 loosens that up and lets in a bunch of foreground (or background if I were outside.) 35 will take the whole frame if I orient vertically, or subtract a lot of the environmental noise around a small group, 50 takes me down to a person or couple or forces me to step back.

24-28 Subject prominence, lots of convergence of lines, fore and background elements, busy group.
35mm cleans this up for smaller/tighter groups groups, useful for solitary subjects in an environment, but still forces you to be in it to get a shot
50mm again more intimate, but also the first focal length where you begin to step away if you want to see more of the scene, so it can be less intrusive in its own way and has a different character about it. It can be quieter, depending on where you choose to stand in relation to who you're shooting.
85mm you're making a portrait or taking detail, though it's not distant, when used this way, if anything it's closer.

I have the most trouble shooting well at 50mm.

You can go from a big group, to a small group, an individual, and their face, just by swapping focal lengths. And they again perform differently at 10-12', or 3-6' but the spacing is well judged to give certain looks between humans at distances we typically stand from each other. I think the beauty of the prime is it forces you to think about the "where am I", and it's nice to have a second camera ready to either step right into the scene, or with which to back away. It's much easier to forget all that with a zoom, to stop moving your feet altogether.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-16, 12:28

I tend to agree. I find I usually like the idea of a zoom lens more than I do the reality of using one. I periodically fall victim to the notion that I need one zoom or another to ‘cover’ a range of focal lengths. It never does my photography much good when I get it. I’m just a prime lens kind of photographer.

However, here’s another Magnum photographer, Ian Berry, talking about using zooms on the GX7. And some of his photos. I know this is advertising, but it has more substance than your average camera ad.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-17, 02:38

There are supposed to be a bunch of E-M5 deals right now too, so check it out. I looked at Sony NEX and Fuji X as well, I don't know. The others can be small too. Fuji's 27mm pancake and 18mm wide make a nice compact combination too, and they promise more and faster lenses too. What µ4/3 seems to have going for it are a very large lens selection of small fast lenses, and what is best described by competent/trusted reviewers as a "nice shooting envelope." That is, because of the deeper DOF and built in stabilization you can shoot wide open at relatively slower speeds than the highest resolution DSLR bodies. You don't quite claw back every stop, but you often do better than expected because the camera simply doesn't require the same shot discipline as the larger sensors do.

I'd be lying, however, if I didn't say that I'm also intrigued by µ4/3 zooms. In my view they have one lens missing in the system: an 8-17 f/2.8. If an FX 17-35 f/2.8 can be about the same size as a 24-70 f/2.8, then an 8-17 f/2.8 should be about the same size as the 12-35 f/2.8.

Olympus has announced a 7-14 f/2.8 but this may be overkill. The difference between a 14mm and 16/17mm perspective is quite dramatic, and perhaps not worth the size tradeoffs. Panasonic has pursued the standard PJ zoom pair of standard zoom (12-35) and tele-zoom (35-100), but a wide zoom and tele-zoom could be preferable to reportage minded shooters - if they can kept size down.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-17, 05:14

The E-M5 is a not interesting to me despite its current excellent price. If I chose an Olympus it would likely be the E-M10, which is the same camera as the E-M5 (for my purposes) but with the addition of the important “0-sec” anti-shock setting. The 1/8 s anti-shock option on the E-M5 is too slow. Olympus shows no sign of fixing this in firmware, perhaps because it can’t be done.

Sony NEX (now Alpha) is a dead end in APS-C, I fear. I can’t imagine Sony continuing to support enthusiast-class photographers with this system now that full-frame has stolen Sony’s affection. Can you? It will continue to exist, but I think the lenses will trend towards slow zooms and the cameras towards plastic gadgets with an eight-month shelf life.

Full-frame Sony Alpha is too big, would compete with my Nikon FX system in size and performance, currently (α7) has intolerable (to me) handling and interface problems, and would complicate my kit even more if/when Nikon releases an FX mirrorless camera.

I have some problems with the Fujifilm mirrorless system too:
  • X-trans filter array instead of Bayer filter array, with associated raw-processing complications
  • much greater size and weight than Micro Four Thirds (though with certain performance benefits)
  • slower and less reliable focusing
  • overtly retro design (albeit a tendency to move away from this as Fujifilm and other companies realise the cameras sold not because they were retro but because they had good, direct controls and felt like real cameras)
  • very expensive.
I think the Fujifilm system would make more sense as a single, primary system.

Which brings me back to Micro Four Thirds.

I think you’re going to have to buy a GX7, a GM5, and an E-M10 and tell me which one’s best, Matsu.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-17, 06:57

In the end the dumbest thing in the world may sell me on a GX7. I quite like the tillable EVF in the GX7 videos. Finally an eye level camera that's not a problem for people who wear glasses, or you know, have noses...

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-19, 06:12

Why is the GX7 especially good for glasses wearers, Matsu? The E-M10 viewfinder has a good rep with glasses wearers (and others). The E-M10 does have a greater eye relief and a generally ‘easy’ view.

I think the GX7 finder is good enough, though.

For practical purposes I don’t have a nose, so that’s not a problem I’ve encountered.

One of the big chains in France removed the GX7 from its shelves this week. Perhaps it is indeed about to be discontinued, or perhaps it just wasn’t selling. Perhaps both.

The market is fickle. I liked the GX7 from the beginning and thought it would do better for Panasonic than it evidently has done.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-19, 10:42

I have to try it out in person to be sure, but the tilt angle looks well suited to provide a little relief from my face and nose pressing up to the back of the camera. It's not particularly better eye relief, just a different posture when holding the camera. With a DSLR, my nose and left cheekbone are braced against the LCD. That's not a problem for left eye dominant shooters who don't wear glasses. However, in my case, the viewfinder is forever pushing the left side of my glasses closer to my face, skewing them. I have a big nose and deep eye sockets; I'm always fixing my glasses when I'm out shooting. The GX7 looks like I could hold the whole camera up to my eye, more or less square with my face and with the EVF tilted up a little, brace the whole thing again the bridge of my nose. That still pushes my glasses, but at least it doesn't warp them.

In ther news, NR is reporting that Nikon has a 24mm f/1.8 coming, and their record with this sort of thing is very good. So now there would be 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85 f/1.8. A perfect street shooter's set. They just need the camera for it. It could just as easily remain a DSLR, just make it Canon SL1 sized and I'll buy two of them and forget all about this mirrorless stuff for a while.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-19, 10:53

I see. I too have deep eye sockets. But my right eye is dominant. I never really thought about using a viewfinder with my left eye. Hmm. Could open up a whole new range of ergonomic difficulties! Spare a thought for left-handed photographers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
In ther news, NR is reporting that Nikon has a 24mm f/1.8 coming
Makes sense: Sigma probably has a 24 mm f/1.4 coming, and Nikon’s strategy for dealing with Sigma over the last few years has been to simultaneously release slower equivalents, priced cheaper, and let good optics and Nikkor branding do the talking.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-19, 13:13

The rangefinder style body could be even better for you! I even looked up Voigtander's Nokton lenses. f/0.95 more or less restores equivalency with larger formats shooting wide open primes, something that's not really recommended if you actually want to have something in focus with an AF body, and I'm a person who needs AF, I can't focus in a DSLR viewfinder. However, maybe I can work with focus peaking to get good results in challenging light. Anyone here use it? The 17 and 25 f/0.95 are quite something to look at, and the results look good. They have distance scales and an aperture ring too, combined with the platform's extra depth of filed, it could be a solid foundation to practice manual focus, zone and hyperlocal techniques, and just have a different kind of fun shooting.

.........................................
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-11-20, 05:24

Sony is setting the message boards on fire right now. They've basically created a plus sized OM-D by adding stabilization to the A7 and improving button layout. This virtually guarantees that the A Mount is finished just as soon as they can flush the remaining inventory; putting stabilization and phase detection into the FE mount gives the small community of A mount shooters an upgrade path, and lets you put huge lenses on a small body, if that's your speed. Now more than ever, it's time for Nikon to make a truly FE sized body. We know that the mount dimensions are not really an impediment when it comes to making smaller FX lenses. They already exist. But the body is missing, it's needed. Between live exposure preview and articulating LCDs you can shoot much more discretely. And, with the accuracy of on sensor focus and IBIS, you will have a greater envelope to exploit the resolution of increasingly dense sensors...

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-11-30, 12:22

Having hummed and hawed about this for a while, I’m no closer to a decision. What about you, Matsu?

I have to say, the shutter-shock problem is a real turn-off to me. It may rule out the otherwise very attractive GX7. The electronic shutter of that camera is too slow to be a viable general-purpose solution to the shutter-shock problem.

The GM5 is enormously intriguing to me, and having tried it a few times I like almost everything about it. But three things give me pause:
  • the viewfinder is small and has a hard plastic surround (i.e. eyecup, though it’s not much of a cup). I’m afraid this will scratch the glasses I sometimes wear while photographing
  • the display is very small vertically – so small I wonder if it would bother me when using it for composition
  • it’s expensive.
The E-M10 has several strong points for me:
  • 0-sec anti-shock setting, effectively fixing the shutter-shock problem
  • best viewfinder of the bunch
  • superb stabilisation system
  • best sensor (by a small margin).
But I’m still not sure I like its design and the placement of some buttons. Its menu system is complex and, unlike Panasonic’s menus, not really known to me. In addition, I have a feeling the GX7’s autofocus is slightly quicker and more reliable.

You could analyse this to death and get nowhere, as I’ve proved.

The Sony α7 II is interesting but ultimately not my cup of tea. At 600 g it’s significantly heavier than the earlier α7, and with that large pistol-style grip it’s getting too close to bulbous DSLR territory for my liking. Part of the appeal of mirrorless to me is to avoid that look and feel and size. I think it will do well in America, though, where the dinkier mirrorless cameras have not been met by wild excitement.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-12-01, 05:43

It's hard to pick. The GM5 has a very slow flash sync, so it's strictly an available light device, unless there's some other mode/trick to fire it faster. Going forward there are two or three things I want to shoot, particularly if my career changes paths away from photography over the next year or so. In that case, I will shoot a lot of nature-architecture, long exposure type stuff and street work - two very different undertakings. And, if I can every really organize myself, set up a small studio for portrait work. ALL of it with the intent of developing a portfolio rather than scoring a little extra income from a shoot here and there. I may defer the purchase of any cameras until I know for sure what I'm doing for the next couple of years.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-12-01, 13:03

Yeah, the GM5 is a flat-out attempt at miniaturisation. It has many downsides, but the upside is a camera as unthreatening as one can be, while nonetheless offering gallery-quality pictures with appropriate small primes.

For any kind of studio work I think it would be hard to beat my/your D800. Likewise for architecture, landscape, or any long-exposure kind of photography. So things like flash-synch speed won’t overly concern me as long as I have the D800.

Along the same lines, perhaps shutter shock shouldn’t concern me.

For me, a Micro Four Thirds camera would be an everyday-carry camera, albeit not one I would carry literally every day. A GX7 and three small primes could weigh just 750 g and fit in my small Billingham alongside a bottle of water (I’m hoping Santa will bring me a red Sigg). I imagine it would be a pleasure to spend a winter’s afternoon roaming the streets with that on my shoulder.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2014-12-01, 14:03

I think you guys have fallen into paralysis by analysis. You're almost over thinking this process.

If you like the overall package of the GM5 go for it. Panasonic has a much better user inference experience than Olympus, that alone is almost enough to make the decision clear. I don't know if the shutter shock thing is a more recent thing, but I never had any issues with shutter shock when I had a GF2 a few years ago. As for the EVF, that's a tough call. I bought the EVF for the GF2, because I thought I would end up using it a lot, but didn't for several reasons. 1, in all but the brightest conditions the LCD was fine, 2. it added bulk to the camera, 3. Battery life was much shorter using the EVF than just with the LCD. Now that may have been a result of it being an external unit, but I still hear the EVF use drains the battery faster.

  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-12-01, 14:16

Oh, for sure I have analysis paralysis about this! It’s getting ridiculous.

I forgot you had a Micro Four Thirds camera in the past, PB PM. Did you replace that GF2 with anything similarly small? Do you miss it?

I want a camera with a built-in viewfinder to avoid the bulk/awkward shape of an add-on viewfinder.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2014-12-01, 14:42

I did not replace the GF2 with anything smaller, because at the time the poorly performing 12MP M4/3s sensor was still the most commonly available chip. I dumped it about 6 months before the OMD-EM5 came around with the newer 16MP sensor.

Do I miss it? Yes and no. I miss having a smaller camera for family functions and walks in the local park. It was also a fun little camera, thanks to minimal buttons and stuff. I don't miss the poor auto focus, low light performance and battery life. Not that it was any worse than typical compact cameras. Of course those are all areas where mirrorless cameras have improved in the last few years (battery life aside). I've thought about replacing my D700 with a M4/3s or a Fuji kit, but never can get myself to pull the trigger. Mirrorless cameras just seem too expensive for what they offer. I felt that way about the GF2 as well, but I got it anyway just to see what all the fuss was about.

Looking at the market now, if I wanted a compact camera I'd likely go for something like the Coolpix A ($599 now days), RX100 MKIII, LX100 or X100S before jumping into M4/3s again. Why? Whenever I wanted to travel light I didn't end up using the camera very much, which meant that having a set of lenses for a second system didn't make sense. What have I done in the interim? I bought more primes for my FX kit, I now have the AF 24mm F2.8 (non-D, found a mint copy, which I got for under $170 USD), 50mm F1.8G and the macro 105mm F2.8G. Is it bulkier than a M4/3s kit? Yes. But it's light enough for my day bag and I always know I'll get great results with the D700 or D800. That said I'd still like to get a compact camera again, if one of the camera manufactures would actually make one I like.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2014-12-01, 23:56

I posted a thread in another forum looking for the best high ISO examples from folks using m4/3 and I wasn't completely convinced by what I saw, but they've got a high ratio of gear to photo talk there, so maybe not the best place to look for good examples of what the cameras can do.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2014-12-02, 01:16

From what I've seen modern M4/3s cameras are about 1/2 to 1 stop behind the D7000. Not bad for such a small sensor, but considering how much the top end cameras cost, it's not that great. For the entry level models ($500-700 range) it's not bad though. Still for the price a Fuji or Sony would be a better choice if you want a compactish camera with decent high ISO performance.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2014-12-02, 05:51

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
Mirrorless cameras just seem too expensive for what they offer. I felt that way about the GF2 as well, but I got it anyway just to see what all the fuss was about.
I tend to agree that most of them are too expensive (though the prices of all cameras seem to have gone up in recent years). The GM5 is a case in point – all very interesting but the price is slightly surreal bearing in mind what it physically consists of. However, the upside of that is that prices tend to fall sharply after a few months. The GX7 can be found for literally half the price it was a year ago (in Europe, at least). The E-M10 is unusual in that it was attractively priced from the start.

Experience with compacts like my LX5 tells me you can’t straightforwardly compare low-light performance by seeing how several cameras look at ISO 1600, for example. A smaller sensor gets you more depth of field for a given f-number, typically faster lenses, and often lenses with a smaller drop-off in performance at low f-numbers, meaning you can in practice use apertures like f/2 more often. So often with a smaller sensor you can get away with a lower ISO setting than with an SLR.

I understand equivalence and its effects, but ultimately I have no interest in taking fully ‘equivalent’ pictures with two different camera systems. I would use a Micro Four Thirds camera differently than my SLR, accepting a bit more noise in exchange for smaller size. It’s all been said before, but the point would be ‘good enough’ image quality.

… engrossed in such factional acts as dreaming different dreams.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 105 of 114 First Previous 101 102 103 104 [105] 106 107 108 109  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad's lack of built-in camera, video chat rdlomas Apple Products 47 2010-02-04 09:37
Good Digital Camera for First Time Digital kieran Purchasing Advice 3 2005-11-18 18:20
New Digital Camera! PowermacG5newbie Genius Bar 2 2005-05-17 23:07


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova