Got the Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6

As much as I like ultimate image quality, there is no such tangible thing.  Sure, you can buy a Medium Format system and tweak every setting but unless it conveys the emotions you feel, is all the work worth it?

Since I photograph sports, the Panasonic GM5 seemed an odd choice.  It’s tiny and because of that, it’s big on compromise.  e.g., the mechanical shutter only goes to 1/500 of a second.

At the time, I got the GM5 with the 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens and the 42.5mm f/1.7 Power OIS lens.  I already had the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 and the 25mm f/1.7 lenses.

For a while, I’ve struggled with telephoto shots.  Since I have a heart defect that is killing me, I can’t just run (or walk) where I want to be.  Sometimes, I have trouble standing.

Now, I have the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, plus my Olympus ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and SHG 35-100mm f/2.0 lenses.  Even the small Panasonic lens is rather too big for the GM5.

As the Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 is often available with a US$100 rebate, I decided to try it.  It seems to be the tiniest telephoto zoom lens I’ve ever seen.  Panasonic’s 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 may be smaller but I had so little luck with the 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 that I didn’t want to spend the extra money.  Besides, the extra 50mm of reach was useful.

The salesperson referred to it as “the cheap lens” and kind of choked on his words.  I didn’t see the manager, but I nodded and grinned.  US$100 is a low price for a lens, with rebate, of course.  At US$200, it’s probably overpriced, but they run the rebate so often, does anyone pay full price?  The Panasonic 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 designed for the GM5 was US$250.  This 40-150mm is the third US$100 lens, after the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 and the 25mm f/1.7.

The one thing I noticed right after removing it from the bubble wrap was that it had a plastic mount.  I remembered all the original Canon Digital Rebel/300D bodies with part of the kit lens still mounted while the rest of the lens was not attached.  I’m a bit rough on my equipment but I treat the GM5 with more care, so maybe it will be fine.

The lens is light, consistent with its small maximum aperture.  It looks fairly big on the GM5 but not any worse than my 35-100mm f/2.0 on the Olympus E-1.

40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 35-100mm f/2.8

50-200mm 40-150mm 35-100mm f/2.8 and f/2.0

Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 beside GM5 and 12-32mm

Panasonic 12-32mm beside Olympus 40-150mm on GM5

Panasonic 12-32mm beside Olympus 40-150mm on GM5

Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 on GM5

At US$199.99, I want to compare it to a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 I had for Nikon that cost exactly that.  With over 11x zoom, the Tamron was quite useful and I knew that there would be deficiencies.  The Olympus lens is just under 4x zoom range and should be quite clear, for the same price.  It isn't bad, but at the 150mm end, the results so far haven't been consistent.  I've tried it on the GM5 and E-M1 so far but not on the GH4 or GX8.  I may have to re-work my grip on the GM5 for maximum stability, especially while shooting at skate parks.

Using the Olympus E-5 as an E-M1 substitute

I've been using Olympus equipment since 1990.  It always felt like the best combination of technologies came together.

I bought a couple of the early Olympus digital cameras and wasn't incredibly happy.  They worked but the time just wasn't right.  When I bought the E-1 in April 2004, nothing else felt right or seemed to produce the right photos, especially the Nikon and Canon alternatives in the price range.  I was annoyed about the 4:3 ratio that Olympus chose, but that mimicked 6x4.5 format cameras and I understood that.  It just didn't make sense to people using 3:2 ratio film.  Kodak may have been instrumental in pushing the shape, as they were in shaping Medium Format digital sensors.

I finally added the E-5 in 2011.  It wasn't the quantum leap forward I had hoped.  It seemed more like the Nikon D300 from 2007, instead of a body introduced in 2010.  It was better than the E-1 but not what I was hoping.  It worked better in so many ways but as I've already mentioned, it felt like a body from 2007.

Later, in 2012, I bought a Panasonic GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.  It was somewhat better in lower light, with very good AF functionality down to EV -3 and later EV -4.  The ISO sensitivity seemed better but I suspect that the numbers weren't as accurate.

While waiting for the GH4 to replace it, I traded the GH3 for the E-M1.  I'd already used the E-M1 and it was better than okay, but didn't seem a replacement for the E-5, even though Olympus said that it was.

I've tried it with Four-Thirds lenses on occasion and stop fairly quickly.  It is more likely a easy way to re-use current components than to be a replacement for the E-5.  The size and the functionality is not oriented toward Four-Thirds equipment.  Having phase detect pixels was more a patch than a solution.

Yesterday, I wanted to photograph a graduation for a friend.  I brought the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 which was my most-used lens.  I tried it with the E-M1 and this resulted in a lot of frustration.  It hunted and hunted and hunted.  I'd had more success with the E-M1 previously, and also with the GH4.  I retrieved my E-5 and it worked quite well.  So much for the E-M1's world's fastest AF--that doesn't apply to adapted lenses.  The E-5's predecessor was another with "world's fastest AF", but these things fade quickly, don't they?

75+ yards, not bad but dynamic range could be better

At the graduation, the E-5 was heavier but wonderful.  Sure, the older technology isn't quite as able to provide great photos I've been getting from newer sensors but getting the shot was important, especially from almost the other end of the football field, the 25 yard line.

I'm pleased to use the correct tool for the job.  Using equipment to advantage always helps.  It's just too bad we can't have a 16MP Sony sensor put into the E-5 to get the best of both worlds.

Sending a lens off to be repaired--a first for me

Today, I'm sending my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens to be repaired.  It has an ugly lens flare, even with the lens hood in place and the sun out of the frame as you can see.

It seems odd for the most (at the time, before the Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2) expensive (US$1499.99) micro Four-Thirds lens to have such a flaw--or to be "Made in China".  In fact, this is my first lens repair ever, which goes all the way back to the late 1970s.  Truth be told, my Olympus SHG ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 was a refurbished lens, which means that there was some problem that was repaired but it is practically flawless since the refurbishment, even after my E-5, the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and flash fell from a seat to the pool deck during a swim meet I was photographing.

Even before I bought the GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, I saw the review on LensTip, citing the flare problem.  I hoped that it was an anomaly, and I bought anyway.  Later, I got the feeling that other reviewers held back.

I already have a love-hate relationship with it.  Perhaps, the repair will change all that.  Plenty of people rave about the lens, so I hope that I've been missing something with this certain unit.  After I got the lens, I wasn't so eager to buy the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens, even though it would have filled a need since I have nothing so wide as 12mm.

This leaves me with the rather slow Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6.  It won't even be pushed to be automatically focused in low light, so I suspect the Olympus MMF-3 adapter and my various Four-Thirds lenses will have to do or I'll just pull out the E-5 or E-1.  The E-1 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 are such a good combination, even without IS of any kind.

GH3, MMF-3, and Leica 25mm f/1.4

Update 2014.02.13: I thought several times that I might go buy a micro Four-Thirds lens to fill the gap, but in the end, I just concentrated on getting regular shopping done before the roads froze again.  I didn't want to fall on my ice.  That Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 has been pulling at my wallet ever since I tried pre-production samples, along with the 12mm f/2.0.  I even thought about the Olympus 60mm macro while it was on sale, but the current Four-Thirds 50mm f/2.0 macro is plenty for me since I really haven't done any macro photography.

Update 2014.02.16: It arrived on the 14th, before 10:30 a.m.  I'm wondering how long it will take for them to handle it.  I'm hopeful that it will come back a much better lens than it was.  It really wasn't worth the money I paid for it.  It seemed worth about half of the price for the optical quality I got.

Update 2014.02.22: Panasonic still hasn't acknowledged it, even though UPS said that it was delivered over a week ago.  I'm wondering if this is some sort of game they play to extract a payment, rather than provide warranty service, since it's close to the edge.

Update 2014.02.24: I'm on my fifth call this hour to the service center to understand what's happening.  They do not answer and the automated system seems to become more frail each time, giving me dead air instead of automated rubbish.  As these toll-free numbers cost them more than a regular call and don't cost me anything, I will remain on the line until ejected from their system.  I finally left a message, after they closed.  I guess once the machine isn't fighting for its life, it can do adequate work as a phone system.  Not only did I leave a voice message, but I sent an e-mail to the repair e-mail address: panacare@us.panasonic.com plus I sent a Tweet to the LumixPro people, and put the photo with the lens flare on Instagram while tagging Panasonic.  It's probably not enough.

I suspect I'll have to engage the camera store where I bought the lens in order to get anything done.   There are three other one star reviews on Yelp for the place.  It's incredible that this is Panasonic's level of service in the U.S.A.

Update 2014.02.25: Supposedly, everything is finished.  They were apparently readying it for shipment about the time I was calling.  I wonder if they saw my phone number, matched it to the lens, and took care of it by replacing it with an already refurbished lens.

We show your item arrived, but its been resolved. The item has shipped back to you

I don't know if that is a repair or replacement but either way, if it's working as well as the designers expected, I'll be happy that I didn't waste my money.

Update 2014.02.27: I have received my lens, not a replacement, just two weeks after I sent it to them.

According to Ruben Silva, there is no problem whatsoever.  He said that there were "finger prints and grease/dirt on lens front and rear glasses", even though I cleaned the lens before I sent it to them.  They think I treat a $1500 lens as though it was $15?  Incredible.  I'm guessing that if I sent it again, out of warranty, they'd find an expensive problem.

Olympus E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8

Well, September 10th is here and Olympus has announced their new professional-oriented equipment, the E-M1 camera body and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

As someone who has been using Four-Thirds equipment since early 2004 (when the alternatives were bad), the E-M1 is supposedly targeted at me.  The specifications sound great (but missing 14-bit raw files and a second card slot) and I'm enthusiastic but there is a huge problem: the size.

Sure, they're not charging US$1699.99 as with the E-5, but only US$1399.99 for the E-M1 camera body.  Since you have to buy the MMF-3 lens adapter (to use Four-Thirds lenses) for almost US$200.00, it's a small break.  However, mounting several of the Four-Thirds lenses on such a tiny body will create a problem with balance.  Certainly, the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 was not meant to be on the OM-D series without a tripod, and the 35-100mm is hardly the biggest lens.

I understand the economics, but they had to design and create a new body to accomplish their goals.  If they'd made it the size of Olympus' own E-1, there wouldn't be a problem.  Plus, you have to use the lenses through the adapter, and it doesn't feel all that strong.  I use the 14-35mm f/2.0 frequently and the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 somewhat less frequently.  They're both fine with the GH3, but I still wonder if the adapter is going to come apart at some point while either lens is attached.  I don't use my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with it.

External size:

Width x Height x Depth

E-M1   130.4x93.5x63.1
GH3    132.9x93.4x82.0
E-1      141x104x81

Weight:

E-M1    443g
GH3     470g
E-1       660g

Still, if you're looking at the Canon 70D or the Nikon D7100, you might want to think a few times about your intentions.  Starting fresh, the E-M1 offers loads of good stuff, especially if you like fixed focal length lenses.  The Olympus 75mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, and 12mm f/2.0, Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 (yes, you are correct--that is a zoom!), and 8mm f/3.5 fisheye are really good lenses.

I've been a harsh critic of zoom lenses on micro Four-Thirds, including the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 I have.  After using it, I stopped short of buying their 12-35mm f/2.8.  If their high end lenses are just average, wait for the prices to drop, yes?

This 12-40mm f/2.8 lens from Olympus may be enough to make me forget that Panasonic has a 12-35mm f/2.8 lens.  The slightly bigger (62mm filter size vs 58mm) barrel hopefully houses better optical elements, and gives better image quality, while minimizing distortion.

The price of the Olympus lens is less than the suggested Panasonic price by US$300 at US$999.99, I believe, but the Panasonic lens has been out long enough to gain a discount or two.  If the 12-40mm is better then, the price might be justified because I feel that the 35-100mm (and likely the 12-35mm from what I've seen and read) are great US$750 lenses.  They're just not very good at their list prices.  micro Four-Thirds users pay too much for too little, but they have a wide selection, unlike users of other mirror-less formats.

It's likely that I'll check reviews as much as anyone else but I'll likely buy the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens sometime after its November availability.  The upcoming 40-150mm f/2.8 lens may be equally interesting, though it's a bit short to replace my ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 but for indoor sports, I'm using both the Olympus ZD and Panasonic 35-100mm lenses.

MTF charts:

12-40mm f/2.8

14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Mk II

14-35mm f/2.0

Update 2013.10.04: Having used the E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 on Thursday for an hour or two, I have no doubt that the E-M1 and the 12-40mm f/2.8 combination is an amazing step in image quality for micro Four-Thirds.

I am less in love with the ergonomics and comfort of using the E-M1 vs the E-5 or Panasonic GH3.  It seems to have been designed for casual users to hold.  I can't imagine a 14 hour day using the body because of the angles in the grip vs the curves of the E-5 or GH3.  The Super Control Panel, of course, makes adjustments easier, but the exposure compensation had been set and without help, I had a difficult time finding the dial combination to make it work.  Once again, the GH3 and E-5 had buttons marked for this, whereas the E-M1, in order to be more flexible, has few buttons marked.  Through the adapter, it focused the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 well and the difficult ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 reasonably well but it's a gorgeous lens that requires some extra handling.  If Olympus put the E-M1's guts into the Panasonic GH3 body, they'd have a sale.  If the GH3 successor comes close to the E-M1's still photography functionality, guess where I'm going.

You can see my encounter here: http://nobuyukishouldknowbetter.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-few-hours-with-olympus-12-40mm-f28.html

Update 2014.12.20: I've been using an E-M1 with the 12-40mm f/2.8 since early June.  It's a potent combination.  However, the 12-40mm f/2.8 also worked well on my Panasonic GH3 prior to that, and more recently, my GH4.  It's a good lens that has practically sidelined my dSLRs.

I have on one occasion seen nasty lens flare that was almost 100% eliminated by the automatic changes in Phase One Capture One 7 Pro.  It does exhibit minor lens flare more often than I would like, but so does the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 but I rarely pull out the huge lens hood for that.

In day-to-day operations, I find the E-M1 to be good but with minor problems.  It's too easy to change the auto focus point, for instance, and exposure compensation is attached to the front dial.  They didn't make it work like the E-5 and that was a mistake given that they were promoting it as the replacement.

Still that 10 frames per second has been useful in skate park photos.  Then again, focus goes away suddenly, even though it's already in focus but only occasionally.  I've also had times when I'm ready and the camera body does nothing when I press the shutter release.

If you're not photographing sports, you'll be fine, I'm sure, and you'll be pleased. 

Update 2016.04.22: It's been a while since I first wrote this blog entry--about 2.5 years.  Much has changed.  I'm using an E-M1, along with the Panasonic GH4 and GX8.  I've bought several other, native micro Four-Thirds lenses.

The E-M1's firmware updates have made it very, very good but it's typical for me to reach for the Panasonic GH4 first.  I've taken so many photos with the E-M1, though, that I had to have the 150,000 actuations shutter replaced.  Still, using the E-M1 with the 14-35mm f/2.0 or 35-100mm f/2.0 is difficult.

Thankfully, the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens works quite well, and so does the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye, along with a number of Panasonic lenses that I never expected to have.

Concerned about Olympus' next Four-Thirds move

I've been using Four-Thirds equipment since around April 2004 with the E-1, 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, and the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, plus FL-50.  At times, it's been a chore to not jump ship.

When I first bought the E-1, I was amazed at the color rendition and clarity.  Outside, during the hurricanes of 2004 in Florida, I was impressed with the durability and weather-sealing.  I looked at Nikon, Canon, and Pentax prior to buying into Four-Thirds and none of them were very good at the time.  Certainly, I would have spent much more money but many things have changed since then.

In 2004, raw development software was almost non-existent, save what the camera maker included.  Olympus put out JPEG files that were so far ahead of the competition that it wasn't funny.

Since then, I've changed to the E-5 as my day-to-day camera body with the Panasonic GH3 as a backup, but the E-1 is still there just fine.  I've added the 35-100mm f2/.0 and 14-35mm f/2.0 SHG lenses and the 50mm f/2.0 macro, plus the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4.  They work fine on all three bodies.

I'm considering this new Olympus body.  There have been some rumored specifications, and they look reasonable, considering the micro Four-Thirds E-P5.  There was a "leaked" video, supposedly from Engadget using an Olympus representative of some sort.  What I saw was sloppy and led me to believe that it's fake but who knows?  For the first two minutes, the Olympus representative referred to Four-Thirds and Four-Third.

While I doubt my hand is as big as his hand, I think that a camera body the size of the E-M5 with a grip reminiscent of the E-1 but sort of welded onto the body in a haphazard way will not work well, except in casual photography.  micro Four-Thirds has mostly been about casual photography, except for those few professionals.  I believe that the latest sensors are quite good and produce great image quality. but that's not enough when photographing sports.

If I can't get the shot, who cares how great the image quality is.  I've tried this multiple times with the GH3 and I want to throw the thing.  The EVF stands in the way of getting the shots.

What's the problem?  To photograph runners, you need to be able to change the focus quickly and put it on a certain runner.  Auto focus works willy-nilly, so it goes mostly where you don't expect it, even in high end cameras from Nikon and Canon---that's why professionals shoot so many shots rapid-fire.  In order to use manual focus, which is my preference, you need to keep the assistance to a minimum.  Most micro Four-Thirds cameras with generate a magnified view to help you.  This gets in the way of what I'm doing, whereas an optical viewfinder just shows the view.  Of course, back in the 1970s and 1980s, we had multiple focusing screens to help us.

I suppose what I will see is a huge compromise.  A too-light camera body with a lens adapter with good auto focus capabilities, but otherwise, all the problems of a mirror-less camera body.  It's not that the E-5 isn't a compromise over the E-1--it is--but it works well for what I do.  However, it has terrible image quality as the light dims, even though with studio lighting, it's quite good.

Could they have used the E-1 or E-5 bodies and just replaced the innards?  I suspect that they could have.  Would the 1.8 inch rear display of the E-1 been a problem for today's video-oriented crowd?  Certainly, but just give me a !@#$ stills camera that works almost as an extension of my body!!  (Update 2013.11.13: Nikon has done that with the Df body.  It's all about still photography, although the price and changing format is not high on my list.  The technology is great, the slippery body is not.)

What I haven't mentioned is the cost of manufacturing a single, low quantity body.  They showed this when they extended the E-30 production until exhaustion, without an update to an E-50.

What gets to me is how clumsy they've been since the initial E-1.  Instead of a replacement in 2005, they produced several consumer-oriented dSLRs, and waited (or couldn't help a delay) until 2007 to produce a professional, 2005-level dSLR.  Equally, the E-5 arrived in 2010, but would have been a great 2007 model.  People blame the financial fraud, but I doubt that had anything to do with it.  I believe that they had people in charge of projects who should have only been making tea.

I understand quite well about projects, deadlines, cost, and mistakes.  If you're methodical, you'll do well, but if you aren't, everyone suffers.  Regardless, accidents happen.  The E-M1 looks like a huge accident, in opposite ways from the E-3, but just as big an accident.

Update 2013.08.24: I've seen a few more photos of the E-M1 and they look as though it's not a rough pre-production unit.  It looks quite a bit better but still tiny.  The 12-40mm f/2.8 looks very good, but too stylish, as if it's been made to be in photos and not made for photography.   I just hope it works well, since the very average Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 doesn't appeal to me at US$1200.

Update 2013.11.13: After using both the E-M1 and the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I'm happy for Olympus to be pushing itself further, thanks to Panasonic.  Competition is a great thing.  I like the E-M1 but it doesn't fit my hand well.  The 12-40mm f/2.8 is a must have for me.  I can only hope that the Panasonic GH3 will be replaced by a GH5 with the same sensor and some greater focusing speed.

Update 2014.05.03: It's been some time since I tried the E-M1 and Panasonic's GH3 replacement has been announced as the GH4, although the GH3 is being continued for a while, as a lower cost body.

The E-M1 has done quite well, and I've considered it time and again.  The GH4 doesn't have Phase Detection pixels but it may work as well as the E-M1 when focusing my Four-Thirds lenses.  The GH3 generally does well enough, except for the 14-35mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/2.0 and those can both be a handful, even on the E-5 or E-1.

Update 2015.01.10: I've had an E-M1 since June 2014, trading my GH3.  It's been good but not great.  Around Thanksgiving, I got a GH4, thanks to a US$200 off deal.

I still don't think that the E-M1 is a true successor to the E-5...or E1, but it is what the company decided would be available.  It works well enough but I don't see that it's good enough with Four-Thirds lenses.  The balance is off, starting with my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5.  Obviously, the 35-100mm f/2.0 is not a good lens for balance with the E-M1--or the GH4.  It is good with the E-5 and nearly as good with the E-1.

I still believe that they should have used the E-1 body as the basis for the E-M1.  The video capabilities of the E-M1 aren't great, so they should have just given us a stills camera body.

After all this time, I still go back to my E-1 and E-5 when I want to use my Four-Thirds lenses, except for the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4, which fits nicely on the GH4 and is more than acceptable with the E-M1.

Update 2016.12.14: The E-M1 Mk II is more-or-less available at this time.  It is the successor to the E-5, in most every way.  I still don't like the grip.  I felt that the grip from the E-5 was comfortable, as is the grip on the GH4.  The GH4 seemed as the physical successor to the E-5 or E-1 bodies.

The E-M1 Mk II supposedly handles every situation well, although low light situations are never easy.  I'd like to see how the auto focus works around 10 in the evening.  I don't have trouble with the GH4, but the E-M1 tends to hunt.

Since the Mk II has 121 cross-type sensors, both PDAF and CDAF, it should be just short of phenomenal.

Three Months with the Panasonic GH3

So, it's been about three months since I ordered and received the Panasonic DMC-GH3.  It was a huge gamble at the time, and I've questioned my decision almost every day.

Since my recent background is with Four-Thirds--Olympus E-1 and E-5 bodies--it made sense to buy something that was somewhat compatible and somewhat familiar.  The Olympus E-M5 had the viewfinder and the capabilities.  It was also a familiar shape since I spent several years with an OM-1N body.  That history suggested to me that the E-M5 would be slippery at best with Four-Thirds lenses.  The GH3 had a good-sized grip and a form not unlike the E-5, but from the positioning of most everything, the GH3 was meant to appeal to Canon users.

What's good:

• Image quality, up to ISO 3200
• Body build
• Flexibility
• Video
• External controls
• Battery life
• Electronic Viewfinder
• Easily updated firmware
• Lens adapters

What's not so good:

• Comes configured as a consumer camera
• Variable Auto White Balance between frames
• SD Card door opens easily and there is only one slot
• Rear horizontal dial (and aperture) is changed too easily
• micro Four-Thirds lenses
• Using the electronic Viewfinder with glasses or sunglasses

I'm finally starting to feel really comfortable with it and I'm getting acceptable photos.  I would say that they're all outstanding but it's not quite that good.  The variable white balance between frames could be an advantage but it's not.  Panasonic have come a long way in their default colour but it still needs tuning.  I'm also feeling that the sharpness isn't always there, but it looks fine with the Four-Thirds lenses.

It feels like a photographer's camera body but it doesn't exactly act like one.  I finally found the Auto Review setting, which was playing havoc with the viewfinder.  Almost magically, I was able to follow the action without the viewfinder.  Since I've changed the setting, the display is minimally delayed.  However, there is also the manual focus assist/pinpoint focus.  This magnifies the image, so that you can focus tiny details.  Unfortunately, this gets in the way of sports photography.  When runners are coming toward me, I need to focus on them quickly.  Yes, I use manual focus during cross country and track meets.  No matter how good auto focus is (Nikon, Canon, whatever), I still need a precision that doesn't seem to exist, except by my hand.

Also, in this case, I need zoom lenses.  I zoom and manually focus at the same time.  The 35-100mm f/2.8 I've got is a good lens, but it's overpriced.  If it's equal to Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8, I'd be surprised but that was Panasonic's goal.  I just don't see a US$1500 lens there, no matter how much R&D it took to reduce a 77mm filter size to 58mm.  Olympus' ZD 50-200mm is a much better lens, and it's less expensive.  The trouble is--the 35-100mm is the best telephoto zoom lens for micro Four-Thirds.  Other factors like a laggy continuous auto focus complicate sports photography.  Hopefully, these problems do not affect video work.

I'm pleased with the image quality up to ISO 3200, where it outshines my E-5 quite a bit, especially since I limit the E-5 to ISO 1600.  Anything above ISO 3200 with the GH3 should be a shot you needed regardless of image quality and not a preferred choice.  Judging from DPReview's comparisons, I think it's ahead of most dSLRs in detail up to ISO 3200, up through US$1500.  However, the Olympus E-M5 is extracting a bit more detail from what is apparently the same sensor.  Perhaps, the Nikon D600 should have been my choice but it's very much an economy camera (US$800 difference from the D800 isn't enough.) for those who have been chanting "Full Frame" as the fix for everything.  It's much a D7000 (not a D7100) for the 135 format lusting.  (I picked up a D600 today for the first time and it felt overly heavy.  I expect the D800 to be heavy, but not so much the D600.)  My research shows me that the D7100 is a better camera body and the 1.5x telephoto boost wouldn't hurt.

I really like the GH3's external controls but grrrrrr, the horizontal dial on the back is too easily turned, and then, so is my aperture changed.  The SD Card door is easily opened but thankfully, the card is held in place until you press it inward to engage the spring mechanism to release it.  However, there is only one card slot, so it seems that Panasonic was thinking consumer-ish when they designed the camera, and the same with the battery grip.

There are many good things and a few bad things.  I haven't gone through everything because I've been too focused on photographing sports.  I think the GH3 is a winner for Panasonic, and I think it's a definite threat to Canon, who seem to be attacked from all sides lately.  I'm sure that Olympus is interested in a similar camera body but they're concerned about being too focused with any product.  They want a broader appeal.  To me, micro Four-Thirds continues to improve and in a few years, there will probably be a select few dSLRs on the market, simply because mirror-less bodies have become so good, no matter the camera maker.

Panasonic GH3 + Olympus MMF-3 + Olympus SHG = greatness

I suppose I couldn't be more wrong about those micro Four-Thirds lenses, could I?  The fanatics seem to think that there are no better lenses.

Since I got the Olympus MMF-3 adapter, I'm pleased to say that the Olympus SHG ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 works very well with the GH3.  The lens is very heavy for a bit more than a 2x zoom but at the wider angles, you need more work to get a great lens.  That's why you see so few of them.  I'm leaving the adapter attached to the 14-35mm, while I can use the ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with the Olympus E-5 and it's better balanced as a combination.

Notably, there is a problem if you insist on auto focus but it's similar to the problem on Four-Thirds bodies.  The 14-35mm lens will hunt far too much, similar to the 50mm macro.  Sadly, this is the revised lens that arrived in 2007 with the Olympus E-3 body and not the original lens that was supposed to be available in 2005.  That was apparently an optical masterpiece but somehow flawed in that it had to be redesigned.  The current, available 14-35mm lens is still an optical masterpiece but extends on both ends of the zoom range.

In any case, the 14-35mm can auto focus with the GH3 through the adapter, and it's faster than the experience with the Olympus E-1.  I often use manual focus so I'm sure about the details.  Focus assist/pinpoint focus is useful but as I'm turning the ring, it can be a bit bouncy.  Carry Dramamine, if necessary.  Since manual focus eliminates the automated hunting, I can get precise focus more quickly.

The 35-100mm f/2.0 is nearly perfect and the combination is a bit unbalanced, a bit more than it was with the E-1 but it works quite well, once again, it can be auto focused by the GH3 more quickly than with my E-1, but it's much faster with my E-5.

The optical quality of the two lenses is extremely high and I'm quite pleased with the results with the GH3.  Even in dim light, the combinations work much better than with the E-5.  I'm looking forward to buying and using the 7-14mm f/4.0 SHG lens.  If you're wondering why I wouldn't buy the much less expensive, much smaller Panasonic version, it's very simple: weather-resistance.

Why, oh, why would you spend nearly US$1000 for a lens if some driving rain or dust storm could affect the insides?  That said, I have the excellent Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 for Four-Thirds.  I'm concerned about taking it outside and really using it, unless it's a perfectly clear day or night.  It focuses quite quickly with the GH3, as well as the E-5.

I'm surprised to have made the (half a) leap to micro Four-Thirds, although the MMF-3 adapter is my very good friend.  For now, the Olympus SHG zooms continue to rule my world, with the HG zooms a close second and I've had the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 since 2004.  Further behind would be the premium Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 (which I don't have) and 35-100mm f/2.8 lenses.

Update 2013.09.16: Obviously, the same lenses will work wonders with the newly announced E-M1.  Of course, with the somewhat useful Phase Detection Auto Focus, they'll even work similarly to the E-5 but at a slower pace, and I suspect will work poorly in lower light, but that's not been shown that I can see.  The GH3 can auto focus to -4 EV, which is like starlight--something the opposite of intense.  There is no such specification that I can find for the E-M1, so maybe Olympus are re-working the firmware already to improve the performance of the auto focus.

Update 2014.02.11: The other day I had to laugh.  Someone had posted a comment on an article about the soon to be released Panasonic GH4, calling it an utter failure because with Nikon, Canon, and Sony mirror-less system cameras you could mount dSLR lenses, and you couldn't do that with FujiFilm (you can't but the official adapter supports Leica M-mount) or micro Four-Thirds.

Given that Olympus produces some of the finest dSLR lenses in their High Grade and Super High Grade lines, I can't imagine how deep ignorance goes.  I'm still not happy with micro Four-Thirds lens selections although Olympus has upped the game with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens and their intended 40-150mm f/2.8 lens that has not arrived yet.  I'm getting ready to send off my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens because of huge lens flare but it hasn't been totally bad or good.  It's just not very good for the price--Olympus HG line was a steal in comparison.

Update 2014.02.25: The other day, I bought the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 micro Four-Thirds lens for my Panasonic GH3.  I am surprised at how much better it makes the GH3 photos look, as compared to the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, even though it was less expensive.  You'd think Panasonic would work incredibly well with Panasonic.  I sent that lens off to be repaired, due to a rather huge problem with lens flare, something I saw documented about the time I bought mine, but didn't expect that there would be a problem.  Getting a repair seems to be a problem in the U.S.A.

In any case, by the end of 2014, Olympus will have the 12-40mm f/2.8 and 40-150mm f/2.8 lenses available.  Some time in 2015, they'll also have 7-14mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/4.0 lenses.  I haven't seen anything about a 150-300mm f/2.8 lens but it needs to be part of the plan.

While the 12-40mm f/2.8 isn't as great as the 14-35mm f/2.0, it is great for the price, and appropriately positioned between the SHG 14-35mm on the high end and the HG 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 at the middle position, above the standard kit lens.  I'm also pleased that they've finally addressed the 12mm focal length.  I know it's more difficult to control the distortion, but it's worth having.  The new for 2015 7-14mm f/2.8 will be great for landscapes and also for indoor real estate, which too often is left to a point-and-shoot camera.

Update 2014.03.25: I'd like to add that all of my Four-Thirds lenses work well on the GH3, especially the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 that was meant for the Digilux 3.  It seems to be meant for Contrast Detect Auto Focus, so it moves quickly.  Since the GH3 has a top shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second, the f/1.4 in full sun is close to being overwhelmed, so a Neutral Density filter could be a good idea.  The GH4 will fix this problem as it has the 1/8000th shutter speed.  How did we manage in the old days with f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses and 1/1000th of a second shutter speed?

I'm happy to say that my experience with the new Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I have found renewed respect for Olympus and I am certain to buy the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, though I feel a bit ambivalent about micro Four-Thirds still, especially after my ordeal with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and finding that it supposedly didn't need repair.  If Olympus would produce a somewhat bigger body, like a downsized E-5, or the E-1 with modern innards, I'd be very happy.  I'm not yet a hybrid shooter, though I'm going there and the GH3 and GH4 are on the right path, but Olympus does so many things right with the E-M1 that I wish they'd finished it properly.

Update 2014.10.17: I've been shooting with the E-M1 for roughly 4 months, having traded the GH3 before the trade-in value dropped.  The 12-40mm has been working well, though I've found one instance where it produced nasty lens flare.  It's rare that I've used any of my Four-Thirds lenses on it, save the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 because of the E-M1's small size.  I'm looking at the 40-150mm f/2.8 very seriously, along with the matching 1.4x teleconverter.  The combination is still cheaper than my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and the effective f/4.0 maximum aperture is only a bit slower than my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 on the long end where I use it most.

Update 2015.03.11: I've had the Panasonic GH4 since December and it reminded me how good the design of the GH3 was.  It's much easier to use my Four-Thirds lenses than it is with the Olympus E-M1.

While I love the 12-40mm f/2.8 as compact as it is, they should have made it a bit bigger and made it uncompromisingly wonderful.  The 14-35mm f/2.0 is amazing in ways that the 12-40mm f/2.8 can't be but the lack of those 2mm on the wide end does make it somewhat incapable when taking architectural photos.  Olympus had a remedy for this problem with the 7-14mm f/4.0 but using it without artificial light indoors was difficult.  Now, they're bringing a 7-14mm f/2.8 to market for micro Four-Thirds, which seems perfect for higher end real estate.  I'm planning to use it for skate park photos mainly, along with the 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens.

micro Four-Thirds has come a long way, and there are a few good lenses now, but Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses are still much better and an easy way to get great image quality.

Update 2015.08.07: Since I have the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8, Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7, Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lenses, the adapter doesn't get as much use on either my Panasonic GH4 or Olympus E-M1.  Occasionally, I will mount the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 on it, as it can be difficult to get lower light photos, but then, I'm finding the new Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens more difficult in such conditions, despite their supposed technical superiority.  Firmware updates will likely help.

Except for the 35-100mm f/2.8, the micro Four-Thirds lenses are very, very good.  They're not as good as my Olympus SHG lenses and on occasion, my HG lenses are more useful, but it's rare for me to use the adapter.  The best reason I can see to use it is to mount the Panasonic GM5 to my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and watch people be shocked at the appearance.

Update 2016.01.19: With the Olympus 300mm f/4.0 lens, supposedly there is a micro Four-Thirds lens that has exceeded the possible image quality of its Four-Thirds equivalent.  I'm not in a position to judge.  The micro Four-Thirds lens is about half the price of the Four-Thirds lens.  While the maximum aperture isn't as big, the sensors of the Four-Thirds' bodies aren't very good in lower light.  In the case of wildlife and bird photography, a thin depth of field is as difficult as it is helpful.

Disappointed with Olympus' micro Four-Thirds lenses? 2014, 2015 much better

I don't know how not to offend the fanboys with this one.  I'm really disappointed with Olympus' lenses for micro Four-Thirds cameras.  While I can appreciate the desire for small equipment, compromise is better left to other companies that have more fanboys.

This may seem nonsense to someone who had never used the Four-Thirds High Grade and Super High Grade lenses.  Their standard series was, shall we say, sufficient for many people.

I'm not a snob about equipment, but I'd rather not risk my equipment on weather or dust.  When I originally bought my Olympus E-1 in April 2004, Olympus only had weather-sealed lenses for Four-Thirds.  I bought the ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5.  Those aren't huge maximum apertures but they worked well enough, and the lenses used a 67mm filter.  I used the 50-200mm during three of the four hurricanes in 2004 and never bet against the seals.  I shot, I dried and repeated as necessary.  The lenses work quite well to this day, and so does the E-1.

The only Four-Thirds lens I have that is not weather-sealed is the fairly expensive Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4--the normal lens.  You figure US$500 for a normal lens with an f/1.4 maximum aperture and twice as much for one that can be used wide open, unlike those from Canon and Nikon that have to be stopped down to get good sharpness.  This one comes around US$1000 and works well wide open, as do the HG and SHG lenses from Olympus.  It works as expected, except that I'm concerned that it might rain.

Now, with my journey into micro Four-Thirds, I have to pick lenses much more carefully, as though I was shopping for Canon or Nikon equipment.  I prefer simpler choices.  Currently, Olympus offers a great 60mm macro lens and the craptacular 12-50mm zoom.  Yes, I get it, at 12mm any lens will distort more than a lens at 14mm.  You have to use a more expensive lens design to get around it.  The 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Four-Thirds lens distorts apparently terribly but they were more concerned with the focusing speed than the optical characteristics, it seems.

Panasonic offers two weather-sealed lenses at the moment: the 35-100mm f/2.8 (US$1499.99) that I have and the 12-35mm f/2.8 that I don't need.  Both are rather expensive for the plastic-y bodies, Made in China, compromises that they are.  (Supposedly, the 12-35mm isn't a Made in China product but are they all from one country or the other?)  As I've been saying, the 35-100mm doesn't really seem too much worse than what you get from Canon or Nikon--you stop down the aperture to get good sharpness.  Since many people are switching from those brands, they'll probably be okay with the compromise.  Given that the sensor in the GH3 is better than the one in the E-5, I can live with that under low light circumstances.  However, compared to the ZD SHG 35-100 f/2.0, Panasonic's lens is not very good at all but then, I don't really have much faith in the Canon or Nikon 70-200mm either, though my opinion of the Nikon lens is more positive.

Olympus recently created a second generation of a 75-300mm lens that needs very bright light to be useful.  The maximum aperture is f/4.8-6.7.  If I was using it to photograph birds, I'd hope that they'd be out in the open sunlight.  More likely, I'd be using the ZD 50-200mm lens with the 1.4x teleconverter and the E-5.  I just don't understand where Olympus is going.  Several people have brought up the point that Olympus is no longer including lens hoods.  Most of their fanboys probably won't need them, even though they should be using them.  I don't carry the 35-100mm f/.0 lens hood with me because I need another bag for it and for the lens hood for the 14-35mm f/2.0.  They're that big.  I'm actually carrying both in the lens bag for the 35-100mm since I don't dare use it for the lens.

If Olympus would deliver the 12-40mm zoom lens (September 2013 announcement?) for which a patent was recently shown, and the aperture was sufficiently large, I would likely buy it, given that it was better than the 12-50mm they already have.  I've seen professionals do good work with that lens, but getting around its flaws may be too much work for me.  The 12-40mm is a larger range to my current ZD 14-35mm but if they stick to their "small and light" philosophy, it will have too many compromises, most likely.  Should you pay over US$1000 for compromises?

Update 2013.07.08: DxO does testing on certain lenses to help with their raw development software.  They just profiled the m.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 lens.  As many reviews have already stated, it's not very good, but it's nearly half the price of the great lenses.  It's somewhat better than the 17mm f/2.8 lens but that was really horrible from what I've seen.  If the Chromatic Aberration is so strong that you don't have to look for it to find it, that's a lens that should never have been made--Quantaray, anyone?

I guess that makes me think about a new Four-Thirds body or at least one that will use the lenses to full capacity.  It's been rumored to be announced and/or available in the autumn of 2013.  I'll keep hoping.

Update 2013.08.20: How about a craptacular, tiny, Frankenstein's creature of a camera body for Four-Thirds users?  I'll look at the E-M1 but at this point, I cannot see wasting money on something that will not be well-balanced with my 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.  I'm not asking for something the size of the E-5, but the size of the GH3 or E-1 would be appropriate, not the size of the E-M5.  I'm not looking to replace an E-410 or E-510, or E-620.  They were too small and they weren't meant for what I do.  They were casual camera bodies, which is why they were replaced with micro Four-Thirds.  Those people seem pleased with the performance.  I wish I could be.  The GH3, like the E-M5 is good enough for professionals, who aren't in a serious hurry.  Still, with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, things are looking up.

Update 2013.10.30: Looking back on this, I need to say that I'll have a 12-40mm on order.  The E-M1, while good, was not a replacement for my E-5 or my E-1.  Yes, the image quality is wonderful, but the handling is completely wrong for me.  It's about the same size as the GH3 but the grip was completely uncomfortable and it's not enough to easily allow me to use my ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 with it.  I can't take a tripod or monopod everywhere I have used the thing handheld.  The E-M1 looked better in person than the original photos I saw that seemed to show something cobbled together out of the parts bin.  If they'd put the goodness in the GH3 body, they'd have a sale.

The 12-40mm f/2.8 gives me hope for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, as the 12-40mm f/2.8 was wonderful. 

Update 2014.04.10: I got the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 not quite two months ago, and it has been attached to the Panasonic GH3 almost all the time.  I have been quite happy with the combination, and it has given me hope that Olympus has found their way again, and that the GH3 is good for still photography.  The color of the 12-40mm is much better than Panasonic's problematic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens that I also own.  I'm sure I'll be replacing the GH3 as soon as I can trade it for the GH4.  I have two Four-Thirds bodies and don't wish to repeat this with micro Four-Thirds.

The only problem with the "PRO" model lenses from Olympus is that they'll be slow in delivering them.  The 40-150mm f/2.8 will arrive later in 2014, but the 7-14mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4.0 will arrive in 2015.  That still leaves a hole for a 150-300mm f/2.8, which is a lens I would truly like to have--a lightweight 2x zoom with a lot of reach.  It could be the sharpest lens Olympus will have made for micro Four-Thirds, somehow looking toward the Four-Thirds 90-250mm f/2.8 but without the down-payment-for-a-house price.

Update 2014.11.14: As the 40-150mm f/2.8 is available, along with its 1.4x teleconverter, things are moving along.  In previous years, I'd be buying this lens, and possibly the combination of the two, very early to support photographing swim meets.  I haven't been photographing typical high school sports this year, but have been at skate parks.

There are times when I need a longer lens.  I have occasionally used my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 on my Olympus E-5.  (It's too much for the E-M1 and even for the Panasonic GH3 or GH4, which handles many Four-Thirds HG lenses well.)  Using the 40-150mm f/2.8 could be useful when not able to move from a spot but it's not all that a wide angle.  Using either the Olympus or Panasonic 35-100mm lenses, I find that there is no perfect lens for what I'm doing.  Are two small bodies hanging from my neck a good idea?

I'm even more interested in the 7-14mm f/2.8 that's supposedly coming in 2015.  I'm not a landscape type of photographer, but there are several occasions when I don't have enough of an angle to get everything.  The 12-40mm f/2.8 has been good but it's not always enough.  My typical thoughts were to buy a camera body with a larger sensor for occasional needs such as this.  How many occasional needs will I have that I should spend US$4000 for a 135 Format combination or even US$3000 for a FujiFilm X-Mount combo? 

In any case, Olympus has finally come to the table with some better than good options.  Similar to the Four-Thirds days before the E-5.