Panasonic Lumix S-series Telephoto Lenses.

 The one thing that isn't good about 135 Format is the telephoto lens selection and Panasonic only has one that ends at 300mm, a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 and it's about US$1100. It took Panasonic a while on micro Four-Thirds to get any good telephoto lenses and that format is much better for reach because of the sensor size.

I've been looking for a 135mm f/2.0 lens, like what Rokinon/Samyang had, even if it's manual.  There is a Sigma 135mm f/1.8 but it appears to be going away.  For US$1400, it's not bad, but it has the hypersonic motors that were being introduced in the dSLR days for faster auto focus.  In my experience, they are not great for photographing video with AF and stepping motors work much better with mirrorless cameras and hybrid AF.  It's possible that we'll see the version change from HSM to HLA in the near future, as some of their lenses have already made the transition.

As an aside, my first 135 Format film camera came with a 55mm f/2.2 Fujinon kit lens and I later bought a Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 lens for something like US$45.00 when a 50mm f/1.4 would have been US$350 and a 50mm f/1.2 would have been US$500.  Back then, Vivitar was a good brand and had the first push-pull zoom mechanism.  Working in the camera department of a department store a bit later, I had the opportunity to test the equipment, so that I could give an accurate opinion.  Sadly, we didn't have any Medium Format equipment.

Have you noticed all of the long telephoto zoom lenses?  I haven't, either.  Sigma has the 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3, which is the latest rendition of what we used to call Bigma.  For US$2000, it's a deal, but it's over 5 pounds at 88 ounces or 2.49 kg.  You'll need to hire a photo assistant and have a tripod ready.  Panasonic has a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 and it's about US$1100.  These are weather-sealed lenses.  If you're photographing sports, you're going to be ready.

 In the meantime, I opted for something used, a Canon 180mm f/3.5 macro lens substitute from Tamron for US$243.00 + a Viltrox (Pro) adapter for US$163.50.  They actually had a Canon L-series lens but it was missing parts and I didn't want to pay extra and not have all of the parts.  Besides, the L-series lenses were sometimes good, sometimes not.  I used to see a sizeable number of refurbished L-series lenses.

180mm isn't terribly long, but the 70-200mm f/2.8 isn't much longer, and I'm not sure I'm wanting to pay for that 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, even though the Dual I.S. will make it steadier.  Neither the Canon or Tamron lenses seemed to have image stabilization.  The IBIS in the S5 Mk II probably won't be completely effective at 180mm, which is partly why I already have a Smallrig CT-20 tripod/monopod.

Update 2024.12.23: I mentioned something about the lack of a Panasonic 85mm f/1.4 on L-Rumors and someone mentioned that the Sigma lens was amazing.  As great as that is, where is Panasonic's lens?

Next month, they have an announcement at CES, which is not exactly the place for professional equipment, but maybe, just maybe, they're announcing replacements for the S1, S1H, and S1R, plus some lenses.

Update 2025.02.03: At CES, Panasonic talked about everything else but the plan for their photographic business.  Supposedly, they have an announcement in February.  CP+ in Yokohama will start February 27th, I believe.  Hopefully, we'll get some good news.  Has it really been five years since they started making L-mount equipment under the Panasonic Lumix name?

Update 2025.04.12: Panasonic has still not mentioned any new lenses.  Sigma announced a 300-600mm f/4.0 Sports line lens and a 16-300mm f/3.5-6.7 Contemporary line lens.

They sent me an e-mail about a week ago to accentuate the S1R Mk II with their telephoto lenses and to announce 10% off.  I thought about getting a used lens.  I've been using a Tamron lens that probably was released in 2004 and retired in 2014.  It's in good condition, so it was probably made later in the life cycle of the lens.  However, using it through an adapter isn't optimal.  I was trying to get photos of the blood moon and tried early and got something interesting but focusing to infinity, even with manual focus doesn't work reliably.

 Therefore, a little while ago, I ordered the Panasonic 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS macro lens.  At US$300 off US$1099.99, it was a decent deal and 10% from that made it a better deal.  It's native and weather-sealed and with the small aperture, it's lightweight and will do just fine for photographing at a distance.

 It should be better made than my micro Four-Thirds Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 but the actual exposure won't be much different and that lens isn't weather-sealed.  That was surprisingly good for a refurbished lens at US$99.  The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 had better be really good since it's new.

I wouldn't mind a travel zoom, but the only one that is weather-sealed and will work is a Canon EF-mount L-series lens for about US$1500.  The Panasonic 28-200mm f/4.0-7.1 has a fair number of "it's okay", which says that I won't like it. 

Update 2025.05.01: I've had the Panasonic 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 for a couple of weeks.  It's a good lens, but not a Pro lens.  It's more than good enough but it seems like the Canon EF-mount lens that is US$599, which is about half the price.  It has some weather-sealing, but they have a warning on the lens page, so I wouldn't be using it out in a storm.

I got some star photos, but auto focus still seems to be a problem for the S5 Mk II.  Panasonic really needs to step it up.  I understand that the pandemic disrupted everyone, but it's been over for a while.  The G9 Mk II doesn't seem to have any auto focus issues and that's the way it should be with the S-series bodies and lenses. 

Update 2025.09.09: The Panasonic travel zoom, 28-200mm f/4.0-7.1 has competition.  Sigma introduced a 20-200mm f/3.5-6.3 zoom lens.  Since it's a Contemporary line lens, it's not got OS, but they do claim dust and water resistance.  At US$999, it's expensive, but not out of line for L-mount lenses.  Then again, I noticed a used micro Four-Thirds camera body with 12-100mm f/4.0 zoom lens for just under double that price.  The two of them probably weigh about half the 20-200mm and my S5 Mk II weigh.

Update 2025.09.24: They've just announced the Panasonic 100-500mm f/5.0-7.1 lens. It's dust-, splash-, and freeze-resistant for US$2099, and it isn't an S-Pro lens.

 Considering that the alternatives are the Sigma Contemporary 100-400 f/5.0-6.3 or Leica 100-400mm f/5.0-6.3 for US$2455, does US$2099 seem so bad?  I'm wondering if the Leica OIS will work with the Panasonic IBIS in Dual I.S. mode.  At those prices, I should consider the "inexpensive" Leica lens. 

135 Format Seems to Have Returned

In the late 1970s, I sold cameras at a department store.  Mostly, we sold Nikon, Minolta, and Olympus SLRs but also Fujica/FujiFilm, Pentax, and Canon.  That order also shows the relative quantities sold.  The Canon AE-1 was possibly the worst seller, and I really had to explain Shutter Priority auto exposure--and why the controls seemed to be the opposite of everything else we sold.  (We also sold Medium Format, 110 Format film cameras and the odd, leftover 126 Format cameras.  Polaroid and Kodak had instant cameras.)

Now, we're getting back to a time like that, when many camera makers have an entry in 135 Format.  Nikon and Canon have been in 135 Format for a while now, and Pentax returned recently with the K-1, now at K-1 Mk II.  Sony was the first with a 135 Format mirrorless line and they're on the third generation now.

In the last few weeks, Nikon and Canon introduced mirrorless 135 Format models.  In my opinion, Nikon is closer to getting it right from the start.  They're going to need a lot of firmware updates and they don't like to do that.  Canon didn't stray far from home and they're going to need to re-do their system much more quickly than Nikon will simply because of the lens mount.

This week, Panasonic, Sigma, and Leica got together on the L-mount, already in use by Leica (SL, TL) in a 135 Format camera body.

This is news because Panasonic has been a small appliance and electronics company for years.  They have come so far since those days, possibly due to their feud with Sony.

In any case, two 135 Format bodies, one high resolution (S1R), one low (S1), similar to Nikon's path.  Having an SD Card slot along with an XQD slot is brilliant.  The thing is--these are months off, probably available around spring.  Specifications are subject to change without notice is the appropriate statement, isn't it?

The other part of their announcement is that Sigma is moving to 135 Format with their Foveon technology.  I'm trying to keep an open mind, but they haven't been making much progress.  When someone complains about their low light capabilities, someone has to yell "Hey, look, over there!"

The better part of this is that Sigma will finally have a worthy mount and can share a market, instead of cornering a market that few want.  (There probably aren't that many Leica users, though.)

My only question is: where is Olympus?  I don't have to ask about FujiFilm.  They're not competing head-to-head.  They have introduced another 50MP Medium Format model and documented that they are working on the rumored 100MP model.  I'm not sure whether Pentax is a factor since they haven't had much luck with mirrorless, going the quirky path, but there is a new Irix 150mm f/2.8 macro lens with their mount that will be available.  The K-1 Mk II and the update to the original seem to be decent, but better auto focus would make people want to buy them.

Olympus has rumored that they are working on a higher high-end camera body, which considering the price of the E-M1 Mk II, they need some much better technology for micro Four-Thirds.  If they're heading to 135 Format, I'm thinking things will heat up.

Update 2019.01.12: Panasonic supposedly will launch their S1 and S1R bodies in March 2019.  That's not particularly far away, and yet, we still don't have many details.  It should be interesting to see what lenses Sigma has re-mounted by launch time.  The latest Sigma lenses seem to be quite good and would help make the launch a success.

Nikon seems to be getting good press, even though they have some shortcomings, as with any first generation equipment.  I can imagine that Panasonic will have odd troubles, but the bodies should be as good as can be made--the line starting with the GH3 should be proof of that.  However, dust reduction and sensor-based image stabilization will be their biggest engineering feats, plus re-working their video routines.

Update 2019.03.31: Panasonic have opened up and their big mirrorless bodies and a few lenses are about to be sold.  They look good, even though they are rather large and rather heavy.  To me, having fully-functional camera bodies is a necessity to make the work flow more easily.  The Panasonic GH4 never got in my way, just like the Olympus E-1 or E-5.  The designers considered how it should work for quick and easy use.  I also have the Panasonic GM5, which uses the same lenses and it's hardly the most ergonomic camera body but it does the job, especially since I can strap it to my wrist, work with the GH4, and grab the GM5 for other photos or video.

It will be interesting to see how Panasonic changes 135 Format and how Sony will respond, since they have had the mirrorless 135 Format market to themselves for a while.

Canon and Nikon are making a splash, but too many of their users have been told for too long that mirrorless bodies aren't professional bodies and can't do what the dSLR can do.  IMO, Nikon still have the upper hand with a forward-thinking lens mount, compared to Sony or Canon.  On the other hand, having third parties try to decode the lens mount is really incredibly stupid, no matter how many of your own brand lenses you sell, especially when native format lenses are few.

Sigma's Art line lenses will be available as 2019 continues.  I suppose that this is a good thing but I suggest that they should have made some zoom lenses available, especially those from their Sports line.  Shouldn't the 60-600mm lens be available?  135 Format needs longer lenses.

Update 2020.02.17: There is nothing really amazing happening at the moment, but Panasonic has three models in their S line, Canon has two, and Nikon has two.

Sigma created a very tiny L-mount model but they're having trouble creating a Foveon-technology-based sensor for 135 Format.

What I've seen is that no one has great technology but they all have something to contribute.  Leica is the most expensive.  Canon is the least expensive.  Sony has been in the space for a few years and is suddenly needing to fix their user interface and generally sloppiness in their software.  Panasonic has incredible hardware, as well as incredibly large hardware, but they need phase detection auto focus, no matter what they think.

Having worked with the GH4 so much, Panasonic's S1H looks a treat.  However, I have so many video clips where the AF just goes away while the image processor is busy.  Still, I would probably go with Panasonic, just knowing that I can depend on the software, and make sure that the AF problems are minimal.

Update 2024.10.19: Got the Panasonic S5 Mk II with Phase Detection Auto Focus, which is an L-mount body.  Those Panasonic bodies from four years ago need to be replaced.

Canon and Nikon have expanded their mirrorless line up and de-emphasized their dSLRs.  Fujifilm is still working in APS-C and Medium Format.  Generations have been retired and they're still futzing with the auto focus.

 I had hoped that Olympus would continue with Panasonic, going to 135 Format, but they're on life support, as OM Digital.

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.

Mirror-less, interchangeable lens cameras have been mainstreamed for around 6 years

It was late in 2008 when Panasonic and Olympus announced micro Four-Thirds and when Panasonic quickly introduced the DMC-G1.

Panasonic had very little success with the DMC-L1 or the DMC-L10 and partner Leica didn't really do much with the Digilux 3 dSLR.  Olympus had more like with the E-330 (like the DMC-L1 or Digilux 3) from that time, bringing Live View to the masses.

However, Panasonic, by itself with the G1, made people think.  It was a dSLR-style camera body and the controls were similar enough that it didn't confuse.  It was just that there wasn't much available, especially since Olympus didn't have anything ready.  If not for the Four-Thirds lens adapter, there would not have been much available at all.

Those lenses have helped me transition from Four-Thirds to micro Four-Thirds, though I'm still skeptical about the system, even though I own the Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GH4, and 4 native micro Four-Thirds lenses.

If my skepticism was strong for micro Four-Thirds, it was impossible to break concerning Sony's NEX-system.  It still doesn't have very good support since 2009 when it arrived.  FujiFilm has certainly surpassed Sony in many ways, most prominently in lenses.

Samsung has once again come with something, and it's not a Sony clone this time.  The NX1 and the NX500 actually seem useful.  It took them several generations of crap, and they barely have any lenses or industry support.  I wondered if they would have transitioned their name to Beta, to match Sony's change to differentiate themselves from the copier.  It might be interesting to see if Samsung could manufacture (micro) Four-Thirds sensors for Panasonic, Olympus, and those hiding behind the Kodak name.

Sony has recently shown that they have created a 20 MP sensor for (micro) Four-Thirds, which is interesting, if it can improve only low light photography.  ISO 3200 seems my reasonable limit.  However, seeing the Pentax K-50 with a lower pixel density at ISO 3200, it seems APS-C is not really better, even though the high limit of the K-50 is ISO 51,200.  Perhaps, with a higher resolution lens, it would be better.

Of course, Sony's 135 Format A7-series is much more interesting, as far as technology goes.  As far as lenses go, my skepticism is very high.  Adapters are much more necessary than they are with micro Four-Thirds.  For my use, a dSLR is still better but for those who don't photograph sports, the A7 Mk II looks a treat.  For people who don't mind huge lenses, and back-breaking backpacks, 135 Format is great, mirror-less or otherwise.

I've been looking at old lenses recently and it's amusing to see the old crap that I used to have to sell because there were so few great lenses.  I'm so thankful for the digital revolution, especially since Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses made things so much better.

The company has been making headway with their "PRO" series lenses, despite the silly name.  The 12-40mm f/2.8 is quite good, especially for just under $1000.  I wish they could have put a bit more of the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 goodness into it, but it would have raised the price, and increased the size and weight to where the lightweights would have complained.  However, a 67mm filter size might have allowed an f/2.5 maximum aperture instead of f/2.8.  I've used the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 with the Panasonic GH3, so a 67mm or 72mm filter size wouldn't have bothered me--the closer to f/2.0 the better.

Third party lenses are few, and I'm not sure any of the lenses from Tamron or Sigma are worth it.  Does Tokina even make lenses for mirror-less?  Voigtländer has made some good lenses for micro Four-Thirds, and Zeiss has native lenses for Sony, and adapted cinema lenses for micro Four-Thirds.  I'm sure if I wanted a US$20,000 lens for my Panasonic GH4, a Zeiss lens would be my first choice.

Thankfully, Veydra, a crowdsourced startup is working on making affordable cine lenses of a uniform size for micro Four-Thirds.  Competing with Zeiss' Compact Prime series will be difficult, but does everyone need Zeiss?  With a lack of electronic connections, these are for the serious users who want to control their imagery, just as those from Zeiss are.  The prices are quite different between the two lines.

While Canon, Nikon, and Pentax have all created mirror-less models, they seem afraid to encroach on their dSLRs, and have given somewhat too interesting alternatives.

FujiFilm has been the most exciting company in the market, with some interesting choices.  They have the best selection of lenses for any APS-C sized sensor camera bodies.  While they've been stuck at 16MP, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering the lower pixel density.  The X-T1 is a valuable body with a great EVF and enough dials to make enthusiasts' eyes spin in their sockets.

The company continues to update the firmware with fixes and new additions.  It almost seems as they've kicked Panasonic and Olympus into update mode, also.  For me, the X-T1 could have more of a grip and since there would be more room, a bigger battery.  I haven't tried the X-T1 since the 50-140mm f/2.8 lens has become available, but I wonder about the balance.  There are many times when a dSLR still feels just right for shooting sports.  However, I rarely pull out a dSLR these days.

For the majority of camera users, mirror-less models make sense, especially for those who buy a base dSLR and only use the kit lens and set everything to Auto.  Sure, you can take good photos with those, but the same can be said for cameras without the mirror slap.

One thing about mirror-less camera bodies remain--the many acronyms.  MILC seems to fit best because they are indeed Mirror-less, Interchangeable Lens Cameras.  ILC could include dSLRs and rangefinders.  CSC (Compact System Cameras) wouldn't have to have interchangeable lenses.  EVIL doesn't seem to fit as things have progressed since the original Panasonic DMC-G1.

MILCs haven't taken control of the market, but I can see when the crowd is better informed, that they could.

Update 2015.11.06: I just noticed that DPReview wanted the world to see Ming Thein's article on mirror-less cameras.  The backlash was mean.  Of course, this just means that people didn't agree with his assessment--or that he stepped on their toes, rejecting their choices.  A certain Sony user was particularly aggressive.  I think I've met that user online a time or two.

I agree with most of his assessments.  He apparently had not used the Panasonic GH4, which for me, is as close to the perfect mirror-less body as is possible from one company.  He is working from the point of view, like mine, about getting things done.  I want to get the shots I need (accurately) and get to the next job without the camera getting in the way.

Panasonic GH4 is in my bag

It's just before Thanksgiving Day in the U.S.A. and the sales are all over the place.  One of the national broadcasters mentioned that electronics would be cheaper before Black Friday, and cameras and other photographic equipment generally falls into line with electronics.

I read that Panasonic has reduced the price of the GH4 by $200.  Adorama, B&H Photo, and Mike's Camera (Colorado and California) have said that this is an instant rebate.  Mike's Camera ended this instant rebate on November 26th--today.

I braved holiday traffic to drive 30+ miles to buy the camera body.  I met with a salesperson with whom I'd previously talked.  I asked about the body, and he checked their web site, and I bought it, even using my extra battery from my GH3 to try it.  (My battery appeared to be fully charged, even though I traded my GH3 in early June.  That makes it almost six months since it was charged.)

At $1499.99, the body is somewhat more reasonable for me, and it's the same price I paid for my Olympus E-5.  That also makes it less than half the price of the Canon 5D MkIII, its nearest (hybrid) competitor in the business.  Well, actually, the 5D MkIII was the competitor of the GH3, and the expanded 4K capabilities and high bit rates at 1080p add to the differences between the GH4 and the 5D MkIII, above those between the 5D MkIII and the GH3.

The salesperson mounted an Olympus 25mm f/1.8 lens, so I could check the body.  The lens seemed almost tiny, though not as small as the 15mm f/1.7 approved by Leica, designed and made by Panasonic especially for the GM1/GM5.  The image through the viewfinder seemed improved (it has over double the density) over my memory of the GH3.  I didn't notice that much difference from the E-M1 I use regularly, or from my memory of the FujiFilm X-T1.

I used my sunglasses briefly, explaining about the blackout problem that I had with the GH3, and I currently have with the E-M1 on occasion.  It only happened on occasion, but it happened enough that muscle memory was my only way around it with the GH3.  I'm guessing that it may still occur.  Perhaps, switching to polarized sunglasses may help.  It isn't a problem with optical viewfinders.

Of course, it took a few minutes to find settings to change, to try to personalize it similarly to my GH3.  I was pleased to see many video additions in the menus, bringing up the professional specification.  I can't say enough how great it is that the GH3 and GH4 have 5 slots for settings.  I only used two slots with the GH3 and that might be the same with the GH4, although I'll be more focused on video this time, so I might use more.

The most wonderful thing about the GH4 is the instant familiarity.  Panasonic wisely chose to keep ergonomic choices almost all the same.  They added a lock to the mode button, something it has in common with the E-M1--and the Olympus E-1 from way back when.

I just checked the What Digital Camera (my go-to magazine) review for the GH4 and E-M1 and they said that the design of the GH4 was an 85 and the E-M1, 95.  In the text, they complained about the GH4 having so many buttons but appreciated the dSLR-like design.  Strangely, everyone else seems to like that you don't have to dig through menus, and the Panasonic menus are a bit less extreme than those of Olympus.  The magazine has had a complete change of staff and they seem to work toward advertisers more than 10 years ago.  89% for the GH4 vs 92% for the E-M1 isn't a huge difference.  However, I would say that, given Olympus' poor video performance and uncomfortable grip, the two are equal at least.

One of the bigger issues for me with the E-M1 was the combination of the small battery and small, angular grip.  Now that I have 3 batteries for the E-M1, I don't run out of power early, but I don't use it nearly as long as I used my dSLRs, so I'm still concerned.

With the GH3, I never had a problem where I exhausted both batteries during a long day of shooting.  Since the battery is so much bigger than that of the E-M1, there is definitely a difference.  Getting battery grips for each won't help much, as either grip only holds an extra battery, though they might help with using my Four-Thirds 35-100mm f/2.0 (3.64 lbs./1650g) lens.  I was never happy with that balance on the GH3 and I've never bothered to try it for more than a few minutes with the E-M1.  Of course, with the tripod collar attached to a tripod, the balance issue goes away.  Naturally, this was never a problem with the Olympus E-5, which is only as big as the Nikon D7100.

When mounting the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens outside the store, I found that the lens operated at full speed again, in contrast to its performance on the E-M1.  I had not used it significantly since the Panasonic Repair Facility had checked it.  The few times I tried it with the E-M1, the frame rate was significantly slower than Olympus' 12-40mm lens, which made no sense, since it was very fast on the GH3.  This makes the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens important for the E-M1.  I expect that the color from the lens will be equally better over the 35-100mm f/2.8 as the 12-40mm f/2.8 was.  I thought that there was a problem with the GH3, until I used the 12-40mm f/2.8 on it.  It should be interesting to see how fast the frame rate of the GH4 will be with the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens.

I'm hoping to try some skate park video soon, using the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.  I don't know much about video but I took a few with the GH3.  I don't have an enhanced speed card to handle 4K video but learning how to handle video is more important at this time.  Responsiveness with my current SanDisk Extreme Pro card seemed much better than with the GH3.

Oh, and concerning the bag, I'm afraid that I've got to re-distribute equipment again to emphasize the smaller equipment, though I still want to use my Four-Thirds lenses through the adapter.  I hope Crumpler has something appropriate.

Update 2014.11.28: Ouch!  The firmware needs to be updated and for some reason, I'm unable to update it for various reasons.

First, the U.S. Panasonic web site ends up with only a Windows executable when I open the .zip file I've downloaded.  Perhaps, I didn't see a Macintosh-related link or the web site incorrectly detected that everyone uses Windows.

I used the Japanese web site that I'd used for the GH3 and that seemed to give me the correct file, but the camera body doesn't recognize that there is an update available when I go through the procedure.  I'm sure I'll be fine with firmware version 1.1 instead of 2.0, for a while anyway, but whatever.  Panasonic continues to be an administrative screw up.  What was downloaded was labeled AH4 instead of GH4.  I got something different tonight, and have updated my GH4.

Taking the GH4 and 35-100mm f/2.8 to the skate park, it performed well, but not with as much performance as expected.  (Continuous AF is enabled by default.)  Auto Focus accuracy was acceptable, similar to the GH3.  I'll try it with the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 at a later date.  It didn't feel as fast or responsive as the Olympus E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8.  Auto Review is also enabled, which not only slows things down, as it does with the GH3, but it's also a battery waster.

Update 2014.12.01: I ordered a 4K-capable SD card from Adorama.  It's interesting that these cards were UHS-I, class 10, U 3.  Do I need such a card right now?  Probably not, but having dedicated for-video storage would be a good idea, especially on those days when I've been busy taking still photos.  I'm a little short on cards now that I have three bodies that take SD Cards.

I had a chance to buy a higher capacity SanDisk card but, after viewing several descriptions of the card, I couldn't determine the exact performance.  One mentioned 95 MB/sec., while others mentioned 60 MB/sec. and 80 MB/sec.  They were also labeled Extreme or Extreme Plus because the company changed the name at some point.

Update 2014.12.07: Part of my order was not readily available, so I ended up at Best Buy getting a 4K-capable card.  It was about the same price for 32GB as Adorama had for 64GB.  That's not the worst I've seen.  At least, it's a SanDisk card.  They had the Extreme and Extreme Plus cards, but this one is labeled Pixtor.  I've barely used it for anything.  I thought that the card would enable 4K options immediately, but that happens through the Creative Video mode on the mode dial.  Getting past the GH3 is taking time.

I'm impressed with how responsive the GH4 has been, especially in low(er) light.  I went to a skate shop with an indoor half pipe, and shot both still photos and video.  I was there a few weeks earlier and the E-M1 struggled with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens but the GH4 didn't seem to have any problem at all.  That doesn't mean that it's great in the dark.  It isn't.  I could use more lenses at f/1.4 or wider than my older Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 from the Four-Thirds system.

The Voigtländer lenses look good.  There is a 10.5mm f/0.95 that should be available soon (okay, officially Q1-Q2 2015), and that is wide enough to get skate park shots easily, and should be good for sharp landscape shots at a less aggressive aperture.  Is US$1000 or more too much for a manually focused lens?  It depends on your wallet, of course, and whether you can make money from it.  The other three (17.5mm, 25mm, 42.5mm) have all been rated well and many people are satisfied with what they do.

Update 2014.12.31: The Panasonic card is flaky and has had general errors in both the GH4 body and the computer SD Card slot.  Almost naturally, the SanDisk card isn't a problem--I've had to have one replaced in the past, but only one.

I'm having some struggles learning the GH4.  I'm not finding it as instantly familiar as I thought I would--or at least, I'm not as successful with it as I had hoped.  As I go further with it, I'm finding little issues.  The drive mode dial has been accidentally moved.  The burst mode position is adjacent to a +/- burst mode position that allows you to take bracketed auto exposure photos.  For instance, it will take photos at -1/3 EV, +0 EV, +1/3 EV, much like HDR preparations.  Your bracketing settings will affect the latitude of the exposure range.  It is useful, although there have been times when I was getting a series of shots and naturally, it stops at three and the action continues without me.  Yes, I should be more aware of my settings.  I'm sure I saw it in the viewfinder and didn't really notice as the +/- didn't seem so significantly distinct.

The GH4 is so capable that it could be 6 months before I'm really comfortable.  It's been a little over a month that I've had it now, so getting casual photos are easy but action photos are usually more involved.  I've basically given up the use of the E-M1 to get up to speed with the GH4.

2015.01.09: The auto focus still isn't everything it should be, with continuous auto focus or not.  During video, it will lose focus completely, which is a great effect that people like, except that it will do it at the wrong time.  That's not unlike the Olympus E-M1.  Maybe, the 12-40mm f/2.8 isn't feeling well.  I was using the 35-100mm f/2.8 the other day and I noticed that the auto focus on the GH4 was similar to the E-M1, lower performing burst speed, but with better AF accuracy.

2016.12.07: It's been over two years since I got the GH4.  I've got over 100 videos on YouTube.  Most are skate park videos but I have some music performances and random things, also.  The camera itself does a very good job, except for AF.

I've got a number of Panasonic lenses and it loses focus on those, as well as while using the Olympus lenses.  It just seems too busy to bother with auto focus duties, but in this price range, it shouldn't have such a problem.  I'm not asking it to track someone.  I want it to focus on the single area I select while I move the camera.  It has predictive focus--it's always busy.

I'm still learning.  I've been learning to do time lapse photography because I wanted to try some shots while driving, to condense little road trips as I've seen someone else do.

Since the GH4, I've bought the GX8 and GM5.  The GX8 has very good 1080p video which matches what I get from the GH4, and that is so useful at skate parks since I'll have the 35-100mm f/2.8 on one and the 12-35mm f/2.8 on the other.  The E-M1 doesn't come close and I suspect that the GM5 won't match either.

The GH5 should be released in spring.  What the whole feature set is, no one outside Panasonic knows, and I'm not certain even they know at this point.  3840x2160 at 60p is one of the few things that are guaranteed to be included.  They've shown mockups of the body and it's agreeable, but nothing is much different.

The new sensor may be 18MP or 20MP, but they're not saying.  The new Olympus E-M1 Mk II has a 20MP sensor with 121 cross type AF points--both PDAF and CDAF.  Many speculate that they will use a lot of the same equipment in the GH5.

Lytro Illum upsetting to some, bringing the future closer

I was just looking at another article on the Lytro Illum camera, where they put it into the hands of a few professionals to see what could happen.

What gets to me is the negative comments about the camera, its technology, and how they show the hidden fear of the unknown.

Are people so afraid to change?  If Nikon and Canon were to stop making cameras, would they fall apart?  (That reminds me of people who were panicking during a BlackBerry blackout.)

I'm still a bit skeptical about using the camera, but at least the Illum model is shaped like a camera.  I want to use one, and given that I'm moving to a nearby area and can be there in a couple of hours, I'd like to test one, if the company is willing.  They can go with me while I try it.

On display at a local store

I think it's selling for US$1599.99.  That doesn't sound horrible.  My Olympus D-300L was $US999.99 and my C-2500L was originally $1499.99, though I only paid $850 for it because it was an open box deal.  They were experimental, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't really do a lot of casual photography.  I generally do sports or business photos, but there are times when I try to take a walk and find something interesting to photograph.  Since I'm moving to another area of the country, to a place I've never lived, I should have plenty to photograph.  I might as well try something totally new, correct?

I'm sure I'll have a handy, conventional camera with me at all times.  When I was walking up and down San Francisco, California, I was using my Olympus E-5 and 14-35mm f/2.0 combination--something small, correct?  :-D  I also had my bag of goodies on my shoulder, including the Panasonic GH3.  Nothing was light that day and I was dragging by the time I returned to the motel.

So, it might be good to go light, especially if I'm in a somewhat difficult environment.

What the Lytro people are doing is nothing short of amazing.  They're collecting a massive amount of information to allow the photograph to be re-constructed.  Of course, this can't be done with some Adobe product at this time.  They're still having trouble with FujiFilm's X-Trans sensors.

Next month, I will have moved and will be close to the San Fran Bay Area, so I could be at the Lytro headquarters in Mountain View (I think), to see what they're doing, and hopefully, they'll agree to a visit and a trial.

Update 2014.05.23: I've seen plenty of fearful comments about mirror-less cameras, also.  It seems that those who really don't know photography that well are afraid and speaking out about it.  I rarely see professionals who are afraid to try new equipment.  They may not like it, but they're willing to try it.  Wedding photographers seem to be the most resistant of professionals but I understand that.  When you have a whole wedding party yelling at you, you've got to deliver what they want, no matter what it is.  I've been asked to do two weddings and I wouldn't even consider photographing them.  I would do things my way, and that would not be the correct way.

I'm still wondering what all these hobbyists are going to do when they have no choice but to change.

If you've seen a Star Trek series, you've probably seen a holo-imager--a camera that apparently goes beyond 3D capture.  I see Lytro's technology as a start to get to such devices.

Update 2014.12.11: It was interesting to see Intel advertising Lytro's technology as their own.  Do they have no shame?  It reminds me of all those early 80x86 processors with the divide errors that never happened.

Update 2015.11.19: I've seen the Lytro Illum available at about half the price.  I'm concerned about buying one because the company might not make it.  Without the computer-based software, how would it work?  Would I have to keep an old computer to use it?

Besides this, quite a while ago, Panasonic revealed a patent about multiple focus planes.  Today, there was a rumor that a few days from now, they'll be implementing the patent in the GX8 that I have.  What's more is that Olympus has been ready to do this in the E-M1 firmware, version 4.0, which is about to be released.

These are both simplistic versions that require several photos but the technology will be a decent compromise for 2015.  The Lytro technology will likely prevail 10 or 20 years from now, although I hope that it will be sooner.  As soon as mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras will be dominant, things can go further.

dSLR users: open up to mirror-less models

Over a year ago, I couldn't really see myself using a mirror-less camera model.  I have been good with a dSLR, and I didn't feel any need to switch.  The various new system cameras didn't offer me anything great, until the GH3.

Now, it's easy to see that the Panasonic GH3 is the size of a smaller dSLR, but with a well-proportioned body and good grip.  The designers actually thought about its being used by photographers.  Isn't that amazing?

Add to that reasonable still photography and incredible video photography at a reasonable price with weather-sealing, and you've got a recipe for taking on a hurricane.  I know--I've been out in hurricanes, photographing them with the Olympus E-1.

I was stubborn that an electronic viewfinder could not work for me and I wasn't going to use the rear display because of the trouble using it in bright sunlight.  I was half right.

Using a rear display doesn't work well in bright sunlight, but the smaller EVF can, especially those of the Olympus E-M1 and FujiFilm X-T1.  I haven't seen the Panasonic GH4's improved EVF but I expect it to be good, not great.  I have various issues when using the GH3 viewfinder, mainly with sunglasses, but it is relatively good.  I've used the Olympus E-M1 extensively and found that it doesn't seem to have the GH3's problems, and since many people have commented that the FujiFilm X-T1's viewfinder is even better than that of the E-M1, I would say that my short experience with the X-T1 would be very positive and typical also.

Where the EVF shines on the GH3 is at night.  I can see to frame and focus in ways that an optical viewfinder does not work well.  I had great respect for the Olympus OM-1N viewfinder--the brightest in the business at the time, but the GH3 does miracles for night work, and I'm guessing that any EVF can work similarly well.

Along with that, the GH3's auto focus works to EV -4.  That's equivalent to starlight.  I took some quick photos after the firmware update, just to see, and it worked incredibly well.  I hated the image quality, as I wasn't really trying to do anything important and didn't plan, but it worked.

The one thing I dislike with the Olympus E-5 and Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D users will understand: switching to Live View takes a fast camera body and makes it seem horribly slow.  There were occasions when I flipped out the display (don't try that with the D7100 or 70D!) and enabled Live View and it felt as though time stopped.  I got the photos I wanted, and it's so nice to be able to point the lens upward, while looking at a comfortable angle, but you have to be a bit patient.

The GH3 allows me to switch back and forth quickly because the same feed and the same auto focus is working.  Since there is no optical viewfinder, the imaging sensor is working in Live View mode all the time, and it's made to handle the thermal stresses, as well.  Need to hand-hold a Live View shot at a steep angle in portrait orientation?  The GH3's rear display can do that for you, and you will still be comfortable.

There was a time when I would be flat on my back, looking up at a building, working to get a certain vertical shot.  I no longer have to do that.

I was taking some photos last Saturday at an arboretum and park and it was simple to get each shot.  I thought that the rear display would be unusable, but I could actually see it fairly well.  Someone asked me to take a photo or two with their smart phone, and I was surprised at how poor the Samsung Galaxy S4 display did in bright light.  I could barely see where the shutter release button was.  Considering that Samsung uses their phones to showcase their displays, it was disappointing.  I had new respect for Panasonic.

I know, better than most, what speed means.  After all, I photograph a lot of sports.  I can understand why photographers have switched to video for cross country and track events but I have not.  I'm still sorting things to use the GH3 in such sports, although replacing it with the GH4 will likely help, and that's on the list.  I don't do a lot of burst mode shooting, but 12 frames per second sounds better than 6 frames per second when it comes to crunch time, don't you think?  Of course, auto focus had better work well also, or you'd better be able to manually focus the lens quickly.  (I'm good with manual focus on dSLR lenses because they're big enough for that to happen.  micro Four-Thirds lenses are tiny, in comparison, so I require auto focus to work well.)

The only thing you can't fix with mirror-less equipment is the price.  I pick and choose but on the whole, everything that will get you high image quality is really expensive.  Mind you, it's often cheaper than equivalent dSLR equipment, especially weather-sealed equipment, but most people don't see that.  Once again, photographing hurricanes, the weather-sealed equipment worked beautifully, and every time I shoot cross country in the rain, I giggle at the people trying to hide their equipment from the downpour.

I know that dSLRs will go away eventually.  I'm sure everyone realizes that.  I was stubborn and didn't want to let go but suddenly, with the right lens, I'm realizing the benefits of mirror-less technology.

Cameras for photographers, please, not just electronic devices taking photos

I've written a few times about checklist engineering.  It's popular with electronics companies such as Sony and Samsung.  It's generally popular with car companies like Chevrolet, Hyundai, and Honda.  It's about building devices with the personality of a toaster.

For the longest time, great cameras were designed by photographers.  A company would look at what worked for a person who didn't just snap photos, but wanted the camera to work each time, every time with consistency.

I never found rangefinders to be this kind of camera but people adored them.  Although the old medium format viewfinders were rather odd with the upside-down image (so were twin lens reflex), looking down from the top of the camera, you were engaged in the process.  Your imagination worked with reality.

Then, with the SLR, imagination wasn't quite as necessary.  You could see almost how the final image would be, as you looked through the lens with which the image would be captured.  Then, if you used the correct film and processed it well, you'd end up with an image that came close to your vision, your imagination of the scene.

Today, cameras are easy.  You don't have to think at all.  Auto-this, Auto-that are available.  You can even set the camera to take photos at intervals and just leave the camera doing its own thing, so you don't have to be bothered.

What camera engages you?  What equipment says "come out, and let's hear and see and find a story to re-tell people."?

For me, the Fujica series of 135 format SLRs from FujiFilm and the OM-series from Olympus were those kinds of equipment.  The Olympus E-1 was another, more specific, more modern model, and certainly now, the FujiFilm X-T1 seems to pull at me that same way, even though I've yet to buy one.

Intuitive controls are important and the camera body has to feel like an extension of the arm (for me, at least).  That sort of design doesn't come by starting by specifying internal components and working toward the outside eventually.

Look at the Sony A7/A7R duo.  They might as well be called "The Committee" because that's who designed them.  There was so little thought to the exterior that a 10 year old could have done it (with Lego?).  It's a brilliant combination of parts inside but who but Sony fanatics will want to use it?

The FujiFilm X-T1 has the controls all over it, much like the Fujica ST801 that was so dear, or the Olympus OM-1, if they had been designed for the digital age.  When the controls are where you want them to be and you don't have to access a display to make changes, you can be part of the process.

What I photograph with sports doesn't happen twice.  There are no second chances.  The camera body and lens have to work with me at all times.  I don't need to go back to a photo and find that my nose touched the rear display (Why Olympus with the E-M1 and FujiFilm with the X-T1 think I want those displays out in the open, I don't know.  The E-1 display was out in the open but it was off most of the time and had no touch capabilities.)  I keep the rear display hidden usually.  I don't need to find that a dial moves too easily, either.

The Nikon Df was made for people who care about such things, though I don't think it's for me.  I've had enough experience with heavy, slippery Nikon equipment from way back when.  The D800 (and the legendary, mythical D400) is better for me.

I've thought several times about gutting my Olympus E-1 and finding a way to put the Olympus E-5 or Panasonic GH3 equipment into it.  The E-5 innards might be a bit overwhelming for it, but the GH3's insides might just fit.  Matching the controls would be the problem, since I'm hardly a hardware engineer.  Of course, doing video on a 1.8 inch rear display might be a problem, though I rarely mess with video--so far.  However, getting photos in an intuitive environment would be wonderful again.

Mind, the Panasonic GH3 isn't a bad camera body.  It was my first encounter with an electronic viewfinder and it wasn't a very good encounter and they've re-worked the viewfinder for the GH4.  The problem is that it's not intuitive.  They seemed to look at the Olympus E-5, miniaturised various aspects of the design, gave it some Canon appeal, and moved a lot of control to the rear display.  Given what I've just written, you know that I don't have much love for the Olympus E-5 either.

The E-5 is a great tool.  You could use it to pound nails into the wall.  Like the E-1, it's possibly one of the strongest camera bodies from any dSLR maker.  It ignores intuitive design, unlike the E-1.  There is no mode dial, to provide space for a huge top display.  What it has over the E-1 is a higher resolution, better balance with larger lenses, and image stabilization but it never feels quite right in my hands.

So, I ask again, what camera engages you to go out to re-tell a story?

Update 2014.02.20: I was in a camera store yesterday talking to a salesperson I've met in the past.  I mentioned to him about the camera being an extension of the body and he just didn't get it.  I guess people growing up in a world where electronics were everyday devices has changed the thinking.  He suggested the Sony A7, but image quality alone isn't everything for me.  It has to be a good shooter and the A7 is an ergonomic disaster, as are most of Sony's serious camera bodies, unfortunately.  Apparently, the A7 is somewhat of a disaster to use, but is quite great at image quality.  Landscape photographers are more likely to take the time, as are rangefinder users, that Sony is giving them.

Update 2014.04.10: I'm not sure exactly why but the FujiFilm X-T1 has become a big hit for the company.  I think it's the overwhelming effect of all the dials.  Yes, the image quality is quite good, but I'm not sure that's the driving force, as it's much the same inside as the X-E2.  Is it a state of mind?  The camera body, like the Olympus E-M1 is just a bit small and uncomfortable for me, but with smaller lenses, it would be a great casual body with enough physical controls to delight the best perfectionist.

Portrait lens: 85mm f/1.2 and equivalents

Since the recent announcements of the FujiFilm and Panasonic/Leica 85mm f/1.2 equivalent lenses, I thought I'd take a look at such lenses from the camera makers themselves.

I'm not taking a look at the (usually ridiculous) Depth of Field argument.  I'm more interested in trying to understand why these lenses work and why anyone but a professional would buy one.  My gut feeling is--if you complain about the price, you don't know how or don't have a way to make money with the lens.

I'm not a portrait photographer, though I've tried modeling-type photography, and I've done many what I'll call quick portraits.  When I'm photographing high school sports, it's often easy and desirable to get a quick portrait of the athletes.  I often do this with either of two lenses which have effective 135 format ranges of 70-200mm for one and 100-400mm for the other.  Using them at about 1 meter/3.3 feet works well.

The 135 format has had an 85mm lens for portraiture for a while.  Canon has an f/1.2 lens and Nikon has an f/1.4 lens.  Barely touching on Depth of Field, we don't want it so thin that only the nose is in focus, unless we're working in reconstructive surgery, of course.  Of course, at a distance, it's less likely that we'll isolate facial features and likely that we'll just isolate our subject.

I'd suggest that any of these lenses are going to do the job, although I wonder which will do it best.  It's becoming more difficult to find really bad lenses, unlike 10 years ago and earlier.  For those who really feel that they want to pick up a 30 year old lens because it was great, you might want to re-think that.  I'd suggest that any lens was great because it was better than other available lenses from the time and had a photographer been given current equipment, he'd likely never go back.

• Canon 85mm f/1.2 US$2199.00
• Nikon 85mm f/1.4 US$1699.95

• Nikon 1 32mm f/1.2 US$899.95
• FujiFilm 56mm f/1.2 US$999.99
• Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 US$1599.99

Besides these few, there is also the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 85mm f/1.4 lens that generally (there may be a Nikon version having a focus confirmation) has no electronics with an exceptionally low price, US$349.99, I believe.  This one exists for many mounts.  It's not likely to be used as a backup for a wedding photographer's main system, just because it has no electronics.

The prices of the Nikon 1 system, FujiFilm X-system, and Panasonic/Leica micro Four-Thirds lenses are quite high, but they do have a rather large maximum aperture at f/1.2.  Shooting in natural light will be enhanced, as you'll be able to shoot at more difficult times.

It's a bit surprising that the Panasonic/Leica lens is somewhat larger than the FujiFilm lens, but I'm hoping that the companies have put more effort into resolving optical anomalies optically, rather than through software tricks, even though Panasonic was recently given an award for their software tricks.  Is FujiFilm's lens too small to be optically amazing and will it need tricks to correct for optical problems?

Obviously, the Nikon 1-system lens is the odd man out.  I don't expect professionals to be using the system, but it could be handy.  That said, US$899.95 is a large price for "handy".

If I were leaning toward buying a combination at the moment, I'd buy the FujiFilm X-E2 with their lens.  While my first guess is that the Panasonic/Leica design is better (to go with the price), the GX7 is too small and the GH3 isn't good enough photographically to make use of the lens.  Of course, there is the Olympus E-M1 and it is much better than the GH3 and rather a bit larger than the GX7.  However, the FujiFilm combination ($2399.98 X-E2 vs $2999.98 E-M1) is less expensive and the sensor has much more to it (ignoring size, concentrating on the filter pattern), especially if raw development software can take advantage of the advantages it offers.  At roughly US$4100, the Nikon Df and Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G lens would be a high image quality alternative, with the sensor and the image processor of the D4.  It all depends on how little depth of field you really need.  See what I wrote here.

Of course, a wedding photographer is probably already equipped with a Nikon D800 or Canon 5DMkIII and won't need another system but it would be useful to keep another focal length at the ready, without much weight involved.  I often keep the Panasonic GH3 around my neck while using the Olympus E-5, so I can cover telephoto and wide views.

Update 2014.03.16: I've seen a few people rate the FujiFilm and Leica/Panasonic lenses and they are both rated very well.  I wonder how they would be rated if they were switched to the people who rated the other brand well.  For US$999.99, I'd feel a bit better if there were imperfections because finding imperfections at a full price of US$1599.99 would make me unhappy.  I guess that explains why I have two lenses worth more than US$2000 each.  They're practically flawless.

I bet the E-M1 and Leica/Panasonic lens would be amazing and matched well.  Equally, the X-T1 and the 56mm lens would be matched well.  The lower density sensor with FujiFilm bodies would equal better image quality, but which lens is actually better.  In any case, who needs a dSLR to get those special wedding photos now?

Update 2014.03.19: FujiFilm lens review here and Leica/Panasonic lens review here.  The Panasonic lens seems to be the slightest degree of better (except vignetting wide open), but is it US$600 better?

Update 2015.05.21: Recently, Panasonic introduced a budget portrait focal length lens: 42.5mm f/1.7 with Power OIS.  At roughly US$400, it should be a good deal for the majority of users who don't need a more razor-thin depth of field.

Further back, FujiFilm introduced a different APD-version of their 56mm f/1.2 lens that produced a more pleasant bokeh.  It's priced about the same as the Panasonic/Leica lens.

Fresh start: Olympus E-M1 or FujiFilm X-T1

I think a big question is being asked: If you're just starting, would you choose the Olympus E-M1 or FujiFilm X-T1?

Despite the viability of the Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D, I think that anyone serious enough to buy a camera body between US$1000 and US$2000, will be wanting the most functionality and the least weight to take photography seriously.  Sure, you can buy older, cheaper lenses for the D7100 and 70D, but the newer, for-digital lenses cost quite a lot, and they're big.

The E-M1 and X-T1 are similar in many ways.  They're loosely based on the company's SLRs of the 1970s.  They have a good group of lenses made for the digital world.  They have awesome electronic viewfinders and a sliding rear panel.

FujiFilm has that great X-Trans II sensor with its unconventional, non-Bayer pattern color filter, so even though both bodies have roughly 16 MP available in photos, FujiFilm's sensor should give better results.  Of course, a lot of this depends on the output and processing.  So far, raw processing has not been great, as development companies struggle to learn how to deal with the new patterns.  (Phase One Capture One 7 Pro seems to be better than most and Adobe seems to be worse than most.)  Given that Olympus is using a typical color filter on its sensor, it's much easier to get great results from raw development applications processing the files.  As software developers acclimate themselves to the color attributes, the FujiFilm raw files should prove victorious.

Tests I've seen using large prints have shown that people can tell little difference between different sizes of sensors, even though advocates will tell you that the larger sensor is definitely much, much better.  The truth is--it's difficult to find any current camera from micro Four-Thirds on up that will produce bad photos given similar circumstances.

Operationally, the X-T1 has the advantage of physical controls.  There are many on the top plate.  However, the E-M1 has the advantage of the Super Control Panel.  It's very easy to make quick adjustments using the rear display.  There is no room for a display on the top plate and it's just as well, seeing as how the display on the Nikon Df is not quite as useful as we could hope.  Given how big the Df is over the X-T1 or E-M1, you'd think that there could have been a better compromise made by Nikon.

Having the exposure compensation on the top plate, easy to find, is a win, and as I had to search and search for the control on the E-M1, the X-T1 wins easily.  I don't think having the ISO sensitivity control on the top plate helps a bit but FujiFilm has placed it there, as the film speed dial was there on the Fujica SLRs.  It would be more helpful if the company would abolish their ISO sensitivity limitations for raw files.  I'm not sure how useful any file will be at 51,200, but I would want to process such a file with a raw development application to smush (or schmush, if you prefer--that is a highly technical term for reduction) the noise (and not the image detail) in pleasing ways.  Of course, back in the 1970s, we were generally restricted to ASA 400/DIN 27 film and 1/1000th of a second fastest shutter speed and a maximum aperture of f/1.2.

On available lenses, the E-M1 has the advantage with two major brands bringing lenses to market over a few years.  FujiFilm is coming along with quite a few good focal lengths, while Olympus is making some interesting choices (the death of their Four-Thirds bodies gives way to HG-like lenses for micro Four-Thirds) nowadays and Panasonic is trying to use Canon's lenses as a guide.  It's a bit difficult to tell the better lenses from Olympus, except for price and most recently, the "PRO" label.  Panasonic's X label isn't exactly helpful, but that signals their best lenses, and FujiFilm is using XF to mark theirs.  Considering third party lenses, FujiFilm has the advantage with electronically-enabled lenses, while Olympus has the advantage with lenses that have no more than a micro Four-Thirds mount.  If Schneider and Tamron would actually produce the micro Four-Thirds lenses announced, there would be some interesting alternatives.  Schneider, 2013 has come and gone and your 14mm f/2.0 lens doesn't even seem to be in the hands of testers.

Of course, handling will be the big deal for any camera body.  As I've said too many times, SLRs from the 1970s were slippery.  Mount a heavy lens and you'd better pay attention more than with a current body.  The E-M1 and X-T1 have similar grips, and the E-M1 grip was sufficient for light, native lenses.  Putting Four-Thirds lenses on the body made the grip uncomfortable for me.  This isn't a problem for the X-T1, unless of course, you buy a third party adapter but then, that wasn't planned by the company, whereas the Four-Thirds lenses were meant to work with the E-M1, even though it still seems like an afterthought.  You can buy a battery grip for each to help with balance and shooting time.

I found the electronic viewfinder of the E-M1 to be so good that I could give up an optical viewfinder.  The viewfinder on the X-T1 is supposedly better, with less lag and a better refresh rate in lower light.  The information displayed on the X-T1 in portrait orientation is usefully re-arranged.

If I were starting fresh, I'm not 100% sure what I'd pick but I suspect that it would be the X-T1.

Update 2014.02.17: I've been thinking how the Panasonic GH4 interrupts these thoughts.  However, if still photography is my goal, these two will likely still be better choices.  I viewed a video today by Guilio Sciorio, a Panasonic Lumix Luminary, and he commented that the GH4 is a much better shooter than the GH3.  It's good that you can pull an 8 MP image out of a video file.  I've also see Panasonic marketing materials saying that the image quality is better than many other bodies, but it didn't specify stills or video.  The video quality is a given, but stills quality?  I'm not so sure.

Update 2014.02.22: What Digital Camera gave the X-T1 a score of 93% and the E-M1, 92%.  This is my go-to magazine, as I don't see advertising or personal preference influencing the outcome.

Some of the same things bother me, such as the rear display being out in the open, and only sliding or flipping, plus the battery is too small, though the E-M1 has fairly good battery life but the grip is uncomfortable (for me, especially with Four-Thirds lenses) because they're using a small battery and somehow they couldn't see to make it more like the E-5 or GH3.   I thought both of these bodies needed two SD Card slots also.  At the camera store the other day, they'd mentioned that the X-T1 bodies are trickling into their stores, and are already sold by the time they arrive.  Obviously, the E-M1 has been available longer but it's being bought at a good pace, also, despite the size and price complaints from various micro Four-Thirds users.

Update 2014.03.01: It's March already?  I spent a little time with an X-T1 yesterday.  I didn't photograph anything, so I don't have photos to share.  I wanted to compare the size and get a feel for how things worked in the confines of the store.  It felt small, as the E-M1 feels small to me.  The grip was smaller but better shaped.  If they'd put a bigger battery in the grip, two of my doubts would have been handled at once.  Given that I wouldn't be putting huge lenses on it, I don't think I'd have as much of a comfort issue as I would with the E-M1 and Four-Thirds lenses.

This blog entry is all about starting fresh, and I think either one is a good choice.  The number of manual controls is over the top on the X-T1.  I'm not sure if that is a good thing.  I don't frequently change the ISO sensitivity setting, so I don't need a manual control just for that, just as it was in the film days, when they had it accessible but somewhat secondary to the shutter speed.

The 1970s had simplicity on their side

Lift and Turn to set the film speed

Manual controls for practically everything possible

X-T1 and GH3

The build was solid, similar to the E-M1.  It felt better than the Canon 70D or the Nikon D7100--its main rivals, although the grip (and battery inside the grip) was the advantage for the dSLRs..  Once the weather-sealed lenses are available, it should be a very potent package.

Update 2014.03.20: I've seen a lot of good reviews about the X-T1.  However, a lot of those seem to be people enamoured of the sheer number of physical controls on the top plate, not necessarily the actual performance, which seems to be very much like the X-E2.  The X-E2 is very good, mind, but it's a bit sluggish (and the X-T1 is similar) compared to the E-M1 or the GH3 or the D7100 or the 70D.  FujiFilm has come a long way toward making their system desirable.  For casual users, I think it should be number 1 because it gives you great images with a minimum of fuss and the film simulation modes give people more of an idea of what to expect than Standard, Natural, or Vivid would suggest.  The top shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second seems a bit limiting, especially with the 56mm f/1.2 lens.  Neutral Density filters come to mind, though.

That said, the E-M1 is very quick.  For sports, it's easy to choose the E-M1, even over the D7100 or 70D.  That 1/8000th of a second shutter speed is helpful in many situations, as I have found with the Olympus E-5.  The E-M1 is not a body for the casual user.  The E-M5 is a better choice for casual users and it is less expensive.

Update 2014.11.06: I'm thinking about the X-T1 again.  There is a Rokinon (Samyang/Bower...) 8mm f/2.8 fisheye lens that is available for FujiFilm X-Mount cameras.

The 135 Format equivalent would be 12mm--plus this is an f/2.8 lens, not f/3.5 and that is somewhat more useful.  Add to that FujiFilm's sensor handling low light a bit better than Olympus', there are possibilities that I could get some skate park photos in lower light, with higher image quality.  It's not guaranteed but it's possible.

The only thing that worries me is that the X-T1 might not be responsive enough.  That was always my worry.  The E-M1 is extremely responsive, as are the GH3 and GH4.  FujiFilm seems to save money by not putting strong processors in the camera bodies.  For many people, this isn't a problem.  Casual photographers won't have a problem with it but sports photography doesn't wait for you to futz with your camera.  When I tried the X-T1, I had wished for a running event outside the store, so I could give it a good workout.  Unfortunately, the lenses I want/need for sports still aren't available.

Rokinon seems to have several lenses available, and even though they're manually-operated lenses, they should be good for FujiFilm users.  There are more available for micro Four-Thirds though they're not all of the same lenses.

I'm still considering what's best for me.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 breaking while sitting in a bag without any trauma? Unlikely.

There is a lot of talk about the new Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens breaking, just by sitting in a bag.

If you really believe that anything is going to break just from sitting in a bag, then 100% of the mobile devices should have failed already.

I’ve seen plenty of people claim that nothing happened to their devices, while the insides show anything from a mere bump to an impact from being tossed.  Others claim that they didn't get their devices wet, yet there is internal corrosion.

You may have seen this article from Lens Rentals already that sheds light on various lenses.

I would certainly like to believe that all equipment is designed correctly.  I've seen plenty from the inside out, that is not designed correctly.

Laptop computer hinges make for an easy failure.  Most are designed so that even distribution of stress occurs--i.e., your hand goes to the midpoint of the cover and push it with even, light force until it closes.  Many people grab a corner and slam the cover closed causing the hinges to fail over time.  Is this a design flaw, a part flaw, or abuse?  In my opinion, it's abuse, but exactly the kind of abuse a case designer should expect, for which they should try to compensate.  If IKEA didn't test their inexpensive chairs for people plopping in them, would they be negligent?  Of course, although people shouldn't expect much, if they didn't pay much.

Back to lenses, I've been using two lenses (Olympus ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5) quite a lot since April 2004.  They've been used out in hurricanes, in construction areas, spent 14 hours a day attached to a camera body.  My Crumpler bag holding them fell from a seat to the floor, as well the bag was tossed into the back seat of my car by some idiot.  I've yet to need service on them.

My Olympus E-5, 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, FL-50 flash fell from a seat to a pool deck in-between swimming races.  I picked them up, and used them just fine, although the flash became less reliable, but then, it's almost all plastic, and later, it failed.

One of the first experiences I had with dSLRs was my buddy's Canon 300D/Digital Rebel.  The lens was mostly plastic and a high percentage of them broke while still mounted to the body.  No, you can't just drop something like that on a table or the ground and expect them to survive.

Besides this, "plastic" is a very general term that people put to acrylic, nylon, polycarbonate, and more.  You've probably used any number of materials that are loosely defined as plastic, but that don't have similar characteristics.  Strength is a matter of the material's design.  Anything can be broken, given enough and the correct kind of force.  Perhaps, you've seen the recent IIHS vehicle crash test ratings where 5 star rated vehicles were reduced in their ratings because of new crash tests that simulated real life better.  If you don't plan for it, it's only luck between you and circumstance.

I've yet to have a lens break and while I've had a few phones replaced because of failure, I've never had to have a display replaced.  I suppose I'm just more careful, but buying a proper bag or case never costs too much.  My iPhone 4s was dropped 20-30 times while it was in my Otterbox Defender case.  The case had minor scratches but the phone was like new after two years, although I only held it bare maybe five times.  For that matter, my original diskette drives from the early 1980s still work.  My 75 MB Seagate drive from 1990 still works.

In any case, the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lenses that I have used were shared among a group.  They were all available a couple of months ahead of availability to be sold.  In the case of a photowalk, we traded lenses quite often.  Obviously when walking and talking and checking for traffic, you're not as likely to be careful with equipment.  I used the 12-40mm lens on the supplied Olympus E-M1 as well as my own Panasonic GH3.

Were the lenses different than what you can buy?  I don't believe so.  Did they have an extra inspection to make sure that they wouldn't fall apart during a demonstration?  I would believe that.

The lens felt better than my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.  It may all be perception but Panasonic made their lens feel cheap in their use of materials and finish.  Optically, it's not very good either.  I understand that there are measured flaws with the 12-40mm lens, which is to be expected.  Fitting between my 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and my 14-35mm f/2.0 in both price and performance, I would expect the flaws to be in accordance with its positioning.

Unfortunately, I don't have the 12-40mm yet, due to my having to replace my water heater for a similar amount.  If the 12-40mm could have produced hot water, you know what I would have chosen.

So, after all this blah blah blah, I don't believe that there is any huge flaw with the 12-40mm lens.  They may not have designed and tested for unintentional abuse, which is a flaw in their operations.  (You think this is bad?  I have a horror story about a company making aircraft parts not testing them correctly, only to receive them later because they did not pass inspection by the airline.)  Olympus probably should have put the 12-40mm on each current Olympus and Panasonic body and dropped it a few inches to see the results.  If they did not, they were not designing for the real world.

Update 2014.02.05: This interview with Olympus executives seems to point to there being any widespread problem with the lens.  Whether it's correct or whether they're untruthful is unknown.  As a Japanese, I know that getting a straight answer on an unpleasant subject means that they're answering truthfully because Japanese people will talk around the subject otherwise.

Update 2014.02.20: I bought mine yesterday.  I tend to treat my Four-Thirds lenses harshly at times, so we'll see what happens.  (My Olympus E-5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 fell from a poolside seat onto the pool deck, and I picked them up and kept shooting, and one year later, still haven't had a problem with eitther.)  I'm taking it out in the weather today, although it's becoming warmer at the moment, we're supposed to have thunderstorms later.

Update 2014.02.22: The combination of GH3 and 12-40mm f/2.8 have been together since the 20th.  They've been in some odd positions in my car, not usually in the bag because I wanted them ready.  If there was to be some stressful position, I'm sure they've already seen it.

Update 2014.02.24: It still hasn't broken.  I guess I'll have to be ruthless, which is reasonable, since I don't know anyone named Ruth lately, so I'm definitely Ruth-less.

Update 2014.03.09: Still no luck in breaking it accidentally.  The lens has been in the bag a bit of the time, but generally, it's attached to the GH3 and is somewhere near the floor of the car when I'm driving.  While I'm walking with it, I haven't taken any more care than I do with the 14-35mm or 14-54mm lenses.  The combination of the 12-40mm with the GH3 seems quite light but sturdy.  If I had dropped these from a seat to a pool deck, I'm not sure either would survive.  The GH3 feels relatively strong but I could hammer nails with the E-1 or E-5 bodies.  The 12-40mm lens feels so much stronger than the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens that I'm shocked that the Panasonic lens was more expensive.  I would expect that the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens is equally dainty, though its image quality is reportedly better than the 35-100mm.

Update 2014.03.20: The 12-40mm has been attached to the GH3 and when it's not out, it's in my sideways-opening LowePro bag, facing inward.  I haven't been overly careful with it.

Update 2015.09.22: Still not luck breaking the lens, but the front lens cap fell apart, and apparently, it happens with regularity for some, according to a review on the GetOlympus site.

Who will buy the Samsung Galaxy NX camera?

I've read recently that the Galaxy NX camera is available in the U.S.A. for about US$1600.

Make no mistake, I'm not a fan of Samsung products.  I think the company leaves a lot to be desired in the operation of their products.  It's as though they have a checklist of features and as soon as they add a feature, working correctly or not, they check that line as completed.

They've become better since Google takes care of the backend of a lot of their products.  Without Android, they'd be as craptacular as they were the last time I owned one of their products.  They had indicated a desire to do things on their own with Bada but that failed, although it's probably being fed some money to keep the project alive.  From my viewpoint, they're just trying to keep the overall business in line with Sony and Panasonic and of course, to crush LG at home.

I've seen in the past that a few people went with their re-branding of Pentax dSLRs to make their own GX line.  They did okay because Pentax gave them some base code and the hardware.  There wasn't much to go wrong with doing some tweaks.  When I would say something about the GX line, someone would raucously defend their purchase, as if it was a life-or-death situation.  I've recently seen the same thing with their NX line.

NX--like Sony's NEX--they couldn't even come up with a series name on their own it seems.  However, they went on their own because Pentax wasn't going to mirror-less system cameras yet.  They filled out their mighty checklist and added features one-by-one until they had the perfect specification for a camera.  It's not that unusual in the electronics industry, and even related more specifically to computers and tablets, it's not unusual.  Sony obviously works from a checklist.

Samsung has created NX-series cameras in several generations, but they don't have much in the way of sales compared to Olympus, Panasonic, or Sony.  I'm guessing that the majority of their buyers have Samsung phones, tablets, and phablets like the Galaxy Note series.

That makes the Galaxy NX camera all the more appealing to that group.  They can use the connectivity in the camera to avoid depleting the battery life on their phones, tablets, and phablets.

However, is US$1600 too dear for the ability to take a photo and massage it using some Android-based app and upload it using another app?  Is it so convenient that the extra cost doesn't matter?  I've recently seen the NX300 for US$700-$800, which seems consistent with other brands with more lenses and accessories.  It's odd to think that Sony's NEX line has more support, given that they have churned out body after body but still have few lenses.  The only mirror-less system camera with fewer lenses is the Canon EOS-M with two lenses.

The only thing that would make this situation more strange would be for LG to make an alliance with a camera maker and start producing an Android-based camera of its own.