135 Format on the way

From my history of photography 

Over the years, I've handled a lot of different camera bodies in various formats.  The first camera I used was a 6x6 box camera using roll film.  I've used very technical cameras since then and with the digital age, I started again.  Since 2004, I've been using Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds, both Olympus and Panasonic.  I tried Nikon for a bit, but it was a pain, moreso than during the film era.  Fujifilm made my favorite film cameras, along with Olympus and Mamiya.

I've photographed sports with Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds equipment starting with the Olympus E-1 in 2004.  Back then, it was hard to believe that digital cameras would be good enough.  Now, it's difficult to believe that young people are using film cameras or that Pentax and Rollei have developed new film cameras for sale recently.

Back to the present

I just ordered a Panasonic S5 Mk II with 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 and 50mm f/1.8.  The Amazon 5 payments thing got my attention.  Getting it the next day was surprising.  I guess they didn't want me to have time to think about canceling the order.

It's new for me, but this body has been out long enough to have firmware version 3.1.  Panasonic finally admitted that they needed to provide Phase Detection AF, instead of their hit-or-miss Depth from Defocus technology that was introduced on the GH4.  I didn't like DFD then, and while it's become better, it will never be good enough.

I was looking at another micro Four-Thirds body, an Olympus E-M1 Mk III, which was good and then, there was a Panasonic G9 Mk II trade-in special that was incredible, marking it down US$600 and then, adding your trade-in value.  The G9 Mk II also has PDAF.  They did the same with the GH7.

The problem with micro Four-Thirds is that we don't know when it will end.  135 Format is claiming a lot of the market finally, as mirrorless bodies have taken over in a big way.  I got involved with micro Four-Thirds back in 2012 with the GH3.  At one point, I was taking an Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GH4, GX8, and GM5 to skate parks with me.  Now, I only have the GM5.

Panasonic to Panasonic

The S5 Mk II is about the same size as the GH4.  It's not huge, but it is bigger than the undersized Sony bodies that are difficult to hold but becoming better.  It's certainly bigger than most of the 135 Format film bodies from the 1970s, except for the Nikon F2.

The lenses seem small, but again, they're bigger than equivalent lenses in the 1970s.  However, nothing back then was weather-sealed and not much had auto focus.  The Polaroid SX70 was the first camera I sold (I was in camera sales for a while) with auto focus, and auto exposure was just coming to cameras later in that decade.

I'm charging the S5 Mk II battery right now.  Instead of a separate charger, they have a USB type-A to type-C cable, and a power adapter for AC current.  The light atop the body signals that it is being charged.  That is also the light that signals a connection to the phone app.

The menus are familiar but much has been added since the GH4 or GX8.  It's going to take a while to get the settings right.  I need to set up the custom settings, so that it uses Natural, instead of Standard, and Raw instead of JPEG.  I also need to set a video mode, 1920x1080 at 60p.  While I have computers to handle 3840x2160 or 4096x2160, I don't want to record 4K video.  I found that you must set file format MP4 for 1080p, unlike what I did with the GH4.  MOV format is reserved for 4K and C4K.

I need to order an SD Card for storage.  I have a few around here somewhere, but they're older.  This body uses UHS II cards for speed.  There are two slots but I don't need to fill both.  I'm also considering third party batteries.  There is a brand called Wasabi with a charger and two batteries for US$39.99.  I can't imagine that they'll last a year, but for my casual use, that shouldn't be a problem.  My official Panasonic GH4 batteries were still going after three years.

How much does anyone need?

I've watched a few videos about the S5 Mk II and how it compares to Sony and Canon.  Why don't they compare it to Nikon?  I'm not sure.

24 Megapixels isn't a lot in 2024, especially with Fujifilm's APS-C sensor having 40 MP.  I don't need more and I suspect few people need more, unless they're working professionally.  In that case, they should be using Medium Format.  Lower pixel counts require you to be more careful.  I've been working mostly with 16 MP and occasionally with 20 MP.  I'm sure 24 MP will be fine for me, especially with a dual-gain sensor.  I was using ISO 3200 as my upper limit of acceptable photos for micro Four-Thirds, ISO 4000 for the Nikon D7200, and I expect ISO 6400 will be the reasonable limit for this sensor, but I might push it to ISO 12800.

Thinking about APS-C, there is such a mode, similar to what Nikon does from FX to DX.  It likely works with L-mount lenses that are connected electronically, rather than with manual lenses.  I was thinking about one of the fisheye lenses that are available.  They're mostly the same as the micro Four-Thirds lenses but with a different mount, meaning that there are no electronics.  I suspect that an older, electronically-connected lens from Sigma or Canon with an adapter would be preferable.  Having had the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens makes any other lens less appealing.

I keep thinking about the day in April 2004 when I bought the Olympus E-1, 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, and 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5.  I spent about US$3000 and this S5 Mk II kit cost about US$2249.  I didn't get a telephoto zoom of any kind with the S5 Mk II, unfortunately.  That would have cost at least an extra US$1000 right now for a Panasonic lens.  Having two lenses that overlap isn't great, but night shooting is possible.

I'm thinking about a Samyang 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 as a zoom lens to cover a decent range at a big aperture.  There really aren't many telephoto lenses although Sigma's 60-600mm lens (like Bigma, 50-500mm), covers quite a bit, if you have a strong heart and a strong tripod.  The reviews say that there is a problem with the Samyang lens, but you can update the firmware.  Apparently, the lens firmware is updated the way we used to do with the micro Four-Thirds lenses on Panasonic bodies by putting the update on the SD Card.  If the firmware corrects the problem, US$1399 is a decent price for a good, maybe great, lens.

Update 2024.10.20: Yesterday, I took the S5 Mk II out for a few night photos.  I regularly did the same with the GH4 years ago, so I hoped for good results.  However, I might not have had things set properly.  Having a camera for about a week and going for the first try, I might still not have been ready.  Besides, I'm not as steady as I used to be.

This one was taken with Auto ISO.  Later photos were taken with ISO 4000 to ensure that it activated the higher ISO gain but this one looks just fine.  I could see a long spider web thread.

What made the GH4 so impressive is that it could focus in "starlight" EV -4.  The GH3 had that enhancement added via a firmware update. 

I had taken out the GM5 earlier in the afternoon and I wonder if I did better with it.  After eight years, the AF is generally tried and true.

Update 2024.10.24: I went out tonight with the 20-60mm f/3.5-5.6 which seemed like a bad idea.  It wasn't perceptibly worse than going out with the 50mm f/1.8 lens.  Most of the shots had a shutter speed of 1.3 seconds.  I even managed to hold most of them steady.  One thing that seems a bit odd to me is that the 20-60mm doesn't have any OIS (optical image stabilization), whereas the micro Four-Thirds standard kit lenses (14-45mm, 14-42mm) did.  I'm trying to think back to the Four-Thirds Leica/Lumix D lenses and I believe that the standard zoom lenses also had OIS.  The Leica-designed normal 25mm f/1.4 did not.

Thankfully, the IBIS is as effective as that of Olympus.  They started out on the same sized sensor but the 36x24mm vs 17.3x13mm makes for some addition stress.  Getting 96 MP out of high resolution mode is impressive.  Panasonic did a lot of work to make that happen.

Update 2024.11.18: I'm still adjusting.  I bought a tripod.  It's a Smallrig CT-20, which can be converted into a monopod.  The instructions aren't good, so I'm figuring it out.  It was quite a bit less expensive that my Manfrotto tripod, which was a bit over US$200 back in 2012.  US$80 in 2024 doesn't seem much, especially coming from a company that designs and builds cages for cameras in the video industry.  Supposedly, it can support about 33 pounds/15 kg but I saw a lower figure for the ball head.  In any case, the S5 Mk II and most lenses will not add up to anywhere near that heavy.  Even that Samyang 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8.

I actually wanted to get some shots of the supermoon but the tripod didn't arrive in time and my Panasonic GM5 and Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 doesn't have OIS.  Having a proper telephoto zoom for the S5 Mk II might be a while, especially as slowly as Panasonic is designing and producing them.

Update 2025.07.08: I have three native Panasonic lenses now.  The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 is good.  I've been able to photograph the moon and the Dual I.S. works well.  I'd never used that on micro Four-Thirds since my GH4 was too early and I'd only used the Sync I.S. on  my Olympus E-M1 once, with the 12-100mm f/4.0.  It's a lot of stabilization, no matter the system.

 Since I have the 70-300mm, the effective reach is about the same as the 40-150mm on micro Four-Thirds.

 

Panasonic  has introduced the S1 Mk II, S1R Mk II, and the S1E, which is more like an upgraded S5 Mk II or IIx. The S1H Mk II may be introduced soon.

 I've been watching videos for any information regarding the sluggish low light auto focus.  Enabling the Fast AF functionality has helped.  It's unusual that such has to be done. 

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.

Is a mirror-less body's viewfinder placement that important?

I've seen a huge number of comments about rangefinder-like placement versus SLR-like placement of the viewfinder.  Many turn to heated arguments, for reasons unknown to me.  I suspect that it has to do with a person's original comfort (warm and fuzzy?) zone.

I've used a bit of everything but I eventually used SLRs more than anything else.  The only time I was truly uncomfortable was using a point-and-shoot camera where you look through a blank viewfinder and hope that what you want will be in focus.

To this day, I don't care for working with the rear display of a modern digital camera, when a proper viewfinder and focusing mechanism is available.

I use the following camera bodies:

• Olympus E-1
• Olympus E-5
• Olympus E-M1
• Panasonic GH4
• Nikon D7200
• Panasonic GX8

I had the Panasonic GH3 as my first micro Four-Thirds camera body and later, traded it for the E-M1 to ensure the trade-in value didn't drop when the GH4 was available.

For the most part, the only difference working with the bodies is whether I use an optical viewfinder or an EVF (electronic viewfinder).  In good light, I appreciate the optical viewfinder but in the dark, any EVF is more helpful, even when the refresh rate drops.

I agreed when someone mentioned the nose up against the rear of the camera being inconvenient.  It seems as though I have changed settings on the E-M1 because there is no cover over the rear display.  Beyond that, I don't see an advantage to one position over the other.

I use the E-M1, GH4, and GX8 almost daily.  Sometimes, I use two of them together.  As far as I'm concerned, they're just camera bodies--tools, weapons, as people say.  I suppose I'm very different than most.

On the GX8, I find the tilt more important than the placement, which is a strong reason as to why I bought it.  There are times when I must tilt the rear display and with the bright sun, I can't see much of anything.  The tilting EVF works very, very well.  I find it interesting that the people who like the tilting EVF hate the articulated rear display.  I appreciate being able to set the display to all sorts of angles to take architectural photos or skate park video.

I suppose my only warm-and-fuzzy preference is to have a viewfinder that actually helps me focus.

Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds family portrait

I've been working with serious digital equipment since 2004 when I bought an Olympus E-1, ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, and ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, and it at times has been a struggle.

Today, as you'll see, I have a lot more equipment, having added micro Four-Thirds equipment from both Olympus and Panasonic.  I also have the latest APS-C based dSLR from Nikon, the D7200.

I'm quite pleased to say that the E-1 is still working and the initial lenses are quite useful, especially after photographing out in three hurricanes.  The specifications of the E-1 aren't great for 2015, but there was some concern about the E-1 from the beginning anyway.  It worked just fine.

As of now, my equipment lists are as follows:

Four-Thirds

• Olympus E-1
• Olympus E-5
• Olympus HG 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5
• Olympus HG 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5
• Olympus HG 50mm f/2.0 macro
• Olympus SHG 14-35mm f/2.0
• Olympus SHG 35-100mm f/2.0
• Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4

micro Four-Thirds

• Olympus E-M1
• Panasonic GH4
• Panasonic GX8
• Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8
• Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8
• Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7
• Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye
• Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8
• Panasonic 25mm f/1.7

Of course, the Four-Thirds lenses can be used with the Olympus MMF-3 adapter, which is also weather-sealed to match the Olympus ZD HG (high grade) and SHG (super high grade) lenses.

There was a flirtation with the Panasonic GH3, and I got the MMF-3 because there just weren't many native mount high quality lenses, and I wasn't exactly thrilled with thrilled with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.  Truly, the 35-100mm f/2.8 seems to have been the product of another, lesser company, even differing from the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens.  The GH3 is technically great equipment.  It was just a pain for me to use, especially with sunglasses.  The GH4 changes most of that and improves and expands the video capabilities.  I pull out the GH4 first.

Most of my video work has been done with the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens on the GH4.  This is not a stabilized lens and it isn't on a stabilized body, but I've done well with the combination.  I've not had much success with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens but used it at a recent skate park competition and it was sufficient.  (At a previous competition, the video is practically bouncing, after the latest lens firmware update.)  The 12-35mm f/2.8 works well enough but that extra 5mm of reach with the Olympus lens makes a huge difference.  You can tell me that 24-70mm f/2.8 is sufficient on a 135 Format camera, but when it comes to video, it isn't.  A 3x or 4x zoom would do wonders here, even if it didn't have a constant maximum aperture.  The Panasonic-designed 15mm f/1.7, approved by Leica to wear its name, has been good, even in the dark and the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens has been useful in such conditions.

Four-Thirds behind micro Four-Thirds

Even though the Panasonic GH4 may seem large, it's smaller than the Olympus E-1, which was right-sized, for me, at least.  The grips of the dSLRs and the GH4 are very good, while the E-M1 is uncomfortable and the GX8 is good.  The E-M1 is dwarfed by both dSLRs.

Each of the bodies is weather-sealed, and most of the lenses are, also.  This apparently added bulk (as did the heat handling) to the GX8 over the GX7, but the handling is better with the size increase though the battery power is not.

One of the dSLRs and two of the MILCs (mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras) have sensor-based image stabilization, and the GX8 has the Dual I.S. to coordinate with the lens' OIS, when available.  I wish Panasonic added Power OIS to the 15mm f/1.7 for better work in bad lighting.  The new 42.5mm f/1.7 has it.  I'm still looking for great lenses and haven't found any for micro Four-Thirds, but these will do, and the MMF-3 will allow me to use the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0 when necessary.

Batteries: Nikon D7200, E-M1, GX8, GH4, E-5

The E-M1 and GX8 batteries at 1220 mAh each and the GH4's battery has 1860 mAh of capacity.  The E-1 battery has 1500 mAh and the E-5 battery, 1620 mAh.  For comparison, the diminutive D7200 battery can hold 1900 mAh.

The GH4, like the GH3 can last quite a long time, and I only have two batteries, one I used to use on the GH3.  For the E-M1, I have three batteries, and I've got two for the GX8.  The E-5 batteries last quite a long time, probably because there is no electronic viewfinder.

Strangely, having got the Nikon D7200, I'm still finding the micro Four-Thirds equipment quite useful while learning the digital Nikon way of doing things.  People have commented in the past that using Canon or Nikon equipment was the only way to go.  There are advantages, but I haven't experienced any of them yet. Since the sensor of the D7200 has a similar pixel density to the 16MP sensors in the GH4 and E-M1, I couldn't expect much better image quality.

If Panasonic could work with Olympus to implement Olympus' auto focus and face recognition for stills, it would be a huge improvement to still photography in the GH4.  Adding their 5-axis image stabilization would be difficult, given the heat dissipating orientation of the body for video.  They'd probably have to increase the size of the body to make it all work safely.  This would make the resulting camera body practically perfect, for me, anyway.

Update 2015.11.22: I saw an amazing deal on the new Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 lens for US$99.00, which seems to be US$150.00 off the regular price.  Regardless of what I might think of the lens at full price, it's quite good at the discounted price, I hope.  I am a little skeptical.  I had the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 at one time and I got that at the same price.  I didn't have much luck with it, and gave it away.  However, Panasonic has been doing better, at all levels.

Update 2015.12.02: The Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 isn't bad, especially for US$99.00.  It works quickly on the GX8 but not so quickly on the E-M1, and I have yet to mount it to the GH4.

As I have the Leica-designed Four-Thirds 25mm f/1.4 that was important to the Leica Digilux 3, but also for the Panasonic DMC-L1 and Olympus E-330, I have an amazing quality normal lens.  Risking a US$1199.99 lens in the rain isn't a good idea but the 25mm f/1.7 lens at US$249.00 might not be as much of a risk.

Panasonic GH4 vs GH3 vs Olympus E-M1 (vs GX8?)

I've had the Panasonic GH4 a little over a week now.  I just did some video clips yesterday, pretty much for the first time, although I took a couple of video clips with the GH3.

I had the GH3 for over a year and wanted to trade it before the trade-in value dropped too far.  Unfortunately, it took a while to get a GH4.

I was enthusiastic about the changes to the GH4 because the GH3 was occasionally inconvenient, particularly, the EVF.  Given that the GH3 was the first mirror-less camera body I'd ever used, getting used to the electronic viewfinder was difficult enough, but it always felt a bit broken.

I even had a problem when I was wearing non-polarized sunglasses where the viewfinder at some angles would be blacked out.  I seemed to have a similar problem with the Olympus E-M1, but that seems occasionally to be a problem with the proximity sensor.  I realized that when I saw the image on the rear display.

In any case, the viewfinder of the GH4 seems much better.  There may be some odd behavior but I've only noticed positive results.  As usual, the viewfinder is so bright that I can see better than just using my eyes.  Despite the size difference between the E-M1 (0.71x compared to 135 Format) and GH4 (0.67x), I find the GH4's viewfinder to be very good.  Size is not an issue.  It is surprising that 1024x768 is an advanced resolution for an EVF.  The FujiFilm X-T1's viewfinder is bigger at 0.77x but doesn't seem incredibly better to me, though I don't use it every day.  The GH4's functionality is good enough that I could give up optical viewfinders, and that is difficult for me to believe.

Just today, I had a positive experience with the GH4's magnified manual focus view, unlike that of the GH3.  My experience with focus, whether manual or automatic was difficult on the GH3.  I was just moving from optical viewfinders and the resolution on the GH3 viewfinder was not great, and the distortions were not helping.  Plus, the magnified view was just a huge problem, getting in the way of my ability to follow the action while focusing.  Using the GH4, the magnified view was shown in the center, and I was able to see around it to keep up with the action.  It's apparently possible that you can move it to suit you.

The battery is the same as the battery of the GH3, and the GH4 seems to sip battery power, though I generally leave the rear display in the closed position, rarely browsing what I have just taken.  I wish that I could have done this with the E-M1.  Its economical design seemed more of an attempt to use already-available parts than to create a serious replacement for the E-5 dSLR, for which it seems Panasonic created, with the GH3.

The rear display of the E-M1 can't be protected because it can't be reversed.  It can be accidentally activated (far too easily, though I'm adapting), especially showing the focus point selection display, further depleting the battery life needlessly.  Practically the first thing I noticed when I got the E-M1 was that I could not fold out the rear display to take a portrait-oriented photo of a building from a very low angle.  You can slide it down or flip it up, but it shows a consumer-oriented display mechanism, unlike that of the E-5, GH3, or GH4.  Of course, my E-1's rear display couldn't be reversed either, but that came with a plastic screen protector and of course, didn't have touch capabilities.

The E-M1 does not seem to sip battery power, and my first experiences with the camera body was that I would run out of power early, and end up being a door stop, and I would have to get the E-5 out of the bag.  As the battery is small, so is the grip.  I have acclimated to the E-M1's grip, but it can be uncomfortable coming from a dSLR, unlike the GH3 and GH4 grip.

Using each body, I find myself referring to every SLR, all the way back to my first Fujica SLR but focusing on the Olympus E-1, my first dSLR, which felt instantly intuitive.  The GH3 and GH4 have the drive mode selector on the left shoulder of the top plate.  I feel it might be better to have exposure controls there, including ISO and exposure compensation.

As well, Olympus should have done something similar with the E-M1, assigning it to aperture control rather than having the front dial assigned to exposure compensation.  It was uncomfortable moving to the E-M1 from the E-5, and there are still times when it has been unintuitive, making for accidental changes that I didn't want.

I could hope that all companies come to use a standardized menu interface, but it feels that it won't happen any time soon.  Olympus' Super Control Panel is really amazing, and Panasonic's Quick Menu is satisfactory.  The regular menu systems are the opposite with Panasonic's being more easily navigated, in contrast to those from Olympus (8 levels within the Tools Menu, seriously, Olympus?).  The extra video options on the GH4 should make professional people working in video happier.

I've recorded a few videos and it went well.  Outdoors, it looked very real in 1080p, much like some documentary.  Indoors, there was a similar feel, even though it wasn't extremely bright.  Having been at the skate shop and their half pipe a couple of weeks earlier with the E-M1, I was surprised at how responsive and accurate the GH4 was.  I used the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens in both cases.

Checking the photos and videos later, I was so pleased that the focus was great, surprisingly great.  The photos and videos looked as though there was much more light than what the E-M1 had.

While I was taking video, I tapped the shutter release a couple of times and ended up finding two JPEG files.  I need to analyze them further, but they were taken at unfortunate times and I wouldn't be able to use them.

There was a problem for me finding the button for video recording, but even when I left my thumb on it, I wasn't always able to start or stop recording when I expected.  It's recessed to avoid accidental use.  I'm sure I'll become acclimated to it eventually.  I was thinking that it might be better if the video capture button was near the shutter release--in the front.

Many people value image stabilization and it may save me at some time.  I haven't noticed that it works or not, whether it's in a lens or working the sensor platform.  With the GH4 (and previously, the GH3) and 12-40mm f/2.8, I have no image stabilization, and I don't see any problem.  I finally bought a tripod about a year ago, and I've used it so few times.  When photographing sports in lower light situations, what will help other than more lighting?

At ISO 3200, you probably don't want to use the photos as your best work but from what I've seen, that could also be the story for APS-C and 135 Format sized sensors, as well, except for a very select few that include ISO sensitivity at 102,400 or greater.  Regardless, film didn't do so well at ISO 3200--or 1600 or 1000.

Panasonic GH3 Pros:

• 1080p image quality and video format/bit rate flexibility
• Video industry support
• Grip comfort and battery life
• Multiple function buttons
• 5 custom sets--3 positions on mode dial
• Fully-articulated rear display
• Silent mode

Panasonic GH4 Pros:

• Lower light auto focus ability and responsiveness
• 4K/C4K video
• Video industry support
• Video format/bit rate flexibility
• Grip comfort and battery life
• Improved EVF over that of the GH3
• Multiple function buttons
• 5 custom sets--3 positions on mode dial
• Fully-articulated rear display
• Manual focus magnification mode
• 1/8000 of a second shutter speed
• Silent mode

Olympus E-M1 Pros:

• 5-axis image stabilization
• Electronic ViewFinder clarity
• Button feature set toggle switch
• Responsiveness
• Phase Detection pixels for tracking, and PDAF with Four-Thirds lenses
• Effective Face detection
• 1/8000 of a second shutter speed

I appreciate the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4 equally.  The extra money for the GH4 is consistent with its extra functionality and ease of use.  While I felt a bit betrayed by Olympus for the mess they created after the E-1 (Four-Thirds) body was released, the E-M1 is a very good camera body on its own, but with micro Four-Thirds lenses.  10 fps (E-M1) vs 12 fps (GH4)?  They both work really well.  I've seen plenty of reviews that say that none of these bodies are good for sports but I get my shots, though the GH3 made it much tougher and caused me to return to the E-5 dSLR in many cases.  The only real problem is the lack of wonderful lenses but Olympus is working on that.

The GH3 should be a great body for anyone who is interested in high quality 1080p video, with still photography on the side.  The price has come down quite a bit and it's a good compromise, especially with the fully-articulated rear display.  I was able to get some good architectural photos at a very low angle, thanks to it.

I'm not even sure that the E-M1's video capabilities have improved over the E-5 and without the fully-articulated rear display, it's not nearly as flexible.  Still photography is its domain and for the size of both the body and the system's lenses, I doubt there is a better compromise.

That said, the E-M1 is now the second most used body in my bag, rather than the E-5.  I doubt that will change once I'm more accustomed to the GH4.  It is both supremely comfortable and it's extremely capable.  The little problems I had with the GH3 seem to have been fixed.

Update 2014.12.13: I've found that the GH4 and E-M1 really automatically focus micro Four-Thirds lenses well (although there is an odd performance issue between the E-M1 and 35-100mm f/2.8).  I'm seeing mixed results with my Four-Thirds lenses.  The E-M1 and 50mm f/2.0 macro are a great match.  The E-M1 works better with the 50mm lens than any other body, including the Olympus E-1 and E-5.  I need to really plan and test, but my 2004 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 wasn't very good with the E-M1.  I suspect that Olympus only tested with the SWD version.  It seemed that it worked well with the GH4.

As I'd found when I was using the GH3, auto focus was better with my Four-Thirds lenses than with the E-1 in low or ordinary light.  My E-1 may have had a problem with auto focus, though it seemed okay in bright light.  The E-5 is still faster with Four-Thirds lenses than the GH4, GH3, or E-M1, except with the 50mm macro.  The 14-35mm f/2.0 is often a pain with auto focus but usally works reasonably well even with the GH4 and E-M1.

Update 2014.12.26: The GH4, as with the GH3, often focuses on something else entirely than what I put in the focus area.  It often finds a fence way behind the person I want to photograph.  Apparently, face detection is not useful.

Update 2014.12.30: Panasonic Face Detection asks me to register a face when I try to use it.  If this happens every time I need to use it, it's going to be a pain.  I hope it works beautifully.

I shot some 4K video the other day.  I tried to pass it through the Sony 4K-upscaling Blu-Ray player and it wouldn't handle it.  Maybe, it didn't like the file format.  I need to transfer to a USB stick and feed it directly through the TV's port.  That works.

Still having more fun/frustration with the auto focus.  It seems to randomly lose focus in the middle of what I'm shooting.  For a professional, it shouldn't be a problem since they won't likely be using auto focus at all--or the native lenses that suppose auto focus.  I'm learning, although, I'm looking at lenses that aren't native or those which won't have an electronic interface.

Update 2015.01.20: I went to take some portraits.  I'm not a portrait photographer but the E-M1 is quite good, partly because of face detection.  Focus rarely fails.  I really need to set up face detection on the GH4 to see how it works with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.

I keep wondering about the value of Panasonic going it alone with their DFD technology only working on their lenses.  They need to work with Olympus for the sake of the format.  On the other hand, I've noticed the slower performance between the 35-100mm f/2.8 on the E-M1 versus the GH3 or GH4.

Update 2015.02.09: The GH4 continues to impress in most cases.  The auto focus is still a bit inaccurate (focusing on the fence behind a person rather than the person where the single focus point is place) and it would be better if it worked better with Olympus lenses since the premium Panasonic lenses are generally only adequate.  That said, I bought the Panasonic/Lumix/Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens the other day.  It has the typical purple fringing that seems to define Panasonic lenses but AF is almost always accurate.

I took a trip down south to San Diego and the LA/OC area, photographing at skate parks, both still and video.  I also used the GH4 and Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 at a small concert venue and it performed very well, and I managed to hold it fairly still.  Even though I was close to the speaker, it recorded the sound very well, and the video was good.

I bought some new USB drives, with USB 3.0 speed and copied the 4K video files onto one of them.  After connecting it to the USB 3.0 port on the TV, I didn't really see improved performance.  I'm just not sure the problem is with the TV or the GH4, given that they cost me about the same amount of money.  There was something in Panasonic's latest firmware for the GH4 that mentioned improved playback of 4K files but I figured that it was for the rear display or the viewfinder.

Update 2015.12.11: Things have changed a bit in a year.  The Panasonic GX8 and Nikon D7200 have moved the E-5 out of my current tools.  In many ways, I have regretted buying the E-5. Until the GH4 or E-M1, there was no incredibly-usable alternative for my Four-Thirds lenses.

I looked at jumping to Nikon instead of buying the E-5 but the price of lenses was so significant that I hesitated, and the D300 was looking old in 2011.  Since I now have the D7200, I'm not sure a Nikon body would have made me feel really good about the switch.  While I get good image quality from the D7200, it isn't a clear difference over the E-M1 and GH4.  It also doesn't work as well in lower light conditions.

The GX8 works in most conditions as well as the GH4 and E-M1.  It's really small and the battery has about the same capacity as the E-M1, which isn't much.  Since the rear display isn't exposed, that should save a bit of battery life.  I have three batteries, as I have for the E-M1, versus two for the GH4.

I still pull out the GH4 first, as I've created over 120 videos in the last 12 months, mostly from video clips shot at skate parks.  The GX8 has become a good companion to the GH4 for video.  I used the E-M1 so much in a year that I had to have the shutter replaced, as I had apparently exceeded the 150,000 actuations.  At 10 frames per second, that isn't difficult to do.

Almost all of my equipment is still weather-sealed and the GX8 adds to that.  One of my most-used lenses, the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens is not.

Update 2016.11.24: Almost two years from when I got the GH4, I'm pleased to use it the most.  I have over 100 videos on YouTube and appreciate the body's size and weight and battery life.  The GX8 is fine at times but the grip doesn't quite match my hands, even if it's better than the E-M1's grip.  Battery life for the E-M1 and GX8 are fairly bad.

I got rid of the Nikon stuff.  It was marginally better with the lenses I had.  Finding weather-sealed lenses was a major problem.  Some of the lenses had a fluorine-coated front lens element and that was the extent to the weather-resistance.  That's sadly amusing.  You can depend on FujiFilm and Pentax for APS-C systems with clearly marked "WR" weather-resistant lenses.  Sigma Sport line lenses are also weather-resistant.

The Olympus E-M1 has been succeeded with a Mk II model that is superior in most every way.  The price is the sticking point for many people.  In an era of almost zero inflation, the E-M1 Mk II is US$300 than Olympus dSLR flagships and something like US$700 more than the E-M1 was at launch.  It feels as though the extensive AF grid will make it worth the extra $300 over what I expected and the dual card slots, articulated rear display, and more show real value.  It's still a difficult price if you're moving from the E-5 dSLR, especially when the Panasonic GH4 feels so much better.

I'm glad to be using micro Four-Thirds for exactly what the reviews say isn't easily possible--sports.  I don't know how other people photograph sports, but what I've seen people show me needs to be improved.  For American Football, they can keep their Nikon D5.  It's obvious that it works well.

Will Olympus announce their new PRO series lenses in a few weeks?

Supposedly, there is an Olympus announcement coming around the end of August.

Maybe, obviously, the PEN E-PL7 will be announced for immediate sale.  The replacement for the OM-D E-M5 should be announced, as well.  However, I'm more interested to see the final realization of the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens, plus whether they've got the 7-14mm f/2.8 ready.

The ultra wide angle lens is important to me, especially since I've been photographing at skate parks lately.  I don't really care for fish eye lenses and Olympus still sells theirs--and a certain BMX rider has been on me to buy it, for that exaggerated perspective.  However, f/2.8 vs. f/3.5 makes for the difference between getting the shot and not.  (My first thought about this lens was that it would be great for the real estate market, but they're generally fine with point and shoot cameras.)

Of course, is it as important as it was even five years ago?  Putting an LED array on the hot shoe will provide sufficient lighting that the BMX rider will be blinded temporarily while moving close.  Plenty of people have mentioned flash, which amounts to the same problem.  Studio lights with massive battery power?  No, thanks.

The Nikon D810 might provide a better low light experience with the right weather-sealed ultra wide angle lens.  It had better at the weight, the size, and at the price.  Remember that the sensor itself mimics the size of 135 Format film--roughly 24x36mm and that is not huge or heavy.

Of course, the slippery Nikon Df has the sensor from the D4 with extra low light sensitivity, but it will probably be a handful to use for sports.

In any case, the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4 will work well for me, and hopefully, the new lenses will be everything I need.  I'm especially looking forward to replacing Panasonic's dismal 35-100mm f/2.8 lens with the 40-150mm f/2.8.  (It's amazing how different their 12-35mm and 35-100mm are.  I never ever hear negative remarks about the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens.)

Of course, the 40-150mm f/2.8 can't really replace my 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 because of the lack of reach.  Having the 135 Format equivalent of 400mm is awesome, especially when it's sharp.  (Panasonic's 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 doesn't seem to be sharp anywhere, but it's small and light with a 52mm filter size that covers a lot of plastic vs 67mm with a large front element.  Can't expect much.)

If the 40-150mm is as sharp as my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0, I'd be thrilled and amazed.  I don't expect that.  I expect it to be somewhere in-between the 50-200mm and the 35-100mm f/2.0 in all aspects, with the price, also.  This is the case with the 12-40mm f/2.8 and the 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and 14-35mm f/2.0.

The 7-14mm f/2.8 really signals an end of Four-Thirds for me.  I looked at the Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/4.0, which is an amazing lens, but couldn't get past the f/4.0.  I would be using it on micro Four-Thirds equipment but it would negate any advantage the newer sensors have.  Using it on the E-1 and E-5 would be practically perfect though.  However, these are not really landscape tools and the way I would want to use it would not be practical, even if I spend a lot of time in bright sunlight.  I shoot at night also.  (This is also a sticking point with the 8mm f/3.5 fish eye lens.)

The price of the 7-14mm f/2.8 is going to be high.  I'm guessing that it will be around US$1999.99 and the 40-150mm f/2.8 should be around US$1499.99.

Update 2014.08.17: The E-M1 is rumored to get 4K recording?  It doesn't even do well with the recording abilities it has.  It would be great to see a huge upgrade to 1080p, complete with high bit rates, but I can't imagine that happening either.  It was a bit amusing to see someone submitted Olympus' high end testing cameras as evidence that Olympus can do video.  If you're in the market to record and test vehicle crashes, I'm sure they're just fine.  I only want to record 1080p and 4K at the moment.

Update 2014.09.25: The 40-150mm f/2.8 will be released in November for US$1499.99.  The micro Four-Thirds 1.4x teleconverter will be US$349.99, which is about $90 cheaper than the Four-Thirds version.

The E-M1 version 2.0 firmware included many little updates but no 4K video.  Supposedly, there is still some hope for that, and some individual is working on firmware hacks, but what will Olympus do?  They couldn't even save the majority of my settings.

I have yet to be invited to a pre-release even for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens.  I'd certainly like to make sure it's worth the money.  I continue to hope that micro Four-Thirds will work for me, whether Panasonic or Olympus.  However, the Nikon D750 looks a great product.

I've considered a trade-in of my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens for the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens.  If I end up with a GH4, as well as the E-M1, I'll probably need the 35-100mm lens.

Update 2014.12.18: Now that the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens and matching teleconverter are available, I'm looking forward to the 7-14mm f/2.8 and I'm sure others will be looking for the 300mm f/4.0.  I'm wondering if the 300mm lens will be a made-to-order item, as is the Four-Thirds 300mm f/2.8 lens.

The Four-Thirds 300mm f/2.8 lens is US$6499.99, a bit more expensive than the 90-250mm f/2.8 lens that has been US5499.99 but is now $4899.99 at Adorama.  I don't expect that the micro Four-Thirds version will be close but would US$1999.99 - $2499.99 be unexpected?  If it's more than that, there will likely be resistance from people who would actually buy it.  It's a valid point.  There are plenty of people who complain about the price of every higher-priced lens, fairly priced or not, especially when they're not going to buy one.  Should lens makers sell the wares for less than it costs to research, design, and manufacture them?

Olympus E-M1 vs Panasonic GH3, part 2

Having used the GH3 extensively, and traded it recently while the trade-in value was still good, and now, having the E-M1, I've been making mental notes about things that work and don't work.

I'm warming up to the E-M1, having taken 2300+ shots on Saturday.  It is both a great and annoying camera body.

Auto Focus and Burst Mode

The auto focus is fast.  I have found in single auto focus mode that it can almost always keep up.  Of course, as the light is diminished, every auto focus system loses.  It has surpassed the AF of the GH3, although I have noticed a huge difference in burst mode and/or AF with the Panasonic 35-100mm lens.  It works significantly more slowly than the 12-40mm.

This lens is able to be focused very quickly on the GH3 and works at the full 6 fps in burst mode.  On the E-M1, something is not working correctly, as there is a noticeable difference in frame rate.  Perhaps, the lens is only able to work at 6 fps with OIS off?  I'll check again when I get my GH4.

However, it focuses very well with the Leica/Panasonic Four-Thirds 25mm f/1.4--the 62mm filter size lens, not the tiny micro Four-Thirds version.  I still have yet to use my other Four-Thirds lenses with it.  I should really see how the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 performs, as this is my go-to lens for outdoor sports.

Black out with sunglasses

My Oakley sunglasses and the EVF combine to give me black-out conditions in bright sunlight, as with the GH3.  I should try my free Jack in the Box sunglasses to see if those change the situation.  I've saved a number of photos by simply using muscle memory.  I've even got to the point where I don't have the camera to my face at times.

Battery life

The battery life is horrible.  Who thinks a small battery is a good idea with a powerful EVF, and with an uncovered rear display that wants to show you everything much of the time?  Of course, it's better if you don't use the rear display at all, and I've found ways to minimize my use of it but the EVF still drains the battery quickly, along with the 5-axis stabilization.  It's my mistake to think that the E-M1 will go as long as the GH3, but it seems to end just as the GH3 is warming up.

Grip

The grip is still uncomfortable.  The GH3 is probably the camera body with the most comfortable grip on the market right now, for me, anyway.  It's right up there with the Nikon D800 and the Olympus E-5.  I suspect that Olympus wanted to save money by using an existing battery, and designed the grip around it--to be too small.  I've heard from a number of people that it's just fine.  Maybe, they have fatter fingers than I have.  Someone suggested that I buy the battery grip, but it will be difficult to use its bigger grip in landscape orientation.

Accidental changes

Accidental control changes are too easy.  Coming from the E-1 and E-5, the front and rear dials change aperture and shutter speed, depending on the mode, of course.  The front dial of the E-M1 changes exposure compensation, by default.  Sure, it's a new user error, but considering that the E-M1 was meant to be the replacement for the E-5, they should have left the functionality as it was (with the E-1, E-3, and E-5), and allowed an optional change for those who wanted it.  It's also far too easy to switch the auto focus point.  Yes, I've been using a single point because I don't like the typical scatter pattern.  I will accidentally tap the OK button (enabling the Super Control Panel) and arrow keys when I'm not shooting, and then, I miss shots, and have to return to reset it, missing more shots.  If the rear display was on a fully-articulated panel that could be closed, this wouldn't happen.

Super Control Panel

The Super Control Panel really is a great way to display and change controls.  The Quick Menu from Panasonic really doesn't work well for me, and I spend more time trying to figure out how to get to what I want and to change it (not just view it and think that I've changed it)--than to actually change it and get back to shooting on an Olympus body.  Does the Olympus menu system suck?  YES.  Does the Panasonic menu system suck?  YES.  People claim that Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. have a better system.  They don't.  They all suck.  It's the Super Control Panel/Quick Menu kind of interface that helps you get work done more quickly when the body lacks physical controls.

Rear Display

This bugs me the most.  Why didn't Olympus use a fully-articulated display, as with the E-5?  Having used the GH3 to get very low architectural photos with the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I can only guess in doing this with the E-M1.  The display doesn't flip out.  It goes up or down.  Having the panel out in the open all the time leads to all sorts of possible dangers.  It's also responsible for accidental control changes and reduced battery life.

Four-Thirds lenses

I have not used my Four-Thirds lenses extensively with the E-M1.  I have used the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lens--the one with the 62mm filter size with the E-M1.  As with the GH3, it focuses well.  From what I understand, it was meant to be compatible with Contrast Detect AF, as the Leica Digilux 3 was designed for Live View, as well as the typical dSLR optical viewfinder experience.  Thankfully, for this lens, we're in drought conditions.  I would hate to have a downpour and find that a US$1000+ lens is ruined by rain.  I have probably used it fewer than 10 times outdoors.

I'd really like to see if the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 works well with it, as I use it for cross country meets.  Olympus' micro Four-Thirds 40-150mm f/2.8 will become available later this year, but it doesn't reach nearly as far.  Sure, I can carry a load and run the course, because...no, I only do that occasionally when I cannot see past the corn fields.

Olympus has done a good job creating a top end model for micro Four-Thirds.  It's not what I'd hoped that it could be, to replace my E-5.  Yes, the performance is good.  No, it's not quite right.  Panasonic thought more about what the photographer wanted and put that into the design of the GH3 and GH4.  In fact, the GH3 felt like the true successor to the E-5.  It's the kind of design where you don't have to think how to use it--you know how to use it.  On the other hand, the E-M1 is fiddly, unlike the E-5 or E-1.

Olympus E-M1 auto focus tracking for sports

I've been an Olympus equipment user since the 1990s.  I've gone through various bodies since my initial OM-1N.  When Olympus showed that they were ready for dSLRs, I bought an E-1, 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5--all weather-resistant equipment, which was good since I was in Florida where the hurricanes, daily summer rains, and the construction dust would damage most equipment easily.

I used the equipment out in three hurricanes and it's still functioning beautifully.

Since then, I bought an E-5 body.  The odd, less ergonomic design was bigger, more Nikon-like and made it easier to balance the 35-100mm and other SHG lenses.

I recently, and somewhat temporarily traded my Panasonic GH3 for an Olympus E-M1.  I'd been using the GH3 for indoor sports where flash was a serious problem and where lighting was as advanced as the 1950s.  It worked reasonably well.  The E-M1 is a bit more useful with the 5-axis image stabilization, but is uncomfortable in my hand.  They should have created a new, bigger battery and used it to create a bigger, better grip like that of the E-1, E-5, or GH3.

In any case, I've taken some good photos with it, but I had not put it to the test with sports.  Between moving cross country and schools being out, I didn't have much of a chance to photograph sports.

The other day, the Lathrop, California Generations Center had its grand opening celebration and I was able to photograph some skaters.  I think the E-M1 acquitted itself quite nicely, as you'll see.  I still can't wait for my Panasonic GH4 but I must.

Update 2014.07.05: I used the E-M1 with my Four-Thirds Leica 25mm f/1.4--the big, heavy one made for the Leica Digilux 3 body.  It worked pretty well with auto focus in low light.  Perfect it wasn't, but conditions were far from perfect.

Update 2014.07.25: I've noticed in the last few days that the E-M1 will suddenly not focus properly.  I assume that it's still busy writing to the card but that's not always the case.  Perhaps, it's cleaning up after itself.

Update 2014.10.29: The other day, I tried the full area (what I call splatter) auto focus pattern and got plenty of photos where nothing was in focus.  This seems as good as it was on the E-5, prior to switching to a single point for AF.

I'm planning to try the 5 area AF to see how it works, but I don't have much hope.

Update 2014.12.03: Geez, the 5 area AF made sure that I didn't get any in-focus photos.  Everything was crap.

About a week ago, I bought a Panasonic GH4.  I've been able to use it in varying conditions, and in darkness around sunset, it wasn't great, as expected.  However, indoors, photographing skaters on a half pipe, it was amazingly good, and more responsive than the E-M1 was.  I took many video clips, and they all looked surprisingly bright.

Update 2015.02.20: Any moment now, there should be a firmware update, version 3.0, that will increase the tracking speed frames per second rate from 6.5 to 9.0 fps.  They apparently came up with a better algorithm to use the 37 phase detect pixels.

Update 2015.03.13: I tried the C-AF + Tracking option and while it works, it seems to lag.  It could be the circumstances--artificially-lit skate park during the evening but I suspect it would still be laggy in good light, just better.

Regardless, I find the auto focus, especially with face detection, quite good and better than the GH4 for stills.  The GH4 auto focus is quite capable for video.  Panasonic really needs to update the firmware for a few small things.

Update 2015.12.19: I'm still amazed how good the single AF is, especially with face detection enabled.  I've got a lot of photos--so many that I had to have the shutter replaced.  The shutter is rated at 150,000 actuations.  At 10 frames per second, you can get there quickly.

I bought a Nikon D7200, mostly for wide angle shots.  I tried to use it at skate parks and it's adequate.  It's a good substitute for the Olympus E-5 that I was using for high school sports.  Just like the E-5, the continuous AF is great.  However, working at skate parks, nothing I have can beat 10 or 12 frames per second that the E-M1 and GH4 can do for capturing the whole sequence.  Sure, the Samsung NX1 could do it at 15 fps but who knows whether it's going to be available or not.

I also bought a Panasonic GX8 and the behavior of the AF is similar to the GH4.  Even with face detection enabled, it may detect a fence behind the person.  That all changes when it's recording video, as with the GH4.  I really appreciate having the GX8 and I've been using it since I sent the E-M1 for repair.

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.

One year with the Panasonic GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8

When I bought the GH3, I was practically desperate to combat low light photography in a way I had not tried since ASA 400 speed film was considered high speed.

I photograph sports.  I usually do it well, but certain gymnasiums and swimming pools make the task much more difficult.  Many gyms have multiple levels of seating, which restrict the floor level to sports-related people, i.e., those involved in the game or meet such as athletes, coaches, and referees.  Equally, a swim meet I was supposed to photograph put the swimmers behind a wall of glass.  However, nothing is worse than poor lighting and it's more likely than not.  If you can't adequately see the athletes, it's likely that the camera can't capture the moment.

I met with quite a few lighting obstacles, especially with high ceilings and few lights.  There are many schools that were built in the 1960s or earlier, and often small communities struggle to pay the bills.

I've often felt that getting a few keepers out of hundreds of photos was still a good workout.  In the case of dark venues, I was getting very few keepers.  I had considered switching brands, tossing my old equipment, and hoping for the best.  I analyzed a number of other photographers' photos and found that Nikon and Canon weren't in much better shape than Olympus in the US$1000-$2000 range for camera bodies.  Being that I would be spending US$2500 on a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to complete the combination, it had to do much, much better, if I was to spend US$4200.  I dare say that the D800 is still in the same normal ISO sensitivity range, up to ISO 6400, where the D7100 resides.  They may seem better, but are they really?

The crazy, but conservative alternative was the released but difficult to find Panasonic GH3 body.  With an adapter, it could be used with my current lenses.  I had never used a Panasonic body but I was impressed with the construction of the Four-Thirds Leica 25mm f/1.4 lens made for the Leica Digilux 3--made by Panasonic.

Every review I read said that the GH3 was an adequate stills body and an amazing value for video.  As most photographers know, the world is moving to hybrid photography, and the GH3 (and now GH4) is a good product to become acquainted with it.

I had been looking for lenses, but Olympus was answering the call for fixed focal length lenses and generally, Panasonic had a number of software-corrected zoom lenses that weren't good without bright light, starting with an aperture of f/4.0, such as my 45-200mm.  Panasonic also had their new fixed aperture lenses, the 12-35mm f/2.8 and 35-100mm f/2.8, but with an earlier X-series lens, it didn't seem that they might be adequately designed.  When I read the reviews for the 35-100mm especially, on LensTip, I cringed for sure.

After a grinding debate, I ordered the GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.  They arrived, I tried them alongside the E-5 and 35-100mm f/2.0 lens combination.  I tried many settings but in moderate light, the E-5 was better for image quality and color fidelity.  However, the GH3 delivered in darker areas, although I trashed a number of photos over ISO 3200.  In fact, the shots from ISO 4000 and up weren't good enough to be grainy photographs of Big Foot, at least, not for me.

In using the camera body, I ran into some odd problems that I decided were new user problems.  At some angles, the viewfinder image was curved, and the color was always incorrect.  The standard setting pushed me to view every photo after I took it, causing a lengthy pause in the feed, although I kept shooting, as though I could see.    Such is the life of a Live Viewfinder, as Panasonic calls it.  I found the setting to turn off instant review, and the pause was minimized.

At every event, I would revise and refine the settings to my liking, just as I would do with any dSLR.  The images weren't bad but they were never really great.

I tried manually focusing, as the auto focus would often focus somewhere odd, but between the short 35-100mm lens, and the magnification (manual focus assist), I never could rely on manual focus, as I did with an optical viewfinder.  This became more of a problem with track season, and I had to modify my techniques to just do the job.  Then, my sunglasses in concert with the viewfinder would often produce a black view--100% obstruction of the scene.  Auto Focus was equally an opponent to good photos, as it would often choose the chain link fence behind the runners.  If you've ever photographed a chain link fence, you know it's more difficult to focus on it because it's not deep.

However, I've adapted, and I've found ways to make things work, and I've had some good shots.  If it's to be believed, the GH4 likely addresses all of the problems I've encountered.  I'm ready for equipment that doesn't get in my way.  Truth be told, switching from the Olympus E-1 to the E-5, I had my doubts, also but it was certainly less of a stretch moving from dSLR to dSLR, although it didn't feel that the same company designed them both.

I doubt I'll back away from mirror-less bodies now, even though Panasonic had not convinced me 100% through the GH3.  Once the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens is available, I'll likely trade the GH3 and Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens because, even without image stabilization, I'll get better shots.  How?  I've been shooting with the E-1, which has no image stabilization, and also with the E-5, which has simple two axis stabilization, as well with the GH3 and Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.

It's been a rough road since I got the GH3 but I've found that it is capable of good photography when fitted with the correct lenses.  That could be said of almost any equipment, but I've truly been shocked at how good it really is with Olympus lenses attached, even through an adapter.

Pros:

• Strong, flexible video options
• Comfortable body, especially with Four-Thirds lenses
• Articulated rear display
• Silent mode
• Weather-sealing, magnesium alloy frame
• Battery life
• Five customization profiles

Cons:

• EVF magnifying glass effect, blackouts
• Image quality above ISO 3200
• File naming doesn't contain date
• Too small for larger Four-Thirds lenses

Update 2014.03.20: I watched a video on Vimeo today between Zacuto Films and a Panasonic representative.  They were enthusiastic about the GH4 and they got some good answers from the representative.  I was amused at the quick disappointment concerning the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens feeling plasticky and how the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens felt like a good piece of equipment.  They sounded like my comments on the lens.  The Panasonic representative didn't say anything other than the X-series lenses were meant to work at a higher level.  I wish mine would.  I didn't mention it much in this blog entry because I've complained thoroughly about it in others.  You can get good shots with it, but you have to be very, very careful.  Despite the price, it should not be a US$1500 lens.  US$750 would be more than enough for a lens of this caliber, especially one Made in China.

In any case, the GH3 has been a good camera body and makes me think that Panasonic has mostly thought about the photographer, more in handling lately than Olympus has.  It was the perfect transition from the Olympus E-5--the E-M1 certainly isn't.

One thing that has consistently surprised me about a camera body with two displays is that the battery lasts a very long time.  It's not a huge battery, either, especially coming from the E-1 and the E-5.

The other day, I tried Silent Mode for the first time.  It was interesting, but of course, I couldn't tell much of what was happening since there was no feedback really.  I could tell that something was being written to the card but I had no idea how many frames had been taken.

Update 2014.03.29: Panasonic offers a lot, and the flaws can be a problem, but as with any dSLR, you learn and adapt.  The GH4 is better but more expensive.  It's an easy choice if your main intent is to make video content, but they've also made some improvements for still photography.  If you consider that the GH3 + 12-40mm f/2.8 combo has been my constant companion over the past several weeks and the E-5 and E-1 have remained in the bag (and usually at home), I think you'll understand how good the GH3 actually is.

If I could make changes, I would use Olympus' Super Control Panel and TruePIC VII processing, along with the VF-4 viewfinder.  Why not just buy the E-M1?  It's uncomfortable for use with the Four-Thirds lenses it was specially designed to handle.   The GH3 was more thoughtfully designed for photographers.

For those looking at the GH3 as it is dropped in price, think about how inexpensive it is for a weather-sealed, high quality full HD video device.  Sure, the Pentax K-50 is less expensive for a weather-sealed body and you can buy unsealed lenses on the cheap, if still photography is what you want, but the GH3 is of a bit higher specification overall and the lenses are almost always smaller.

Update 2014.04.17: Panasonic have permanently reduced the price of the GH3 to US$1099.99.  This should make high quality video available to many more people, and make the GH3 bodies a more affordable platform to small studios.  Of course, there have been discounts that have dropped the price lower but they were temporary.  However, this makes buying the Canon 70D and Nikon D7100 for video less reasonable choices, except for those heavily invested in lenses for those brands.

I continue to find the GH3 and Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens a compelling combination.  Many will find the combination pricy but I find fewer lenses of higher image quality fit my needs better than more lenses of lower image quality--and weather-sealing is necessary for me.  If you've ever lived in an area subject to loads of dust and sudden weather changes, you'll understand the importance of not damaging a lens worth hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Update 2014.05.23: I've used the GH3 a number of times to get a vertical shot from a very low angle using the rear display tilted away from the body, a position unavailable to the Olympus E-M1 or the FujiFilm X-T1.  That in itself is enough to remind me that the GH3 and GH4 have a flexibility I need.

Had I tried to do the same shot with the E-M1 or X-T1, I might as well be using the fixed display of a Canon 70D or Nikon D7100.

Update 2015.03.22: Since I traded the GH3 in June 2014, I'd been using an Olympus E-M1.  It worked well for still photography, but of course, was not very good for video.  In December, I got the GH4, and it reminded me of all the good things that I liked about the GH3.  Many problems with the GH3 were fixed in the GH4, but auto focus is still a problem.  Image quality is better in many respects but photos are still limited to a useful ISO sensitivity of 3200, for my use.  Fixing the chroma noise problem has made those look better, but it's not enough to help the overall problem above that sensitivity.

The 35-100mm f/2.8 lens continues to disappoint, especially as I'm recording video now.  The stuttering of the OIS, even after the firmware update for it, is extreme.

Aperture rings and other manual controls

Someone made a comment a bit ago that all lenses should have aperture rings, just like in the good old days.  That goes along with a buddy back around 2002 telling me how Nikon's G-series lenses were terrible because they didn't have aperture rings.

Seeing as how the FujiFilm X-T1 has really brought back manual control dials, I wondered if people would be enthusiastic to such controls on every camera body big enough to have them.

That first person was talking about the Panasonic lenses, as the Leica-branded micro Four-Thirds lenses have aperture rings but the others do not.  I thought back to the inspiration for the OM-D series--the OM-system.  They not only had aperture rings on the lenses, but just behind the lens, on the lens mount collar was a shutter speed ring, which made manual control very efficient.

Yes, the shutter speed only goes to 1/1000th

While the OM-series bodies were slippery with a heavy lens, they were the most efficient when it came to quickly changing settings.  You can also see the ASA-calibrated film speed dial, which required you to press and hold the small button next to it so you could turn the film speed dial.  As I recall, FujiFilm had a lift-and-turn mechanism to keep the film speed from being accidentally changed, as it shared the dial with the shutter speed.

Oh, here is something you might not expect.  The light meter was manually activated (you held down a switch in front, near the lens) on the Fujica SLRs to cut down on battery drain, and there was the On-Off switch on the Olympus OM-series SLRs just for the light meter.  If you were good with settings, you didn't have to worry if the battery was dead.

The ST801 certainly didn't have many controls

AZ-1 had Aperture Priority AE with minor compensation

Film speed setting occurs in the window, lift and turn

The X-T1 really is overloaded compared to the 1970s

I gave up all that when I moved to the Olympus E-1 dSLR in 2004.  The aperture ring was on one of the unmarked dials and the shutter speed was on the other.  That's all I needed to know.  It drove me bonkers the first week, and then, it was just fine.  Mostly, I just found settings that worked for the current situation and I photographed sports.  I didn't worry about film, full stop.  There was a PASM mode dial.  Of course, that dial wasn't possible or necessary in the 1970s because auto exposure was something new.  It caused Pentax to create a new mount and for FujiFilm to follow that mount, as they were both using a screw mount prior to that.

Olympus E-1, practically perfect for 2003

Having used the Four-Thirds mount Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 with aperture ring, there are times when I like the ability to control the aperture on the lens.  It is helpful when working at a slower pace, being creative.  (Photographing sports you have little time to be creative.)  The problem is that the aperture ring only works on my Panasonic GH3, through the Olympus MMF-3 adapter.  My Olympus E-1 and E-5 don't support the aperture ring in firmware, unfortunately, so I have to use the "A" setting on the ring.  I was a bit surprised to find that Panasonic supported it through the adapter.

I'm 99.9% sure that Olympus has no desire to completely relive the past.  They'd like to be quite popular again, as I'm sure FujiFilm, Pentax, and others would like also.  I remember having choices and with mirror-less camera bodies, it's become interesting again.

Update 2014.04.04: Do we need a huge number of manual controls now?  I don't.  I want to set an ISO sensitivity range and leave it.  I want a clearly-marked exposure compensation button that can be used with a general dial or alternatively, a dial just for exposure compensation.  The trouble with the specific dial is that it may not have a large enough range, and I'll still need to dip into the menus to set up the steps.

I like what FujiFilm has done with the X-T1, but I think it's more for the hobbyist than for the professional.  It's both totally wonderful and totally silly.  Once again, I'm not the casual photographer and when I try to be, I don't take minutes to set up a photo.  I check my mode, my aperture or shutter speed, my focal length, and focus and re-focus, and shoot.  That's pretty much what I do while photographing sports, with less time to think about settings.

I could wish for a FujiFilm/Olympus/Panasonic/Pentax company with design from the best of each, leaving out the various weirdness that hampers usage.  The combined company would likely wipe Sony out of the camera-making business while using their camera-component-making business much more effectively.  They'd also likely put the hurt on Nikon and Canon.  Consolidating the best players in the mirror-less market might not do too much harm, especially if they could convince buyers of their combined strength.