Olympus E-M1, camera of the year?

I'm a bit surprised to see so much love given to the E-M1, or for that matter, to any Olympus product.  It's been years since the company has been shown more than people's backsides.

Even DPReview has changed greatly in their treatment of Olympus.  There was a time when Olympus wouldn't even send them a camera to review because the response from DPReview was usually so negative.

There have been a load of interesting camera bodies lately including the FujiFilm X-E2, the Sony A7/A7R, the Pentax K-3, and the Nikon D610.

To me, the E-M1 is good enough to represent the beginning of the end of the SLR.

Yes, I said that.  Even though I didn't find it appropriate for me, it has a number of great attributes that put it into direct opposition to dSLRs.

• Excellent viewfinder
• Quick response
• Good size with great balance for native lenses
• Excellent auto focus and auto exposure
• Good controls
• It doesn't get in the way
• Super Control Panel

I've complained loads about electronic viewfinders, and I complain loads when I have to use my GH3's viewfinder with sunglasses.  There was no problem with the E-M1 EVF.  It just worked for me.

The camera body was responsive, and even waking from sleep wasn't horribly long.  I learned a long time ago to power on the camera and let it go to sleep until needed.  Olympus understands this and provides a quick waking cycle, once again, unlike my GH3.

While many people have embraced the diminutive size of most micro Four-Thirds equipment, I don't care for it.  The GH3 is a reasonable size, especially considering the fully-articulated rear display and external controls.  The E-M1 is close to that, and even longer native lenses are just fine.  It is also sufficient for Olympus' HG line of lenses and some of the SHG line though too small for the largest of them.

My use of auto focus is minimal and I don't want the scatter pattern of multiple AF points to ruin my shots.  Using a touch panel to select an AF point is different, and is the probably the greatest thing that mirror-less system cameras bring to the table.  Both auto focus and auto exposure were quick and accurate, although I didn't try to focus in the dark which is something the latest Panasonic bodies do so well, down to EV -4.

The controls were fairly good.  Unfortunately, during my time with the E-M1, I got a body that had the exposure compensation quite a bit away from flat, and it took a while to figure out how to change it.  Exposure compensation should have its own external control that is marked, so there is no guesswork.  I hope that the mushy shutter release has been resolved.  I couldn't get a half-press to confirm auto exposure or auto focus and took a photo each time I attempted the half-press.

While I understand that picking up a new camera body and just shooting may not give you the best photos, it should not take loads of time to acclimate yourself to getting those photos.  Do I care where the power switch is?  Yes, but only twice.  Controls like auto focus, bracketing, and exposure compensation should be front and center.   If I had the time to mess during photography, I'd be a landscape photographer using medium format.

That said, I was able to use the camera right away.  It wasn't confusing, past the exposure compensation, and it felt like an extension of my body, much like the E-1 did.

So, why am I not buying one of these, and waiting to see the replacement?

• Single flash memory card slot
• Rear display not fully-articulated
• Small battery and therefore, small, uncomfortable grip
• So-so implementation of auto focus for Four-Thirds lenses

For Olympus' pushing the E-M1 as a professional alternative, and the E-5 successor, it isn't quite there.  It lacks what made the E-5 a good decision for me, to switch from the E-1, rather than to switch camps to buy the Nikon D300/D300s.

They feel that they know their customers, and while the camera has been a success, it's not a good successor to the E-5.  Of course, those few of us to still be using Olympus' big glass should have switched to another brand years ago.  The company missed an opportunity, though, to meet in the middle, going too small, and not really understanding the E-1/E-3/E-5 customers.

Still, the E-M1 is a great alternative to anyone considering a camera body in the US$1000 - US$2000 range.  It only takes a look at the dSLRs in the range and FujiFilm's rangefinder-style alternatives to realize how good the E-M1 is.  Sony's 135 format A7 is priced nicely and offers a lot, but what happens if they let it languish, as they've done with their NEX-system?  What I've read about the A7 is that it's not easy to use, which seems to be a typical Sony problem.  They've taken an electronics company's view on cameras, and I'm really shocked that Panasonic got over that.  I never thought that I'd be using a Panasonic camera--ever--but it doesn't work like a rice cooker or a phone.  The GH3 works like a camera built for photographers.  I just wish that Olympus had put a bit more into the E-M1, so that it felt as comfortable as the GH3, and had the video capabilities.

Update 2014.03.13: I expect that the FujiFilm X-T1 will be the camera of the year for 2014, even though the Nikon D4s is extremely good.  However, we're just into the third month of the year and there will be many more.  I expect that the Panasonic GH4 will be my camera of the year, but it probably isn't going to be a popular choice for a hobbyist because it's more of a professional tool.  It's larger than the E-M1 or X-T1, though it's tiny compared to the D4s.  If the GH4 is like my GH3 but without the flaws and with better video and stills, it's definitely a good choice for me.

Concerned about Olympus' next Four-Thirds move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olympus' GH3 workalike coming?

I've wondered for the longest time why Olympus doesn't give their professional model the newest and best of everything.  After the E-1, it took 4 years for a replacement and the company's more budget-conscious models got an 8 MP Kodak CCD, a 7.5 MP LiveMOS (NMOS, I believe) sensor from Panasonic, and then a 10 MP Kodak CCD.  Eventually, in 2007, the E-3 got a 10 MP LiveMOS sensor.  Not long after that the E-30 got a 12 MP LiveMOS sensor, and in 2010, the E-5 got that same sensor.  Odd, isn't it?

A buddy in Singapore was telling me that files from the E-3 needed more manipulation to reach the look that Olympus gave us with the E-1.  When I bought the E-5 body, I noticed the same, even if it took supposedly less work, they didn't come from the body nicely.

I've been noticing with Capture One 7 Pro that the fixups help the E-5 photo files much more than the E-1's files.  It could be many aspects of the photos but could just be that more time has passed.  My E-5 files come out looking about as good as those of the E-1, thankfully.  The Phase One people have worked some sort of photographic magic with their new imaging engine because the old engine wasn't so good.

If you've been reading my blog entries, you'll know that I'm thrilled (and sometimes, annoyed) with the Panasonic GH3.  What really bothers me is that Olympus didn't bother with their own model.  They could be trying to salvage the E-5's sales or they just don't agree with the shape and believe that the fanatics will turn against them.  Certainly, a lot of people were upset with the GH3, even though it's a good tool for professionals--with adjustments.

The GH3 has a funky white balance issue and I know that I can set it and remember to set it each time I start to photograph something different, but I'm so depending on Olympus' auto white balance to pick a great number.  By the way, the E-5 is nowhere near as good as the E-1's AWB, but I say that about just about anything.  :-D

I'm looking to the E-5 replacement to fix everything for me.  Yes, I'm delusional--hopefully, not.

An E-M6 could have a great sensor, and it doesn't have to be a higher resolution than the one used by the E-M5 and GH3.  It doesn't have to shoot video or have Live View, although I know it will.  I'm really looking for a great stills camera body.  Image quality and equipment balance are my main points.  I want to attach my overly big, overly heavy 35-100mm lens and not feel as though it's going to slip out of my hands.  i.e., give it a big grip, and while that's available, give it a big battery.

Even more so, make it a great tool that I can use without taking my eyes off the scene.  An LCD display would be great, but not to the exclusion of dials and buttons.  An articulating display is great but if it takes up valuable button space, make it smaller.  I use the Super Control Panel on the E-5 to make some quick adjustments because they're all in one place.  Panasonic's Quick Menu isn't as helpful, but as I become more familiar, it may be good for me.

What bothers me about the GH3 is that Panasonic obviously consulted with professionals on what they wanted--they just didn't implement the body as though it was to be used by professionals.  I can pick up the E-5 easily and the E-1 more easily and just shoot, but I have to think about using the GH3.  It could be just time and acclimation (or brand) but I think there is more to it, such as the settings as shipped.

I hope that Olympus comes to my rescue but once again, 2010 to 2013 is a long time to wait and the E-5 was only so-so by the time they delivered it, as was the E-3.  We want a home run, not a single.  (I was supposed to photograph a baseball game today but it was cancelled.)

Update 2013.09.15: There has been some time to digest the information about the Olympus E-M1.  It is as close as Olympus will come to a GH3 type of camera.  Video is not their priority and they don't want to upset Panasonic who are very important in micro Four-Thirds.  Olympus have put out a great new camera body, which of course, is especially good for stills.

It's obviously to me that Olympus have got their micro Four-Thirds act together.  I'm not pleased with their Four-Thirds action but it happened.  I'm hoping that the GH3 replacement will take better photos because it really is a well-designed camera body.  (Yes, I was finally acclimated to it.)  If Olympus had just modified the GH3 body with the E-M1 bits, it would have had a great camera all round, so hopefully, Panasonic will take us to a similar point with the GH5.

I had a few hours with the E-M1 and it felt like a great body for micro Four-Thirds lenses.  It was uncomfortable for me with Four-Thirds lenses, as the grip was angular, rather than rounded like the E-5 or GH3 bodies' grips.  The photos were good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Panasonic's new 12-35mm f/2.8 lens

Note that there is no secondary aperture number.  This is a constant maximum aperture zoom lens.  Even in 2012, there aren't that many of them, and they certainly haven't outnumbered typical variable maximum aperture lenses.  Beyond all that, this is a first for a mirror-less system.

It will carry a premium price.  Was there a doubt?  US$1299.99 isn't bad considering the maximum aperture, weatherproofing, and hopefully, amazing image quality.  The last is a big hope, given the small size of the lens.  I expect the companion 35-100mm f/2.8 to be somewhat more expensive, given that the materials used will be larger.

On one side, the micro Four-Thirds users are complaining about the price, even though they might not need it.  On the other side, the Canikon users are being somewhat indignant about the quality, the sensor size, and the Panasonic name.  (it wasn't that long ago that I wasn't sure about Panasonic making cameras but since the DMC-GH2, they've convinced me.)

What comes to my mind is a comparison to Olympus' Super High Grade 14-35mm f/2.0 lens.  That is one of the finest "normal" zoom lenses, ever.  The price echoes that thought, also: $2299.99.  I know someone has used the lens extensively and had to back off using it for portraits, as it showed too much facial detail.  (It's no wonder there are variable soft-focus lenses for medium format.)  I'd love to see how these two lenses compare.  Of course, if it only comes to the image quality of the High Grade 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, I'd be disappointed in such quality for the price.  There is a limit to how much weight or space I want to save--for the price.

I'm really not expecting great things.  Previous X-series lenses have been mediocre, no matter where they fit in micro Four-Thirds land.  However, there are plenty of people who find a 10x zoom to be a great lens, and I don't want any zoom lens over 4x.  If these new lenses deliver the kind of image quality Olympus' 14-35mm and 35-100mm lenses have, it should likely drive a lot more positive attention and sales to micro Four-Thirds.

It is a format that's doing quite well against the competition anyway.  Panasonic's DMC-GH2 constantly seems to be making headway in video recording and with all the cine lenses available, it should be able to produce some amazing work.  I don't do video, but good equipment always makes it easier.  Since the GH3 is close, I should be even more impressed when it arrives.  I would expect a new sensor that will also be used in their new professional recorder for higher image quality, faster throughput and processing, and the (new!, awesome! ramdom!) 4K recording that everyone is hyping.

Considering how well the Olympus E-M5 resolves images, I'd hope that it and the 12-35mm lens would be a great pair, delivering stunning results.  My skepticism keeps me firmly planted in my chair--no jumping for joy.  People seem to be reporting mostly good things about the E-M5 since they've been arriving.  I hope it's not just euphoria.  I'd like to think that people are realistic from time to time.  I'm waiting for an E-M6, just as I waited for an OM-1N or an E-3 successor.  I had a notion today about Pentax's new K30: it looks a lot like what I wanted in an Olympus E-1 successor.  It's just too bad Olympus hadn't wasted so much money betting on the horses.

Update: I've seen preliminary reviews on the 12-35mm and 35-100mm Panasonic lenses and I'm less than impressed despite the brand fanatics' enthusiasm.  Of course, they might not be any worse than the Canikon lenses.  Canikon users have been paying more for less for quite a while. 

Update 2: I've got the 35-100mm f/2.8 and I also have the Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0.  I'm disappointed in a lot of things with the 35-100mm f/2.8 from Panasonic.  It's not bad optically--it's about what I'd expect from Nikon or Canon--but the plastic and the tacky finish seem inconsistent with US$1499.99.  The lens hood that isn't completely sealed from light where it meets the lens is also a letdown.  So far, the performance is good.  I could have hoped for a lens more like the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, though.

Where is the Nikon D400?

It's been a bit over a year since the catastrophic earthquake and following tsunami in the Sendai area of Japan.  It's been several months since the devastating floods in Thailand.  Those threw the modern world of manufacturing into chaos.  Should I have said "utter chaos"?  Writing idioms are plentiful elsewhere, wouldn't you say?

New cameras have been arriving in a trickle.  Nikon has brought a lot of the excitement lately with the D800/D800E and the D4.  I'm waiting to see the D400.  No, I'm not a Nikon fan so perhaps, a bit of history will help.  I chose an Olympus E-1 over the D70 or D100.  At that time, there wasn't much comparison.  Even with the smaller sensor, the E-1 had better image quality.  Another factor was that you couldn't pair it with cheap, rubbish or old lenses.  It was all digital and required new lenses, all of which had outstanding quality.  Given the cost of equivalent lenses, Nikon would have cost me about twice as much.

Fast forward (okay, a writing idiom) to 2007 and the Olympus E-1 successor had finally arrived.  So had the Nikon D300.  The Olympus E-3 looked somewhat less than adequate against the D300.  Mind you, the auto focus was not pathetic, finally.  11 cross-point auto focus sensors were brilliant.  Contrast that to the D300's on-again-off-again-are-we-in-the-correct-situation 51 AF sensors and people see the sheer number of sensors and forget the rest.  The D300's 51 AF sensors aren't always all in use and the remaining number is much more humble.  Still, it's quite amazing as a system, but overly complicated.  The Olympus AF works its best with certain lenses marked "SWD" for SuperSonic Wave Drive, of which the 12-60mm was represented as the fastest AF in combination with the E-3.

The E-3 had one truly pathetic downfall--the anti-aliasing filter was too strong and the images were not very sharp, even in studio lighting.  Sure, it had a 10 MP sensor, but you could get great images from the E-1, being careful about the 5.1 MP size.  You just couldn't fix the anti-aliasing filter of the E-3, no matter what.  Cue the funeral march.

In 2010, Olympus introduced the E-5.  It fixed the critical issue with the E-3, brought a higher resolution LCD, kept the brilliant AF system, used a dual-core CPU and 12 MP sensor, and made Four-Thirds shooting good again.  It still used the poor ergonomics of the E-3 but so what?  Set things ahead of time and plan around the problems.  I made the jump in November 2011.

I want to say that I'm incredibly pleased but there is an underlying noise from ISO 400 up and I'm not comfortable with ISO 1600 images at all.  Looking at some images from a D300, they're no better at ISO 2500.  It wouldn't have helped to jump ship.

So, where is the D400?  Given that the D7000 is arguably better than the D90, I'm wondering how much better the D400 will be.  The exposure metering system will have been improved, probably with double (or more) sensors.  I doubt the AF system will have been improved, except for tweaks.  (I don't use AF, by the way, but it's important to many people, especially the professionals who keep everything on automatic.)  Of course, the big change will be the image sensor.  Will it be the 16.x MP sensor from the D7000 or something newer but equal in number?  I suspect Sony will supply a slightly enhanced version for the D400 and it will also go into the D7000's successor.  I still haven't heard any rumor about the D400, except that it's delayed until the D4 and D800/D800E bodies can be put to full capacity in the factories.

Considering Olympus' new OM-D series, I'm wondering if many people will jump ship the other way and take advantage of some good fixed focal length (prime) lenses.  The E-M5 was just given What Digital Camera's Gold Award in their review of the camera and that says a lot to me.  Now the final total was 90 % which puts it dead even with the E-3 and three points behind the E-1.  Considering how mirror-less system cameras were doing poorly at the beginning, I'm shocked.

It's a matter of time until dSLRs become a thing of the past.  I suspect they'll be there in medium format for a while but for handheld jobs, smaller and lighter are better.  Olympus showed the world that back in the 1970s with the OM-system and Nikon complied with demand and went smaller.  I can't wait until all brands announce smaller systems with exceptional image quality.  I know that the Nikon D400 won't be smaller, but I'd like to see it, just the same.

Update 2012.11.11: Still waiting, and with the D600 out, plus the D5200, everyone is wondering, I'm sure. 

Update 2013.10.08: The D610 has been announced.  It's likely a matter of manufacturing capacity and anticipated demand.  I suspect that Nikon feel that the "full frame" fanatics who would have bought the D400 have gone to the D600 already, the majority of the remainder might have gone to the D800, and the remainder are complaining that there is no D400 yet.

Given that Ricoh/Pentax have announced the Pentax K-3, I think the wait is over for those who wanted to switch because of the D400.  This new body has an amazing array of technology and seems quite capable of going where the D7100 has not--sports, what I photograph. 

Update 2015.11.29: Holy shhhhh!  In the last few months, there have been rumors about the D400 again, especially since the Canon 7D Mk II was put on sale.

Back in April, the D7200 was introduced to supplant the D7100 and D300s.  I have one and it's good, but whether it could replace the D300 in all ways, I'm not sure.   The body isn't nearly as strong.