Nikon D7200 vs Panasonic GX8 vs Olympus E-M1 vs GH4

I consider the market for cameras between US$1000.00 and US$1999.99 to be the most active for active photographers.  Sure, there are people who take photos with equipment under US$1000.00 but many of them have one lens--the kit lens.  From my experience, they may take good photos but they don't really work their equipment.  I push my equipment past those limits, such as when I was out photographing in three hurricanes, or when I'm photographing at skate parks.

For many people US$1199.99 is a premium price point.  To me, it's roughly the minimum for a weather-sealed camera body.  True, you can get the Pentax K-50 still, and it is an excellent bargain at around US$400.  Even with the kit lens, it's a capable camera.  For me, the lenses I wanted weren't available for Pentax, and an adapter to use such lenses on micro Four-Thirds bodies wasn't all that capable.  I switched to the Nikon D7200, especially because it has two high ISO (51,200 and 102,400) sensitivities that work in a black & white mode.

Yes, my equipment must work in a variety of ways, especially when I'm photographing sports.

Since I bought my Olympus E-1 in 2004, I've had Four-Thirds equipment and now, those lenses can be used on my micro Four-Thirds bodies, the Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GH4, and now, Panasonic GX8.

That gives me four modern camera bodies:

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

For reasons explained in the sections to follow, I rate them in the following order:

1. Panasonic GH4
2. Olympus E-M1
3. Panasonic GX8
4. Nikon D7200

Sure, you can get any of them to do general photography well, but when pushing the limits, this is how they work out for me:

Stills

For still photography, they're not as different as I had thought or had hoped.

By sheer physics and pixel density, the D7200 should be comfortably better with a larger sensor.  (I've been told for years that I couldn't work without a larger sensor.)  At this point, it isn't working out that way.  I suspect that Nikon needs to fix things with firmware.  e.g., photographing indoors at Woodward West (training camp and skate park), I found that the Panasonic GH4 was setting itself at ISO 200 and 400, while the D7200 was setting itself at ISO 14,400.  Image quality was degraded.  However, this is a very, very new body.  (Strangely, since using the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye lens on the D7200, it seems to work better with all lenses.  Also, the firmware update didn't change much for me.  ISO 4000 is pretty much my usable limit in contrast to ISO 3200 for micro Four-Thirds with the GH4, E-M1, or GX8.)

In daylight, things are more equal.  The E-M1's face detection is amazing and for portrait work, I'm finding it and the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 amazing, even up against the D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 combination.  (Yes, I know that the Sigma and in general, larger lenses have the possibility to be better, but it isn't always so in real life.  I could get better results with the Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 though.)  In Live View, I believe that the D7200 can use face detection but Live View degrades performance greatly, and since the optical viewfinder is useless in this mode, you sort of have to use the D7200 as a heavy compact camera.  I would suggest a monopod or tripod.  This is the case with almost all dSLRs (the Olympus E-330 is the exception) but never the case with mirror-less bodies since they're always using Live View.

The GH4 could be great but I have trouble with the auto focus and face detection being slow and/or inaccurate.  I occasionally find when photographing people participating in sports that the focus is a bit off.  The GH4, like the GH3, will focus on a wall or fence behind a person, even though only a single focus point is selected, and focus has been locked supposedly with single point focus mode.  With face detection, it tends to work better, if I have time to wait.  The E-M1's face detection is much faster than that of the GH4.  Face detection on the GH4 and GX8 default to splatter mode using all AF points, if it doesn't lock onto a face.

The GX8 has similar auto focus behavior, quite naturally, although it seems somewhat improved and bit quicker.  I haven't noticed any degradation with the increased pixel density, nor is it noticeably better in any way, compared to the GH4 or E-M1.  I'm sure that you can measure the differences in a laboratory, but I don't photograph in a laboratory.

For Auto Focus consistency:

1. E-M1
2. D7200
3. GX8
4. GH4

However, there is more to photographing sports for me, anyway.  The camera must be responsive, comfortable, and keep up with the action.

The D7200 is a huge improvement over the D7100 in terms of the image buffer depth.  At 6 frames per second, the D7200 does fairly well.  Unfortunately, it's not enough for skate park shooting.  Also, a lot depends on the lenses, more than on micro Four-Thirds bodies, it seems.  I've been reminded that big glass takes time, but I had no problem working with the slower Olympus E-5 and SHG lenses with 77mm filter size.

Keeping up is only slightly easier with the GX8 and its 8 frames per second.  It is more responsive than the GH4 in some ways but overall, it is not quite as able to do the job.

The E-M1 is extremely responsive, and seems to anticipate my needs.  Equally, the GH4 single AF is predictive and looking ahead before I half-press the shutter release.

For overall stills shooting:

1. E-M1
2. GH4
3. GX8
4. D7200

Street shooting

For casual photographers who want to go out and just photograph street scenes, the E-M1 and GX8 would be great.  The GX8 and Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 lens are great together.  The in-body image stabilization of the GX8 should make it somewhat more effective than most Panasonic bodies, although I haven't seen much evidence of it yet.  I have also used the 15mm f/1.7 lens on the E-M1 and find it to be very useful.  I'm sure there are people who would prefer the less expensive Olympus 17mm f/1.8 but I believe the 15mm's image quality is excellent and it works well when I'm shooting video.

I've heard a lot of people complain that an articulated rear display, such as what the GX8 and GH4 have, is not very useful, probably because it draws too much attention.  (I question what people are doing that they need to remain hidden.)  The sliding display of the E-M1 is preferred by these people, apparently.  This is where the GX8's tilting EVF shows its advantage.  It's so easy to use and you don't have to have you eye placed so close to actually use it.  I don't use it so much but it can be extremely useful in brightly-lit conditions where the articulated or a sliding display would be engulfed in sunlight.

Obviously, the D7200 is too big to be inconspicuous but also the GH4 even though it isn't terribly big.  People are calling the GX8 huge, so possibly the world is full of small, male hands.

1. E-M1
2. GX8
3. GH4
4. D7200

Video

When video comes into play, the Panasonic bodies overwhelm the others.

While the D7200 is better than the D7100 is, it's still not as good as the Panasonic GH3 for video, let alone the GH4 or GX8.  The lens mount may count for more than the sensor size here.  There are a lot of lenses for Nikon, even if it you have to choose very carefully.  The lack of an articulated rear display really hampers use of the D7200 but it has more options than the E-M1.  If you're trying to get product shots with the D7200 on a tripod, you're set.  I think you'd do better with the D5500, and save money to use toward a macro lens.  At skate parks on a handle, either Nikon body would do fine but the D5500 has an articulated rear display but is limited to 1/4000th of a second shutter speed.

The E-M1 has been sufficient to record video but is not very good, nor very versatile.  It might as well be a point-and-shoot camera for video, even though the quality is sufficient.  Firmware version 4.0 has added some options making it less unsuitable for video, including image stabilization help.  The sliding rear display is not particularly helpful for video.  It might as well be a fixed display.

Perhaps obviously, with 4K video, the GX8 and the GH4 are good at video.  Panasonic seems to have given the video capabilities more work than those for still photography.   I appreciate that I can use 1080p clips from both and they match very well.  I have yet to make real use of 4K video.  4K TVs have yet to make real use of 4K video--except for the demos they display in stores.  I've had my latest 1080p skate park video displayed on 4K TVs at an electronics store and it looked good.  Sony's upscaling worked the smoothest, over Samsung and LG.  When I've taken 4K video for testing, it tends to overwhelm the TV's processors.

The Panasonic video options are amazing, and cater to the video professional/film maker.  After months with the D7200, I have not even tried Live View mode, so I have not tried video.  It has some updates to help it do video better than the D7100 did.  Since I can't look through the viewfinder to see the video being recorded and I can't tilt the rear display, the D7200 is useless to me for video.  The D5500 would be more useful for video than the D7200, as the display is articulated.  However, these are typical problems with using dSLRs for video, instead of mirrorless models.

1. GH4
2. GX8
3. E-M1
4. D7200

Battery Life

I would hope that mirror-less models would have more battery capacity than dSLRs but that hasn't been the case for me.  The D7200 has a 1900 mAh battery and the GH4, a 1860 mAh battery.  The GX8 and E-M1 each have batteries around 1200 mAh.  Needless to say, I have 3 batteries each for the GX8 and E-M1, with 2 each for the D7200 and GH4.

For stills, I've shot several hours on the GH4 with one battery, but it doesn't last quite so long with video.  I'm sure that the D7200 should last the longest for stills.  Using the Olympus E-1 during wrestling tournaments, 4 1500 mAh batteries would handle a 14 hour day.  The E-5 uses similar batteries and I've never had a serious problem with battery life.

The E-M1 seems to want to turn on the rear display for almost anything, which is possibly the reason that the battery can be depleted so quickly.  The 5 axis image stabilization probably contributes quite a bit as well, as the loss in converting electrical energy to motion is higher than it should be.  The GX8 hasn't shown me that it is great on battery life, even though the rear display can be hidden.

1. D7200
2. GH4
3. GX8
4. E-M1

Viewfinder/Rear Display

I love an optical viewfinder.  I never thought I'd be able to use some electronic thingee instead.  When I got the Panasonic GH3, I didn't feel much different about EVFs.  The EVF in the GH3 isn't awful, but the EVF in concert with the eye cup didn't work well for me.  Then, I traded it for the E-M1.

The Olympus E-M1, FujiFilm X-T1, and Panasonic GH4 can all claim the greatest EVF title.  They're big, bright, and useful.  The X-T1's EVF rearranges the information in portrait mode, which could be helpful.  I like the X-T1 a lot, but it isn't right for me, shooting sports and all.  The GX8 has apparently been given the GH4 viewfinder, which is a big step up from the GX7 and the rainbow tearing effect.

For me, the E-M1, GH4, and GX8 have viewfinders that make daytime use great and nighttime use better than an optical viewfinder can provide.  It's also good to have a preview of the photo where you don't have to guess much as to the result.

Even when auto focus doesn't lock to a target, you can see fairly well.  Naturally, refresh time is degraded at night but it works well enough.  Version 4.0 of the E-M1 firmware has a simulated optical viewfinder mode.  I haven't really tested this new mode but I suspect it speeds up processing by not having to represent a realistic preview.

 I suppose being able to get the most out of an optical viewfinder is using your experience to extrapolate from what you see to the final photo.  Using the Olympus E-1 and E-5, I was able to get what I wanted from the photo with only an optical viewfinder.  The D7200's viewfinder is very good and if you really need more, you can switch to Live View using the fixed rear display.  However, you have to be patient with Live View.  Even with the E-5, patience was required and Olympus, along with Panasonic made Live View a big deal.  The E-330 worked better because it had two sensors to keep Live View quick.

As I've mentioned, the GX8 and GH4 have articulated displays, which are very useful in architectural shooting and even when you need to check the image when the camera is on the tripod, as the display can be folded out and completely reversed.  The E-M1's rear display slides down and slides up, making it possible to shoot from low angles or over crowds.

GX8
GH4
E-M1
D7200

Settings

Here is another point where the old ways don't really work.  For a few years, Olympus has been using an interactive settings display called Super Control Panel.  On the E-5 (from 2010), it was an easy way to switch ISO sensitivity, White Balance, Auto Focus, Burst Mode, even the card slot.

The D7200 has an informational display on the rear display.  You can see but you cannot touch--there is no interaction.  For someone unaccustomed to the menu system, forget about making quick adjustments without a well-traveled mentor at your side.

The Super Control Panel on the E-M1 is very useful.  The Quick Menu on the Panasonic bodies is useful but takes some acclimation with the up/down motion to select items to be changed.

I know that people complain about Olympus' (so many little gear selections!) menus, and they have become much more complex since the E-1 but every company seems to have complex and/or confusing menus.  I can say, as a new digital Nikon user, that I have been confused by the menus, even with help from searching the manual.  Had Nikon implemented an interactive settings display, it would have helped greatly to expedite changes.  Looking at the now available D500, things should be sped up by replacing the mode dial with ISO and other buttons, so you don't have to negotiate the multiple, near identical buttons to the left of the rear display.

1. E-M1
2. GH4
3. GX8
4. D7200

Ease of use

Having used Olympus products since the days of film, it's difficult to believe that I reach for a Panasonic product first.

In my opinion, the GH4 is a better successor to the Olympus E-5 than the E-M1 is.  The controls work the way I expect, for the most part from the start.  Of course, things were set with the GH3.  The GH4 makes a big difference by omitting a top panel display but having a mode dial, a drive dial, and various buttons for settings such as exposure compensation.  This is all rather convenient and works quickly in practice.  Something else that makes the GH4 (and GX8) quick are three physical spots on the command dial for custom settings and the C3 spot includes a total of three settings.  The only problem is that I forget about the drive dial to the left of the EVF.  If they had combined the mode and drive dials in a stack, it would have been useful.

The E-M1 has a mode dial but there are no positions for custom settings.  There are buttons for HDR, drive mode, auto focus, and exposure mode on the top plate.  There is also a button for the exposure curve and another for video recording.  Unfortunately, the E-M1 is never quite that intuitive.  The first time I tried one, I spent a lot of time trying to change exposure compensation back to zero.  The front dial is set to exposure compensation by default, which is totally different than the E-5--not a good thing to do with the replacement.

The GX8 seems sparse on the top panel.  It has a mode dial like that of the GH4 with an extra position for panoramic photos.  There is an extra dial below the command dial for exposure compensation, probably to appeal to FujiFilm users who find the X-T1 so interesting.  The lack of the GH4's rear wheel makes the replacement more point-and-shoot camera like that I would have expected.  The four buttons have separate functions, which is useful.

The D7200 has a mode dial to the left of the viewfinder, along with a drive dial below the command dial.  The command dial has two positions for custom settings.  Strangely, like the other three, there is a full automatic position on the command dial, along with Scene and Effects.  Do the users labeled Enthusiasts use these sorts of modes?  There are also buttons for exposure compensation, exposure mode, and video recording on the top panel, but they are out of the way of the top display.  The auto focus controls are at the bottom of the lens mount collar.

Thankfully, the custom settings positions on the command dial helps switch a lot of settings quickly.  While the E-M1 has no such positions on the command dial, they have a two way switch on the back that allows the buttons to take on different meanings.

While the E-M1 is easiest to make a lot of changes quickly through the Super Control Panel, if I want to change to manual focus with an Olympus lens, I reach for a physical switch that isn't there.  Someone will question this, as many Olympus lenses have the push-pull clutch AF/MF mechanism, but with the 8mm fisheye lens, there is no such physical switch.

The GH4 is the body closest to perfection.  It isn't horribly small and there are plenty of physical buttons and switches.  I get a lot done and it works well with longer lenses, even those not intended for the micro Four-Thirds system.  I've found that I can even work the video recording button while wearing gloves.

The GX8 isn't quite as intuitive, but it shares a lot of great traits with the GH4.  Unfortunately, the video recording button is tiny and difficult, even without gloves.  The most serious problem with using the GX8 is the location of the SD Card slot, next to the battery.  It isn't made for my fingers.  however, the GX8 can take a 128 GB card, rather than the 64 GB card that the GH4 can handle.

I like the D7200 a lot.  It's big enough to balance some very big lenses.  The top panel LCD makes checking settings very easy.  The dual SD Card slots mean that I can keep shooting, rather than scrambling for another card in my bag, although the larger files tend to balance that a bit.  I suspect if I was still photographing high school sports for 14 hours in a day, I would be pleased to use the D7200, especially since the battery has so much capacity.  The D7200 is a wonderful workhorse.  If you have everything set and don't need to make changes often, it is a desirable body.  It is not easy to change settings, but it is made for a lot of work when you're ready

GH4
E-M1
GX8
D7200

Conclusion

If these bodies didn't work for me, I wouldn't have any of them.  Switching between them during a shoot can be interesting.

The D7200 is a great tool for landscape work (compared to micro Four-Thirds) with 14-bit raw files for extra dynamic range and a larger sensor for wider work.  While the body is somewhat big and weather-sealed, the construction does not feel as strong as the others.  I've bought an Easy Cover silicone case to protect the body from bumps, since it doesn't seem as strong as the others.  The body doesn't seem to work as well as the others when there isn't much light.

The GX8 is a great second video body.  It is big enough to be comfortable but could use better battery capacity.  The promise of Dual Image Stabilization will eventually make it formidable.  Having 4K video puts it ahead of other bodies around its price.  Being able to easily mix video with video from the GH4 makes it extremely useful.  The lack of numbers on the function buttons makes setup interesting.

The E-M1 is a very good stills body.  Face detection makes it quick for portraits and sports.  The 5-axis image stabilization makes any lens better at twilight.  If Olympus implements Dual Image Stabilization, it will be even more powerful.  Battery life is a serious problem and the camera's grip isn't comfortable to me.  While it is a stop gap compromise to replace the E-5, to me, it's more compromise than replacement.  If you ignore its ability to work with Four-Thirds lenses, it becomes a much better solution, though I'm still not sure about micro Four-Thirds lenses.

The GH4 is slightly small compared to dSLRs, but still comfortable.  I almost don't have to think to use it.  It's rare that I have to stop to make changes.  I can switch between stills and video quickly, especially with 4K photo mode.  As with the GX8, the video versatility is a lesson to other brands.  Of course, the GH4 exceeds the GX8 by quite a bit in versatility, covering many bit rates.

Alternatives are available, such as the FujiFilm X-T1 and Pentax K-3 Mk II.  For me, the X-T1 is too slow to respond for skate park sports.  I considered the K-3 Mk II but while I had the K-50, I couldn't get the lenses I wanted.  Pentax is working on that.

Update 2016.07.21: I gave away the Nikon D7200 and associated equipment, including four lenses.  It was good equipment but it wasn't for me, even though I used to love using a dSLR.

Right now, if I wanted to replace it with a similar sensor, I'd order the FujiFilm X-T2 and a lens or two.  For the sake of reality, I didn't see enough difference from 24MP and APS-C to make me think that it would be necessary.  Where I limit my micro Four-Thirds photos to ISO 3200, I limited my D7200 photos to ISO 4000.  You might make it to ISO 6400 with the Nikon D500, but I would be skeptical.

The Pentax K-1 might be a useful alternative, but finding lenses that take advantage of the body at this moment is a difficult process.  The K-mount has been around since the late 1970s, when I was selling equipment, but the lenses didn't really distinguish themselves back then.  The standouts were Nikon and Olympus, at least, using 135 Format film.  FujiFilm, as Fujica, had a good showing with screw-mount lenses but switched to the K-mount with the AZ-1.

I'd still like to see a Panasonic body with Olympus' AF, including Face Detection.  I still find the GH4 to be an amazing camera body with so much value in a small package.

Nikon has introduced the D7110, errr, D7200

After two years, the D7100 has been replaced/surpassed.  Strangely, it is a very minor update.

I'd commented a while back that they could have released a bigger still frame buffer in an updated camera body called the D7110.  This is practically what they've done.

However, the newer auto focus module is more responsive in low light, similar to how it works in the D750, down to -3EV.  It also has built-in WiFi, just like the D750.  It includes the Expeed 4 processor and better ISO sensitivity.  Interval shooting has been improved from 999 shots to 9999.  Auto bracketing has been improved.  Maybe, that's enough for a D7120.  Maybe.

At US$1199.99, is it enough?  In two years, the Canon 70D, 7D MkII, Pentax K-3, Olympus E-M1 and E-M5 MkII, Panasonic GH3 and GH4 (and various models from Sony, such as the a6000) have become competition.

I've wondered why it has taken Nikon so long to replace the D300 properly, as well as the D700.  It's not a surprise that the D7200 is so similar to the D750, just as the earlier two were connected.  (Ricoh-)Pentax' K-3 seemed a proper successor to the D300 with some great functionality, hampered with typically Pentax firmware.  (As a perennial underdog, I wonder if the firmware had been written by Olympus that the K-3 would take a huge share of the US$1000-2000 interchangeable lens camera market.)

I'm not saying that the D7200 isn't welcome.  I'm saying that it's just a bit late.  Those who were waiting might have gone for the D750.

It feels as though Nikon doesn't believe that the market is worth much, or any, development.  That seems reasonable since it took Canon 3 years to revise the 7D.  It seems as though there isn't much money to be made in camera bodies under US$3000 for Nikon or Canon.

Thankfully, the price is good at US$1199.99.  Hopefully, this means that the D7000 won't continue to be sold.

In any case, with the buffer handled, the D300 should have a proper successor, but in a more economical model.  The Expeed 4 processor and revised image sensor should clear up the noisy photos issue from the D7100.  The bigger range of ISO sensitivity speaks to the noise elimination in the sensor, and the better processing of the Expeed 4 processor.

I'm not in love, but I'm definitely in like.

Update 2015.04.03: Having shot indoors at Woodward West during a scooter competition, ISO 3200 was a necessity, as 1/250th of a second shutter speed was a minimum.  Unfortunately, the Olympus E-M1 is as its usable (my opinion) limit, as is the Panasonic GH4 for still photos.  The GH4 1080p video looked okay, though.

While I don't regularly shoot in such situations, I have enough times that I might want a more capable body.  The D7200 is that body.  Is it good enough at ISO 3200 to make a purchase around US$2600?

Obviously, it's not just the US$1199.99 for the D7200 but the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 is the same price, and of course, taxes count.  The 135 Format-effective 22.5-45mm focal length range is slightly wider (but a lot shorter) than my current effective 24-80mm or 30mm fixed focal length.  I would prefer a bigger range but keeping good image quality is important.  If I used a superzoom lens, why bother with a better camera body?  I could just buy an ultrazoom compact camera and throw it all away.  Perhaps, a Pentax 645Z with a 3x normal zoom?  The D750 might be able to keep up, though I might have to switch the zoom range to 24-70mm but I suspect that will raise the price quite a bit to get a weather-sealed lens.  Is US$1199.99 enough for low light?

Update 2015.07.08: On Sunday, I bought the D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, quickly replacing a Pentax K-50 and kit lens that was only an experiment.  Someone I know had a camera stolen, and I gave the Pentax K-50 to him.

I'm having many new user problems, especially since this is the first Nikon product I've used extensively since film.  I chose not to buy the D100 or D70 back in 2004.

The Black & White ISO 51, 200 and 102,400 modes are interesting.  They only produce JPEG files but they work.  It bothers me that the ISO selection shows both ISO Auto and ISO 100, for instance.  As far as I'm concerned, it should show one or the other, but not both.  Showing a specific Auto ISO range makes sense.

It's not difficult to find the metering choices, but the auto focus choices?  They seem to be impossible to find.  Hopefully, they are hidden in plain sight.  It seems to be a sub-selection on a left-hand, rear-side button, but working the button to get that function is odd.

I took the D7200 and 18-35mm f/1.8 out around 11 at night and it didn't work nearly as well as either the Olympus E-M1 or Panasonic GH4.  In many cases, the camera refused to work at ISO 25, 600, even though the E-M1 and GH4 would work.  Alternatively, I had trouble with the E-M1 and the GH4 in the daytime.  That wasn't amusing.

It will take a while to be accustomed to another brand, although shooting is fairly reliable.

I needed to update to Phase One Capture One Pro version 8.3.1 to have raw file compatibility.

Update 2015.07.27: I've been having too many new user problems.  It was confusing that there is a menu option for 51 or 11 auto focus points, but nothing about the pattern.  I found the control encircled by the AF/MF switch.  It still didn't seem incredibly intuitive.  The camera body is reliable.  It's amazing to have 6 frames per second though, and think of it as slow.  The Olympus E-M1 does 10 FPS and the Panasonic GH4 does 12.

I'm working on a full report of my experiences.

Familiarizing myself

Using the High ISO Black & White modes

Update 2015.09.20: The D7200 is a good camera body, but it's not incredibly better than the Olympus E-M1 or Panasonic GH4.  Yes, the sensor is bigger.  That gives the body great potential to be better.

Since I've got some experience with it, I'm getting better photos.  Having the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens makes it a good combination.  However, it's a very slight improvement over what I can do with micro Four-Thirds.  The Olympus E-M1 has great facial recognition, so accurate focus for portraits with it is easy to get.  The Panasonic GH4 and GX8 do fine, but they take more time.  Naturally, with Phase Detection AF, there is no facial recognition and a slight mis-calibration of the lens can mean auto focus will not be in the correct place.

For skate park photos, it's not bad but the burst rate isn't fast enough to get the action every time.  Got to say that the extra 1.3x mode is helpful, and I can get a similar effective focal length as with micro Four-Thirds.  Also, when it's dark, the GH4/GX8/E-M1 EVF is much more useful, as I can actually see what's happening.  With the D7200, I see the dark, just as I do with the Olympus E-1 and E-5.

Thanks to the bigger buffer (and the 6 fps burst rate), the D7200 doesn't fill up that quickly.  If you consider 12 fps from the GH4, 43 photos come pretty quickly before the camera slows down significantly, there is a difference from the D7200.

Update 2016.01.11: It's been about a week since the emotional replacement for the D300, the D500, was announced.

Had this been available at the same time as the D7200, my choice would have been for the D500.  The D7200 is sufficient, but doesn't feel substantially better than my micro Four-Thirds camera bodies, even if a few of the available lenses are worth the switch.

The extra US$800 gets you three times the focus points, a better metering array, a big buffer, and an Expeed 5-class processor for better stills work.  The ISO 1 million+ sensitivity probably isn't very useful, but it is there, at least, for bragging rights.  Having ISO 51,200 in the normal range instead of a high ISO black and white mode means that ISO 6400 might actually provide reasonable photos and ISO 3200 might be usable in everyday situations.  I'm not finding ISO 3200 to be all that usable, except for Instagram and the high ISO modes are only useful for getting the shot when the light isn't there.

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?

FujiFilm X-E2 vs Panasonic GX7 vs Olympus E-M5 vs Olympus E-P5

As FujiFilm have recently added some interesting lenses to their system, I've been thinking more and more about the possibility that they're going to take a huge chunk of the mirror-less (interchangeable lens) camera market.

The X-E2 is likely the best candidate for switching camps, as it's at that delicate US$999.99 mark, without a lens.  The wondrous thing is that this is already a second generation body that has their improved sensor with phase detection and they've included an upgraded processing engine to accelerate response time.

Up against the GX7 and E-P5, you might wonder if there isn't a huge difference.  Obviously, with the E-P5, the out-of-the-box difference is that there is no viewfinder, other than the rear display.  The VF-4 is an additional US$299.99 but well worth it, as the same unit was put into the E-M1, and I found that to be almost as good as an optical viewfinder (it is near the size of the viewfinder of the Canon 1D x), similar to what's used in the FujiFilm X-T1.

The GX7 includes a viewfinder, apparently the field-sequential type with some rainbow-tearing effect but as I've been told, the problem is minimal.  If it eliminates the problem of blackout that I find with the GH3 EVF, I'd be fine with a bit of some rainbow weirdness, as long as I could see something.

I've included the E-M5, even though it's older now, because of the inbuilt viewfinder.  In many ways, it's close to the X-E2, e.g. with the 1/4000th of a second shutter speed, whereas the GX7 and E-P5 have 1/8000th as their fastest speed.  It also has very good performance in low light, enabling very usable photos at ISO 6400, something that the X-E2 supposedly does very well.  Since I started writing, the E-M10 has been introduced by Olympus, which makes this a more interesting comparison since it lacks the weather-sealing that the E-M5 has and brings the price down while adding the TruePIC VII processor for better image quality.

There is some weirdness with the X-E2 (as with all FujiFilm X-mount bodies), as you cannot use raw files and use an ISO sensitivity above ISO 6400--you must use JPEG files.  Why?  I suspect the only change to this will be in future generations.

Still, I'm betting with all of the casual users in this category, few are put off by having to use JPEG files in many circumstances, especially if they've been using such files from Olympus' excellent JPEG engine.  I'd think that many won't want to use a raw development application to process their files at all, even the excellent Capture One by Phase One.

I would consider a few things important in this category:

• Mobility
• Image quality
• Lens availability

Since the sensor size is larger, mobility is going to be affected more with the larger lenses of the FujiFilm system lenses.  Sure, they could make smaller lenses (they have the XC compact line), but at a huge compromise to image quality, just ask Sony and Samsung.  Even Olympus and Panasonic have made compromises to the lens configurations for the sake of compact dimensions and low weight.  That isn't to say that you can't get great photos using inexpensive lenses, but the clarity will probably not be there.

Image quality is where the X-Trans Sensor II shines.  Since the colour filter is seemingly more random (that's not precise but it seems a simpler way to put it), the colour should be better.  However, most raw development applications are having trouble making the most of it at the moment.

At 16.x MP, all of these sensors are a similar range, but the FujiFilm sensor has the least pixel density, which (all things being equal) should give it another advantage.  For the person printing no larger than 4x6 prints or sharing on the web, there likely isn't any advantage, and even the cheapest of these camera makers' mirror-less models will do.  (Given the 16.x MP Four-Thirds sensors, the equivalent pixel density would be part of an APS-C sensor with 24.x MP, such as the Nikon D7100 or Pentax K-3.)

Lens availability is becoming less of a problem for FujiFilm and they're bringing some desirable lenses to market, hopefully with some incredible image quality.  The X-E2 is especially able to take advantage of the newer lenses with lens profiles, even over the X-Pro1.

The availability is also the reason I would never consider the Sony or Samsung lines to be useful.  To be blunt, half-ass is not a great way to do things.  Even as another electronics company, Panasonic hasn't made horrible photographic mistakes.  They've stopped doing checklist engineering, and they're really thinking about how people use cameras.  Sony recently dropped the NEX name, possibly because Samsung copied the name (does NX seem like NEX?), or maybe to integrate everything under the Alpha name.  As far as I'm concerned, they (and Samsung) could have used HA as their system name.  That's not to say that Samsung and Sony don't make great components to be used in other companies' products--they do.  Their products are just less than the sum of their parts.

In all of this, I'm still not sure which camera body I would choose.  I think that micro Four-Thirds (GX7, E-P5, E-M5) is very compelling with a solution for almost any situation.  However, FujiFilm is giving their system a lot of power and solving a lot of problems that others wouldn't even consider.

If you loved FujiFilm's film, you'll likely love their film emulation modes in the X-E2.  If you want a vertical viewfinder, you'll love the GX7.  The E-P5 is a better stills photography tool than the GX7 but it lacks many video capabilities, and doesn't include any viewfinder for use in harsh light.  The E-M5 is still a quick, capable camera body with more options for better handling of larger lenses than the GX7 or E-P5, though it could use a faster 1/8000th of a second shutter speed.  (How did we manage way back when with 1/1000th?)

I suspect that FujiFilm's X-Trans sensor in future generations will be seriously compelling to those using Sony's sensors (or Canon's aging sensors in this price range), as by then the raw development applications will have better processing of the files, and FujiFilm will have ended the ISO sensitivity restrictions.  It should already be a worry for Canon and Nikon, but as FujiFilm progresses, what will they do?  A few years ago, the FujiFilm S5Pro was quite a camera body with a good sensor for studio use--big dynamic range, great color--but it was too slow to be used outside the studio for anything but landscape.  They've come a long way enabling some very desirable, small camera bodies.

Update 2014.12.21: Although the X-E2 has been given enhancements via firmware updates, the camera body hasn't changed.  By this time, the GX7 is about half the price of the X-E2.  The GX7 doesn't have as good image quality as the X-E2, especially in lower light conditions, but it does video well, something the X-E2 does not do well.

Thankfully, FujiFilm has brought a number of good (and some great) lenses to market, becoming less of a disadvantage of the system--i.e., micro Four-Thirds has a great number of native lenses available, plus all of those available through adapters.

Update 2015.09.14: The Panasonic GX7 has been replaced, as has the Olympus E-M5.  While the E-M5 MkII is about the same size as its predecessor, the GX8 is much larger, making it more balanced with bigger lenses.  They removed the inbuilt flash and weather-sealed the body, plus gave it 4K video recording capabilities.  The new, stronger EVF is amazing (and still able to be tilted) and the rear display is not only so much better but it's also fully hinged, so low architectural shots are now possible.

E-M10: Cheryl Tiegs, eat your heart out

Apparently, the Olympus E-M10 will be announced, along with a new, more compact kit zoom, and a 25mm f/1.8 lens, on the 28th/29th, depending on your location.

It appears to be a cut-rate E-M5 in a smaller body lacking weather-sealing, and will not replace the E-M5.

Since the E-M1 upset so many because it was supposedly huge (What do you do when you want to replace a dSLR (in this case, the E-5)?  You make a larger small body, right?), Olympus is also going the other way making a more tiny body.  I'm not sure whose male hands are so small but apparently there are many out there who already have micro Four-Thirds equipment.

Is the E-M10 a stab at the Panasonic DMC-GM1?  I don't think so.  I doubt this will be small enough to fit into a pocket, any more so than the E-PM2.  It's more likely to be a stab at the GX7 or the G6, and at least, Panasonic acknowledges the PAL side of video.

What's curious is that it will likely undercut the E-P5's price a bit while providing an Electronic Viewfinder.  So, the fastest shutter speed is really the only thing other than style that the E-P5 has.

Will this change Olympus' market penetration?  I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.  This certainly isn't something I would buy but I can see the performance being competitive against low end dSLRs.

Cheryl Tiegs, then a supermodel, introduced the OM-10 in advertising at the time.  I'm not sure a supermodel can help.  Kim Tae-Hee, a Korean supermodel has already been involved with micro Four-Thirds but I have my doubts that it would help, even though Samsung isn't making anything truly compelling in mirror-less camera bodies.

Update 2014.01.29: So, it's not actually the greatest camera body of all time.  Surprised?  Of course not.  It is a bargain, though.

Olympus has brought some technology down a price point or two.  Namely the best processing engine Olympus has, and a better rear display.  It also has 3-axis image stabilization, which is one axis better than the E-PM2 and E-PL5/E-PL6.  The 81 focus points sounds a bit better than 35.  Hopefully, they're arranged nicely across the frame.

The huge question is: Will people buy it?

During the holiday season, I saw various low end dSLRs offered for US$399.99.  It didn't matter that they were three years old.  Many of the people who would buy them just want a "professional" camera, and nothing says professional more than a cheap dSLR, correct?  Why spend US$6000 when your (photographic) friends can't tell the difference?

The trouble with this mindset is that until dSLRs are completely gone, mirror-less system cameras may never have a full shot at the market.  Of course, the high entry price says loads about it, and Olympus and Panasonic have made it clear that they want to make a lot of money from it, rather than trying to sell billions with very little profit, as is done with the cheap dSLRs.

Update 2014.02.10: I've seen some work done with it, and I'm impressed.  It's apparently better than the E-M5 in many ways, despite the budget-ish price.  For those who don't photograph in the rain, it shouldn't be a problem.  For those who want to photograph in the dark, they might want to try it first.  The TruePIC VII processor seems to find better image quality from the sensor also used in the E-M5.

I'm wondering what will happen to both the E-M5 and the E-PL5/E-PL6 now.  With a price just above the E-PL5/E-PL6, is the E-M10 just another option or does it confuse people?  You can use one of the electronic viewfinders with the E-PL5/E-PL6 but would you rather have everything in one box, so you don't forget the viewfinder?  The E-M10 is also cheaper than the E-PL5/E-PL6 with VF-4, though the E-M10's viewfinder isn't nearly as sophisticated.

Update 2014.04.03: Apparently, quite a few people are impressed with the E-M10 body.  They like that it's smaller than the E-M5 and less expensive, since it's not weather-sealed.  I can appreciate the step forward, but I wonder where that leaves the E-M5.  I see a lot of comments about price, and many of the same people commenting seem to have the least expensive lenses that they can find, which aren't weather-sealed, so for many, it's likely not a problem.  I'm thinking that the current count of weather-sealed lenses is up to 5, which isn't much considering that the majority of Olympus' Four-Thirds lens catalog was weather-sealed.

Panasonic GH3 vs Olympus E-M1

Part 2, here.

Had these both existed when I bought my GH3, it's likely the outcome would have been the opposite way.  Why?

Olympus is better at still photography.

I bought the GH3 because I needed help with lower light photography indoors.  Why didn't I consider the E-M5?  Size.  It was too small to be useful in sports (just as my OM-1N was, though the heavier, bigger Nikon F2 wasn't all that great), and would require the additional grip just to be functional for me but of course, in true Olympus fashion, the grip was in the way of some controls.  (The OM-4Ti grip wasn't bad for the time but sports photography often required using a tripod and flash because there wasn't enough light.)

The GH3 was still a bit small.  The Olympus E-1 was practically a perfect size for E-system lenses.  The ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 can be used handheld quite easily, although the balance is improved with the E-5.  However, I use the GH3 with the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5.  Auto focus works faster, especially in poor light, than that of the E-1--at least, my E-1.

GH3 at front left, with an E-M5 and 2 E-M1 bodies

The E-M1 auto focus is improved over the earlier micro Four-Thirds bodies made by Olympus.  Whether it's better than the GH3 remains to be seen (update: the E-M1 auto focus of Four-Thirds lenses is great in bright light but I didn't get a chance to try it in dimmer situations), but I suspect it will be, except in lower light, where Olympus repeatedly has failed.  I'm not saying that it's easy for Nikon or Canon--just that they've done something more than say "that's okay enough" and quit that Olympus have often done.  Just last month, Panasonic updated firmware on the GH3 to include auto focus down to -4 EV.  If they can do it, Olympus can do it.

Now, for something that drives me bonkers--white balance.  The GH3 shifts the white balance from shot to shot just slightly.  The best thing to do would be to keep a piece of white paper with me and get a setting and stick with it.  I always worry about other things and forget about the piece of paper, and adjust in post processing.  Apparently, this is a problem with the majority of bodies from various brands.  I'd become so accustomed to the E-1 with the one-touch white balance setting that I hadn't really considered that the rest of the world was so messy.  Working in Phase One Capture One Pro 7, I don't really notice it so much, unless there is something dramatically wrong, especially with hundreds of photos at a time.

I believe that the Olympus E-M5 has the edge over the GH3 in lower light photography at high ISO sensitivities, so I expect the E-M1 to work at least that well.  Panasonic tends to smush everything at some point above ISO 3200.  I get great shots at ISO 3200 but don't bother using anything above that.  However, I've seen acceptable shots from the E-M5 at ISO 6400.  Apparently, the Panasonic GX7 is much better, but is it better than the E-M1, or even the E-P5?

The GH3 excels at something I've barely used--video.  In just a few seconds of video I've taken, I can see that Panasonic really worked at it and you wouldn't need a video camera, although it would be easier to get 30 minutes or more into one file since there is a legal/taxation limitation.

I'm not selling my GH3 to jump to the E-M1.  In a bit over 6 months, I'm just barely comfortable with it.  In another year, there may be replacements for both.  For all we know, Panasonic may make a GH5 with phase detection auto focus points on the sensor and allow smooth operation down to -4 EV.  All I can say is that it would be interesting to see how the E-M1 works with my current Four-Thirds lenses but almost good enough isn't good enough.

Update 2013.10.05: Having spent more than an hour or two with the E-M1, and having used it with my Four-Thirds ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 and ZD 14-35mm f/2.0, I can say that the E-M1's auto focus was quick enough in the store to be useful.  Whether it's good in a darker gym (where I photograph a lot of sports) or not, I have no clue.  People have hinted that E-5 users will not be pleased in low light with the E-M1.  Olympus have struggled with low light AF as far back as I can remember--my E-1 is terrible in low light.  For casual use with the Four-Thirds mount lenses, I think the E-M1 will be quite good.  Perhaps, I'll just wait for the next one or hope that Panasonic adds the same sensor to the GH3 replacement.

Given my encounter with the E-M1, I thought about what annoyed me where the GH3 is better: the angular grip, the sliding, tilting mechanism of the rear display.  The GH3 has a comfortable grip (bigger battery), even when holding my SHG lenses and the fully-articulated rear display is helpful, even though it doesn't have the excellent Olympus Super Control Panel or the excellent EVF.

Pros for GH3:

• Fully-articulated display
• Comfortable body
• Video
• Auto Focus to -4 EV--starlight

Pros for E-M1:

• Image quality, especially from ISO 6400 and up
• Phase detection used for Four-Thirds lenses and for tracking with micro Four-Thirds lenses
• Electronic Viewfinder
• Super Control Panel 

Update 2014.03.11: Does the GH4 change the balance?  I regularly find that ISO 3200 is the highest sensitivity that I find produces acceptable photos.  Since the usable limit is being changed from ISO 12,800 to 25,600, does that mean that ISO 6400 is now acceptable?  The photos I've seen suggest that in many ways, ISO 6400 on the GH4 is even somewhat better than ISO 3200 on the GH3.  In no way does that mean that my photos (i.e., swimming or basketball photos) will have less noise, but it certainly would suggest that.

Also, with the newfound processing power to handle 4K video, still photography is getting a boost.  Hopefully, that means that everything will be more responsive, including auto focus.  I don't care for auto focus, but with the short, short lenses, it's better than trying to manually focus them.  Subject tracking on the GH3 needs a huge improvement and if what Panasonic has said about the GH4 is real, there may be some improvement.  They have suggested that, because of the improved processing power, there was no need for Phase Detection pixels on the sensor.  I am skeptical, but hopeful.

The electronic viewfinder and rear display have been enhanced.  The EVF still isn't as large an image as on the E-M1/VF-4 (0.71x), which is smaller than that of the FujiFilm X-T1 (0.77x), at 0.67x but improvement can come in other ways.  They made statements about using aspherical elements in the magnification to counter the appearance flaws of the GH3's EVF.  They also increased the contrast ratio to 10,000:1, and redesigned the eye cup.

Of course, the GH3 was US$100 cheaper but the GH4 is US$300 more expensive.  The E-M1 is only adequate in video and that's where the real difference is.

Update 2014.03.22: I've seen many shots from the E-M1 now and I don't see that they're as good as shots from the E-M5 or E-M10 at ISO 6400 or higher.  I'm not sure why carving out 35 phase detection pixels (or is it many more within 35 areas?) would be the cause of the degradation since FujiFilm's X-Trans II sensor has some 86,000 pixels dedicated to phase detection.

It doesn't seem that the E-M1 is quite the low light magician that it might be, unfortunately.

Update 2014.10.17: I traded my GH3 back in June, while the trade-in value was good,  for the E-M1.  The switch was not awful, but also not great.  After four months, I find that the E-M1 is still not as comfortable as the GH3/GH4 body but it is so responsive that it makes up for it somewhat.  The tiny body also means that I run out of battery power much earlier than with the GH3.  I believe that I never switched to my second GH3 battery, while I often have to switch to a second battery with the E-M1.

The viewfinder of the E-M1 is better but not without the blackouts I also experienced with the GH3.  I switched to a different eyecup, hoping that it would not scratch my sunglasses so much, and help with blackouts.  There are still blackouts.

It is too easy to change the focus point location, even while viewing photos.  The 4 way controller buttons will move the focus point, while the OK button will bring up the Super Control Panel, and the front dial will change the exposure compensation.  Then again, with the GH3's Quick Menu, I was never sure that anything had been changed at all, and many times, I had to go to the menus to change things.

I'm still looking at the GH4 for video work, but I'm looking more at lenses and other equipment at the moment.

Update 2014.12.14: Got the GH4 a couple of weeks ago, and it feels good.  I've begun to do video and I'm mostly pleased with the results, especially considering my lack of experience.

As with the GH3, it's a good tool.  Unlike the GH3, the GH4 handled a darker indoor location much better than the E-M1 with the same lens, and I didn't have to set a certain ISO sensitivity to achieve auto focus or anything else.  The E-M1 seems to need to be set precisely for what you want.

The GH4 really fixes the electronic viewfinder issues for me.  It may still not be perfect, but it works very well.

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

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

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

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

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

External size:

Width x Height x Depth

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

Weight:

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

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

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

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

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

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

MTF charts:

12-40mm f/2.8

14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Mk II

14-35mm f/2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerned about Olympus' next Four-Thirds move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Panasonic GX7 vs Olympus E-P5 vs E-M5

I believe most everyone interested in cameras has seen the announcement of the Panasonic DMC-GX7.

Regardless of your current equipment, you should find it an interesting camera body.

Highlights for me:

• 1/8000th of a second shutter speed
• Tilting electronic viewfinder (EVF)
• 2 axis in-body image stabilization

That doesn't seem like a lot, does it?  Those are three items that my current (Panasonic GH3) equipment doesn't have.  There are various vertical viewfinder attachments for optical viewfinders and the Olympus VF-4 and VF-2 tilt, but having such a device attached is brilliant.

In the old days of medium format, they used a vertical viewfinder with the upside down image and all and that was more fun than you could imagine.  Somewhere along the line (the Mamiya 645 1000S, perhaps?), an eye level viewfinder was added.

Not all your subjects will be at your height and getting a good angle is usually critical to the success of the photo.  Of course, if you're not as tall as your subject, tilting the viewfinder up won't help you much.

Having the flipping (no expletive!) display panel on the rear helps greatly, so in bright light and macro settings, a 2.7+ million dot/pixel/whatever viewfinder will help.

Given that Voigtländer and others have already presented f/0.95 maximum aperture lenses, using them in bright light without a quick shutter speed has limited their Depth of Field advantage.  Olympus recently added a 1/8000th of a second minimum (not maximum--it's quick, not slow!) shutter speed, it seems right that Panasonic should do the same.  That leaves the Olympus E-M5 and the Panasonic GH3 out of luck, behind the times--oh, no!!

Considering that most micro Four-Thirds lenses from Panasonic and Olympus have small maximum apertures, it wasn't really a problem, but Panasonic revealed that the (Panasonic/Leica) 42.5mm f/1.2 lens is on its way--at an undisclosed time and price.  Add that to the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f/1.4, and you have more need for the 1/8000th of a second shutter speed.  I have frequently used such a shutter speed with the Four-Thirds version of the Leica/Panasonic f/1.4 lens.  (If you're tried the Four-Thirds Leica lenses, you know why I make the distinction.)

My GH3 is feeling a bit anemic these days with all these enhancements in the world but it still works as well as it did when I first got it.  Obviously, for stills, it wasn't the greatest choice, but for overall handling, it's the best.  I never could have handled the E-M5 as well and got work done quite so easily.  Similarly, the E-P5 and the GX7 will be great tools, but not for me.  Even when I'm casually shooting, I have a big camera body and big lens.  I sometimes hang the GH3 around my neck to get a different angle on things, but for fast sports, it's not great, and for casual stuff, it's overkill.

I think people will love the GX7, as much as other people love the E-P5 but they'll adore not forgetting their clip-on EVF.

How does this all change with the E-M1?  It doesn't change much since the E-M1 and the GH3 are more the opponents.  Still, the 1/8000th of a second shutter speed will help with those Voitgländer lenses and the GH3 doesn't have it (and that Mamiya 645 1000S added 1/1000th like the 135 format SLRs of the 1970s).  The GX7 likely has better video than the E-M1, which doesn't even seem to consider PAL 25/50 timing.

Three Months with the Panasonic GH3

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

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

What's good:

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

What's not so good:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Digital photo noise--subjective, not objective

I happened to see the latest Popular Photography issue at the store today.  I've never given much thought to the magazine since the first time I look at it during the days of film and laughed at their conclusions.

In the current issue, they were reviewing the Panasonic DMC-GH3, a camera body I recently bought.  They had a bar graph for noise at each ISO sensitivity setting.  First, they had ISO 100, which isn't a setting in the GH3.  I guess they couldn't be bothered to put the actual number in their graph, although in the same area of the review, they had ISO 125.

Concerning noise, they had ISO 1600 and up as unacceptable.  I'm not sure how they can tell what is acceptable or not.  When I worked with film, ASA(ISO for digital) 400 film was usually acceptable, especially with the later formulations, and it is horribly worse than most digital sensors of the past few years.  Whether it's the grain of black and white, incorrect pigment of color, or digital noise, who can say definitively what is acceptable?

Other reviews have said that at ISO 800 on the GH3 (and I believe, the Olympus E-M5), noise is creeping into the photos.  That makes sense since that number was where the problem really started with the E-1.  My own experience tells me that the images I'm getting at ISO 1600 are very clean and the images at ISO 3200 are reasonable, but not beautiful.  After that, don't expect much of anything positive.  Yes, I've seen people claim to get really good photos at 12,800 but I don't believe it's likely unless they're working with a Nikon D4.

Still, for someone to put a wall up saying "unacceptable" seems unacceptable in itself.  It's difficult to quantify and impossible to generalize that all photos fit into one category.  I would agree that a photo is likely to be more noisy at a certain ISO sensitivity but to be unacceptably noisy?  It's like comparing different technologies and using numbers that don't mean the same thing.  I've been reading that camera makers have implemented film-like noise somehow.  This is certainly better than the banding we've seen in certain situations but it's the chroma (color) noise that makes the biggest problems.

I've printed indoor E-1 (using flash) photos on 13x19 paper and found them to be quite acceptable, as are the outdoor photos.  Are they exquisite and flawless?  No.  The noise is not really visible and I can only guess that the combination of photo processing and printing evened out the noise so that it isn't noticeable.  For that matter, how would a 14 MP point-and-shoot compact have good 8x10 or bigger output?  The TV shopping channels almost always have huge prints from so-so point-and-shoot cameras, so something has to be happening.

I believe that there is a point where the noise will be so visible that it's unacceptable to everyone.  In certain industries, almost any photo noise is too much, which is why fashion uses medium format and studio lighting.  I've even seen shoots where they use lighting during daylight.  Even the E-5 has amazing image quality with studio lighting.  I'm sure Popular Photography would disagree.

Nikon D7000/D300s replacement(s)?

So, I've been asking this question for a rather long time.  It was of real concern to me when I was considering a new Olympus body because I thought that I might jump ship.  At the time, the D300/D300s was a good performer but a bit old in image quality and there wasn't enough difference between it and the E-5 to jump ship.  The D7000 was good but it didn't seem enough in many ways (although it's a great budget body), especially over a used D300.

Now, it's 2013 and the D700 has been replaced and has a cheaper relative in the D600.  The D5100 has been surpassed, as well.  The D7000 has dropped in price to the point where it's a very good choice...for last year.

I've been expecting a switch and I mentioned in the past with the D600 having been on the way that Nikon might just combine the D7000 and D300s replacements into one body, at a very desirable price point.  I'm sure a lot of things delayed the company's progress--a huge earthquake and tidal wave, flooding, and the mirror-less revolution in Japan.

I would hope to see such a camera body soon, given the pricing.  Can they combine a better low light experience with a higher image quality for a great price?  I believe so.  Could the sensors be a problem or are they re-engineering the body to avoid dust and oil contamination, as with the D600 problem?

I'm still unwilling to put US5000 or more into jumping ship, so I'm thinking about it all very carefully.  I'm also waiting to see what solution comes from Olympus this year to replace the E-5.  Even if it's merely the E-M5 sensor in the E-5 body (coordinated, of course), that would be fine with me.  Working at double the ISO image quality would be quite a boost.  When Nikon is only stating an upper limit to their working range as ISO 6400 that sounds good, but do I want to use those images?

Any time now...

Update: Well, that was almost one week until the D7100 to be announced.  It combines the best parts of the D300 into the D7000 body, and even has an extra crop mode to give Four-Thirds users like me, an easy way to jump ship and get the same 2x multiplication of focal length with a bit of a boost in burst shooting speed.  Well done!