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 DMC-GH4 to be announced soon? Status: Available

It has been announced.  See what I wrote here.

I got mine. 

Since the Olympus E-P5, Panasonic GX7, and Olympus E-M1, time has been pushing the Panasonic GH3 backward a bit, as far as the use of current technology.

Notably, the 1/8000th of a second shutter speed those three have, mates better with those Voigtländer f/0.95 aperture lenses.  They also have fancier viewfinders, even though the E-P5's excellent VF-4 viewfinder is an optional add-on.

Thankfully, I don't have such fast lenses (maximum aperture f/1.4) for the GH3, and my f/2.0 Olympus ZD lenses don't always have a problem with the 1/4000th of a second shutter speed.  I've seen 1/5000th of a second shutter speed while photographing sports with the Olympus E-5 and those same Olympus ZD lenses.

On the other point, the electronic viewfinder is a major problem for me.  I have managed to work around it, but there have been times when I'm trying to get some shots and the camera is working but the viewfinder is not up to speed, so there is guess work involved in getting the next shot.  Also, the color rendition is lousy--purple is dark blue, as I noticed last Thursday.  The shots look fine but the viewfinder misleads you.  Manual focusing is another difficult area, as there are just not enough pixels to replace an optical viewfinder well, and the magnifying bit is annoying and I miss shots, so I've disabled the "assistance".  However, using the E-M1's EVF and having zero problems with it, suggests that Panasonic can also do that well with theirs.

Now, there is a Panasonic announcement (GM1, 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 and future Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7) in a little more than a week (further back?), supposedly.  It may not be about the GH3 replacement but Photokina isn't that far away (actually, Photokina has turned into an every-other-year exposition, so waiting until October 2014 is a bit long) and it seems that they announced the GH3 about that time.  Update 2013.11.06: October is gone, and November seems to be quiet.  There are rumors about a 4K video addition, but will that be put into a GH3 replacement?  That almost seems too much, as it will require more firmware, and much stronger processing capabilities.  Still, Panasonic seem dedicating effort to toppling Canon's 5DMkIII, so it might happen.  There is also the AF100/AF105 that they need to replace, so it might be a dual announcement.  NAB 2014 runs from April 5 through 10.  Perhaps, the announcement will happen then.  It seems late but plausible.

(Why isn't the replacement a GH4?  Since the sound of "four" in Japanese and Chinese is the same as "death", it is considered an unlucky number.  In Japan, inviting 3 guests has been considered a situation where you want one of them to die because there will be four of you seated at the table.  Because of that, tableware comes in sets of five.  I don't buy products in sets of four simply because I might run into the situation, whether I believe in superstition or not, I am a Japanese.)

It would be good to see the GH5 with the enhancements of the GX7, while still providing a great camera body and manual controls (not counting the DISP button).  If Panasonic can move the acceptable photo level from ISO 3200 to ISO 6400, I'd be thrilled because ISO 6400 right now is mush, even with raw files.  It seems that they need a bit more fine control in the Venus imaging engine.  (Update 2013.11.07: I read the DPReview review of the GX7 and the EVF is really broken with "rainbow tearing".  What good is a denser display, if you can't see the scene properly?)

With the speedier shutter speed and an enhanced viewfinder, it will make a good package better for photographers, rather than just videographers.  Panasonic mentioned that they wanted the GH3 to be a great stills camera and they were on the right track but they didn't make it all the way.

The GX7 (and the GM1!) seems to have adjusted things a bit, so they're still learning.  Of course, the sensor from the Olympus E-M1 would help me a lot.  I use my Four-Thirds lenses enough of the time that having auto focus available at times would be useful.  Most of them work now, but I need patience compared to using them on the Olympus E-5.  I would still need some patience compared to the E-5 when using them on the E-M1, so I could ask the runners to run more slowly.

Token changes are unnecessary.  Color options aren't warranted.

I suspect that a lot of people are waiting to see if Panasonic implements a 4K video mode of any kind.  I would suggest that they need to modify a lot to get there, even though the sensor has enough resolution for it.  Faster pathways cost more and there would need to be more firmware capacity to support 4K video.  As far as I'm concerned, they can rip out all the fancy effects in the firmware and just provide great stills and video.

Update 2014.01.08: Panasonic has shown a GH3 with a "4K" sticker on the GH3 and proposed that this newer, higher model will be "arriving" in late February here.   Of course, saying that it's under US$2000 likely means that it's US$1999(.99) or thereabouts.  Still, it's cheaper than the Canon 5DMkIII.  There was apparently zero news about how it worked photographically, other than being able to take a stills shot while capturing video.  200 Mbps capture is fast, so those little SD Cards won't be as useful as they are with the GH3.  Since it's not a replacement for the GH3, I'm still wondering when Panasonic will replace it, as they can't make hardware changes through firmware, even though a lot of people apparently think it's possible.

I suspect that they could make the GH3 a great photographic tool, if they removed most of the video firmware content and replaced it with appropriate firmware content for still photography but that wouldn't do since video is the GH3's very special domain.

Update 2014.11.26: The GH4 has been available for a while and it's been successful.  It still has the odd problem with auto focus, but what camera body doesn't?  Getting 85% from DPReview was surprising, since they generally only like Canon or Nikon equipment.

I still have not bought mine, and I traded my GH3 in June (for an Olympus E-M1) to avoid a discounted trade-in price.  This is definitely the time to buy as the GH4 has been discounted to roughly $1499.99 everywhere.  When I tried to trade in June, Unique Photo wasn't getting them regularly, and I happened to be gone the next week with no certain address ahead of me until July.

The E-M1 has been a good companion but not as comfortable as the GH3, and definitely not a video-oriented camera body.  It is extremely responsive.

Thinking about the discount on the GH4 right now, I may take a trip to buy one in just a bit.

Update 2015.04.08: I got mine shortly after that, with the US$200 discount.  It's been much better than the GH3.

It can be a pain but it's less of a pain than the GH3.  It's amazing for video, less so for still photography with not so good auto focus.

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.

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.

Olympus, Fuji, and Style

I am one of the few people, it seems, who believes that the output from the camera has more importance than the way it looks to other people while I'm using it.

A few years ago, a friend in Singapore was telling me how great the new Sony dSLRs (new from Minolta at the time) looked and how he just had to have one.  I commented that they weren't very good technically and that Minolta was always a mediocre brand and it seemed that Sony was aspiring to mediocrity lately, so they fit.

It didn't matter--the camera body looked great to him.  He later bought the thing and, as he wasn't expecting much, it didn't disappoint.

More recently, when Olympus brought out the new Pen and OM-D series, they took bit styling cues from their film-laden past.  The film Pen series was quite popular and the OM series of SLRs was extremely popular, even with professionals.  I noticed a change in the forums I visited.  Suddenly, people were worried about cases and straps and the colour of the lenses that they bought more than they were worried about the photos.  Odd, that.

I suppose it's different coming from one box, a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, and feeding it rather large film with small hands, looking through the viewfinder at an upside-down image and learning to compose a shot with thought.  Then, I had a Polaroid instant camera of some sort that took Type 88, 107, or 108 film (The Convertible, I believe) and I had control over the exposure.  My dad's heavy Polaroid Land Camera actually had the numeric exposure values that you could choose.  I'd be comfortable with those now, but the plastic Polaroid camera had it set to a medium setting and you could twist the dial in the light or dark direction.  I could never remember which did what, so I rarely messed with it.  The inbuilt light meter really didn't help much, but I suppose it kept me from ruining all 8 prints in the pack.

All this time, I was concerned with getting the shot right.  I walked forward and I walked backward.  I leaned and I would sometimes lie on my back in order to get the shot.  I was never concerned about how the camera (or I) looked.

So, I was also recalling people who would buy a dSLR because they wanted to look "professional", whatever that is.  They didn't know how to work it and they only had the kit lens and their photos weren't very good, but they felt no ridicule in using the camera completely on automatic settings because they looked professional.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Olympus' latest micro Four-Thirds camera, the E-P5 harkens (ha! I never have used that word) to a simpler time and the Olympus Pen F half-frame 135 format camera.  It has some good upgrades like the 1/8000th of a second shutter speed through better mechanicals and less time for shutter power saving to boost the performance.  It bodes well for the end of the year announcement of a professional body to replace the E-5.  This may or may not be a mirror-less body with some sort of modular lens mount that will allow both Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds lenses to be used.  (Update 2013.12.11: How reality can smack you when you've read too many rumors!  Rather than a modular camera body, the E-M1 is a micro Four-Thirds body than requires an adapter to use Four-Thirds lenses.)

In any case, the announcement seemed slanted more toward accessories with new leather half-cases and wood grips.  They even had a country club theme to the announcement venue.  Seriously odd, that.  However, people worried about image more than image quality might aspire to being seen as someone who should be recognised for whatever reason.

Fuji has been busy too, with their X-series of rangefinder cameras.  They even have a zoom lens.  If you remember how to use a rangefinder, you might remember making guesstimates of distance for focusing.  You had to take time to plan each shot.  It was a wonderful process that people are re-learning.  Considering that Fuji was having a terrible time with auto focus on their early releases, I'm sure that people were learning a lot about manual focus and taking time.  I had a chance to handle the Fuji X10 yesterday and it seems a fine piece of work.  It was next to a Canon Powershot G1X and I have no doubt that the X10 was better in most every way.  It wasn't enough for me to put money into it, though.  Given that I've seen Panasonic's GX1 body for sale for US$199 recently, why not spend less and be compatible with lenses I already have?

Given the dearth of lenses, many people have bought simple adapters and learned to use lenses from the deep, dark past when auto exposure and auto focus had not been available.  Two rather beloved (and expensive for the mirror-less cameras) lenses come from Cosina/Voigtländer and feature no electronic connection at all but the very lovely f/0.95 maximum aperture.  It's amusing that people will reject a camera body because of the auto focus speed but will use a very, very manual lens.  They must take the time to learn what works.  Maybe, they even work the numbers in their mind.  The thought of thoughtful photography and composition is wonderful.  Instead of the "professional" pointing at something and holding the shutter release for seconds, we have someone setting up a tripod, walking to and fro, moving the tripod, setting the distance, working out the aperture, and finally after minutes of work, taking the photo.  It's progress!

Update 2013.12.11: With some of the Fuji bodies succeeded with faster processors and newer sensors, FujiFilm keeps showing us the alternative viewpoint of how a digital rangefinder could be done.  I don't particularly care about the style, one way or the other, but the processing speed is better than adequate now, and the image quality is far better than average.  Still, I'm not that patient.