Three good reasons to use micro Four-Thirds

 

I've been using micro Four-Thirds seriously since 2014 and I was dabbling from 2012.

I've been hearing "Full Frame" chants since 2004, even when there weren't any such bodies available.

I have three good reasons to use micro Four-Thirds.

• Weight
• Telephoto reach
• Variety of available lenses
• Video on Panasonic bodies
  

Weight is not difficult to understand.  if you have a light system, you can photograph more effectively and travel further with more equipment.  You can find select equipment that is smaller than typical for various sensor sizes, but overall, micro Four-Thirds has the smallest combinations.  Even with the GH7 and G9 MkII, the equipment is fairly light in contrast to APS-C or 135 Format.

Telephoto reach is not difficult, either.  Having a multiplication factor of 1.94x over 135 Format, a telephoto lens with the same reach is smaller.  400mm is effectively 800mm and yes, the Depth of Field is deeper, which is actually preferable when shooting from a distance.

micro Four-Thirds started around 2008, so it has a lot of lenses available over 16 years.  The original lenses were just sufficient.  Since then, some unique lenses such as the Panasonic 10-25mm f/1.7 lens and the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens.

Best photography with micro Four-Thirds

You can do anything with any camera, if you have the determination, the money, and the skill and sometimes, the luck.  However,  If you're in micro Four-Thirds for wide landscape photography, you're in the wrong format.  If you're photographing weddings or doing portraits, there are better sensor sizes.  However, if you're doing video for weddings or practically anything else, micro Four-Thirds, especially Panasonic, has you covered.

Since the GH4, Panasonic put a lot of its professional knowledge into a camera body that was easy to handle.  Up through the GH7, they have added stabilization, waveforms, and more to make it easier to get video recorded consistently.  The 135 Format Panasonic S5 Mk IIx is equivalent to the GH7, but the GH7 has fewer downsides.  I have the regular S5 Mk II, but I'm not doing much video these days.  Even then, I suspect that Panasonic has a few more firmware updates for the series.

Doing video with the GH4 was better than okay but the auto focus wasn't reliable and the body didn't have IBIS (in-body image stabilization).  For someone with a gimbal stabilizer, it would be less of a problem.  Most film makers don't use auto focus, so there isn't a problem for them, either.  The GH7 and G9 Mk II both have hybrid (PDAF + CDAF) auto focus and amazing Dual I.S. when using Panasonic lenses with O.I.S.

Been mostly mirrorless for ten years

 It's been about ten years since I was mostly using mirrorless cameras.

I had the Olympus OM-D E-M1 in the summer of 2014 and the Panasonic GH4 in December.  I'd been using the Olympus E-1 since April 2004 and the E-5 since 2012, along with the Panasonic GH3.

 

I photographed sports with the E-1 for quite a while.  When I got the E-5, I also got the ZD SHG 35-100mm f/2.0, which was amazing for swimming and basketball photography.  You could practically hammer nails and dunk the equipment and it would still work.

The GH3 was a bad choice for me.  I didn't do video and it excelled at video and didn't do quite that well for stills photography.  The EVF had a purple tint.  The Panasonic X 35-100mm f/2.8 was 2/3 the price of the Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 but it was 1/10 the lens.  The latest Leica-branded 35-100mm f/2.8 seems to be much better.

In late 2013, I got a call from Olympus and they invited me to see some unannounced camera.  That camera was the E-M1.  It was supposed to take my lenses and make them work as well as on my Four-Thirds equipment.  That didn't work as expected.  I had my backpack with two SHG lenses and more HG lenses.  They worked but the E-5 was much faster to focus.  I declined to promise that I would buy one but that I would keep quiet about my experience.  I hoped that a production model would be much better.

In early summer 2014, I was frustrated with the GH3 and traded it for an E-M1.  It was better than the GH3.  The color of the viewfinder was more like real life.  The GH3 was purple-tinted.  The E-M1 responded like a real camera, not just a video camera with a modification for still photography.

I moved to California and my first week, I was photographing at skate parks.  My timing plus a fast burst mode got me a lot of winners.  I still used the dSLR and did just fine.  Having just the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 and the Panasonic X 35-100mm f/2.8, I didn't have as much lens versatility as I did with the dSLR.  I had an adapter but the speed just wasn't good enough.  It was better to use the dSLR and get the shots than to miss them.

When the GH4 was available in December, I started recording video.  It was cumbersome because the GH4 had no In-Body Image Stabilization and the Lumix X 35-100mm f/2.8 had Optical Image Stabilization that made video worse.  The Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 didn't have any problem but it was too wide for what I needed.  That Olympus Pro 12-100mm f/4.0 would have been ideal, if they'd only had it sooner.

In the last week, I've seen quite a few videos on the E-M1.  The latest OM-1 Mk II seems very much like the original E-M1 but better.  To me, the E-M1 was the reason to have a mirrorless camera.  I remember trying the Fujifilm X-T1 but it wasn't very good and the mirrorless camera bodies from Sony were worse.  Photographing sports, I didn't spend 45 minutes photographing a flower.  I also didn't spent a lot of time in post processing.  I had a certain look and that took a little while for each, and I could put some samples up and wait for orders.

 When you look for cameras now, you'll see many more mirrorless cameras and lenses than you will dSLRs.  The dSLRs still exist and a number of them are being sold, but most of the old is being retired.  You can thank Panasonic and Olympus for this revolution.

I have continued with the Panasonic S5 Mk II, which is 135 Format and heavier than I've had for a while.  That Olympus E-5 in the photo was rather heavy and so was the 35-100mm f/2.0.

Update 2024.12.01: I was thinking about how much has changed.  They were trying to find a good way to identify mirrorless camera systems. ILC, MILC, CSC, and more were used.  I remember going to a store in Dayton, Ohio.  I'd been to one of the same company's stores in Cincinnati, Ohio and they had a decent selection and no brand fanatics.  A salesperson greeted me and asked how she could help.  I said that I was looking for micro Four-Thirds equipment and she took me to the Sony equipment.  I said "no, I want to see micro Four-Thirds equipment.  Olympus and Panasonic are the brands." and she replied "It's all micro Four-Thirds." and I walked out of the store.

Many people back then couldn't differentiate between mirrorless cameras as a category and micro Four-Thirds as a sub-category since Panasonic and Olympus developed the idea and made it a reality.

Update 2025.05.01: Nikon has recently released the Z5 Mk II and the Z50 Mk II.  Both Nikon and Canon have come to the point with their mirrorless bodies that they feel as micro Four-Thirds felt in 2014.  Fujifilm has been there for years.  Pentax is still selling dSLRs.

135 Format on the way

From my history of photography 

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

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

Back to the present

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

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

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

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

Panasonic to Panasonic

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

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

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

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

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

How much does anyone need?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

FujiFilm's Mirrorless models Are Finally Great

Ever since the FujiFilm introduced the X-Mount and the X-Trans color filter array, I've waited to see what would happen.

I tried the X-T1 in a camera shop and decided that it was too slow and sloppy for my needs.  In fact, it seemed a very casual camera body, much like the Sony mirrorless models.  When a body has loads of enhancements but requires complete manual control to keep up with action, what does it really offer?

Having used various SLRs in the 1970s, manual control wasn't a big deal.  Keeping up with the action could be.  Back then, I appreciated the shutter speed ring around the OM-1N lens mount that kept my focus on the action, rather than having to reach across with my left hand to futz with the dial on the top panel.

In 2012. that didn't make sense to me.  In 2018, it makes even less sense.  However, the newest image processor in the X-T3 is quite capable and various parts have been modified to make the X-T3 the envy of most APS-C and micro Four-Thirds users--if they could just admit it.

At this point, I wouldn't recommend any APS-C Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Pentax models, although Pentax' weather-sealed bodies are quite good and offer plenty on a budget.  Tight budgets notwithstanding, the X-T3 is the best compromise, even without In-Body Image Stabilization.  (I'm still of the opinion that the Panasonic G85/G80 with Dual I.S. is a better option for great video and good lenses on a budget, plus it's part of a very compact system.)

People starting today, should seriously consider what FujiFilm are offering.  They have two good systems now and will continue to improve, especially as they gain more, impassioned users.  The company has pulled back from their frequent firmware updates but if they get it right first, they don't need to fix it or add features afterward.

It's somewhat amusing that the X-T100 pulls at me the same way the Fujica ST-605 did.  Reviews mention shortcomings, but those shortcomings, such as slower than anticipated auto focus, aren't that different from the first two generations of the X-series camera bodies.  The X-T1, for me, seemed quite unusable but plenty of people have done well with it.

Nikon Cannonballed into the Mirrorless Pool

The Nikon Z6 and Z7 are the most important Nikon bodies of this decade.

After loads of experimentation, Nikon have finally jumped into the pool enthusiastically.  The CX mount was cute but there was never a chance for it to succeed in a big way, any more than Pentax' Q-series of mirrorless miniature bodies.

There is one, huge problem with this system--the lens interface is a secret.  If Nikon wanted to be extremely successful, they would have already published the interface, so that Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron would have lenses available.

There are a number of companies with experience interfacing with mirrorless bodies and that knowledge could provide a number of good, maybe great, lenses more quickly than Nikon could provide them.

Currently, the 3 lenses available show me that Nikon is concerned with enthusiasts, not professionals.  Sure, you can buy the FTZ adapter but an f/4.0 zoom lens and two f/1.8 fixed focal length lenses leave a lot of room for improvement.

What I've read so far leaves me with the impression that dSLR users aren't going to just pick up these bodies and start shooting.  Welcome to the mirrorless club!

I adapted my techniques from shooting sports with a dSLR to mirrorless bodies and I have even switched back and forth, having one of each with me.  People should always adapt, but many will waste their efforts on complaints.  It may not be easy, but it is possible to change.

Even with phase detection AF points, they may want to leave the focus lock a bit loose and lock from time to time while following the action.  Tracking on mirrorless bodies has improved but it's far from perfect.

I'm waiting to see who buys equipment.  I will likely be amused by the Sony fanatics claiming victory.  Considering how the A7 was, claiming victory might be premature.  The D850 has shown that Nikon can put together equipment that excels.  Once they understand how things should work and what they're doing, I suspect Sony will be looking for ways to improve.

Update: Canon did something also.  ;)  It wasn't as interesting.  FujiFilm's X-T3 is more interesting to me than Canon's EOS R, but Nikon's Z6 and Z7 with the new mount have my attention.

Next week, September 25th, we'll find out whether Panasonic has a 135 Format hybrid camera system or not.  If so, will it be a good thing?  I can't imagine them doing this without a partner.  It's supposedly not Olympus nor Leica.  Would Pentax be interested?

Update 2018.12.08: Panasonic announced that they were working on equipment based on the Leica mount for the SL series and its APS-C relative.

Considering that nothing has been set in concrete, anything could happen.  Sigma is joining, not just with lenses, but with a modified Foveon sensor for 135 Format.

Update 2019.02.17: Panasonic has two bodies for the L-mount, Nikon has added a lens or two, and Canon has added another, rather low cost body.

At US$1300, Canon will get the attention of a great many people.  I still believe that Nikon has the better lens mount for the future.  However, given Panasonic's understanding of hybrid camera systems, I think that they will keep Canon and Nikon humble, and show Sony a trick or two.

Sony has done okay so far because it was the only company in the niche, but that's all gone now.  They have to compete now.

If Sigma puts an L-mount on each of their DG lenses, Panasonic will have great third party support, unlike Nikon and Canon who don't want it and are forcing third parties to reverse engineer support.

Photographing a Wedding: Preparing for the Worst

Photographing a wedding seems the worst I could handle.  Most of the people are people I likely don't know.  If the daughters are anything like their mother, it could be very emotional.

How do you photograph the wedding of two people who already have four children?  Life has changed a great deal over time.  I remember my uncle saying "Are you playing 'So Happy Together'?" because my cousin and his fiancee had already been living together.

I bought a Joby (the Gorillapod people) Pro Sling Strap.  It's a brilliant, complicated strap that hooks into your tripod socket.  I probably should have bought the extra piece to allow it to be used more easily with a tripod.  It wasn't cheap, but it was discounted quite a lot, so it seemed a good choice from a reliable brand.

Other than that, I believe I need another (at least, one) SD Card that can record video and write photos at high speed.  I have two camera bodies (Panasonic GH4. GM5), both of which do HD video.  I could record 4K video but that's a bit much.  No one wants to see their flaws that much.

I was thinking about using the small camera behind the altar or whatever home-made setup they're using, to record the bride's walk down the aisle.  I can have someone start and stop it remotely, using a phone--if they remember.

Otherwise, I've got a slightly wide (15mm f/1.7) angle lens, plus zoom (12-35mm f/2.8) lens for the wedding party shots and reception shots.  I've got a portrait length (42.5mm f/1.7) lens for closer shots, plus a zoom (35-100mm f/2.8) lens for the vows.  I've also got a fisheye Olympus 8mm f/1.8) lens that works in lower light situations, if things get weird.

I need to figure out something neutral to wear since I don't have many clothes these days.

Update 2018.09.08: Got the strap, an SD Card (SanDisk Extreme, up to 90 MB/sec), a light gray, short-sleeved shirt, and I've ordered another GH4 battery.  I'm still feeling more than a bit of anxiety but whatever.

Imaging Resource: Olympus E-M1 Mk II COTY

Camera of the Year seems a big choice.  How do you choose?  There are so many things to consider.

Imaging Resource has decided on their choice: the Olympus E-M1 Mk II.

It's quite shocking, especially since I use micro Four-Thirds equipment every day I shoot.

I had a year with the Nikon D7200 and I ended up getting rid of it because the differences were negligible.  With the right lens, I could shoot at ISO 4000 and get images that were similar in image quality to ISO 3200 on micro Four-Thirds.  I say "with the right lens" because the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 barely worked when it was dark.  The D500 is better than the D7200 in many ways, as well as the D300 and D300s, but it is more of the same in many ways.

In my opinion, humble or not, the FujiFilm X-T2 is the camera body that FujiFilm should have introduced as the X-T1.  The only reason the X-T1 seemed to catch on is because a lot of people in the 20s had never seen a camera with so many external controls.  They didn't really care what it could do, they were having a cameragasm.

That said, any of the choices were good, and it's a shame that the Pentax K-1 wasn't in the list.  I had the K-50 for a while and it was a very agreeable piece of equipment.  No one could say that it was way up there, but it competed at a level much higher than its price would suggest.  The K-1 does this also.  Its poor continuous AF is the only reason it hasn't been awarded.  Given that it has a 135 Format-sized sensor, I'd say C-AF is of little interest to those who have been chanting "full frame full frame" for years.  Their flowers and kittens will look fine with the K-1.

With all that, I'm still surprised that the E-M1 Mk II is Camera of the Year at Imaging Resource, but I value their opinions.  They really try the equipment and don't make petty remarks to suggest that they're brand fanatics.  If this had been DPReview or even the current What Digital Camera without Nigel Atherton, I would be skeptical.

I'd love to replace my E-M1 with the newer model.  It seems every bit the E-5 replacement that I wanted, without all the drawbacks I have found in the E-M1.  The one drawback is the price, and that has to come with a sensor with the 121 cross-type focus points, CDAF and PDAF.

Update 2016.12.13: Well, the Pentax K-1 did make it into the Best Professional and High End Cameras article, behind the Canon 5D Mk IV.

The Olympus E-M1 Mk II got Best Professional Mirrorless, solidifying the anger against it, especially from FujiFilm fanatics.  Sony was nowhere to be found.

Got the Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6

As much as I like ultimate image quality, there is no such tangible thing.  Sure, you can buy a Medium Format system and tweak every setting but unless it conveys the emotions you feel, is all the work worth it?

Since I photograph sports, the Panasonic GM5 seemed an odd choice.  It’s tiny and because of that, it’s big on compromise.  e.g., the mechanical shutter only goes to 1/500 of a second.

At the time, I got the GM5 with the 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens and the 42.5mm f/1.7 Power OIS lens.  I already had the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 and the 25mm f/1.7 lenses.

For a while, I’ve struggled with telephoto shots.  Since I have a heart defect that is killing me, I can’t just run (or walk) where I want to be.  Sometimes, I have trouble standing.

Now, I have the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, plus my Olympus ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 and SHG 35-100mm f/2.0 lenses.  Even the small Panasonic lens is rather too big for the GM5.

As the Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 is often available with a US$100 rebate, I decided to try it.  It seems to be the tiniest telephoto zoom lens I’ve ever seen.  Panasonic’s 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 may be smaller but I had so little luck with the 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 that I didn’t want to spend the extra money.  Besides, the extra 50mm of reach was useful.

The salesperson referred to it as “the cheap lens” and kind of choked on his words.  I didn’t see the manager, but I nodded and grinned.  US$100 is a low price for a lens, with rebate, of course.  At US$200, it’s probably overpriced, but they run the rebate so often, does anyone pay full price?  The Panasonic 35-100mm f/4.0-5.6 designed for the GM5 was US$250.  This 40-150mm is the third US$100 lens, after the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 and the 25mm f/1.7.

The one thing I noticed right after removing it from the bubble wrap was that it had a plastic mount.  I remembered all the original Canon Digital Rebel/300D bodies with part of the kit lens still mounted while the rest of the lens was not attached.  I’m a bit rough on my equipment but I treat the GM5 with more care, so maybe it will be fine.

The lens is light, consistent with its small maximum aperture.  It looks fairly big on the GM5 but not any worse than my 35-100mm f/2.0 on the Olympus E-1.

40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 35-100mm f/2.8

50-200mm 40-150mm 35-100mm f/2.8 and f/2.0

Olympus 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 beside GM5 and 12-32mm

Panasonic 12-32mm beside Olympus 40-150mm on GM5

Panasonic 12-32mm beside Olympus 40-150mm on GM5

Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 on GM5

At US$199.99, I want to compare it to a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 I had for Nikon that cost exactly that.  With over 11x zoom, the Tamron was quite useful and I knew that there would be deficiencies.  The Olympus lens is just under 4x zoom range and should be quite clear, for the same price.  It isn't bad, but at the 150mm end, the results so far haven't been consistent.  I've tried it on the GM5 and E-M1 so far but not on the GH4 or GX8.  I may have to re-work my grip on the GM5 for maximum stability, especially while shooting at skate parks.

Olympus E-M1 Mk II: Take my money now

I've been an Olympus user since around 1990, starting with an OM-1N.  I'd also had an IS-20DLX, D-300L (one of the first two Olympus digital cameras), C-2500L, E-1, E-5, and most recently, the E-M1.  I've shot a lot of high school sports with the E-1, E-5, and GH3 and skate park sports with the E-M1, Panasonic GH4, and GX8.

I attended an event to try a pre-production E-M1 and various lenses.  I wasn't happy with the compromise.  If you used the E-5 and was suddenly pushed to use the E-M1, you wouldn't be happy, either.  Thankfully, these things are optional.

The E-M1 has a tiny battery capacity--far less than the E-1/E-5's or GH3/GH4's capacity.  Add to that an electronic viewfinder that is always enabled, and the rear display that is accidentally activated too easily, and you have a requirement for several batteries per day.  I have 3 batteries for the E-M1 versus 2 batteries for the GH4.

The E-M1 Mk II has a larger capacity battery and a reworked grip, since that is where the battery resides.  (The external battery grip supposedly takes only one battery.)  This has a lot to do with 4K video recording but also with the enhanced auto focus processing.

The enhanced AF processing is important.  They're dedicating a quad core processor for auto focus.  They also claim 121 cross-type phase detection points and 121 contrast detection points.  That could help greatly.  Will that be as good as a dSLR?  Olympus will try to make it work.  I changed my methods to get focused shots, instead of depending on continuous/predictive AF and tracking that didn't really work.

On the other hand, Panasonic claimed that they didn't need phase detection pixels at all for the GH4, but their AF is a headache for me.  When I think I've got something in focus (sports don't slow down), I end up with something much larger in the background in focus far too often.

The E-M1 viewfinder was fairly good at 0.71x of 135 Format.  The Mark II viewfinder is supposedly sized at 1.48x and runs at 120 fps, which seems to be double the refresh rate.  The magnification is incredibly big, but the camera body isn't out and we may find that it isn't quite like that in real life.  Update: it's actually 0.74x apparently--slightly larger and/or more magnified than the original E-M1 viewfinder.

Increasing the mechanical shutter's maximum burst rate from 10 fps to 15 fps seems exceptional, but for me, the 200,000 shutter actuations (as good as the GH4) hits home.  I exceeded the 150,000 actuations with my E-M1 and had to have the shutter replaced.  At 10 fps, photos can be created very quickly and at 16MP, they take quite a bit of space.  At 15 fps and 20MP, that just makes things more intense.

The enhanced in-body image stabilization is rated at 5.5 stops, which allows the hi-rez 50 MP mode, good for still scenes.  Supposedly, the mode can handle some gentle motion.  Hopefully, it's as good as that of the latest Pentax bodies.

It looks like they've addressed most of my concerns, including the single SD Card slot, to make the E-M1 Mk II more like the E-5 successor that I expected three years earlier.  Then again, the E-5 was about 3 years late.

Of course, the Panasonic GH5 is equally compelling but for different reasons.  I wish I could replace my E-M1 and GH4 right now.

Update 2016.09.24: All of the previews I've seen so far seem as though the E-M1 Mk II is better than anything else near its size or specifications.  Don't put the marketingspeak in front of me, though.  I doubt salespeople from a company.  I'd love for it to be so amazing, but it has to work that way in my hands for me to believe it.

Update 2016.11.01: Okay, at US$1999.99, I'm not quite as ready.  If it had been $1699.99, as I had expected--E-1, E-5 price--it wouldn't have been quite as off-putting.

I'm sure that they can't get the image quality out of it that is worthy of that price.  That said, if I was still making money and needed one, I would pay for it at full price, perhaps with a little resentment.

Is the newer sensor with 121 AF points that good that it is worth the extra US$300?

Of course, I can just wait to see what happens--anyone can--and I believe at this price that a lot of anyones will be waiting to see.

Update 2016.11.10: I'm amused to see some comments about the body.  I swear that you could take photos from a Nikon D810, a Sony A7R Mk II, and a Canon 1Dx Mk II, crop them to a 4:3 ratio and some people would complain about the photos' quality because of the "tiny/toy sensor".

I suspect a lot of people know very little and judge only on hearsay.  Did Ansel Adams brag about the size of his film?

About 10 years ago, I asked people why they only considered Nikon or Canon--they responded with something like "oh, my mother's ex-roommate's brother's friend's uncle uses one." and I would laugh because they didn't try anything and they didn't research anything but it was "clearly the best".

A lot of the comments I see relate to slow and casual photography--flowers and such.  Yes, a used Sony A7 will probably outdo the E-M1 Mk II, with the correct lens.

However, working at 10 or 12 fps, micro Four-Thirds excels.  I will admit that my heart defect gets in the way now, but it's very easy to use the E-M1 or GH4 to get good, and occasionally great, skate park shots.   When I could move easily, there wasn't anything else that could keep up with me.  The speed of the focusing has a lot to do with it and the stepper motors used are often extremely fast, especially in the fixed maximum aperture lenses.  This also helps with video, of course.

From what I've seen of samples, the E-M1 Mk II outputs much better ISO 3200 shots--the maximum I use.  I tried the Nikon D7200 ISO 51,200 and 102,400 and they were useful in getting shots that I couldn't get any other way.  It looks like the E-M1 Mk II does a decent job at ISO 6400 but not enough that I would regularly use those photos.  However, other people have told me with the original E-M5 that they went all the way to ISO 12,800 and the output was fine.  YMMV.

As far as the Sony A7 Mk II goes, I see it like this: the A7 Mk II is great for photographing flowers but the E-M1 Mk II will be great for photographing flowers travelling on a lorry going 100 km/h.

Update 2016.11.19: I got to handle the E-M1 Mk II and 12-100mm f/4.0 lens today.

The lens was quite good--surprisingly good for an 8.3x superzoom.

Handling the E-M1 Mk II, I wasn't happy.  Yes, it has a bigger battery but the grip is not great, for me anyway.  The battery looked odd, as if it was pulled out of a dumpster and re-purposed.  I saw some comment that the grip looked misplaced on a retro-styled camera body.  I agree.  They should have gone with an E-1 or E-5 style body but they would have to introduce a 3rd line of micro Four-Thirds camera bodies.

Usage didn't seem any different, but there is more customization--such as swapping the power switch and the multi-function lever.

The dual card slot was on the far edge of the rear of the camera behind a door similar to the one in the current body.  It seemed an extreme position.

In fact, a lot of the E-M1 replacement looks as haphazard as the original--or any of the micro Four-Thirds Olympus models.  I have no idea what they're thinking.  I appreciate the internals though.  I still like the E-1 dSLR best but it was technologically out-of-step even two years after it was introduced and the company took too long to introduce a new flagship.

Actually, they can take my money for a lens instead.

Update 2016.11.30: The reviews are looking fairly good, as expected.  The nasty comments are also expected.  People with other systems aren't happy that Olympus gets a lot of attention.  They don't know anything of the 1970s when Olympus was bigger and better than Canon.

It's comforting to know that the C-AF mode can keep up.  I wouldn't be using it since I had already modified my technique years ago when I started using the Panasonic GH3.  Imaging Resource did a good job of working with the E-M1 Mk II, giving a little insight into actual use and the pitfalls.

Update 2017.02.13: Apparently, the E-M1 Mk II is very picky about UHS-II cards, not working with many of them.  Then again, I see posts about some cards being recalled.  There probably have been too many made with sub-standard components, in order to make extra profit.  That doesn't excuse Olympus for their failure to be compatible, though.

I've seen a lot of comments of how the E-M1 Mk II doesn't work as well as it should.  The production models don't seem to be as agreeable as the test models.  I can understand that.  Before the E-M1 was available, I was using some, with a group, and when I got mine, it seemed that things that had worked well on the pre-production versions weren't working so well on mine.  Firmware updates have solved a lot.

Update 2024.07.12: I never did get the E-M1 Mk II, but I'm looking at the E-M1 Mk III finally, as a good used camera body.  The True-Pic IX imaging processor should be much better than that of the version in the E-M1.  However, I'm also interested in the Panasonic G9, which is quite good.  Most of my equipment is gone and I only have a Panasonic GM5 at this point with a few lenses.

The interesting thing is that Nikon and Canon have gone mirrorless and they've been going through the same growing pains that Olympus and Panasonic endured.  Much of the industry is going mirrorless and it's much better for everyone, I suspect.

One year with the Nikon D7200

It's been one year since I bought the Nikon D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.  It has been a very rough journey learning to get the best of it, even though I've used a number of SLRs and dSLRs and other cameras over the last 40 years.

Back in 2004, I made the jump to a digital SLR, looking at Nikon, Canon, and Pentax ahead of buying an Olympus E-1.  I weighed a great many factors and chose an all-digital system without a legacy.  The images that came from it are still quite wonderful and the body worked nearly like an extension of my arms.  I've yet to find another camera body that feels so right.

By 2007, the Nikon D300 arrived and I was re-thinking a lot of things.  I was fairly invested at this point and declined to jump to Nikon.  When Olympus brought forth the E-3, I was unhappy that it was two years late and two years behind the rest of the market.  In late 2011, I bought the Olympus E-5.  By then, the D300 was older and the E-5 used my equipment quite well, with a fairly modern sensor.  Had there been a D400 at the time, I probably would have jumped ship.

Not quite four years later, I bought the D7200, still waiting on a true D300 replacement, with the well-regarded Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens.

I have struggled with the camera body and still struggle with it now.  The last Nikon I used to any larger extent was the F2 film body.  When I recently talked to a Nikon representative, he hinted at the inconsistent nature of the company's interface since they started with dSLRs.

The rear of the body is an ergonomic mess.  The left-side column of five buttons is difficult to use without looking carefully at the buttons.  The button at the bottom, a stylized "i" seems to be for information, but across the rear display is a button marked "info".  Is this confusing?

Sadly, the menus are even more confusing.  They're possibly as bad as the Olympus menus, but at least, Olympus has the interactive Super Control Panel.  Nikon gives me the Informational Panel that is not interactive.  Auto Focus was extremely interesting, due to its reliance on both menu selections and the AF controls to the bottom left of the lens mount.

Thankfully, major functions in the form of four buttons replaced the mode dial on the left shoulder: Quality, Metering, White Balance, and Mode.  The first three are better there than as some sub-functions on those 5 left-hand buttons on the rear of the body.  They can easily be found by position on the D500.

When I first gave up the mode dial with the E-5, I thought that it was the stupidest thing I'd ever seen.  The E-5 relies greatly on the top display, as do the D300 and D500.  Years later, the top display works just fine, thankfully.  Even the top display of the E-1 is still working well.

Well, in a twist, due to my heart defect, I've given away all of the Nikon-related equipment.  Someone else with only Nikon equipment will make the best of the D7200, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6, and Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 lenses.

Using the Olympus E-5 as an E-M1 substitute

I've been using Olympus equipment since 1990.  It always felt like the best combination of technologies came together.

I bought a couple of the early Olympus digital cameras and wasn't incredibly happy.  They worked but the time just wasn't right.  When I bought the E-1 in April 2004, nothing else felt right or seemed to produce the right photos, especially the Nikon and Canon alternatives in the price range.  I was annoyed about the 4:3 ratio that Olympus chose, but that mimicked 6x4.5 format cameras and I understood that.  It just didn't make sense to people using 3:2 ratio film.  Kodak may have been instrumental in pushing the shape, as they were in shaping Medium Format digital sensors.

I finally added the E-5 in 2011.  It wasn't the quantum leap forward I had hoped.  It seemed more like the Nikon D300 from 2007, instead of a body introduced in 2010.  It was better than the E-1 but not what I was hoping.  It worked better in so many ways but as I've already mentioned, it felt like a body from 2007.

Later, in 2012, I bought a Panasonic GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.  It was somewhat better in lower light, with very good AF functionality down to EV -3 and later EV -4.  The ISO sensitivity seemed better but I suspect that the numbers weren't as accurate.

While waiting for the GH4 to replace it, I traded the GH3 for the E-M1.  I'd already used the E-M1 and it was better than okay, but didn't seem a replacement for the E-5, even though Olympus said that it was.

I've tried it with Four-Thirds lenses on occasion and stop fairly quickly.  It is more likely a easy way to re-use current components than to be a replacement for the E-5.  The size and the functionality is not oriented toward Four-Thirds equipment.  Having phase detect pixels was more a patch than a solution.

Yesterday, I wanted to photograph a graduation for a friend.  I brought the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 which was my most-used lens.  I tried it with the E-M1 and this resulted in a lot of frustration.  It hunted and hunted and hunted.  I'd had more success with the E-M1 previously, and also with the GH4.  I retrieved my E-5 and it worked quite well.  So much for the E-M1's world's fastest AF--that doesn't apply to adapted lenses.  The E-5's predecessor was another with "world's fastest AF", but these things fade quickly, don't they?

75+ yards, not bad but dynamic range could be better

At the graduation, the E-5 was heavier but wonderful.  Sure, the older technology isn't quite as able to provide great photos I've been getting from newer sensors but getting the shot was important, especially from almost the other end of the football field, the 25 yard line.

I'm pleased to use the correct tool for the job.  Using equipment to advantage always helps.  It's just too bad we can't have a 16MP Sony sensor put into the E-5 to get the best of both worlds.

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 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye lens versus Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens

I'm doing a quick entry here to start.  I just received a Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 DX format lens.  It's a used lens that was originally owned by LensRentals.com and sold by their liquidation division.

Buying a Nikon D7200 was mostly an experiment in order to get wider angle landscape shots more easily.  I've done that with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lenses.  These are not particularly responsive lenses and from the start, they've made the D7200 feel unresponsive, especially for someone who photographs sports 99% of the time.  As I've slowed down because of my heart defect, I've been able to do more creative shots.  Still, I pick up the Olympus E-M1 and 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens because of the difference in light gathering.

Oh, wait!  APS-C versus micro Four-Thirds can't even be close.  Well, I'm finding that real life is much different than examining a bunch of numbers and graphs.  People who don't shoot much have been telling me how much greater APS-C is.  The big difference I see between my GH4, GX8, E-M1 and the Nikon D7200 is that the Nikon body can record raw files with 14-bit depth rather than 12 bits.  Automagically, that increased the possibility of better dynamic range, color, and more.  Whether there is actually more is the real question.  I assume that there is.  Nikon has been good about wanting to deliver the best image quality.

In any case, I received the Nikkor lens about an hour ago and had lunch first, to give me some time to think.

To a certain extent, the difference in maximum aperture is offset by the higher ISO usability.  So far, I've found a maximum ISO sensitivity of ISO 4000 with the D7200 versus ISO 3200 for micro Four-Thirds.  Yes, you can go much higher and get something but for photographing sports, I have to be more careful.  Once it's fairly dark, neither is going to be okay without extra lighting.  However, auto focus on the D7200 goes down to EV -3 and the GH4 and GX8 goes down to EV -4.  I can't find a figure for the E-M1 but it has been decent in very low light, although it thinks a lot at that point.

Taking the Nikkor lens out of the box and wrapping, I was surprised how utterly small it is for a dSLR lens.  It's not much bigger than the Olympus micro Four-Thirds fisheye lens.  Yes, it's a DX format lens, so it can be smaller.  The best thing is that it can be used on the FX format camera bodies in DX mode.  (However, without weather-sealing and with a smaller maximum aperture, it isn't a surprise than the Nikkor lens is small.  If it had similar attributes, it would be much larger.)

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 versus Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 DX

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 versus Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 DX

As with all Nikkor lenses, I struggle to figure out which lenses are weather-sealed.  At full price of roughly US$775, I would expect that it would be.  That doesn't mean that it is, and from the description in the listing, I would say that it is not.  They mentioned some dust inside the lens--that did not affect image quality.  I've never had such a problem with my Olympus lenses, even though I'd used them out in hurricanes and in dusty conditions--severe circumstances.  Hopefully, the lens won't have a problem in bad weather.  I'm already hiding the lenses I have for the D7200 unless it is completely dry.  None of them are weather-sealed.

E-M1/Olympus 8mm f/1.8 versus D7200/10.5mm f/2.8

It looks a bit small on the D7200.  I suppose the small size was important to get it onto the D3300.

Hopefully, I'll be out shortly to actually shoot with it.

Nikkor 10.5mm on D7200

Olympus 8mm on E-M1

They both do very well.  I had to change the Nikon photo's white balance, probably because I'm still having new user problems.

Speed of operation is about as good as you can get on the D7200.  The E-M1 is just amazingly quick and much faster than the D7200.  It's not just 10 fps versus 6 fps burst mode but the fact that the E-M1 only has to deal with 16 MP, 12-bit files and the D7200 has 24MP, 14-bit files.  I thought that the Expeed 4 class processor would be much faster, though.

Update 2016.04.01: I'm pleased to say that the Nikkor fisheye lens seems to work quite well, even though it was sold as used.

I've found the problem with the white balance control, but geez, what a maze to find it!  Olympus' Super Control Panel is amazingly helpful.  Even Panasonic's Quick Menu is more effective than the D7200's informational panel.  Perhaps, the D500 without a mode dial would be more efficient without looking at the display, but the D7200 way is not working as well as I would like.

As far as I'm concerned, Nikon has technological advantages over Canon, but Nikon is behind everyone else for user interfaces for quick adjustments.  I've heard that Olympus' menus are the worst but my experience is that all brands have crap for menus.

Back to the fisheye lenses, I haven't done extensive testing yet, but it would be a good assumption that I can use the Olympus combination much longer into the dark and still get sharp photos.  I may test the Nikon combination tonight to see if it will actually focus down to EV -3 or thereabouts.   My previous experiences with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ended in failure.

Looking a bit closer, there is fringing.

Nikon

Olympus

The Olympus combination shows less fringing, but I wonder if there is software correction affecting the outcome, since micro Four-Thirds bodies fix things too often.  I suppose I'll try to put it in the GH4 or GX8 to see what happens.  I'm usually too busy shooting to test.