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.
Showing posts with label Sony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sony. Show all posts
Thursday, August 23, 2018
Monday, December 7, 2015
Bose CineMate 120 sound bar and subwoofer
Ever since I was moving to California, I was getting rid of my 900+ watt, 7.1 audio system, and thinking about what I could get for an apartment. I was banging my head against the wall because there are so many products that aren't much more than TV-quality sound. Why pay an extra US$200-$300 for equally bad sound?
Then again, you could get high end sound bars for over US$2000. Yamaha had some great choices that were somewhat economical, and I have been a Yamaha amplifier/receiver user since 1977. I didn't like their consumer-oriented speakers because they were too flat (in sound) for homes. Japanese homes are more sparse and probably won't absorb the sound so well.
I had a demonstration of Bose's CineMate 1SR, and I was positively surprised. Years ago, I was asked to go to a presentation of the Acoustimass surround system before most people had seen them. They were awful, and I was a Bose 901 Series VI user at the time, and I couldn't imagine why they would bother. However, there are 400 sq. ft. apartments and people needed an audio system that would fit.
I'm not sure that there is a full Acoustimass system these days, but I didn't want one.
While I found the CineMate 1SR good, the main speaker was too big. That's the same problem I have with the Yamaha YSP-series. Bose had the CineMate 10, then the 15, and they didn't seem enough. Then, they introduced a replacement for the 1SR with the CineMate 130 and introduced a smaller version, the CineMate 120.
The CineMate 120 has 4 HDMI inputs, which helps a lot. My LG 4K TV has three general purpose HDMI inputs, and the fourth for portable MHL-compatible devices.
At US$799.99, it wasn't a difficult choice. It was replaced a while back with the SoundTouch 120. I couldn't see a difference, except that the latter comes with a wireless module. The Best Buy location was selling the current item for a sale price of US$999.99, which seems a lot for a ~US$50.00 wireless module. (I looked at a lot of other brands that are owned by Harman International--Jamo, JBL, etc. which were being sold around US$599.99 and they didn't please me. I certainly didn't want to spend US$399.99 for sound that was barely different than that of the TV itself.)
Setup wasn't difficult but confusing. For a product that sold for US$1199.99 and has a full HDMI switcher, it is annoying that they don't have an On Screen Display for setup. The TV kept telling me that there was no signal, and there was no audio, so I thought that the product was defective. However, I turned on the Sony Blu-Ray player and the TV told me that it was available, even though it was no longer directly connected but there was nothing connected to the HDMI port that it specified.
The physical setup is simple--even a company executive could do it without his assistants. The speakers have distinctive, unique connectors that cannot be inserted into the wrong ports. The subwoofer is wireless, unless there is a problem--there is a wired connection that is not included but the ports are there.
Looking at the little, one line display on the front of the console is annoying when I have a 4K TV that they could be using. After all, they're passing input from various TV-compatible products.
Thankfully, there wasn't much to do with it but if I want to change the bass level, I have to look at the tiny display.
The AdaptIQ (Bose uses all uppercase letters but they pronounce it more like this) setup was automated, for 5 sitting locations. I felt like an idiot wearing a sort of headset that wouldn't stay well, but it includes a microphone (or two) to check where you sit, and calculate the audio trajectories. Having used Direct/Reflecting speakers from Bose (the 901 Series VI and 601 Series IV), I've been more concerned with experience than sheer numbers. For those who live and die by numbers, you're missing something. As an example, it's like when a 4 cylinder-powered Lotus vehicle could cross the country much faster than an 8 cylinder-powered Corvette simply because the Lotus car didn't waste as much time re-fueling. It's not the end-all-be-all for everyone. If I wasn't living in an apartment, I probably wouldn't be using it.
After everything was set, it sounds great and the video looks great.
Even at a very low volume I'm able to understand much better than hearing the same from the TV itself at any volume.
Update 2015.12.09: I'm pleased with the system. Sound from every point where I have been in the trouble is good. Whether it could be considered excellent or not is up to your ears. My previous 900+ watt 7.1 system with 5 speakers was amazing at most louder volumes. This system is very clear at lower volume, and the subwoofer definitely brings more emotional impact. The center "speaker" is very good at delivering speech.
I tested a 3D movie tonight and that worked fine. I'm not really sure about the 4K upscaling making it through the console. Color actually looks better than it had been, possibly because it's going through the ARC-capable HDMI port.
I set up my Sony Blu-Ray and 4th generation Apple TV to work with the Bose remote and that seemed to go just fine. The latest DirecTV Genie remote is not compatible with anything else, unfortunately.
Update 2015.12.16: I've lowered the volume of the subwoofer significantly to be a good neighbor. The subwoofer is strangely, unexpectedly powerful. Remembering the original Acoustimass demo, I didn't think any of it was good, but that was around 25 years ago, if I remember correctly. They've apparently researched port shape very carefully and made things work well.
Update 2016.02.19: There have been minor issues.
When starting, it sometimes has a huge echo. It seems as though it has a stadium mode, that is otherwise inaccessible. Having had Yamaha DSP-capable equipment, I would like to enable various soundfields.
It sometimes does not see the Blu-Ray or DirecTV box. Other times, it does seem to connect to the TV, leaving the TV to tell me that there is no input signal. Powering off and on again is useful.
Considering the price compared to discrete components and speakers, the performance is reasonable, including the quirks.
Then again, you could get high end sound bars for over US$2000. Yamaha had some great choices that were somewhat economical, and I have been a Yamaha amplifier/receiver user since 1977. I didn't like their consumer-oriented speakers because they were too flat (in sound) for homes. Japanese homes are more sparse and probably won't absorb the sound so well.
I had a demonstration of Bose's CineMate 1SR, and I was positively surprised. Years ago, I was asked to go to a presentation of the Acoustimass surround system before most people had seen them. They were awful, and I was a Bose 901 Series VI user at the time, and I couldn't imagine why they would bother. However, there are 400 sq. ft. apartments and people needed an audio system that would fit.
I'm not sure that there is a full Acoustimass system these days, but I didn't want one.
While I found the CineMate 1SR good, the main speaker was too big. That's the same problem I have with the Yamaha YSP-series. Bose had the CineMate 10, then the 15, and they didn't seem enough. Then, they introduced a replacement for the 1SR with the CineMate 130 and introduced a smaller version, the CineMate 120.
The CineMate 120 has 4 HDMI inputs, which helps a lot. My LG 4K TV has three general purpose HDMI inputs, and the fourth for portable MHL-compatible devices.
At US$799.99, it wasn't a difficult choice. It was replaced a while back with the SoundTouch 120. I couldn't see a difference, except that the latter comes with a wireless module. The Best Buy location was selling the current item for a sale price of US$999.99, which seems a lot for a ~US$50.00 wireless module. (I looked at a lot of other brands that are owned by Harman International--Jamo, JBL, etc. which were being sold around US$599.99 and they didn't please me. I certainly didn't want to spend US$399.99 for sound that was barely different than that of the TV itself.)
Setup wasn't difficult but confusing. For a product that sold for US$1199.99 and has a full HDMI switcher, it is annoying that they don't have an On Screen Display for setup. The TV kept telling me that there was no signal, and there was no audio, so I thought that the product was defective. However, I turned on the Sony Blu-Ray player and the TV told me that it was available, even though it was no longer directly connected but there was nothing connected to the HDMI port that it specified.
The physical setup is simple--even a company executive could do it without his assistants. The speakers have distinctive, unique connectors that cannot be inserted into the wrong ports. The subwoofer is wireless, unless there is a problem--there is a wired connection that is not included but the ports are there.
Looking at the little, one line display on the front of the console is annoying when I have a 4K TV that they could be using. After all, they're passing input from various TV-compatible products.
Thankfully, there wasn't much to do with it but if I want to change the bass level, I have to look at the tiny display.
The AdaptIQ (Bose uses all uppercase letters but they pronounce it more like this) setup was automated, for 5 sitting locations. I felt like an idiot wearing a sort of headset that wouldn't stay well, but it includes a microphone (or two) to check where you sit, and calculate the audio trajectories. Having used Direct/Reflecting speakers from Bose (the 901 Series VI and 601 Series IV), I've been more concerned with experience than sheer numbers. For those who live and die by numbers, you're missing something. As an example, it's like when a 4 cylinder-powered Lotus vehicle could cross the country much faster than an 8 cylinder-powered Corvette simply because the Lotus car didn't waste as much time re-fueling. It's not the end-all-be-all for everyone. If I wasn't living in an apartment, I probably wouldn't be using it.
After everything was set, it sounds great and the video looks great.
Even at a very low volume I'm able to understand much better than hearing the same from the TV itself at any volume.
Update 2015.12.09: I'm pleased with the system. Sound from every point where I have been in the trouble is good. Whether it could be considered excellent or not is up to your ears. My previous 900+ watt 7.1 system with 5 speakers was amazing at most louder volumes. This system is very clear at lower volume, and the subwoofer definitely brings more emotional impact. The center "speaker" is very good at delivering speech.
I tested a 3D movie tonight and that worked fine. I'm not really sure about the 4K upscaling making it through the console. Color actually looks better than it had been, possibly because it's going through the ARC-capable HDMI port.
I set up my Sony Blu-Ray and 4th generation Apple TV to work with the Bose remote and that seemed to go just fine. The latest DirecTV Genie remote is not compatible with anything else, unfortunately.
Update 2015.12.16: I've lowered the volume of the subwoofer significantly to be a good neighbor. The subwoofer is strangely, unexpectedly powerful. Remembering the original Acoustimass demo, I didn't think any of it was good, but that was around 25 years ago, if I remember correctly. They've apparently researched port shape very carefully and made things work well.
Update 2016.02.19: There have been minor issues.
When starting, it sometimes has a huge echo. It seems as though it has a stadium mode, that is otherwise inaccessible. Having had Yamaha DSP-capable equipment, I would like to enable various soundfields.
It sometimes does not see the Blu-Ray or DirecTV box. Other times, it does seem to connect to the TV, leaving the TV to tell me that there is no input signal. Powering off and on again is useful.
Considering the price compared to discrete components and speakers, the performance is reasonable, including the quirks.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Nikon has bought (a license to) Samsung's NX technology?
This is a strange rumor, which could explain Samsung's quick exit from several markets.
After years of producing half-baked, mediocre photographic equipment, Samsung has produced desirable equipment, precisely, the NX1.
It has a 28 MP sensor, which is a new density for APS-C, which has been held to 24 MP for a while, equivalent to the 16 MP for (micro) Four-Thirds. Apparently, the image quality has been impressive and the video is equally impressive, using H.265, rather than H.264.
I don't care for Samsung. For years, they have produced products that were not complete. They left buggy firmware in place while introducing products to replace those unfinished products. This NX1 wasn't so different. They introduced the body in almost a beta test state. Almost daily, they were providing firmware updates and now, it's very, very good--desirable.
Unfortunately, the rest of the NX-system is not worthy, which is why this rumor is so interesting.
Obviously, Nikon has a great APS-C presence in the industry. I even bought a D7200 recently. What if the emotional successor to the D300 could be based on the technology of the NX1? I keep seeing the D400 pop up in rumors but no body.
If Nikon called for third parties to supply lenses for APS-C mirror-less bodies, they could certainly move the market more than FujiFilm, even though FujiFilm is very dedicated. Sony barely has had an impact and Samsung seemed to drag down the market.
What would be even more interesting is a 135 Format/FX sized sensor based on Samsung's technology. Could the D810 suddenly be supplanted? Could Sony be removed as a sensor supplier to Nikon?
I wonder if the sensor technology is a one-hit-wonder type of success. If it moves Nikon into the mirror-less market, it could really change the market and scare the stuffing out of Canon.
Update 2015.12.04: The denial from Samsung tends to dismiss a full sale but seems to suggest that a cooperative use of the technology is possible. I still don't believe that Samsung's NX mount would be used, even though this would provide a few lenses. It is more likely that Nikon would want to create a mount, so that they can control everything about it. Obviously, if they're interesting in APS-C, they've run out of room between CX and DX but they're likely more interested in pushing Sony out of the market than handling the markets of micro Four-Thirds or FujiFilm.
I'm thinking that this move is similar to the move where Apple meant to split their relationship with Samsung, as they didn't trust Samsung not to use their processor design enhancements and went to TSMC for manufacturing.
2015.12.13: You have to wonder if the D610 could be the first to be replaced and there is no D300/D300s replacement at all, but a Sony A7 Mk II-type 135 Format body.
After years of producing half-baked, mediocre photographic equipment, Samsung has produced desirable equipment, precisely, the NX1.
It has a 28 MP sensor, which is a new density for APS-C, which has been held to 24 MP for a while, equivalent to the 16 MP for (micro) Four-Thirds. Apparently, the image quality has been impressive and the video is equally impressive, using H.265, rather than H.264.
I don't care for Samsung. For years, they have produced products that were not complete. They left buggy firmware in place while introducing products to replace those unfinished products. This NX1 wasn't so different. They introduced the body in almost a beta test state. Almost daily, they were providing firmware updates and now, it's very, very good--desirable.
Unfortunately, the rest of the NX-system is not worthy, which is why this rumor is so interesting.
Obviously, Nikon has a great APS-C presence in the industry. I even bought a D7200 recently. What if the emotional successor to the D300 could be based on the technology of the NX1? I keep seeing the D400 pop up in rumors but no body.
If Nikon called for third parties to supply lenses for APS-C mirror-less bodies, they could certainly move the market more than FujiFilm, even though FujiFilm is very dedicated. Sony barely has had an impact and Samsung seemed to drag down the market.
What would be even more interesting is a 135 Format/FX sized sensor based on Samsung's technology. Could the D810 suddenly be supplanted? Could Sony be removed as a sensor supplier to Nikon?
I wonder if the sensor technology is a one-hit-wonder type of success. If it moves Nikon into the mirror-less market, it could really change the market and scare the stuffing out of Canon.
Update 2015.12.04: The denial from Samsung tends to dismiss a full sale but seems to suggest that a cooperative use of the technology is possible. I still don't believe that Samsung's NX mount would be used, even though this would provide a few lenses. It is more likely that Nikon would want to create a mount, so that they can control everything about it. Obviously, if they're interesting in APS-C, they've run out of room between CX and DX but they're likely more interested in pushing Sony out of the market than handling the markets of micro Four-Thirds or FujiFilm.
I'm thinking that this move is similar to the move where Apple meant to split their relationship with Samsung, as they didn't trust Samsung not to use their processor design enhancements and went to TSMC for manufacturing.
2015.12.13: You have to wonder if the D610 could be the first to be replaced and there is no D300/D300s replacement at all, but a Sony A7 Mk II-type 135 Format body.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Why has Sony been using lossy compression in their raw files for the A7 and others?
As a software developer, the loss of data has always been inexcusable to me.
I don't understand who would make a decision to use lossy compression for files that encompass all information about a photo, as others have used lossless compression. Yes, I understand that the file sizes would be huge because of the amount of information, due to the number of pixels the image sensor contains.
Surely, a person buying a camera with a sensor having more than 24 megapixels would understand what a huge problem it is to store and process the files. Even the JPEG files would be huge, and they use lossy compression. (Always keep your original JPEG file from the camera and work from it.) This last bit is unfortunately impossible with the lossy raw file. You're not getting all the data from the start. Sad, that.
I don't understand who would make a decision to use lossy compression for files that encompass all information about a photo, as others have used lossless compression. Yes, I understand that the file sizes would be huge because of the amount of information, due to the number of pixels the image sensor contains.
Surely, a person buying a camera with a sensor having more than 24 megapixels would understand what a huge problem it is to store and process the files. Even the JPEG files would be huge, and they use lossy compression. (Always keep your original JPEG file from the camera and work from it.) This last bit is unfortunately impossible with the lossy raw file. You're not getting all the data from the start. Sad, that.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Mirror-less, interchangeable lens cameras have been mainstreamed for around 6 years
It was late in 2008 when Panasonic and Olympus announced micro Four-Thirds and when Panasonic quickly introduced the DMC-G1.
Panasonic had very little success with the DMC-L1 or the DMC-L10 and partner Leica didn't really do much with the Digilux 3 dSLR. Olympus had more like with the E-330 (like the DMC-L1 or Digilux 3) from that time, bringing Live View to the masses.
However, Panasonic, by itself with the G1, made people think. It was a dSLR-style camera body and the controls were similar enough that it didn't confuse. It was just that there wasn't much available, especially since Olympus didn't have anything ready. If not for the Four-Thirds lens adapter, there would not have been much available at all.
Those lenses have helped me transition from Four-Thirds to micro Four-Thirds, though I'm still skeptical about the system, even though I own the Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GH4, and 4 native micro Four-Thirds lenses.
If my skepticism was strong for micro Four-Thirds, it was impossible to break concerning Sony's NEX-system. It still doesn't have very good support since 2009 when it arrived. FujiFilm has certainly surpassed Sony in many ways, most prominently in lenses.
Samsung has once again come with something, and it's not a Sony clone this time. The NX1 and the NX500 actually seem useful. It took them several generations of crap, and they barely have any lenses or industry support. I wondered if they would have transitioned their name to Beta, to match Sony's change to differentiate themselves from the copier. It might be interesting to see if Samsung could manufacture (micro) Four-Thirds sensors for Panasonic, Olympus, and those hiding behind the Kodak name.
Sony has recently shown that they have created a 20 MP sensor for (micro) Four-Thirds, which is interesting, if it can improve only low light photography. ISO 3200 seems my reasonable limit. However, seeing the Pentax K-50 with a lower pixel density at ISO 3200, it seems APS-C is not really better, even though the high limit of the K-50 is ISO 51,200. Perhaps, with a higher resolution lens, it would be better.
Of course, Sony's 135 Format A7-series is much more interesting, as far as technology goes. As far as lenses go, my skepticism is very high. Adapters are much more necessary than they are with micro Four-Thirds. For my use, a dSLR is still better but for those who don't photograph sports, the A7 Mk II looks a treat. For people who don't mind huge lenses, and back-breaking backpacks, 135 Format is great, mirror-less or otherwise.
I've been looking at old lenses recently and it's amusing to see the old crap that I used to have to sell because there were so few great lenses. I'm so thankful for the digital revolution, especially since Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses made things so much better.
The company has been making headway with their "PRO" series lenses, despite the silly name. The 12-40mm f/2.8 is quite good, especially for just under $1000. I wish they could have put a bit more of the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 goodness into it, but it would have raised the price, and increased the size and weight to where the lightweights would have complained. However, a 67mm filter size might have allowed an f/2.5 maximum aperture instead of f/2.8. I've used the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 with the Panasonic GH3, so a 67mm or 72mm filter size wouldn't have bothered me--the closer to f/2.0 the better.
Third party lenses are few, and I'm not sure any of the lenses from Tamron or Sigma are worth it. Does Tokina even make lenses for mirror-less? Voigtländer has made some good lenses for micro Four-Thirds, and Zeiss has native lenses for Sony, and adapted cinema lenses for micro Four-Thirds. I'm sure if I wanted a US$20,000 lens for my Panasonic GH4, a Zeiss lens would be my first choice.
Thankfully, Veydra, a crowdsourced startup is working on making affordable cine lenses of a uniform size for micro Four-Thirds. Competing with Zeiss' Compact Prime series will be difficult, but does everyone need Zeiss? With a lack of electronic connections, these are for the serious users who want to control their imagery, just as those from Zeiss are. The prices are quite different between the two lines.
While Canon, Nikon, and Pentax have all created mirror-less models, they seem afraid to encroach on their dSLRs, and have given somewhat too interesting alternatives.
FujiFilm has been the most exciting company in the market, with some interesting choices. They have the best selection of lenses for any APS-C sized sensor camera bodies. While they've been stuck at 16MP, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering the lower pixel density. The X-T1 is a valuable body with a great EVF and enough dials to make enthusiasts' eyes spin in their sockets.
The company continues to update the firmware with fixes and new additions. It almost seems as they've kicked Panasonic and Olympus into update mode, also. For me, the X-T1 could have more of a grip and since there would be more room, a bigger battery. I haven't tried the X-T1 since the 50-140mm f/2.8 lens has become available, but I wonder about the balance. There are many times when a dSLR still feels just right for shooting sports. However, I rarely pull out a dSLR these days.
For the majority of camera users, mirror-less models make sense, especially for those who buy a base dSLR and only use the kit lens and set everything to Auto. Sure, you can take good photos with those, but the same can be said for cameras without the mirror slap.
One thing about mirror-less camera bodies remain--the many acronyms. MILC seems to fit best because they are indeed Mirror-less, Interchangeable Lens Cameras. ILC could include dSLRs and rangefinders. CSC (Compact System Cameras) wouldn't have to have interchangeable lenses. EVIL doesn't seem to fit as things have progressed since the original Panasonic DMC-G1.
MILCs haven't taken control of the market, but I can see when the crowd is better informed, that they could.
Update 2015.11.06: I just noticed that DPReview wanted the world to see Ming Thein's article on mirror-less cameras. The backlash was mean. Of course, this just means that people didn't agree with his assessment--or that he stepped on their toes, rejecting their choices. A certain Sony user was particularly aggressive. I think I've met that user online a time or two.
I agree with most of his assessments. He apparently had not used the Panasonic GH4, which for me, is as close to the perfect mirror-less body as is possible from one company. He is working from the point of view, like mine, about getting things done. I want to get the shots I need (accurately) and get to the next job without the camera getting in the way.
Panasonic had very little success with the DMC-L1 or the DMC-L10 and partner Leica didn't really do much with the Digilux 3 dSLR. Olympus had more like with the E-330 (like the DMC-L1 or Digilux 3) from that time, bringing Live View to the masses.
However, Panasonic, by itself with the G1, made people think. It was a dSLR-style camera body and the controls were similar enough that it didn't confuse. It was just that there wasn't much available, especially since Olympus didn't have anything ready. If not for the Four-Thirds lens adapter, there would not have been much available at all.
Those lenses have helped me transition from Four-Thirds to micro Four-Thirds, though I'm still skeptical about the system, even though I own the Olympus E-M1, Panasonic GH4, and 4 native micro Four-Thirds lenses.
If my skepticism was strong for micro Four-Thirds, it was impossible to break concerning Sony's NEX-system. It still doesn't have very good support since 2009 when it arrived. FujiFilm has certainly surpassed Sony in many ways, most prominently in lenses.
Samsung has once again come with something, and it's not a Sony clone this time. The NX1 and the NX500 actually seem useful. It took them several generations of crap, and they barely have any lenses or industry support. I wondered if they would have transitioned their name to Beta, to match Sony's change to differentiate themselves from the copier. It might be interesting to see if Samsung could manufacture (micro) Four-Thirds sensors for Panasonic, Olympus, and those hiding behind the Kodak name.
Sony has recently shown that they have created a 20 MP sensor for (micro) Four-Thirds, which is interesting, if it can improve only low light photography. ISO 3200 seems my reasonable limit. However, seeing the Pentax K-50 with a lower pixel density at ISO 3200, it seems APS-C is not really better, even though the high limit of the K-50 is ISO 51,200. Perhaps, with a higher resolution lens, it would be better.
Of course, Sony's 135 Format A7-series is much more interesting, as far as technology goes. As far as lenses go, my skepticism is very high. Adapters are much more necessary than they are with micro Four-Thirds. For my use, a dSLR is still better but for those who don't photograph sports, the A7 Mk II looks a treat. For people who don't mind huge lenses, and back-breaking backpacks, 135 Format is great, mirror-less or otherwise.
I've been looking at old lenses recently and it's amusing to see the old crap that I used to have to sell because there were so few great lenses. I'm so thankful for the digital revolution, especially since Olympus' Four-Thirds lenses made things so much better.
The company has been making headway with their "PRO" series lenses, despite the silly name. The 12-40mm f/2.8 is quite good, especially for just under $1000. I wish they could have put a bit more of the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 goodness into it, but it would have raised the price, and increased the size and weight to where the lightweights would have complained. However, a 67mm filter size might have allowed an f/2.5 maximum aperture instead of f/2.8. I've used the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 with the Panasonic GH3, so a 67mm or 72mm filter size wouldn't have bothered me--the closer to f/2.0 the better.
Third party lenses are few, and I'm not sure any of the lenses from Tamron or Sigma are worth it. Does Tokina even make lenses for mirror-less? Voigtländer has made some good lenses for micro Four-Thirds, and Zeiss has native lenses for Sony, and adapted cinema lenses for micro Four-Thirds. I'm sure if I wanted a US$20,000 lens for my Panasonic GH4, a Zeiss lens would be my first choice.
Thankfully, Veydra, a crowdsourced startup is working on making affordable cine lenses of a uniform size for micro Four-Thirds. Competing with Zeiss' Compact Prime series will be difficult, but does everyone need Zeiss? With a lack of electronic connections, these are for the serious users who want to control their imagery, just as those from Zeiss are. The prices are quite different between the two lines.
While Canon, Nikon, and Pentax have all created mirror-less models, they seem afraid to encroach on their dSLRs, and have given somewhat too interesting alternatives.
FujiFilm has been the most exciting company in the market, with some interesting choices. They have the best selection of lenses for any APS-C sized sensor camera bodies. While they've been stuck at 16MP, that isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering the lower pixel density. The X-T1 is a valuable body with a great EVF and enough dials to make enthusiasts' eyes spin in their sockets.
The company continues to update the firmware with fixes and new additions. It almost seems as they've kicked Panasonic and Olympus into update mode, also. For me, the X-T1 could have more of a grip and since there would be more room, a bigger battery. I haven't tried the X-T1 since the 50-140mm f/2.8 lens has become available, but I wonder about the balance. There are many times when a dSLR still feels just right for shooting sports. However, I rarely pull out a dSLR these days.
For the majority of camera users, mirror-less models make sense, especially for those who buy a base dSLR and only use the kit lens and set everything to Auto. Sure, you can take good photos with those, but the same can be said for cameras without the mirror slap.
One thing about mirror-less camera bodies remain--the many acronyms. MILC seems to fit best because they are indeed Mirror-less, Interchangeable Lens Cameras. ILC could include dSLRs and rangefinders. CSC (Compact System Cameras) wouldn't have to have interchangeable lenses. EVIL doesn't seem to fit as things have progressed since the original Panasonic DMC-G1.
MILCs haven't taken control of the market, but I can see when the crowd is better informed, that they could.
Update 2015.11.06: I just noticed that DPReview wanted the world to see Ming Thein's article on mirror-less cameras. The backlash was mean. Of course, this just means that people didn't agree with his assessment--or that he stepped on their toes, rejecting their choices. A certain Sony user was particularly aggressive. I think I've met that user online a time or two.
I agree with most of his assessments. He apparently had not used the Panasonic GH4, which for me, is as close to the perfect mirror-less body as is possible from one company. He is working from the point of view, like mine, about getting things done. I want to get the shots I need (accurately) and get to the next job without the camera getting in the way.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Sony's A7 Mk II a good start
Way back when, I loved Sony for audio, and then, they became very, very average. More recently, they bought Minolta's camera division, a very, very average group in its own right, and they improved upon it with better technology.
I was not a fan, but I was glad to see a third camera maker with a fat wallet. Canon had become slow and fat, and might as well be named Compromise (especially with anything under US$3000), and Nikon was returning to the fight but seemed to have manufacturing issues at important times.
When I was selling SLRs way back when, Minolta was a safe choice. It wasn't good but it wasn't bad. In 135 Format, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax were good with Minolta a step below them and Canon wasn't even a factor.
Sony's A7 came at a critical time. The company was bleeding money and needed some success, any success. There were so many people chanting "Full Frame Full Frame" as if it was some panacea, that Sony took advantage of the situation and created a 135 Format-sized sensor with box of electronics around it. The reviews weren't overly optimistic. While the image quality was very good, the operational characteristics were bad. At least, they were serious about lenses, attention their NEX-system wasn't getting.
The A7 Mk II has fixed a lot of that, apparently, according to early reports I've seen. I'm actually thinking about what it could do for me because I'm in love with the idea of it, even if the execution isn't amazing.
They have increased the responsiveness and given the sensor 5-axis image stabilization, so that every lens will be stabilized--not at easy feat given the size of the sensor. If it works as well as Olympus' 5-axis image stabilization, I'd be happy.
You can bet that they've looked at every review of the A7 and put attention to every negative comment. The grip and overall handling didn't suit me, and it seems that they've been busy. I wish that all mirror-less camera makers would consider the battery size more important. Panasonic is pretty much the only company that has, with the GH3 and GH4, because of video recording. It works well.
Just this past Friday and Saturday, I was photographing a scooter competition in a huge indoor skate park. ISO 3200 was necessary. That is the maximum sensitivity I will use and keep photos. The GH4 video looked better than the E-M1's photos at that sensitivity but then, 1080p video doesn't cover as much area. Still, I was thinking that a Nikon D750 or this A7 Mk II would take care of the problem much better.
The D750 would likely be a whole lot more responsive. The Expeed 4 processor would probably be better at clean images, given that it has been used on the highest end bodies. The A7 Mk II (and most mirror-less models) seems more for anything but sports. The E-M1 and GH4 are very responsive, but there are times when they seem to be thinking instead of doing.
As I've been thinking, the improvements make the Sony A7 MK II a good start. In two more generations, it should be a great body.
Update 2015.11.04: After reading this DPReview article about the A7R Mk II, it shows that others are finding Sony to be providing great technology but not great cameras. Since I shoot sports mainly, it spoke to me about the chances of getting photos that don't wait for you.
Update 2015.11.17: I mentioned photographing a scooter competition indoors. I went back to the same indoor skate park in August. I used the Nikon D7200 in ISO 51,200 Black & White mode, along with the Panasonic GH4. I tried using the Nikon D7200 at typical ISO sensitivities and it was selecting ISO 14,400 while the GH4 was selecting ISO 200 to 400. Sure, the image quality wasn't as great as it would have been with a 135 Format-sized sensor but getting the shots was important. Waiting for a camera that doesn't respond would be frustrating.
The use of lossy compression was a bad move, no matter how big the raw files were. How can you claim to have a file which contains all of the information, if things are missing?
I was not a fan, but I was glad to see a third camera maker with a fat wallet. Canon had become slow and fat, and might as well be named Compromise (especially with anything under US$3000), and Nikon was returning to the fight but seemed to have manufacturing issues at important times.
When I was selling SLRs way back when, Minolta was a safe choice. It wasn't good but it wasn't bad. In 135 Format, Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax were good with Minolta a step below them and Canon wasn't even a factor.
Sony's A7 came at a critical time. The company was bleeding money and needed some success, any success. There were so many people chanting "Full Frame Full Frame" as if it was some panacea, that Sony took advantage of the situation and created a 135 Format-sized sensor with box of electronics around it. The reviews weren't overly optimistic. While the image quality was very good, the operational characteristics were bad. At least, they were serious about lenses, attention their NEX-system wasn't getting.
The A7 Mk II has fixed a lot of that, apparently, according to early reports I've seen. I'm actually thinking about what it could do for me because I'm in love with the idea of it, even if the execution isn't amazing.
They have increased the responsiveness and given the sensor 5-axis image stabilization, so that every lens will be stabilized--not at easy feat given the size of the sensor. If it works as well as Olympus' 5-axis image stabilization, I'd be happy.
You can bet that they've looked at every review of the A7 and put attention to every negative comment. The grip and overall handling didn't suit me, and it seems that they've been busy. I wish that all mirror-less camera makers would consider the battery size more important. Panasonic is pretty much the only company that has, with the GH3 and GH4, because of video recording. It works well.
Just this past Friday and Saturday, I was photographing a scooter competition in a huge indoor skate park. ISO 3200 was necessary. That is the maximum sensitivity I will use and keep photos. The GH4 video looked better than the E-M1's photos at that sensitivity but then, 1080p video doesn't cover as much area. Still, I was thinking that a Nikon D750 or this A7 Mk II would take care of the problem much better.
The D750 would likely be a whole lot more responsive. The Expeed 4 processor would probably be better at clean images, given that it has been used on the highest end bodies. The A7 Mk II (and most mirror-less models) seems more for anything but sports. The E-M1 and GH4 are very responsive, but there are times when they seem to be thinking instead of doing.
As I've been thinking, the improvements make the Sony A7 MK II a good start. In two more generations, it should be a great body.
Update 2015.11.04: After reading this DPReview article about the A7R Mk II, it shows that others are finding Sony to be providing great technology but not great cameras. Since I shoot sports mainly, it spoke to me about the chances of getting photos that don't wait for you.
Update 2015.11.17: I mentioned photographing a scooter competition indoors. I went back to the same indoor skate park in August. I used the Nikon D7200 in ISO 51,200 Black & White mode, along with the Panasonic GH4. I tried using the Nikon D7200 at typical ISO sensitivities and it was selecting ISO 14,400 while the GH4 was selecting ISO 200 to 400. Sure, the image quality wasn't as great as it would have been with a 135 Format-sized sensor but getting the shots was important. Waiting for a camera that doesn't respond would be frustrating.
The use of lossy compression was a bad move, no matter how big the raw files were. How can you claim to have a file which contains all of the information, if things are missing?
Monday, December 8, 2014
Video seems so intensive in contrast to still photography
The Panasonic GH4 hasn't really made my life easier. Yes, it's great equipment.
I've taken roughly 49 video clips since getting the GH4.
Hold the camera steady. Follow the motion. Oh, and remember to remove the lens cap and power on the camera. Yes, that's it.
Once I got the clips onto the drive, I was confused about what to do next. I started iMovie (I have Adobe Premiere Elements on the way) since that's my only video editor. Suddenly, I need to deal with Events and Projects and Importing. Am I confused? Am I.
I managed to get a video onto YouTube and Vimeo. That seemed a little problematic, but not horrible. Horrible was the description for dealing with Instagram. It saw my video, but refused to process it, possibly because it was too wide. The solution? Dropbox on Android was extra helpful in exporting to Instagram. It somehow found the face in the video and kept the person in the video, regardless of the location. That was quite amazing, and better than I could have thought to do at this point. The iOS version of Dropbox didn't have such an option (or any export to Instagram) that I could find.
After getting the first, very raw video on all three networks that I use, I felt better.
The next day, I tried working with iMovie further, without any extra support. I made mistakes, and learned. Finally, I managed to learn enough to put a bit of the video into slow motion. Then, I found that iMovie could immediately send the final product to Vimeo and YouTube without much more than e-mail addresses and passwords.
I still have something like 10 videos to process--out of 49 I took. Some of the videos need pieces thrown away. I should be able to learn.
Update 2014.12.13: Finally worked with the last nine of the videos, added some transitions, and wrapped them into one video of slightly under two minutes. Am I proud? Am I accomplished? I don't know. I'm satisfied to be able to finish something else, and do more.
I got my copy of Adobe Premiere Elements, along with Photoshop Elements, today. I'm not sure it's easier or better but the multiple levels of assistance will probably be useful. (I use Photoshop so little since working through Phase One Capture One that Photoshop is all but obsolete for my workflow.)
Apple doesn't seem to care about helping the user, except through some videos. They'd started a tutorial system way back in Mac OS 8.x but they killed it fairly quickly on the way to Mac OS X.
Still, iMovie is more confusing than difficult to use. Hopefully, Premiere Elements is also more confusing than difficult.
Update 2015.01.15: Premiere Elements is similar. It's just giving me a load of new user problems, as is iMovie. Why am I not going for a professional product? It really doesn't matter at this point. I still have to learn to work with taking the video, working with equipment, and processing the clips, understanding the software. If there is magical software to help do what I want without requiring learning something, I need that kind of software. I don't believe it exists.
Also, I'm looking at which lenses might help me. It matters about whether I'm going to take video clips or make films.
What does that mean? Serious equipment will require more than just a monetary investment. It will require a mental investment, planning any move.
I'm more of a run-and-gun type of photographer. I'm ready at any moment. I don't tell people what to do--I ask what they want to do or use what they are doing. Sports photography is like that, though working around skate parks requires even more flexibility.
I've been thinking about cine lenses. I can use those in a way that isn't completely different from the way I work now, but these are adapted or otherwise, manually-operated lenses. There is a recent crowdsourced group Veydra that will be able to provide supposedly high quality cine lenses at low prices, in contrast to Zeiss--US$900 vs US$5000 for each lens.
What's different is actually setting the various parameters of exposure, which may not change a lot from minute to minute, and focus. This should not be a problem because, as I've found photographing sports, auto focus isn't always all that reliable, unless maybe you're using a camera body over US$5000.
However, I'd found that the Olympus E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens was fairly good for run-and-gun situations. Perhaps the GH4 with Panasonic's 12-35mm f/2.8 lens would be equally good. The really great solution would be for Panasonic to work with Olympus and vice versa, to add the higher end Olympus lens profiles to the GH4 for Depth from Defocus application. It doesn't feel as though the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens from Panasonic is all that great with the GH4 but it wasn't all that great with the GH3 either.
I'm still considering all of the options, but quick auto focus is certainly effortless, mindless--if it works.
Update 2015.03.26: In January, I bought the Panasonic/Lumix/Leica 15mm f/1.7. It's been very good for video, staying focused.
The other day, I tried my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens. The OIS was enabled and it was worse than the two lenses I use that don't have any image stabilization. What's worse, they recently updated the firmware to improve the OIS during video, and I'd applied that fix. It was absolutely jumpy. I suspect it would have been much better with the OIS disabled, as I'm usually only slightly shaky.
Building a workflow has been interesting. I organize the clips into folders. Delete the bad clips. Combine the good clips. Add transitions and titles. Shorten clips to remove unwanted material, and quicken the unwanted material in the middle. (I might be able to split the clip, and delete the bad section, but right now, this makes the process less complicated, and the speed up might be entertaining.)
Since I'm using iMovie at the moment, there are a lot of simple ways to add effects, as long as I can figure out how to select the correct segment. I'm taking baby steps to avoid making an unsophisticated mess of my finished videos.
Update 2015.11.20: I have over 120 videos on YouTube and only a few on Vimeo. Vimeo wanted me to pay to upload more and I would not.
I'm using the Panasonic GH4 and GX8 for video, but I have used video from the E-M1 and it's not as bad as people say that it is. It's just not as good as it should be. The Pentax K-50 is also not bad. The fixed display isn't helpful though and the fixed display on the Nikon D7200 has kept me from using it for video, especially when I already have some powerful equipment.
I'm still using iMovie for video production. Yes, it is the free one. I recently bought a Windows 10 machine and paid for Sony Movie Studio Suite. This is a cut-rate version big package and it is confusing. To start a new project, it has various categories of the type of video--you're importing or producing--I can't tell. Nothing in the DV or HDV category seems to be 1920x1080p 60fps, which is what I use. They have AVCHD which is something the cameras support but I don't use. The package supports 3840x2160 but not 4096x2160. Shouldn't the application read the files you're importing to determine the project and ask you what you want to output?
In any case, iMovie has been amazingly quick and easy to get reasonable skate park videos out of it. I put together a final project, a best of video, that started with 42 minutes' worth of clips that ended up at 14:55, with music and effects. Even with iMovie, it was a task but at least, it's not difficult to remember how to split a clip, change effects, or even import from multiple folders. It took a while.
I've taken roughly 49 video clips since getting the GH4.
Hold the camera steady. Follow the motion. Oh, and remember to remove the lens cap and power on the camera. Yes, that's it.
Once I got the clips onto the drive, I was confused about what to do next. I started iMovie (I have Adobe Premiere Elements on the way) since that's my only video editor. Suddenly, I need to deal with Events and Projects and Importing. Am I confused? Am I.
I managed to get a video onto YouTube and Vimeo. That seemed a little problematic, but not horrible. Horrible was the description for dealing with Instagram. It saw my video, but refused to process it, possibly because it was too wide. The solution? Dropbox on Android was extra helpful in exporting to Instagram. It somehow found the face in the video and kept the person in the video, regardless of the location. That was quite amazing, and better than I could have thought to do at this point. The iOS version of Dropbox didn't have such an option (or any export to Instagram) that I could find.
After getting the first, very raw video on all three networks that I use, I felt better.
The next day, I tried working with iMovie further, without any extra support. I made mistakes, and learned. Finally, I managed to learn enough to put a bit of the video into slow motion. Then, I found that iMovie could immediately send the final product to Vimeo and YouTube without much more than e-mail addresses and passwords.
I still have something like 10 videos to process--out of 49 I took. Some of the videos need pieces thrown away. I should be able to learn.
Update 2014.12.13: Finally worked with the last nine of the videos, added some transitions, and wrapped them into one video of slightly under two minutes. Am I proud? Am I accomplished? I don't know. I'm satisfied to be able to finish something else, and do more.
I got my copy of Adobe Premiere Elements, along with Photoshop Elements, today. I'm not sure it's easier or better but the multiple levels of assistance will probably be useful. (I use Photoshop so little since working through Phase One Capture One that Photoshop is all but obsolete for my workflow.)
Apple doesn't seem to care about helping the user, except through some videos. They'd started a tutorial system way back in Mac OS 8.x but they killed it fairly quickly on the way to Mac OS X.
Still, iMovie is more confusing than difficult to use. Hopefully, Premiere Elements is also more confusing than difficult.
Update 2015.01.15: Premiere Elements is similar. It's just giving me a load of new user problems, as is iMovie. Why am I not going for a professional product? It really doesn't matter at this point. I still have to learn to work with taking the video, working with equipment, and processing the clips, understanding the software. If there is magical software to help do what I want without requiring learning something, I need that kind of software. I don't believe it exists.
Also, I'm looking at which lenses might help me. It matters about whether I'm going to take video clips or make films.
What does that mean? Serious equipment will require more than just a monetary investment. It will require a mental investment, planning any move.
I'm more of a run-and-gun type of photographer. I'm ready at any moment. I don't tell people what to do--I ask what they want to do or use what they are doing. Sports photography is like that, though working around skate parks requires even more flexibility.
I've been thinking about cine lenses. I can use those in a way that isn't completely different from the way I work now, but these are adapted or otherwise, manually-operated lenses. There is a recent crowdsourced group Veydra that will be able to provide supposedly high quality cine lenses at low prices, in contrast to Zeiss--US$900 vs US$5000 for each lens.
What's different is actually setting the various parameters of exposure, which may not change a lot from minute to minute, and focus. This should not be a problem because, as I've found photographing sports, auto focus isn't always all that reliable, unless maybe you're using a camera body over US$5000.
However, I'd found that the Olympus E-M1 and 12-40mm f/2.8 lens was fairly good for run-and-gun situations. Perhaps the GH4 with Panasonic's 12-35mm f/2.8 lens would be equally good. The really great solution would be for Panasonic to work with Olympus and vice versa, to add the higher end Olympus lens profiles to the GH4 for Depth from Defocus application. It doesn't feel as though the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens from Panasonic is all that great with the GH4 but it wasn't all that great with the GH3 either.
I'm still considering all of the options, but quick auto focus is certainly effortless, mindless--if it works.
Update 2015.03.26: In January, I bought the Panasonic/Lumix/Leica 15mm f/1.7. It's been very good for video, staying focused.
The other day, I tried my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens. The OIS was enabled and it was worse than the two lenses I use that don't have any image stabilization. What's worse, they recently updated the firmware to improve the OIS during video, and I'd applied that fix. It was absolutely jumpy. I suspect it would have been much better with the OIS disabled, as I'm usually only slightly shaky.
Building a workflow has been interesting. I organize the clips into folders. Delete the bad clips. Combine the good clips. Add transitions and titles. Shorten clips to remove unwanted material, and quicken the unwanted material in the middle. (I might be able to split the clip, and delete the bad section, but right now, this makes the process less complicated, and the speed up might be entertaining.)
Since I'm using iMovie at the moment, there are a lot of simple ways to add effects, as long as I can figure out how to select the correct segment. I'm taking baby steps to avoid making an unsophisticated mess of my finished videos.
Update 2015.11.20: I have over 120 videos on YouTube and only a few on Vimeo. Vimeo wanted me to pay to upload more and I would not.
I'm using the Panasonic GH4 and GX8 for video, but I have used video from the E-M1 and it's not as bad as people say that it is. It's just not as good as it should be. The Pentax K-50 is also not bad. The fixed display isn't helpful though and the fixed display on the Nikon D7200 has kept me from using it for video, especially when I already have some powerful equipment.
I'm still using iMovie for video production. Yes, it is the free one. I recently bought a Windows 10 machine and paid for Sony Movie Studio Suite. This is a cut-rate version big package and it is confusing. To start a new project, it has various categories of the type of video--you're importing or producing--I can't tell. Nothing in the DV or HDV category seems to be 1920x1080p 60fps, which is what I use. They have AVCHD which is something the cameras support but I don't use. The package supports 3840x2160 but not 4096x2160. Shouldn't the application read the files you're importing to determine the project and ask you what you want to output?
In any case, iMovie has been amazingly quick and easy to get reasonable skate park videos out of it. I put together a final project, a best of video, that started with 42 minutes' worth of clips that ended up at 14:55, with music and effects. Even with iMovie, it was a task but at least, it's not difficult to remember how to split a clip, change effects, or even import from multiple folders. It took a while.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Panasonic GH4: to pre-order or not at US$1699.99
Apparently, the floodgates have opened, and pre-orders on the Panasonic GH4 are available at roughly US$1699.99, the full retail pricing. I continue to think about the Olympus E-5 that was introduced in 2010 at the same price. The extra US$400 over the GH3 full retail pricing probably isn't enough to offset the research and development work, but I think that the company will sell enough to business users to make a profit eventually.
If things are good, the first people ordering it should see their camera bodies around the end of April. If it's as it was with the GH3, it could be longer--a few minutes delay in ordering could mean months. I'm not sure Panasonic anticipated the demand for the GH3, though I'm not sure that demand that strong exists for the GH4.
I'm ready but cautious. My GH3 may be flawed but I haven't seen anything about a production-firmware-laden GH4 yet. Panasonic certainly isn't talking to me about it.
I was reading the marketing blurbs on the Panasonic web site. Any time I see the word "professional" in marketing these days, I laugh. It seems to be the way around actually committing yourself to dangerous comparisons that may get you a lawsuit. I've seen people use an iPhone as a professional camera, so what exactly does that mean to the GH4 or the D4 or 1D x?
Can I use the GH4 instead of a US$3000 (5DMkIII or D800) body and get nearly the same results? How does it hold up against a US$6000 body?
The answer is a qualified "yes", of course. Yes, the video functionality will do well. My question is all about the still photography functionality. I'm impressed with the numbers but I really need to know how it really works in real world situations because I don't photograph test charts. I photograph sports.
I'm looking to wait a while anyway. I need to sell my GH3 or trade it for the GH4. I want the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens that will be available later this year, so I may wait for the combination of the two and add my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 and 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 lenses to the trade-in list. I don't care about the image stabilization, if I can't get a good, clear shot anyway. (Just ask me about all the years with the Olympus E-1 and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. I did fine. It could make sense to go with the E-M1 but I might as well wait for the replacement to see if they put a bigger battery in it and therefore, fix the grip.)
Happy shopping!
Update 2014.04.06: The GH4 should be arriving for some people at the end of April. Hopefully, their production will be strong enough to meet demand. I'm still hesitating until I can trade my GH3 but then, I'm packing in order to move across the country. I think I want to trade the GH3 here, where the people at the store know me. I could get a few dollars more.
Hopefully, the firmware upgrades to the inevitable minor issues will be quickly and accurately written and dispensed. Of course, the camera body has more intense processing than the GH3, so the little problems could be magnified a bit.
I wonder if any of the newer options from the AG-AF100/AG-AF105 will present new problems.
I hope that Panasonic has a rock-solid version 1.0 firmware release but I won't hold my breath.
Update 2014.04.09: I've seen the initial reports on the Sony A7s 4K camera body. I'd like to be impressed but it still sounds like checklist engineering. I see far too many complaints about the lack of responsiveness with the A7/A7R and can't imagine that the A7s will be better. Yes, it can do the things they list, but can it do them well? My money will be on the GH4.
Update 2014.04.14: Tweeted at Roberts Camera concerning a GH4 in stock. No such thing available. Do I want to be added to the list when I will probably be gone in three weeks? I don't believe so, but I want to trade the GH3, while I can do it in person. I'm not sure why, but mail order and waiting just isn't for me. Selling my house has filled me with anxiety already. Maybe, I should buy/trade for that Olympus E-M1 while I'm waiting. :-D
Update 2014.05.19: Over the weekend, I sent a message to Mike's Camera in Dublin, California asking if they did trade-ins. They have both Olympus and Panasonic, supposedly. They responded that they don't handle trade-ins, unfortunately.
I'm thinking of a mad, mad solution: trade for the Olympus E-M1, which Roberts easily has in stock. Then, later, when the GH4 is in stock and properly updated to reliable firmware, I'll buy one outright, probably through Adorama, although I might buy it locally at Mike's Camera. (I'd rather buy locally but there are times when it's just a bad idea. Mike's is a company from Colorado with a few California locations, for some reason, and one is reasonably close to where I'll be.)
If for some reason when/if I go to Roberts they have an extra GH4 in stock, I could just go the shorter path, though I'm thinking that the E-M1's 5 axis IS will help on certain nights. I'd rather have the successor to it, but I suspect that will take some time. Olympus isn't even replacing the E-M5 yet.
If things are good, the first people ordering it should see their camera bodies around the end of April. If it's as it was with the GH3, it could be longer--a few minutes delay in ordering could mean months. I'm not sure Panasonic anticipated the demand for the GH3, though I'm not sure that demand that strong exists for the GH4.
I'm ready but cautious. My GH3 may be flawed but I haven't seen anything about a production-firmware-laden GH4 yet. Panasonic certainly isn't talking to me about it.
I was reading the marketing blurbs on the Panasonic web site. Any time I see the word "professional" in marketing these days, I laugh. It seems to be the way around actually committing yourself to dangerous comparisons that may get you a lawsuit. I've seen people use an iPhone as a professional camera, so what exactly does that mean to the GH4 or the D4 or 1D x?
Can I use the GH4 instead of a US$3000 (5DMkIII or D800) body and get nearly the same results? How does it hold up against a US$6000 body?
The answer is a qualified "yes", of course. Yes, the video functionality will do well. My question is all about the still photography functionality. I'm impressed with the numbers but I really need to know how it really works in real world situations because I don't photograph test charts. I photograph sports.
I'm looking to wait a while anyway. I need to sell my GH3 or trade it for the GH4. I want the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens that will be available later this year, so I may wait for the combination of the two and add my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 and 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 lenses to the trade-in list. I don't care about the image stabilization, if I can't get a good, clear shot anyway. (Just ask me about all the years with the Olympus E-1 and 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. I did fine. It could make sense to go with the E-M1 but I might as well wait for the replacement to see if they put a bigger battery in it and therefore, fix the grip.)
Happy shopping!
Update 2014.04.06: The GH4 should be arriving for some people at the end of April. Hopefully, their production will be strong enough to meet demand. I'm still hesitating until I can trade my GH3 but then, I'm packing in order to move across the country. I think I want to trade the GH3 here, where the people at the store know me. I could get a few dollars more.
Hopefully, the firmware upgrades to the inevitable minor issues will be quickly and accurately written and dispensed. Of course, the camera body has more intense processing than the GH3, so the little problems could be magnified a bit.
I wonder if any of the newer options from the AG-AF100/AG-AF105 will present new problems.
I hope that Panasonic has a rock-solid version 1.0 firmware release but I won't hold my breath.
Update 2014.04.09: I've seen the initial reports on the Sony A7s 4K camera body. I'd like to be impressed but it still sounds like checklist engineering. I see far too many complaints about the lack of responsiveness with the A7/A7R and can't imagine that the A7s will be better. Yes, it can do the things they list, but can it do them well? My money will be on the GH4.
Update 2014.04.14: Tweeted at Roberts Camera concerning a GH4 in stock. No such thing available. Do I want to be added to the list when I will probably be gone in three weeks? I don't believe so, but I want to trade the GH3, while I can do it in person. I'm not sure why, but mail order and waiting just isn't for me. Selling my house has filled me with anxiety already. Maybe, I should buy/trade for that Olympus E-M1 while I'm waiting. :-D
Update 2014.05.19: Over the weekend, I sent a message to Mike's Camera in Dublin, California asking if they did trade-ins. They have both Olympus and Panasonic, supposedly. They responded that they don't handle trade-ins, unfortunately.
I'm thinking of a mad, mad solution: trade for the Olympus E-M1, which Roberts easily has in stock. Then, later, when the GH4 is in stock and properly updated to reliable firmware, I'll buy one outright, probably through Adorama, although I might buy it locally at Mike's Camera. (I'd rather buy locally but there are times when it's just a bad idea. Mike's is a company from Colorado with a few California locations, for some reason, and one is reasonably close to where I'll be.)
If for some reason when/if I go to Roberts they have an extra GH4 in stock, I could just go the shorter path, though I'm thinking that the E-M1's 5 axis IS will help on certain nights. I'd rather have the successor to it, but I suspect that will take some time. Olympus isn't even replacing the E-M5 yet.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Cameras for photographers, please, not just electronic devices taking photos
I've written a few times about checklist engineering. It's popular with electronics companies such as Sony and Samsung. It's generally popular with car companies like Chevrolet, Hyundai, and Honda. It's about building devices with the personality of a toaster.
For the longest time, great cameras were designed by photographers. A company would look at what worked for a person who didn't just snap photos, but wanted the camera to work each time, every time with consistency.
I never found rangefinders to be this kind of camera but people adored them. Although the old medium format viewfinders were rather odd with the upside-down image (so were twin lens reflex), looking down from the top of the camera, you were engaged in the process. Your imagination worked with reality.
Then, with the SLR, imagination wasn't quite as necessary. You could see almost how the final image would be, as you looked through the lens with which the image would be captured. Then, if you used the correct film and processed it well, you'd end up with an image that came close to your vision, your imagination of the scene.
Today, cameras are easy. You don't have to think at all. Auto-this, Auto-that are available. You can even set the camera to take photos at intervals and just leave the camera doing its own thing, so you don't have to be bothered.
What camera engages you? What equipment says "come out, and let's hear and see and find a story to re-tell people."?
For me, the Fujica series of 135 format SLRs from FujiFilm and the OM-series from Olympus were those kinds of equipment. The Olympus E-1 was another, more specific, more modern model, and certainly now, the FujiFilm X-T1 seems to pull at me that same way, even though I've yet to buy one.
Intuitive controls are important and the camera body has to feel like an extension of the arm (for me, at least). That sort of design doesn't come by starting by specifying internal components and working toward the outside eventually.
Look at the Sony A7/A7R duo. They might as well be called "The Committee" because that's who designed them. There was so little thought to the exterior that a 10 year old could have done it (with Lego?). It's a brilliant combination of parts inside but who but Sony fanatics will want to use it?
The FujiFilm X-T1 has the controls all over it, much like the Fujica ST801 that was so dear, or the Olympus OM-1, if they had been designed for the digital age. When the controls are where you want them to be and you don't have to access a display to make changes, you can be part of the process.
What I photograph with sports doesn't happen twice. There are no second chances. The camera body and lens have to work with me at all times. I don't need to go back to a photo and find that my nose touched the rear display (Why Olympus with the E-M1 and FujiFilm with the X-T1 think I want those displays out in the open, I don't know. The E-1 display was out in the open but it was off most of the time and had no touch capabilities.) I keep the rear display hidden usually. I don't need to find that a dial moves too easily, either.
The Nikon Df was made for people who care about such things, though I don't think it's for me. I've had enough experience with heavy, slippery Nikon equipment from way back when. The D800 (and the legendary, mythical D400) is better for me.
I've thought several times about gutting my Olympus E-1 and finding a way to put the Olympus E-5 or Panasonic GH3 equipment into it. The E-5 innards might be a bit overwhelming for it, but the GH3's insides might just fit. Matching the controls would be the problem, since I'm hardly a hardware engineer. Of course, doing video on a 1.8 inch rear display might be a problem, though I rarely mess with video--so far. However, getting photos in an intuitive environment would be wonderful again.
Mind, the Panasonic GH3 isn't a bad camera body. It was my first encounter with an electronic viewfinder and it wasn't a very good encounter and they've re-worked the viewfinder for the GH4. The problem is that it's not intuitive. They seemed to look at the Olympus E-5, miniaturised various aspects of the design, gave it some Canon appeal, and moved a lot of control to the rear display. Given what I've just written, you know that I don't have much love for the Olympus E-5 either.
The E-5 is a great tool. You could use it to pound nails into the wall. Like the E-1, it's possibly one of the strongest camera bodies from any dSLR maker. It ignores intuitive design, unlike the E-1. There is no mode dial, to provide space for a huge top display. What it has over the E-1 is a higher resolution, better balance with larger lenses, and image stabilization but it never feels quite right in my hands.
So, I ask again, what camera engages you to go out to re-tell a story?
Update 2014.02.20: I was in a camera store yesterday talking to a salesperson I've met in the past. I mentioned to him about the camera being an extension of the body and he just didn't get it. I guess people growing up in a world where electronics were everyday devices has changed the thinking. He suggested the Sony A7, but image quality alone isn't everything for me. It has to be a good shooter and the A7 is an ergonomic disaster, as are most of Sony's serious camera bodies, unfortunately. Apparently, the A7 is somewhat of a disaster to use, but is quite great at image quality. Landscape photographers are more likely to take the time, as are rangefinder users, that Sony is giving them.
Update 2014.04.10: I'm not sure exactly why but the FujiFilm X-T1 has become a big hit for the company. I think it's the overwhelming effect of all the dials. Yes, the image quality is quite good, but I'm not sure that's the driving force, as it's much the same inside as the X-E2. Is it a state of mind? The camera body, like the Olympus E-M1 is just a bit small and uncomfortable for me, but with smaller lenses, it would be a great casual body with enough physical controls to delight the best perfectionist.
For the longest time, great cameras were designed by photographers. A company would look at what worked for a person who didn't just snap photos, but wanted the camera to work each time, every time with consistency.
I never found rangefinders to be this kind of camera but people adored them. Although the old medium format viewfinders were rather odd with the upside-down image (so were twin lens reflex), looking down from the top of the camera, you were engaged in the process. Your imagination worked with reality.
Then, with the SLR, imagination wasn't quite as necessary. You could see almost how the final image would be, as you looked through the lens with which the image would be captured. Then, if you used the correct film and processed it well, you'd end up with an image that came close to your vision, your imagination of the scene.
Today, cameras are easy. You don't have to think at all. Auto-this, Auto-that are available. You can even set the camera to take photos at intervals and just leave the camera doing its own thing, so you don't have to be bothered.
What camera engages you? What equipment says "come out, and let's hear and see and find a story to re-tell people."?
For me, the Fujica series of 135 format SLRs from FujiFilm and the OM-series from Olympus were those kinds of equipment. The Olympus E-1 was another, more specific, more modern model, and certainly now, the FujiFilm X-T1 seems to pull at me that same way, even though I've yet to buy one.
Intuitive controls are important and the camera body has to feel like an extension of the arm (for me, at least). That sort of design doesn't come by starting by specifying internal components and working toward the outside eventually.
Look at the Sony A7/A7R duo. They might as well be called "The Committee" because that's who designed them. There was so little thought to the exterior that a 10 year old could have done it (with Lego?). It's a brilliant combination of parts inside but who but Sony fanatics will want to use it?
The FujiFilm X-T1 has the controls all over it, much like the Fujica ST801 that was so dear, or the Olympus OM-1, if they had been designed for the digital age. When the controls are where you want them to be and you don't have to access a display to make changes, you can be part of the process.
What I photograph with sports doesn't happen twice. There are no second chances. The camera body and lens have to work with me at all times. I don't need to go back to a photo and find that my nose touched the rear display (Why Olympus with the E-M1 and FujiFilm with the X-T1 think I want those displays out in the open, I don't know. The E-1 display was out in the open but it was off most of the time and had no touch capabilities.) I keep the rear display hidden usually. I don't need to find that a dial moves too easily, either.
The Nikon Df was made for people who care about such things, though I don't think it's for me. I've had enough experience with heavy, slippery Nikon equipment from way back when. The D800 (and the legendary, mythical D400) is better for me.
I've thought several times about gutting my Olympus E-1 and finding a way to put the Olympus E-5 or Panasonic GH3 equipment into it. The E-5 innards might be a bit overwhelming for it, but the GH3's insides might just fit. Matching the controls would be the problem, since I'm hardly a hardware engineer. Of course, doing video on a 1.8 inch rear display might be a problem, though I rarely mess with video--so far. However, getting photos in an intuitive environment would be wonderful again.
Mind, the Panasonic GH3 isn't a bad camera body. It was my first encounter with an electronic viewfinder and it wasn't a very good encounter and they've re-worked the viewfinder for the GH4. The problem is that it's not intuitive. They seemed to look at the Olympus E-5, miniaturised various aspects of the design, gave it some Canon appeal, and moved a lot of control to the rear display. Given what I've just written, you know that I don't have much love for the Olympus E-5 either.
The E-5 is a great tool. You could use it to pound nails into the wall. Like the E-1, it's possibly one of the strongest camera bodies from any dSLR maker. It ignores intuitive design, unlike the E-1. There is no mode dial, to provide space for a huge top display. What it has over the E-1 is a higher resolution, better balance with larger lenses, and image stabilization but it never feels quite right in my hands.
So, I ask again, what camera engages you to go out to re-tell a story?
Update 2014.02.20: I was in a camera store yesterday talking to a salesperson I've met in the past. I mentioned to him about the camera being an extension of the body and he just didn't get it. I guess people growing up in a world where electronics were everyday devices has changed the thinking. He suggested the Sony A7, but image quality alone isn't everything for me. It has to be a good shooter and the A7 is an ergonomic disaster, as are most of Sony's serious camera bodies, unfortunately. Apparently, the A7 is somewhat of a disaster to use, but is quite great at image quality. Landscape photographers are more likely to take the time, as are rangefinder users, that Sony is giving them.
Update 2014.04.10: I'm not sure exactly why but the FujiFilm X-T1 has become a big hit for the company. I think it's the overwhelming effect of all the dials. Yes, the image quality is quite good, but I'm not sure that's the driving force, as it's much the same inside as the X-E2. Is it a state of mind? The camera body, like the Olympus E-M1 is just a bit small and uncomfortable for me, but with smaller lenses, it would be a great casual body with enough physical controls to delight the best perfectionist.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Olympus E-M1, camera of the year?
I'm a bit surprised to see so much love given to the E-M1, or for that matter, to any Olympus product. It's been years since the company has been shown more than people's backsides.
Even DPReview has changed greatly in their treatment of Olympus. There was a time when Olympus wouldn't even send them a camera to review because the response from DPReview was usually so negative.
There have been a load of interesting camera bodies lately including the FujiFilm X-E2, the Sony A7/A7R, the Pentax K-3, and the Nikon D610.
To me, the E-M1 is good enough to represent the beginning of the end of the SLR.
Yes, I said that. Even though I didn't find it appropriate for me, it has a number of great attributes that put it into direct opposition to dSLRs.
- Excellent viewfinder
- Quick response
- Good size with great balance for native lenses
- Excellent auto focus and auto exposure
- Good controls
- It doesn't get in the way
- Super Control Panel
I've complained loads about electronic viewfinders, and I complain loads when I have to use my GH3's viewfinder with sunglasses. There was no problem with the E-M1 EVF. It just worked for me.
The camera body was responsive, and even waking from sleep wasn't horribly long. I learned a long time ago to power on the camera and let it go to sleep until needed. Olympus understands this and provides a quick waking cycle, once again, unlike my GH3.
While many people have embraced the diminutive size of most micro Four-Thirds equipment, I don't care for it. The GH3 is a reasonable size, especially considering the fully-articulated rear display and external controls. The E-M1 is close to that, and even longer native lenses are just fine. It is also sufficient for Olympus' HG line of lenses and some of the SHG line though too small for the largest of them.
My use of auto focus is minimal and I don't want the scatter pattern of multiple AF points to ruin my shots. Using a touch panel to select an AF point is different, and is the probably the greatest thing that mirror-less system cameras bring to the table. Both auto focus and auto exposure were quick and accurate, although I didn't try to focus in the dark which is something the latest Panasonic bodies do so well, down to EV -4.
The controls were fairly good. Unfortunately, during my time with the E-M1, I got a body that had the exposure compensation quite a bit away from flat, and it took a while to figure out how to change it. Exposure compensation should have its own external control that is marked, so there is no guesswork. I hope that the mushy shutter release has been resolved. I couldn't get a half-press to confirm auto exposure or auto focus and took a photo each time I attempted the half-press.
While I understand that picking up a new camera body and just shooting may not give you the best photos, it should not take loads of time to acclimate yourself to getting those photos. Do I care where the power switch is? Yes, but only twice. Controls like auto focus, bracketing, and exposure compensation should be front and center. If I had the time to mess during photography, I'd be a landscape photographer using medium format.
That said, I was able to use the camera right away. It wasn't confusing, past the exposure compensation, and it felt like an extension of my body, much like the E-1 did.
So, why am I not buying one of these, and waiting to see the replacement?
- Single flash memory card slot
- Rear display not fully-articulated
- Small battery and therefore, small, uncomfortable grip
- So-so implementation of auto focus for Four-Thirds lenses
For Olympus' pushing the E-M1 as a professional alternative, and the E-5 successor, it isn't quite there. It lacks what made the E-5 a good decision for me, to switch from the E-1, rather than to switch camps to buy the Nikon D300/D300s.
They feel that they know their customers, and while the camera has been a success, it's not a good successor to the E-5. Of course, those few of us to still be using Olympus' big glass should have switched to another brand years ago. The company missed an opportunity, though, to meet in the middle, going too small, and not really understanding the E-1/E-3/E-5 customers.
Still, the E-M1 is a great alternative to anyone considering a camera body in the US$1000 - US$2000 range. It only takes a look at the dSLRs in the range and FujiFilm's rangefinder-style alternatives to realize how good the E-M1 is. Sony's 135 format A7 is priced nicely and offers a lot, but what happens if they let it languish, as they've done with their NEX-system? What I've read about the A7 is that it's not easy to use, which seems to be a typical Sony problem. They've taken an electronics company's view on cameras, and I'm really shocked that Panasonic got over that. I never thought that I'd be using a Panasonic camera--ever--but it doesn't work like a rice cooker or a phone. The GH3 works like a camera built for photographers. I just wish that Olympus had put a bit more into the E-M1, so that it felt as comfortable as the GH3, and had the video capabilities.
Update 2014.03.13: I expect that the FujiFilm X-T1 will be the camera of the year for 2014, even though the Nikon D4s is extremely good. However, we're just into the third month of the year and there will be many more. I expect that the Panasonic GH4 will be my camera of the year, but it probably isn't going to be a popular choice for a hobbyist because it's more of a professional tool. It's larger than the E-M1 or X-T1, though it's tiny compared to the D4s. If the GH4 is like my GH3 but without the flaws and with better video and stills, it's definitely a good choice for me.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 lens, a reason to switch camps?
There are occasions where I need wide angle photography and given that I'm using Four-Thirds and micro Four-Thirds at the moment, wide angle photography is limited to 14mm at the moment with native lenses. Something more might be achieved with one of the wider-faster adapters, but it seems that it would be less of a compromise to just buy into a new system.
The widest native lenses are the Olympus ZD 7-14mm f/4.0 or the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 but I'm not sure if I want to dig deeper into micro Four-Thirds. There are the Olympus 9-18mm lenses but I'm not really sure about the optics and f/4.0-5.6 tends to be darker quickly. The Olympus 7-14mm is the only one that really fits, as I can use it on my Four-Thirds bodies as well as micro Four-Thirds bodies and it is weather-sealed, but then, maybe I don't really need such a feature.
This new FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 lens seems appealing, especially with the X-E2 (or X-T1) body. (The X-Pro1 could use an update, don't you think?)
If the image quality is a match for the sensor, it should be a potent combination, more than a match for a dSLR using a same-sized sensor. How big does a 135 format lens have to be to cover 15-36mm at a constant f/4.0? Will a filter size of 67mm cover it? It's not likely.
The FujiFilm lens has to be slightly larger than the Panasonic 7-14mm and it's definitely heavier at 410 grams over the 300 grams for the Panasonic lens. I wanted to compare by filter size but the Panasonic lens, like the Olympus lens has a convex front element and therefore, doesn't allow filters. The filter size of the 10-24mm lens is 72mm, which seems large for an f/4.0 lens, but it really is (ultra-)wide at 10mm. The Olympus lens is substantially heavier at 780 grams but the image quality is what you'd expect for a premium, weather-sealed lens. Strangely, the Olympus lens seems to have been removed from the company's web site.
The built-in lens hood is both brilliant and frustrating because the whole front of both lenses precludes the use of filters, and there is no rear drop-in slot. Why Panasonic chose to duplicate the lens in such detail is beyond me, except that at 7mm, you need to take rather extreme measures to counteract distortion. Unfortunately, they duplicated the lens without the weather-sealing. The lack of weather-seals would also be a problem for me with the FujiFilm lens. I might do better to buy a cheaper dSLR and wide angle lens for as little as I might use it.
FujiFilm, with their great sensor are breaking boundaries again. I liked what they were doing when they were still doing dSLRs in Nikon bodies. However, at those speeds, the dSLRs were better in the studio than out in the world where speed would be an issue. They seem to be finding themselves right now, as Olympus and Panasonic did with their first few generations of mirror-less system cameras. Once FujiFilm finds their way, I suspect that Samsung and Sony won't have a chance in the APS-C market. If FujiFilm would put together a dSLR-shaped model, it would likely boost sales and cut into Panasonic's market, also, except for video.
In any case, the 10-24mm f/4.0 isn't due until March and I doubt we'll see any previews until just before it's ready, so it will be difficult to judge the image quality. I'm looking forward to it.
Update 2014.01.06: FujiFilm's 56mm f/1.2 lens has been announced with a price of US$999.99 and that's also compelling, if the lens is great. The company seems to be building a great reason to switch, and in a short time, is ahead of Sony, Samsung, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax in mirror-less offerings.
Update 2014.01.15: The company has brought out some new grips and DPReview has taken a look at them here. They look a bit ridiculous, as they don't fit into the design smoothly, but I'm sure they do the job, as well as take a chunk from your wallet.
Update 2014.01.31 Happy Chinese (Lunar) New Year! I've been looking at the X-T1 and, while it's rather small, I think I could live with the X-T1 and three lenses, for quite a while:
(I couldn't care less about the 18-135mm in the photo. It's over 4x zoom and that's more than I will use. Why? Image quality will suffer.)
Of course, these are rather expensive and in sports photography, the 50-140mm f/2.8 is the only one that will bring me money. My serious question is: Will FujiFilm continue or will it be as it was with Olympus? Olympus was brilliant in 2003 with the E-1 and the great lenses were coming quickly. There was quite a following, and then, Nikon and Canon became good with digital photography and Olympus slowed. Ten years later, I'm thinking about options, even though the equipment works quite well still.
I suppose I could eliminate the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens at first and continue to use my current equipment (especially the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8) for a normal view. Still, I don't believe any of these lenses are available until later in the year, so it's not a real concern yet--just thinking.
Update 2014.02.12: I just saw something about Olympus producing a micro Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/2.8 lens, expected in 2015. That has a lot of possibilities, and it's certainly a low light opportunist, compared to the current f/4.0 lenses, including the 10-24mm f/4.0 from FujiFilm. If it will be priced at US$999.99 (the Four-Thirds f/4.0 lens is US$1799.99, a bargain of sorts), it will make me more indecisive about where I'm going. Having a 135 format effective 14mm available at f/2.8 (over 15mm at f/4.0) says a lot about getting the shot, even in dim lighting. We still have to take into account how well each sensor and processor handle the image quality at higher sensitivities. Minimizing electronic and electrical noise from the image path is most important to ensure a clean image. Obviously, the X-Trans II sensor has the edge, but Olympus has achieved quite a lot of success, despite the hurdles of the sensor size. I wonder how different the image quality would be if the FujiFilm sensor had 24.x MP, so that the pixel density would be roughly equal.
Update 2014.03.03: I've really been thinking about the X-T1 body quite a bit, mainly because of the 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8 weather-sealed lenses. I held the X-T1 body and found it to be sturdy but a little small, similar to the Olympus E-M1. Of course, the X-T1 has no need to mount huge lenses, as the E-M1 may, since there is no Four-Thirds equivalent, and the Pentax K-mount lenses for the Fujica AZ-1 from the late 1970s are likely in short supply, though there is no official adapter anyway.
The drawbacks of the X-T1 for someone like me, photographing sports, may be too much. Since the initial announcements, Olympus and Panasonic have really given me too many solutions. The GH4 has doubled the GH3's burst rate to 12 frames per second and 7.2 frames per second in tracking mode. If a familiar, comfortable Panasonic body is much better, why not stick with it, especially when Olympus is bringing great lenses, even without image stabilization?
Update 2014.03.05: I was looking at this article about photos of the real FujiFilm weather-sealed lenses. I could see that the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens seems to have a 77mm filter size and the 50-140mm f/2.8 seems to have a 67mm filter size. I'm surprised that the 50-140mm isn't bigger round the barrel. Both my 14-35mm f/2.0 and my 35-100mm f/2.0 have the 77mm filter size and, while they're heavy, they're manageable on a dSLR the size of the Nikon D7100, the E-5. I wonder what sort of balance (or imbalance) will be there with these lenses and the X-T1 since it's more the size of the E-M1. I found it a bit too small, similar to how I feel about the E-M1.
Update 2014.03.31: Reviews have been very positive for the 10-24mm lens. I'm not surprised. I still wish that it was weather-sealed, since you could be photographing a landscape and it might start to rain. Use an umbrella? What's that? I've never, ever used an umbrella for photography, especially since I don't have three hands.
The widest native lenses are the Olympus ZD 7-14mm f/4.0 or the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 but I'm not sure if I want to dig deeper into micro Four-Thirds. There are the Olympus 9-18mm lenses but I'm not really sure about the optics and f/4.0-5.6 tends to be darker quickly. The Olympus 7-14mm is the only one that really fits, as I can use it on my Four-Thirds bodies as well as micro Four-Thirds bodies and it is weather-sealed, but then, maybe I don't really need such a feature.
This new FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 lens seems appealing, especially with the X-E2 (or X-T1) body. (The X-Pro1 could use an update, don't you think?)
 |
| FujiFilm 10-24mm f/4.0 |
If the image quality is a match for the sensor, it should be a potent combination, more than a match for a dSLR using a same-sized sensor. How big does a 135 format lens have to be to cover 15-36mm at a constant f/4.0? Will a filter size of 67mm cover it? It's not likely.
The FujiFilm lens has to be slightly larger than the Panasonic 7-14mm and it's definitely heavier at 410 grams over the 300 grams for the Panasonic lens. I wanted to compare by filter size but the Panasonic lens, like the Olympus lens has a convex front element and therefore, doesn't allow filters. The filter size of the 10-24mm lens is 72mm, which seems large for an f/4.0 lens, but it really is (ultra-)wide at 10mm. The Olympus lens is substantially heavier at 780 grams but the image quality is what you'd expect for a premium, weather-sealed lens. Strangely, the Olympus lens seems to have been removed from the company's web site.
 |
| Olympus ZD 7-14mm f/4.0 |
 |
| Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 |
FujiFilm, with their great sensor are breaking boundaries again. I liked what they were doing when they were still doing dSLRs in Nikon bodies. However, at those speeds, the dSLRs were better in the studio than out in the world where speed would be an issue. They seem to be finding themselves right now, as Olympus and Panasonic did with their first few generations of mirror-less system cameras. Once FujiFilm finds their way, I suspect that Samsung and Sony won't have a chance in the APS-C market. If FujiFilm would put together a dSLR-shaped model, it would likely boost sales and cut into Panasonic's market, also, except for video.
In any case, the 10-24mm f/4.0 isn't due until March and I doubt we'll see any previews until just before it's ready, so it will be difficult to judge the image quality. I'm looking forward to it.
Update 2014.01.06: FujiFilm's 56mm f/1.2 lens has been announced with a price of US$999.99 and that's also compelling, if the lens is great. The company seems to be building a great reason to switch, and in a short time, is ahead of Sony, Samsung, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax in mirror-less offerings.
Update 2014.01.15: The company has brought out some new grips and DPReview has taken a look at them here. They look a bit ridiculous, as they don't fit into the design smoothly, but I'm sure they do the job, as well as take a chunk from your wallet.
Update 2014.01.31 Happy Chinese (Lunar) New Year! I've been looking at the X-T1 and, while it's rather small, I think I could live with the X-T1 and three lenses, for quite a while:
 |
| 18-135mm, 16-55mm f/2.8, and 50-140mm f/2.8 |
- XF 16-55mm f/2.8 OIS
- XF 50-140mm f/2.8 OIS
- XF 10-24mm f/4.0 OIS
(I couldn't care less about the 18-135mm in the photo. It's over 4x zoom and that's more than I will use. Why? Image quality will suffer.)
Of course, these are rather expensive and in sports photography, the 50-140mm f/2.8 is the only one that will bring me money. My serious question is: Will FujiFilm continue or will it be as it was with Olympus? Olympus was brilliant in 2003 with the E-1 and the great lenses were coming quickly. There was quite a following, and then, Nikon and Canon became good with digital photography and Olympus slowed. Ten years later, I'm thinking about options, even though the equipment works quite well still.
I suppose I could eliminate the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens at first and continue to use my current equipment (especially the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8) for a normal view. Still, I don't believe any of these lenses are available until later in the year, so it's not a real concern yet--just thinking.
Update 2014.02.12: I just saw something about Olympus producing a micro Four-Thirds 7-14mm f/2.8 lens, expected in 2015. That has a lot of possibilities, and it's certainly a low light opportunist, compared to the current f/4.0 lenses, including the 10-24mm f/4.0 from FujiFilm. If it will be priced at US$999.99 (the Four-Thirds f/4.0 lens is US$1799.99, a bargain of sorts), it will make me more indecisive about where I'm going. Having a 135 format effective 14mm available at f/2.8 (over 15mm at f/4.0) says a lot about getting the shot, even in dim lighting. We still have to take into account how well each sensor and processor handle the image quality at higher sensitivities. Minimizing electronic and electrical noise from the image path is most important to ensure a clean image. Obviously, the X-Trans II sensor has the edge, but Olympus has achieved quite a lot of success, despite the hurdles of the sensor size. I wonder how different the image quality would be if the FujiFilm sensor had 24.x MP, so that the pixel density would be roughly equal.
Update 2014.03.03: I've really been thinking about the X-T1 body quite a bit, mainly because of the 16-55mm f/2.8 and 50-140mm f/2.8 weather-sealed lenses. I held the X-T1 body and found it to be sturdy but a little small, similar to the Olympus E-M1. Of course, the X-T1 has no need to mount huge lenses, as the E-M1 may, since there is no Four-Thirds equivalent, and the Pentax K-mount lenses for the Fujica AZ-1 from the late 1970s are likely in short supply, though there is no official adapter anyway.
The drawbacks of the X-T1 for someone like me, photographing sports, may be too much. Since the initial announcements, Olympus and Panasonic have really given me too many solutions. The GH4 has doubled the GH3's burst rate to 12 frames per second and 7.2 frames per second in tracking mode. If a familiar, comfortable Panasonic body is much better, why not stick with it, especially when Olympus is bringing great lenses, even without image stabilization?
Update 2014.03.05: I was looking at this article about photos of the real FujiFilm weather-sealed lenses. I could see that the 16-55mm f/2.8 lens seems to have a 77mm filter size and the 50-140mm f/2.8 seems to have a 67mm filter size. I'm surprised that the 50-140mm isn't bigger round the barrel. Both my 14-35mm f/2.0 and my 35-100mm f/2.0 have the 77mm filter size and, while they're heavy, they're manageable on a dSLR the size of the Nikon D7100, the E-5. I wonder what sort of balance (or imbalance) will be there with these lenses and the X-T1 since it's more the size of the E-M1. I found it a bit too small, similar to how I feel about the E-M1.
Update 2014.03.31: Reviews have been very positive for the 10-24mm lens. I'm not surprised. I still wish that it was weather-sealed, since you could be photographing a landscape and it might start to rain. Use an umbrella? What's that? I've never, ever used an umbrella for photography, especially since I don't have three hands.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
What technology impressed me in 2013?
I'm usually skeptical of new and improved products. Marketing people tend to gush wildly about how something insignificant is wonderful and miss when some small change has a huge impact, positive or negative.
It's been a crazy kind of year with odd things happening at all levels. I didn't expect all the political stupidity, chest-thumping, etc. I replaced a car and a water heater, added a camera system, and tried yet-to-be-released equipment. I also drove over 7500 miles in two trips and never bought a drop of gasoline but drove more miles locally.
What I've listed here aren't the only things that impressed me, but those that had a significant impact on me. I could add any number of other items that were interesting but had no substantial importance for me.
Diesel fuel seems a good alternative to gasoline and hybrid vehicles. The use of fuel might not be minimal but you don't have to worry about a number of batteries that will need to be replaced and recycled carefully. The price of the fuel can be a bit high, and there was one point where the price of gasoline was higher than the price of diesel--a situation I had not seen since the early 1980s when diesel-powered cars and non-commercial trucks were few. The changes to diesel engines have been many but none more significant than the changes to glow plugs. Way back when, I remember that people had to wait 20-30 minutes for the glow plugs to heat before they could start the engine. In frozen climates, that would be an eternity of sorts. Now, you step inside, start the engine, and go. It has a bit of that diesel sound from the inside but not much. However, people walking along the road seem to notice it.
Going from a 1999 Golf GLS powered by gasoline to a 2012 Golf TDI proved simpler than expected, even though I should have bought the manual transmission model. This was my fifth VW and after the 1999 and all its mechanical and electrical messes, I didn't think I'd have another. This 2012 is all grown up. It's not just the +10 mpg over the old car but the fully independent rear suspension, heated seats, and so on, but the way it all fits, it's as though it's not an economy car any longer.
Photographically, I was busy. I was photographing swimming, basketball, and wrestling in winter, and switching to baseball, softball, and track during the spring.
In order to handle swimming better, I added an Olympus ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 lens and an Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 lens for various other situations. These are the heaviest lenses I've used on a daily basis but the image quality of Olympus' Super High Grade line lenses are impressive.
Seeing Sigma announce the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens shocked me a bit. Sigma has its moments, but most of those moments aren't positive. Usually when I see good feedback about their products, I think that the user doesn't have high standards for image quality. However, for a few lenses (50-500mm, 105mm macro, 150mm macro), they've done well for a while. They've become better lately, but I'm still not convinced enough to buy anything. The threat of a color cast or back focusing keep me away.
The 18-35mm f/1.8 has received a lot of praise from outlets I trust. The range of the focal length is somewhat small, even as I find the Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0's range limited. Of course, the further from 12mm you are, the easier it is to create optical magic without making the lens overly big or heavy. As I recall, the lens isn't weather-sealed, so that saves weight and complexity and cost. The lens is about 30% of the price of the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0. Is the image quality as good? I haven't tried it, and those who have apparently haven't tried the Olympus lens. In any case, it was a bold move from Sigma.
I've been searching for a way to extend my wide angle possibilities and the 14mm (times 2 magnification factor) isn't all that wide at an effective 135 format 28mm.
I was invited to an event to use the new Olympus E-M1. Since I've been an Olympus dSLR user since 2004 with the E-1, the E-M1 was meant to help me transition to micro Four-Thirds. At the event, they had the yet-to-be-released 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens. (When a company uses the word professional or otherwise labels any equipment in that way, I laugh.) I've tried a few micro Four-Thirds lenses since February and I've found most of them to be craptacular, compared to Four-Thirds lenses, especially for the price. A few exceptions, such as the 75mm f/1.8, 12mm f/2.0, and 45mm f/1.8 seem to be quite good, but not particularly suitable for me, as I require zoom lenses for sport. So, when I was able to use the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I felt comfortable. It fit between my ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0, in price and image quality. This is the first zoom lens for micro Four-Thirds for which I have no reservations, and it's on my list to buy.
When I first handled the E-M1, I was upset. Olympus didn't produce another dSLR but that was half-expected by me. The company, after the E-1 was released in 2003, had done some odd things, and it took until 2007 for them to release a replacement flagship dSLR. They were planning to have something out in 2005, along with the original 14-35mm design (that never made it) but just couldn't get it done. In 2007, they gave us a great-for-2005 dSLR, and in 2010, a great-for-2007 dSLR replaced it.
The E-M1 wasn't a surprise. However, it wasn't exactly a replacement for the E-5. While the electronic viewfinder is 99.9% as good as the optical viewfinder on the E-5, the rest of the camera body doesn't seem quite right. It's smaller than even the E-1 and even slightly less than the Panasonic GH3. The rear display panel cannot be hidden or otherwise protected, and it's not fully articulated. The grip was small and angular, being built around a small battery. Given that there are two powered displays, I'd expect the battery to be much larger. The BLM-1/BLM-5 is not huge, and should have been used. The grip was uncomfortable to me with my Four-Thirds lenses (being that they're heavier and larger, and optically better!), and there is more of an imbalance than with the Panasonic GH3 or Olympus E-1.
For the typical micro Four-Thirds equipment user, it seems too large. For the professional using the Nikon D800 or Canon 5DMkIII, it seems really small and incredibly light. It wasn't right for me, because the support for my current lenses wasn't good enough, and there aren't enough great, native zoom lenses yet. Many people will find it exceptional, as the reviewers have. However, I photograph sports, and I don't have time to think about the camera--I need to use it. Maybe, next time.
More to my liking was the Pentax K-3. I've been looking for a replacement for the Nikon D300/D300s, and Nikon aren't making one, nor is Canon. I'm not convinced that the D610 is enough of a camera body to do what the D300 did well. While the technical appeal of 135 format is there, not much else is, especially for sports. So, here is Ricoh, a brand of screwy products, who bought Pentax, a brand of great but inconsistent products, with a new APS-C sized dSLR.
On paper, the K-3 seems to be everything one would need to replace their D300, save lens compatibility. It has a large buffer for raw images, blazing speed, a high density sensor with the 1.5x magnification compared to 135 format, and supposedly very good video. (Right now, it has to be a paper comparison. I've yet to find a store handling the product.)
It's much more than the Nikon D7100, Canon 70D, or Olympus E-M1. I've been thinking, and thinking, and thinking about it. In the meantime, there have been the typical weird Pentax-ish issues that may never be fixed. There is also the lack of a fully-articulated rear display, which makes it less useful. There are also some image anomalies that could keep it from being amazing, even though it has a lot of detail available, due to its lack of anti-aliasing filter. You can however, sidestep moiré patterns by turning on the fake anti-aliasing filter functionality using the Shake Reduction technology. If Ricoh-Pentax can provide firmware fixes, this could turn into a camera body that will wipe out everything else from US$1000 to US$2000 and revitalize Pentax. It's everything that the mythical Nikon D400 should have been.
This micro micro Four-Thirds camera body has been the kind of thing people had wanted, but didn't dare to dream. It's so small, it's too small to use the typical lenses easily without the additional grip. For those of us who end up using our phone camera as a substitute for a high quality camera, this may cause a lot of people to re-think what they're doing, in order to get higher image quality.
At the moment, the 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 lens is good but not great. There are plenty of other lenses without the size advantage. The 12-32mm lens makes the camera pocket-able. This body has major appeal for me over the Panasonic GF6, G6, or GX7 because it is truly small.
Sony took poor, old, lackluster Minolta and turned its technology into something better, even better than average sometime. When they brought out a mirror-less system camera line to compete with Panasonic in their age-old war, they didn't have much. Unfortunately, they haven't made much progress either. There are more lenses, but not many more. They haven't kept pace with Panasonic and Olympus, and their slightly better image quality isn't appealing enough if you can't get the shot you want.
Enter the Alpha 7/Alpha 7R duo with 135 format sized sensors. Is it a gimmick or is it a system? They announced several FE-mount (instead of E-mount) lenses along with both bodies, so it's way ahead of Sony's NEX system in fulfilling hopes from the start.
However, this will likely appeal to Sony fanatics only, as the rest of their equipment has. That's unfortunate, as there is a chance that Sony won't mess this up, and they'll produce something that everyone would like to use. There is a chance.
Having had two of the 2012 Nexus 7 tablets, and having returned them within 14 days, I was uncomfortable with the idea of buying the new one. I wanted a tablet, to be sure, but I didn't want a mess, and that was exactly what the 2012 model was. Also, when Apple introduced their iPad mini for 2013, it was underwhelming and they raised the price. Sure they used their latest 64-bit A7/M7 processors but having a lower color gamut display, higher density or not, wasn't worthy of a price increase.
I approached the Nexus 7 with caution. I tried it at several stores. There was no surge-pause-surge-pause as with the 2012 model. There were even covers available. It felt like a grown-up product.
I've used it quite a lot in the short time that I've had it. It isn't quite a replacement for my laptop computer, but it is filling that void where a bigger display is helpful to get more information faster. It's as good as the 2012 model was bad. The only thing I'm missing is the grippy back from the older model. I was interested in the EVGA Tegra Note 7 tablet, but nervous about nVidia's ability to provide a smooth processor experience, and not just raw power when it was ready.
How could I think about tablets without thinking about the Nexus 5 and the G2. They're big and powerful, and of course, they're directly related. Had Apple not appealed to me with the iPhone 5c, I'd likely have the G2 now. They're impressive phones with impressive displays, and they G2 has a bigger battery than the Nexus 5, so battery life on Android (with its "elegant multi-tasking") isn't as much of a problem. I still liked the feel of the LG Optimus G over the G2 but I was nervous about the operating system updates for a year old phone.
Motorola, as a subsidiary of Google, has started to impress. It's been quite a while since the StarTac or RAZR hit the market and shocked everyone. The various models Motorola has made over the years have been good but yawn worthy, and the company's software enhancements have made the phones more difficult to use, which is typical for Android-based phones from anyone but Google.
So, when the Moto X arrived earlier, I didn't think much about it. It was a little better than average, but it seemed more like a phone for 2012 with options to customize the outside so you wouldn't think about the inside.
However, when they introduced the Moto G, it was priced like something for cost-conscious countries, but it worked almost like a premium phone, except when you bought it. Less is more.
Apple has been surprising people for a while. They bought a couple of chip design companies and it seemed as though they were going to design their own PowerPC processors for their computers because Motorola just couldn't handle it.
Instead, they've been working on processors for mobile devices, and extracting a lot of performance and battery life from what seemed to be unexciting processors. The latest A7 processor with its 64-bit capabilities seems ready to handle almost anything. Paired with the M7 motion processor keeps battery life good, while still being powerful.
What's more, they shocked the processor market with the 64-bit-ness.
Right now, the software to take advantage of the power is not quite there, and things have been a bit screwy, but this is typical of some new technology, don't you think? I was uncomfortable enough to avoid buying the iPhone 5s to get the tried-and-true technology within the iPhone 5c.
I wonder about what will come.
I'm waiting on three micro Four-Thirds lenses. Panasonic's 42.5mm f/1.2 and the Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 will be out, as well as Olympus' 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO (laugh with me at the "PRO" designation, please!) lens.
I expect that FujiFilm will replace the X-Pro1 and X-M1. Whether they will provide their lens-specific enhancements (as with the X-E2) for the X-M2 will be anyone's guess. The new 10-24mm f/4.0 lens specifically mentions the X-E2 in information I've seen. That should be a great lens, especially if Fuji can diminish low light noise, since it's not an f/2.8 lens.
I'm waiting for a D7200 from Nikon, not that it's on the way, but since the D5300 is out and the Canon 70D and Pentax K-3 have arrived, Nikon need to push forward. If nothing else, they could increase the depth of the frame buffer for raw images and call it the D7150, though that sounds more like a computer model.
Hopefully, Apple will correct their ridiculous issues with the iPad mini and put great displays in them, instead of the mediocre but denser displays that they're using. I wasn't about to pay more for a lousy display. I thought that they should buy Sharp and take control, but they don't want to have anything to do with manufacturing since they closed down the PowerMac factories years ago.
So, I have no idea what will impress me but I have some hopes for the year.
It's been a crazy kind of year with odd things happening at all levels. I didn't expect all the political stupidity, chest-thumping, etc. I replaced a car and a water heater, added a camera system, and tried yet-to-be-released equipment. I also drove over 7500 miles in two trips and never bought a drop of gasoline but drove more miles locally.
What I've listed here aren't the only things that impressed me, but those that had a significant impact on me. I could add any number of other items that were interesting but had no substantial importance for me.
VW Golf TDI
Diesel fuel seems a good alternative to gasoline and hybrid vehicles. The use of fuel might not be minimal but you don't have to worry about a number of batteries that will need to be replaced and recycled carefully. The price of the fuel can be a bit high, and there was one point where the price of gasoline was higher than the price of diesel--a situation I had not seen since the early 1980s when diesel-powered cars and non-commercial trucks were few. The changes to diesel engines have been many but none more significant than the changes to glow plugs. Way back when, I remember that people had to wait 20-30 minutes for the glow plugs to heat before they could start the engine. In frozen climates, that would be an eternity of sorts. Now, you step inside, start the engine, and go. It has a bit of that diesel sound from the inside but not much. However, people walking along the road seem to notice it.
Going from a 1999 Golf GLS powered by gasoline to a 2012 Golf TDI proved simpler than expected, even though I should have bought the manual transmission model. This was my fifth VW and after the 1999 and all its mechanical and electrical messes, I didn't think I'd have another. This 2012 is all grown up. It's not just the +10 mpg over the old car but the fully independent rear suspension, heated seats, and so on, but the way it all fits, it's as though it's not an economy car any longer.
Photographically, I was busy. I was photographing swimming, basketball, and wrestling in winter, and switching to baseball, softball, and track during the spring.
In order to handle swimming better, I added an Olympus ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 lens and an Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 lens for various other situations. These are the heaviest lenses I've used on a daily basis but the image quality of Olympus' Super High Grade line lenses are impressive.
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens
Seeing Sigma announce the 18-35mm f/1.8 lens shocked me a bit. Sigma has its moments, but most of those moments aren't positive. Usually when I see good feedback about their products, I think that the user doesn't have high standards for image quality. However, for a few lenses (50-500mm, 105mm macro, 150mm macro), they've done well for a while. They've become better lately, but I'm still not convinced enough to buy anything. The threat of a color cast or back focusing keep me away.
The 18-35mm f/1.8 has received a lot of praise from outlets I trust. The range of the focal length is somewhat small, even as I find the Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2.0's range limited. Of course, the further from 12mm you are, the easier it is to create optical magic without making the lens overly big or heavy. As I recall, the lens isn't weather-sealed, so that saves weight and complexity and cost. The lens is about 30% of the price of the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0. Is the image quality as good? I haven't tried it, and those who have apparently haven't tried the Olympus lens. In any case, it was a bold move from Sigma.
I've been searching for a way to extend my wide angle possibilities and the 14mm (times 2 magnification factor) isn't all that wide at an effective 135 format 28mm.
Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens
I was invited to an event to use the new Olympus E-M1. Since I've been an Olympus dSLR user since 2004 with the E-1, the E-M1 was meant to help me transition to micro Four-Thirds. At the event, they had the yet-to-be-released 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO lens. (When a company uses the word professional or otherwise labels any equipment in that way, I laugh.) I've tried a few micro Four-Thirds lenses since February and I've found most of them to be craptacular, compared to Four-Thirds lenses, especially for the price. A few exceptions, such as the 75mm f/1.8, 12mm f/2.0, and 45mm f/1.8 seem to be quite good, but not particularly suitable for me, as I require zoom lenses for sport. So, when I was able to use the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens, I felt comfortable. It fit between my ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0, in price and image quality. This is the first zoom lens for micro Four-Thirds for which I have no reservations, and it's on my list to buy.
Olympus E-M1
When I first handled the E-M1, I was upset. Olympus didn't produce another dSLR but that was half-expected by me. The company, after the E-1 was released in 2003, had done some odd things, and it took until 2007 for them to release a replacement flagship dSLR. They were planning to have something out in 2005, along with the original 14-35mm design (that never made it) but just couldn't get it done. In 2007, they gave us a great-for-2005 dSLR, and in 2010, a great-for-2007 dSLR replaced it.
The E-M1 wasn't a surprise. However, it wasn't exactly a replacement for the E-5. While the electronic viewfinder is 99.9% as good as the optical viewfinder on the E-5, the rest of the camera body doesn't seem quite right. It's smaller than even the E-1 and even slightly less than the Panasonic GH3. The rear display panel cannot be hidden or otherwise protected, and it's not fully articulated. The grip was small and angular, being built around a small battery. Given that there are two powered displays, I'd expect the battery to be much larger. The BLM-1/BLM-5 is not huge, and should have been used. The grip was uncomfortable to me with my Four-Thirds lenses (being that they're heavier and larger, and optically better!), and there is more of an imbalance than with the Panasonic GH3 or Olympus E-1.
For the typical micro Four-Thirds equipment user, it seems too large. For the professional using the Nikon D800 or Canon 5DMkIII, it seems really small and incredibly light. It wasn't right for me, because the support for my current lenses wasn't good enough, and there aren't enough great, native zoom lenses yet. Many people will find it exceptional, as the reviewers have. However, I photograph sports, and I don't have time to think about the camera--I need to use it. Maybe, next time.
Ricoh Pentax K-3
More to my liking was the Pentax K-3. I've been looking for a replacement for the Nikon D300/D300s, and Nikon aren't making one, nor is Canon. I'm not convinced that the D610 is enough of a camera body to do what the D300 did well. While the technical appeal of 135 format is there, not much else is, especially for sports. So, here is Ricoh, a brand of screwy products, who bought Pentax, a brand of great but inconsistent products, with a new APS-C sized dSLR.
On paper, the K-3 seems to be everything one would need to replace their D300, save lens compatibility. It has a large buffer for raw images, blazing speed, a high density sensor with the 1.5x magnification compared to 135 format, and supposedly very good video. (Right now, it has to be a paper comparison. I've yet to find a store handling the product.)
It's much more than the Nikon D7100, Canon 70D, or Olympus E-M1. I've been thinking, and thinking, and thinking about it. In the meantime, there have been the typical weird Pentax-ish issues that may never be fixed. There is also the lack of a fully-articulated rear display, which makes it less useful. There are also some image anomalies that could keep it from being amazing, even though it has a lot of detail available, due to its lack of anti-aliasing filter. You can however, sidestep moiré patterns by turning on the fake anti-aliasing filter functionality using the Shake Reduction technology. If Ricoh-Pentax can provide firmware fixes, this could turn into a camera body that will wipe out everything else from US$1000 to US$2000 and revitalize Pentax. It's everything that the mythical Nikon D400 should have been.
Panasonic GM1
This micro micro Four-Thirds camera body has been the kind of thing people had wanted, but didn't dare to dream. It's so small, it's too small to use the typical lenses easily without the additional grip. For those of us who end up using our phone camera as a substitute for a high quality camera, this may cause a lot of people to re-think what they're doing, in order to get higher image quality.
At the moment, the 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 lens is good but not great. There are plenty of other lenses without the size advantage. The 12-32mm lens makes the camera pocket-able. This body has major appeal for me over the Panasonic GF6, G6, or GX7 because it is truly small.
Sony A7/A7R
Sony took poor, old, lackluster Minolta and turned its technology into something better, even better than average sometime. When they brought out a mirror-less system camera line to compete with Panasonic in their age-old war, they didn't have much. Unfortunately, they haven't made much progress either. There are more lenses, but not many more. They haven't kept pace with Panasonic and Olympus, and their slightly better image quality isn't appealing enough if you can't get the shot you want.
Enter the Alpha 7/Alpha 7R duo with 135 format sized sensors. Is it a gimmick or is it a system? They announced several FE-mount (instead of E-mount) lenses along with both bodies, so it's way ahead of Sony's NEX system in fulfilling hopes from the start.
However, this will likely appeal to Sony fanatics only, as the rest of their equipment has. That's unfortunate, as there is a chance that Sony won't mess this up, and they'll produce something that everyone would like to use. There is a chance.
Google Nexus 7
Having had two of the 2012 Nexus 7 tablets, and having returned them within 14 days, I was uncomfortable with the idea of buying the new one. I wanted a tablet, to be sure, but I didn't want a mess, and that was exactly what the 2012 model was. Also, when Apple introduced their iPad mini for 2013, it was underwhelming and they raised the price. Sure they used their latest 64-bit A7/M7 processors but having a lower color gamut display, higher density or not, wasn't worthy of a price increase.
I approached the Nexus 7 with caution. I tried it at several stores. There was no surge-pause-surge-pause as with the 2012 model. There were even covers available. It felt like a grown-up product.
I've used it quite a lot in the short time that I've had it. It isn't quite a replacement for my laptop computer, but it is filling that void where a bigger display is helpful to get more information faster. It's as good as the 2012 model was bad. The only thing I'm missing is the grippy back from the older model. I was interested in the EVGA Tegra Note 7 tablet, but nervous about nVidia's ability to provide a smooth processor experience, and not just raw power when it was ready.
Google Nexus 5 and LG G2
How could I think about tablets without thinking about the Nexus 5 and the G2. They're big and powerful, and of course, they're directly related. Had Apple not appealed to me with the iPhone 5c, I'd likely have the G2 now. They're impressive phones with impressive displays, and they G2 has a bigger battery than the Nexus 5, so battery life on Android (with its "elegant multi-tasking") isn't as much of a problem. I still liked the feel of the LG Optimus G over the G2 but I was nervous about the operating system updates for a year old phone.
Motorola Moto G
Motorola, as a subsidiary of Google, has started to impress. It's been quite a while since the StarTac or RAZR hit the market and shocked everyone. The various models Motorola has made over the years have been good but yawn worthy, and the company's software enhancements have made the phones more difficult to use, which is typical for Android-based phones from anyone but Google.
So, when the Moto X arrived earlier, I didn't think much about it. It was a little better than average, but it seemed more like a phone for 2012 with options to customize the outside so you wouldn't think about the inside.
However, when they introduced the Moto G, it was priced like something for cost-conscious countries, but it worked almost like a premium phone, except when you bought it. Less is more.
Apple A7/M7 processor combination
Apple has been surprising people for a while. They bought a couple of chip design companies and it seemed as though they were going to design their own PowerPC processors for their computers because Motorola just couldn't handle it.
Instead, they've been working on processors for mobile devices, and extracting a lot of performance and battery life from what seemed to be unexciting processors. The latest A7 processor with its 64-bit capabilities seems ready to handle almost anything. Paired with the M7 motion processor keeps battery life good, while still being powerful.
What's more, they shocked the processor market with the 64-bit-ness.
Right now, the software to take advantage of the power is not quite there, and things have been a bit screwy, but this is typical of some new technology, don't you think? I was uncomfortable enough to avoid buying the iPhone 5s to get the tried-and-true technology within the iPhone 5c.
What will impress me in 2014?
I wonder about what will come.
I'm waiting on three micro Four-Thirds lenses. Panasonic's 42.5mm f/1.2 and the Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 will be out, as well as Olympus' 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO (laugh with me at the "PRO" designation, please!) lens.
I expect that FujiFilm will replace the X-Pro1 and X-M1. Whether they will provide their lens-specific enhancements (as with the X-E2) for the X-M2 will be anyone's guess. The new 10-24mm f/4.0 lens specifically mentions the X-E2 in information I've seen. That should be a great lens, especially if Fuji can diminish low light noise, since it's not an f/2.8 lens.
I'm waiting for a D7200 from Nikon, not that it's on the way, but since the D5300 is out and the Canon 70D and Pentax K-3 have arrived, Nikon need to push forward. If nothing else, they could increase the depth of the frame buffer for raw images and call it the D7150, though that sounds more like a computer model.
Hopefully, Apple will correct their ridiculous issues with the iPad mini and put great displays in them, instead of the mediocre but denser displays that they're using. I wasn't about to pay more for a lousy display. I thought that they should buy Sharp and take control, but they don't want to have anything to do with manufacturing since they closed down the PowerMac factories years ago.
So, I have no idea what will impress me but I have some hopes for the year.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Who will buy the Samsung Galaxy NX camera?
I've read recently that the Galaxy NX camera is available in the U.S.A. for about US$1600.
Make no mistake, I'm not a fan of Samsung products. I think the company leaves a lot to be desired in the operation of their products. It's as though they have a checklist of features and as soon as they add a feature, working correctly or not, they check that line as completed.
They've become better since Google takes care of the backend of a lot of their products. Without Android, they'd be as craptacular as they were the last time I owned one of their products. They had indicated a desire to do things on their own with Bada but that failed, although it's probably being fed some money to keep the project alive. From my viewpoint, they're just trying to keep the overall business in line with Sony and Panasonic and of course, to crush LG at home.
I've seen in the past that a few people went with their re-branding of Pentax dSLRs to make their own GX line. They did okay because Pentax gave them some base code and the hardware. There wasn't much to go wrong with doing some tweaks. When I would say something about the GX line, someone would raucously defend their purchase, as if it was a life-or-death situation. I've recently seen the same thing with their NX line.
NX--like Sony's NEX--they couldn't even come up with a series name on their own it seems. However, they went on their own because Pentax wasn't going to mirror-less system cameras yet. They filled out their mighty checklist and added features one-by-one until they had the perfect specification for a camera. It's not that unusual in the electronics industry, and even related more specifically to computers and tablets, it's not unusual. Sony obviously works from a checklist.
Samsung has created NX-series cameras in several generations, but they don't have much in the way of sales compared to Olympus, Panasonic, or Sony. I'm guessing that the majority of their buyers have Samsung phones, tablets, and phablets like the Galaxy Note series.
That makes the Galaxy NX camera all the more appealing to that group. They can use the connectivity in the camera to avoid depleting the battery life on their phones, tablets, and phablets.
However, is US$1600 too dear for the ability to take a photo and massage it using some Android-based app and upload it using another app? Is it so convenient that the extra cost doesn't matter? I've recently seen the NX300 for US$700-$800, which seems consistent with other brands with more lenses and accessories. It's odd to think that Sony's NEX line has more support, given that they have churned out body after body but still have few lenses. The only mirror-less system camera with fewer lenses is the Canon EOS-M with two lenses.
The only thing that would make this situation more strange would be for LG to make an alliance with a camera maker and start producing an Android-based camera of its own.
Make no mistake, I'm not a fan of Samsung products. I think the company leaves a lot to be desired in the operation of their products. It's as though they have a checklist of features and as soon as they add a feature, working correctly or not, they check that line as completed.
They've become better since Google takes care of the backend of a lot of their products. Without Android, they'd be as craptacular as they were the last time I owned one of their products. They had indicated a desire to do things on their own with Bada but that failed, although it's probably being fed some money to keep the project alive. From my viewpoint, they're just trying to keep the overall business in line with Sony and Panasonic and of course, to crush LG at home.
I've seen in the past that a few people went with their re-branding of Pentax dSLRs to make their own GX line. They did okay because Pentax gave them some base code and the hardware. There wasn't much to go wrong with doing some tweaks. When I would say something about the GX line, someone would raucously defend their purchase, as if it was a life-or-death situation. I've recently seen the same thing with their NX line.
NX--like Sony's NEX--they couldn't even come up with a series name on their own it seems. However, they went on their own because Pentax wasn't going to mirror-less system cameras yet. They filled out their mighty checklist and added features one-by-one until they had the perfect specification for a camera. It's not that unusual in the electronics industry, and even related more specifically to computers and tablets, it's not unusual. Sony obviously works from a checklist.
Samsung has created NX-series cameras in several generations, but they don't have much in the way of sales compared to Olympus, Panasonic, or Sony. I'm guessing that the majority of their buyers have Samsung phones, tablets, and phablets like the Galaxy Note series.
That makes the Galaxy NX camera all the more appealing to that group. They can use the connectivity in the camera to avoid depleting the battery life on their phones, tablets, and phablets.
However, is US$1600 too dear for the ability to take a photo and massage it using some Android-based app and upload it using another app? Is it so convenient that the extra cost doesn't matter? I've recently seen the NX300 for US$700-$800, which seems consistent with other brands with more lenses and accessories. It's odd to think that Sony's NEX line has more support, given that they have churned out body after body but still have few lenses. The only mirror-less system camera with fewer lenses is the Canon EOS-M with two lenses.
The only thing that would make this situation more strange would be for LG to make an alliance with a camera maker and start producing an Android-based camera of its own.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
DPReview's most-clicked
For years, I've seen a list of DPReview's most clicked cameras. They have always included some mix of Canon and Nikon equipment, as though each faction will not let the other win.
On occasion, you will see Pentax or Olympus or Fuji or Sony sneak into the top list, and then, promptly be forced to the bottom and then, off the list entirely for a while. Sometime, they return, as when a preview turns into a review.
Amusingly, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 ended up their camera of the year in 2012, as to say to the Canikon crowd, "We've had enough of you!" Still, the most-clicked list has continued to have both Canon and Nikon equipment, until November 6th, when I saw this:
I'm not saying that it means a lot, but it is a surprising departure, and the list has not had a single Canon camera on it for several days. You have to wonder if the whole lot of them are at some Canon-sponsored event and can't be bothered to visit DPReview now.
Update: the whole situation is slowly going back to normal with a few Canon products on the list. I wonder if they somehow stopped counting the Canon products or banned them from the list due to "stuffing the ballot box" type of behaviour.
On occasion, you will see Pentax or Olympus or Fuji or Sony sneak into the top list, and then, promptly be forced to the bottom and then, off the list entirely for a while. Sometime, they return, as when a preview turns into a review.
Amusingly, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 ended up their camera of the year in 2012, as to say to the Canikon crowd, "We've had enough of you!" Still, the most-clicked list has continued to have both Canon and Nikon equipment, until November 6th, when I saw this:
I'm not saying that it means a lot, but it is a surprising departure, and the list has not had a single Canon camera on it for several days. You have to wonder if the whole lot of them are at some Canon-sponsored event and can't be bothered to visit DPReview now.
Update: the whole situation is slowly going back to normal with a few Canon products on the list. I wonder if they somehow stopped counting the Canon products or banned them from the list due to "stuffing the ballot box" type of behaviour.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Nikon Df, more retro in a bigger but smaller package
While I'm not exactly surprised by Nikon's announcement, I'm pleased to see that they've put together a 1970s-style camera body.
When I was selling the Nikon F2, we had a Nikkormat body, which was their less expensive, smaller brand. It was easily usable without the crane and tripod. Compared to the Olympus OM-1N, it was still quite heavy.
When I first got a dSLR in 2004, I wondered why they couldn't do something in the same size as the 1970s bodies. It seemed ridiculous to have a smaller sensor (APS-C or Four-Thirds) in a body larger than 135 format. Then, I mounted a longer, bigger lens and realized how much more comfortable these dSLRs were. The grip kept them from being slippery, too. Using a 4x telephoto zoom, and relaxing and holding everything with only fingertips on the grip says a lot of progress has been made.
So, Nikon brought a camera to market that looks very much like the 1970s, adding a couple of LCDs and a lot of automatic features. The price is up there, but not outrageous for what you get. At roughly US$2750, you get their top of the line 135 format/FX sensor. (If you think higher pixel density leads to better image quality, you need to think again.) Combine that with the D610's auto focus unit, a single card slot, and all the dials you can handle, and you've got a great casual shooter than wipes Sony's A7/A7R duo right off the camera shop floor, except for size, of course.
No, it's not likely that the same people are going to be driven to Sony and Nikon bodies, or anything with the retro look. I suspect a lot of people in their 70s will buy the Nikon Df, if for nothing than nostalgia, as they probably have an old Nikon body in the closet.
Why do I damn the Df with the word "casual"? You'll see that the first time you mount the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to it without a tripod handy. It's the same reason I call most of the micro Four-Thirds bodies casual--you'll need to take more care if you want to work handheld with an unbalanced pairing of body and lens. Thankfully, Fuji has been thoughtful with their X-series bodies and only provided an adapter for Leica M-mount lenses, which are small lenses. In the 1970s, it wasn't a huge problem because there weren't so many huge lenses, unless you were using Medium Format.
If you fit into that category where you take the time to take the shot, I suspect that you'll be richly rewarded by some very amazing image quality with the best lenses. If you dig the bottom of the barrel and come out with a 40 year old Sigma lens, you'll wonder why there was any fuss about the Nikon Df. Using high quality lenses with it will make you admire the D4 even more.
Thinking back a bit to the D610 announcement, I see where it makes more sense now that the update came about the same time as the Df, especially with the update to the Expeed 3 processor and faster burst rate.
Update 2013.11.11: Saturday, I was at a local camera store for a workshop, and I was discussing something later and I noticed a couple of the film bodies from the 1970s and 1980s, and they brought back a sense of nostalgia, having sold such equipment in my past. Unfortunately, most who spent US$500 aren't as likely to spend US$2750 for nostalgia, I expect.
Update 2013.11.24: Reading What Digital Camera's impressions made me smile when they said that the camera body was larger than expected, even though it's the smallest Nikon FX body. Nikon built huge camera bodies way back when. It was only after Olympus started to take business away that they responded with smaller bodies. The article was suggesting that the balance wasn't very good with zoom lenses. They should go back to the 1970s when none of the camera bodies had much of a grip at all. If you wanted stability, you bought a tripod.
Update 2014.12.18: I wonder if Nikon has sold more than a few thousand of these bodies. I don't see much about this body any longer. I suppose Nikon enthusiasts and professional photographers from the 1970s bought quite a few of them and that buying spree was over quickly. What value can you place on nostalgia?
When I was selling the Nikon F2, we had a Nikkormat body, which was their less expensive, smaller brand. It was easily usable without the crane and tripod. Compared to the Olympus OM-1N, it was still quite heavy.
When I first got a dSLR in 2004, I wondered why they couldn't do something in the same size as the 1970s bodies. It seemed ridiculous to have a smaller sensor (APS-C or Four-Thirds) in a body larger than 135 format. Then, I mounted a longer, bigger lens and realized how much more comfortable these dSLRs were. The grip kept them from being slippery, too. Using a 4x telephoto zoom, and relaxing and holding everything with only fingertips on the grip says a lot of progress has been made.
So, Nikon brought a camera to market that looks very much like the 1970s, adding a couple of LCDs and a lot of automatic features. The price is up there, but not outrageous for what you get. At roughly US$2750, you get their top of the line 135 format/FX sensor. (If you think higher pixel density leads to better image quality, you need to think again.) Combine that with the D610's auto focus unit, a single card slot, and all the dials you can handle, and you've got a great casual shooter than wipes Sony's A7/A7R duo right off the camera shop floor, except for size, of course.
No, it's not likely that the same people are going to be driven to Sony and Nikon bodies, or anything with the retro look. I suspect a lot of people in their 70s will buy the Nikon Df, if for nothing than nostalgia, as they probably have an old Nikon body in the closet.
Why do I damn the Df with the word "casual"? You'll see that the first time you mount the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens to it without a tripod handy. It's the same reason I call most of the micro Four-Thirds bodies casual--you'll need to take more care if you want to work handheld with an unbalanced pairing of body and lens. Thankfully, Fuji has been thoughtful with their X-series bodies and only provided an adapter for Leica M-mount lenses, which are small lenses. In the 1970s, it wasn't a huge problem because there weren't so many huge lenses, unless you were using Medium Format.
If you fit into that category where you take the time to take the shot, I suspect that you'll be richly rewarded by some very amazing image quality with the best lenses. If you dig the bottom of the barrel and come out with a 40 year old Sigma lens, you'll wonder why there was any fuss about the Nikon Df. Using high quality lenses with it will make you admire the D4 even more.
Thinking back a bit to the D610 announcement, I see where it makes more sense now that the update came about the same time as the Df, especially with the update to the Expeed 3 processor and faster burst rate.
Update 2013.11.11: Saturday, I was at a local camera store for a workshop, and I was discussing something later and I noticed a couple of the film bodies from the 1970s and 1980s, and they brought back a sense of nostalgia, having sold such equipment in my past. Unfortunately, most who spent US$500 aren't as likely to spend US$2750 for nostalgia, I expect.
Update 2013.11.24: Reading What Digital Camera's impressions made me smile when they said that the camera body was larger than expected, even though it's the smallest Nikon FX body. Nikon built huge camera bodies way back when. It was only after Olympus started to take business away that they responded with smaller bodies. The article was suggesting that the balance wasn't very good with zoom lenses. They should go back to the 1970s when none of the camera bodies had much of a grip at all. If you wanted stability, you bought a tripod.
Update 2014.12.18: I wonder if Nikon has sold more than a few thousand of these bodies. I don't see much about this body any longer. I suppose Nikon enthusiasts and professional photographers from the 1970s bought quite a few of them and that buying spree was over quickly. What value can you place on nostalgia?
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Do you read what I read for photographic news?
There are a number of sources for information about digital cameras, whether they are dSLRs or mirror-less system cameras. I'm not entirely trusting of many, especially when brand fanatics are behind them.
Here are some I read:
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/
What Digital Camera is my go-to magazine and website. They say what's on their minds and seem to be the less biased group of all.
http://www.dpreview.com/
DPReview probably has the most users of any forums, and the people behind the website do very intense reviews. I find them to show their bias against equipment that isn't Canon or Nikon from time to time, but they generally do a good job and are worthwhile.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/
These people are good at making news useful in succinct articles. They also have a gear-related reviews site.
http://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/
Mr. Robichaud takes time to test and show people how to get things done, in a personal way that is both useful and endearing. He talks mostly about micro Four-Thirds equipment at the moment but includes a Canon perspective at times, which is rather useful for those not quite ready to throw away everything.
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/
Mr. Wong recently became an Olympus Malaysia employee but has been bringing interesting insight into Olympus equipment for some time now. He has a sharp eye for street photography, especially in Kuala Lumpur.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/
The person behind this web site talks about micro Four-Thirds and Fuji equipment and does a real world style of testing that is useful and informative.
http://43rumors.com/
This site, perhaps obviously, has news and rumors about micro Four-Thirds and Four-Thirds equipment. As with any rumor, anything is possible but I only believe it after I see it.
Related to the site are:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/
http://www.canonwatch.com/
http://www.fujirumors.com/
Are there other web-based sources? Of course, there are but I don't use them normally. Be sure to carry some salt with you when you visit sites, as you'll need to take some advice with a grain of salt.
Here are some I read:
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/
What Digital Camera is my go-to magazine and website. They say what's on their minds and seem to be the less biased group of all.
http://www.dpreview.com/
DPReview probably has the most users of any forums, and the people behind the website do very intense reviews. I find them to show their bias against equipment that isn't Canon or Nikon from time to time, but they generally do a good job and are worthwhile.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/
These people are good at making news useful in succinct articles. They also have a gear-related reviews site.
http://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/
Mr. Robichaud takes time to test and show people how to get things done, in a personal way that is both useful and endearing. He talks mostly about micro Four-Thirds equipment at the moment but includes a Canon perspective at times, which is rather useful for those not quite ready to throw away everything.
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/
Mr. Wong recently became an Olympus Malaysia employee but has been bringing interesting insight into Olympus equipment for some time now. He has a sharp eye for street photography, especially in Kuala Lumpur.
http://admiringlight.com/blog/
The person behind this web site talks about micro Four-Thirds and Fuji equipment and does a real world style of testing that is useful and informative.
http://43rumors.com/
This site, perhaps obviously, has news and rumors about micro Four-Thirds and Four-Thirds equipment. As with any rumor, anything is possible but I only believe it after I see it.
Related to the site are:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/
http://www.canonwatch.com/
http://www.fujirumors.com/
Are there other web-based sources? Of course, there are but I don't use them normally. Be sure to carry some salt with you when you visit sites, as you'll need to take some advice with a grain of salt.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Panasonic GM1 -- The micro micro Four-Thirds camera body
The rumors said that it was coming, but nothing had prepared us for just how small it was.
Many people complain that a certain camera body is too big. They must have tiny hands. The GM1 is the cure.
It's about the size of the Sony RX100, but with a larger sensor--another product in the Sony-Panasonic war to win the hearts and minds of the Japanese people.
Panasonic GM1 Width 98.5mm x Height 54.9mm x Depth 30.4mm
Olympus E-PM2 Width 109.8mm x Height 64.2mm x Depth 33.8mm
Compared to the Olympus mini, it's a bit smaller--micro-ish.
The 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 lens seems too good to be true. Sure, it's not much for low light, but apparently, it has very high optical quality for a kit zoom. The lens with the body is US$749.99. I thought that was high, but is there another magnesium alloy mirror-less system camera anywhere close to this small?
Panasonic also announced a 15mm f/1.7 lens that should arrive in 2014. That lens has an aperture ring, which is likely the first on micro Four-Thirds. Leica-labeled lenses on Four-Thirds had aperture rings and this 15mm is definitely labeled as a Leica lens. Does this mean that Leica have an intention to use this as a basis for their own tiny camera, as they did with the Panasonic DMC-L1 that became the Digilux 3?
The weird bit about the 12-32mm lens is that it has the zoom ring, but no manual focus ring. There isn't enough room for that since it's a collapsible design. Manual focus is implemented through the rear display. I suspect that it would be easier to put the camera on a tripod and use the Lumix app to control the camera from a smart phone or tablet.
It's strange, but I feel somewhat enthusiastic about this certain model. I normally want something large enough to hold easily, such as the Panasonic GH3, but the GM1 looks easy to slip away, even with its pronounced grip. They will have a grip available, but I would expect it to be tiny as well. You can see from the photo that it's not entirely huge.
http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-g-compact-system-cameras-dslm/dmc-gm1k.html
I was thinking that this would be a good camera to carry. The other Four-Thirds models such as the Olympus E-PM2 and Panasonic GF6 aren't really pocket-able, and if it doesn't fit in my pocket, why bother? I'll just continue to use my phone.
Update: 2013.12.04: I've seen a couple of great deals on the E-PM2 with two lenses. One of the deals even lets you pay US$66.66 for each of 6 months. It still won't make the E-PM2 pocketable but it will make the price more easily digestible.
Update: 2014.01.14: Tyson Robichaud takes a good look at the camera. He seems to be thinking about what I've been thinking.
Also, they still haven't introduced the all black version here. They have orange/silver and a black/silver versions available, but that's all for now. It seems to be well-received overall. I noticed that Panasonic is selling the 12-32mm kit lens separately for US$349.99, which seems a bit high for something that apparently doesn't have a manual focus ring. Of course, if I complain about the 35-100mm being too small to easily manually focus, I suppose the 12-32mm is something I'd want on automatic.
Update 2014.02.18: The other day, I sent my Panasonic 35-100mm lens for repair. I was considering buying a lens or this camera to keep me occupied--that sounds odd. I have very little micro Four-Thirds equipment, so I'm down to the GH3, 45-200mm lens, and the Olympus MMF-3 adapter for Four-Thirds lenses. I really like the all-black GM1, but I don't care as much for the black with silver and I really don't like the orange with silver. The US$50 discount is great, but if I can't get what I want, should I bother? Given that the lens by itself is so much, that leaves the body as US$350 with the current discount, about half the price of the set. That isn't much for such a well-made, strong body. However, US$699.99 is a lot when my GH3 could easily be replaced with the GH4,or I could buy an Olympus 12-40mm lens, or give up and move to the FujiFilm X-T1.
Update 2014.03.16: They must be having trouble selling these, as the price is dropping quite a lot. It's almost US$100 cheaper lately. I'd love to buy one, but my GH3 replacement has to be my priority, especially since I bought the Olympus 12-40mm lens. I wonder if the Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 lens would be worth it. The GH3 would still be big inside a restaurant, but a wide angle, bright lens would be useful.
Update 2014.04.26: So, the early word is that the lens is good but not great. I thought they would have learnt their lesson after the 25mm f/1.4 lens turned out to be little more than average. I really wish that they'd used more glass. I've made mention in the past about the 46mm filter size but obviously, the front optic doesn't take advantage of all that space within the housing. For US$599.99 it should use every optical means of resolving an image. I can forgive that the 12-32mm f/3.5-56 isn't amazing, simply because it's a kit lens.
Still, the GM1 + 15mm f/1.7 looks like a potent package at US$999.99, and it is less expensive than the FujiFilm X100s. The fact that I can put an adapter on my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 lens and connect the GM1 to it makes it extremely powerful--and a bit of a spectacle. It's probably a funny reason to have a tripod. Obviously, that is not a good combination for food photography in a restaurant, unless they hire someone professionally.
Update 2014.09.15: About a week ago, I looked at the GM1 again. It didn't have as good a price as I could have paid in June. Plus, there was the possibility of the GM5 being real, so I didn't buy it. I would like to have the EVF available and the GM5 has it. The GM5 doesn't replace the GM1 but adds to the line.
Update 2014.11.14: I still haven't bought anything new. The GM5 does look rather appealing, what with the viewfinder and the hot shoe. There was a recent deal from Adorama on the GM1 that included a US$100 gift card and that made the effective price very inexpensive at roughly US$500. It was appealing for about a minute, and I went back to thinking about the GM5, even though it still shows "Pre-Order" for October 2014. US$900 seems high but not horrible. I'm still wishing for a GM5/15mm f/1.7 kit. I'm half-surprised that I haven't been back to the store to buy the 15mm lens, especially since I'm often across the street from there.
Many people complain that a certain camera body is too big. They must have tiny hands. The GM1 is the cure.
It's about the size of the Sony RX100, but with a larger sensor--another product in the Sony-Panasonic war to win the hearts and minds of the Japanese people.
Panasonic GM1 Width 98.5mm x Height 54.9mm x Depth 30.4mm
Olympus E-PM2 Width 109.8mm x Height 64.2mm x Depth 33.8mm
Compared to the Olympus mini, it's a bit smaller--micro-ish.
The 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 lens seems too good to be true. Sure, it's not much for low light, but apparently, it has very high optical quality for a kit zoom. The lens with the body is US$749.99. I thought that was high, but is there another magnesium alloy mirror-less system camera anywhere close to this small?
Panasonic also announced a 15mm f/1.7 lens that should arrive in 2014. That lens has an aperture ring, which is likely the first on micro Four-Thirds. Leica-labeled lenses on Four-Thirds had aperture rings and this 15mm is definitely labeled as a Leica lens. Does this mean that Leica have an intention to use this as a basis for their own tiny camera, as they did with the Panasonic DMC-L1 that became the Digilux 3?
 |
| Leica 15mm f/1.7 with aperture ring |
The weird bit about the 12-32mm lens is that it has the zoom ring, but no manual focus ring. There isn't enough room for that since it's a collapsible design. Manual focus is implemented through the rear display. I suspect that it would be easier to put the camera on a tripod and use the Lumix app to control the camera from a smart phone or tablet.
It's strange, but I feel somewhat enthusiastic about this certain model. I normally want something large enough to hold easily, such as the Panasonic GH3, but the GM1 looks easy to slip away, even with its pronounced grip. They will have a grip available, but I would expect it to be tiny as well. You can see from the photo that it's not entirely huge.
 | |
| GM1 with huge grip |
http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-g-compact-system-cameras-dslm/dmc-gm1k.html
I was thinking that this would be a good camera to carry. The other Four-Thirds models such as the Olympus E-PM2 and Panasonic GF6 aren't really pocket-able, and if it doesn't fit in my pocket, why bother? I'll just continue to use my phone.
Update: 2013.12.04: I've seen a couple of great deals on the E-PM2 with two lenses. One of the deals even lets you pay US$66.66 for each of 6 months. It still won't make the E-PM2 pocketable but it will make the price more easily digestible.
Update: 2014.01.14: Tyson Robichaud takes a good look at the camera. He seems to be thinking about what I've been thinking.
Also, they still haven't introduced the all black version here. They have orange/silver and a black/silver versions available, but that's all for now. It seems to be well-received overall. I noticed that Panasonic is selling the 12-32mm kit lens separately for US$349.99, which seems a bit high for something that apparently doesn't have a manual focus ring. Of course, if I complain about the 35-100mm being too small to easily manually focus, I suppose the 12-32mm is something I'd want on automatic.
Update 2014.02.18: The other day, I sent my Panasonic 35-100mm lens for repair. I was considering buying a lens or this camera to keep me occupied--that sounds odd. I have very little micro Four-Thirds equipment, so I'm down to the GH3, 45-200mm lens, and the Olympus MMF-3 adapter for Four-Thirds lenses. I really like the all-black GM1, but I don't care as much for the black with silver and I really don't like the orange with silver. The US$50 discount is great, but if I can't get what I want, should I bother? Given that the lens by itself is so much, that leaves the body as US$350 with the current discount, about half the price of the set. That isn't much for such a well-made, strong body. However, US$699.99 is a lot when my GH3 could easily be replaced with the GH4,
Update 2014.03.16: They must be having trouble selling these, as the price is dropping quite a lot. It's almost US$100 cheaper lately. I'd love to buy one, but my GH3 replacement has to be my priority, especially since I bought the Olympus 12-40mm lens. I wonder if the Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 lens would be worth it. The GH3 would still be big inside a restaurant, but a wide angle, bright lens would be useful.
Update 2014.04.26: So, the early word is that the lens is good but not great. I thought they would have learnt their lesson after the 25mm f/1.4 lens turned out to be little more than average. I really wish that they'd used more glass. I've made mention in the past about the 46mm filter size but obviously, the front optic doesn't take advantage of all that space within the housing. For US$599.99 it should use every optical means of resolving an image. I can forgive that the 12-32mm f/3.5-56 isn't amazing, simply because it's a kit lens.
Still, the GM1 + 15mm f/1.7 looks like a potent package at US$999.99, and it is less expensive than the FujiFilm X100s. The fact that I can put an adapter on my Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 lens and connect the GM1 to it makes it extremely powerful--and a bit of a spectacle. It's probably a funny reason to have a tripod. Obviously, that is not a good combination for food photography in a restaurant, unless they hire someone professionally.
 | |
| GM1 with Four-Thirds Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 |
Update 2014.11.14: I still haven't bought anything new. The GM5 does look rather appealing, what with the viewfinder and the hot shoe. There was a recent deal from Adorama on the GM1 that included a US$100 gift card and that made the effective price very inexpensive at roughly US$500. It was appealing for about a minute, and I went back to thinking about the GM5, even though it still shows "Pre-Order" for October 2014. US$900 seems high but not horrible. I'm still wishing for a GM5/15mm f/1.7 kit. I'm half-surprised that I haven't been back to the store to buy the 15mm lens, especially since I'm often across the street from there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)