Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 is in my bag (usually in use though)

Today, I took a drive to get some Asian groceries and enjoy the not-so winter weather.  It was above freezing, and the snow was melting, and given how many days we had well below freezing, it was time for a break.

I first went for a fake cheese steak.  I lived in Philadelphia for eight years, and there is yet to be a place 100 miles or further from Philadelphia that can produce a good cheese steak.  Some of them claim to be famous even--that's just odd.  Lenny's Subs has been advertising about how great their sandwiches are.  The founder moved to Memphis, Tennessee and wanted an authentic cheese steak, so he had to create it.

As you probably didn't read in my earlier diatribe on getting it right, you have a roll/bun, thin steak, and mozzarella or provolone cheese or cheese whiz to top it and onions are an option, grilled or raw.  These people had the meat, a too soft roll, and Swiss cheese (although I was able to order provolone) and grilled onions.  It was a let down.

So, not far from the sub shop was a branch of the camera shop where I have recently enjoyed some photographically-related social activities.  Well, it wasn't there any longer.  They'd moved.  I called.  They answered, and they gave me their new address.  Strangely, they seem to be on the edge of a roundabout/traffic circle/rotary, in a small strip mall.

They had quite a lot and it was displayed quite nicely.  With high ceilings, it wasn't nearly as claustrophobic as their old (1920s?) store in downtown Indianapolis.

I talked to one of the people who ran the Olympus photo walk.  He even remembered me.  I'm not sure if that was good or bad.

We talked about FujiFilm mirror-less cameras, since they were next to Olympus' case.  He really likes the X-E2, which I think is quite advanced, but not quite the right shape for me.  He said that the downtown store was getting two X-T1 bodies, but they're already promised to someone.  I told him that I was waiting on weather-sealed lenses and he reminded me that not everything goes as planned.  The 50-140mm f/2.8 and 16-55mm f/2.8 fit me reasonably well.  I'd like to see how the FujiFilm16-55mm and Olympus 12-40mm are in an optical comparison.

In the end, I bought the only 12-40mm f/2.8 lens that they had.  It was made in China, if that's important to you.  It feels just as good as my Four-Thirds HG and SHG lenses.  These 12-40mm lenses have been selling almost as quickly as they can get them.  After all the screaming about fixed focal length lenses, I'm surprised that people are buying the 12-40mm lens.  I suspect people on that photo walk were thrilled with the lens, as it is better than other choices.  (Yes, this is my opinion.  It's my blog--practically everything is my opinion.  My opinion about Panasonic micro Four-Thirds lenses may improve once my 35-100mm f/2.8 is back in my hands.  My other micro Four-Thirds lens, the Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6 does not help.)

I don't buy lenses often, but I spend quite a bit on each.  I almost always buy weather-sealed zoom lenses because of sports, but also because I like the flexibility in other situations, such as quick portraits, food photography, and building exteriors.  Olympus' HG and SHG Four-Thirds zooms can be used wide open, unlike other brands, because they're sharp across the frame.  That's another reason I've been slow to buy micro Four-Thirds equipment.  The zoom lenses sucked--until now.  Once again, my Panasonic 35-100mm didn't impress me except in focusing speed and that doesn't really lend much to image quality.  Perhaps when it is returned to me after the repair for the ugly, nasty lens flare (with lens hood and sun out of frame), it will be a much better lens.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8, extended, with lens hood

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 without lens hood

Of course, with a busy day, I didn't have time to photograph anything, but I brought it home, mounted it, and took a few photos of the Olympus E-5 with the Leica/Panasonic 25mm f/1.4.  The 12-40mm f/2.8 doesn't seem to like the dark much (what f/2.8 lens does?), but I'm sure I'll find it extremely useful.  This is the first time I've had a 24mm (135 format) equivalent available since the 1970s.   I have two lenses that start at an equivalent 28mm but that's just not quite wide enough in some situations, and you can't always walk further back.  Of course, 14mm (Olympus, Panasonic) or 15mm (FujiFilm) would be amazing in constant aperture zoom lenses.  Given the 7-14mm f/2.8 zoom Olympus has shown as a mock up, I'm inclined to wait.  It is supposedly due in 2015, but because of the aperture and weather-sealing, it's a better choice for me.

This will also be the first time I'll have a truly light lens on the GH3.  Olympus' 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 isn't bad on it but the 14-35mm f/2.0 is heavy and the Leica 25mm f/1.4 is almost that heavy and it's huge for a fixed focal length lens with that 62mm filter size but not as big as the 67mm or 77mm filter sizes of the two zooms.  The 12-40mm is tiny but it also has a 62mm filter size.  The Four-Thirds Olympus 50mm f/2.0 macro may still be my smallest lens.

The lens hood is rather small, but I don't see it as ineffective.  The lens hood for the 14-54mm is a reasonable size but shows up in the photo at some focal lengths, and the lens hood for the 14-35mm is huge but is still dwarfed by the lens hood for the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens.

Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0

The focusing mechanism reminds me of the 14-35mm lens.  It extends on both ends of the zoom range.

GH3 with 12-40mm, E-5 with 14-35mm

The size difference between the E-5/14-35mm and GH3/12-40mm is amusing, much like the comparison with the E-5/35-100mm f/2.0 and GH3/35-100mm f/2.8.

58mm vs 77mm filter size

I am thrilled to say that I'm taking advantage of the wider angle.  It's certainly been useful.

I've photographed this court house a few times but was never able to get a whole side of it at once.

As I noted during the photo walk, the flare resistance is quite good, although I tweaked this photo to dial down the overwhelming sunshine.  You can't have a miserable, cloudy day and then, have sunshine, correct, when you'll just return to misery?  Now, that I look again, it has a bit too much of an unnatural look to it in the smaller size.  It's just great to be able to handle larger structures without stitching.

I'm liking the color, also.  I've had poor luck with the Panasonic lenses and the color, although I suspect that will be the case, even if they're perfect.  This is the first time that I've felt that the GH3 was giving its all with native lenses. 

Just thinking about it, this is the first time since November 2011 that I have not had any image stabilization, in the lens or moving the sensor.   Of course, I haven't had any terribly dark situations yet, but I never saw the E-5's IS helping me through difficult times.

Even near sunset, the color is good

Interesting that Google's Blogger has changed the photo from silhouette on import

Update 2014.02.26: I haven't removed the lens from the GH3 yet.  I've been testing to see if there is a real problem with it breaking.   It's certainly better to find the problem in the first few days, rather than after the warranty is finished.  The lens continues to impress me and it feels as though the GH3 is totally different.

Update 2014.03.05: I can't express fully how happy I am with the 12-40mm lens.  Ultimately, it's not a lens for the dark (could they have coaxed f/2.5 out of a lens with a 67mm filter size?), but my tripod could help with that, once it's a bit warmer outside.  My feelings about the GH3 have become warmer, though.  I find the lens to be extremely useful and it's so light that I don't seem to miss image stabilization, not that I knew when it was helping on the E-5 or within the Panasonic lenses.

The image quality seems to be so much better now that my regrets about buying a Panasonic body are completely gone.   It really has taken me back to the days in 2004 when my Olympus E-1 was new and I only had the 50-200mm and 14-54mm lenses.  I expect the 40-150mm f/2.8 to be equally engaging, so maybe work will just be joy.  If the GH4 turns out to be wonderful, I may not have any need for the FujiFilm X-T1.

Update 2014.03.19: Are they sure this aperture is f/2.8?  I seem to be getting clear shots that don't seem possible with f/2.8, especially since I'm doing it without any image stabilization. 

Update 2014.07.27: I've been using this lens with the Olympus E-M1 (I traded my GH3 in anticipation of a GH4) for the skate park and the extra little bit of the wide angle has been great.  It has some of the typical wide angle distortion, which gives close up shots something close to the skate park style that people love without the fisheye.  It obviously hasn't broken and it's been a good companion.  If there is a everyday problem, it's that the AF ring/clutch is too easily moved while I'm shooting, and I haven't spent a full day trying to manually focus it.  The micro Four-Thirds lenses are all too tiny for me, but at least this one is a bit bigger than most.  I still prefer the ZD 14-35mm f/2.0 though. 

Update 2014.10.02: By now, I've shot over 10,000 photos with this lens, most of them related to skate parks.  It has done well, but it hasn't been quite as wonderful as it initially seemed.  However, real-life problems have been few.

There have been two situations that have caused me to wonder.

• In rare strongly-lit situations, lens flare is a problem
• In mixed light, where strong light is bordered by deep shadow, auto focus with the E-M1 fails occasionally

Otherwise, the lens has been an excellent example of any lens so small.  I must say that I don't feel it's nearly as good as any of my Four-Thirds HG or SHG lenses.  However, it is quite amazing, especially at 12mm, a focal length I don't have with any other lens.

I live about 70 miles northeast of San Jose, California, past the foothills, into the farm land.  The sun and heat are strong through summer, and even though we've passed into autumn/fall, the light is still quite bright and during the afternoon, it is difficult to keep exposure even.

During a trip to Santa Cruz, the skate park's pipe was enough to channel the sunlight into a form that caused lens flare that I didn't expect.  I didn't think that the lens was perfect but it was more than I'd seen from any Four-Thirds Olympus lens.

More recently, in early evening, when harsh light meets harsh shadow, the auto focus with the E-M1 suddenly changes at that moment when I'm ready to take a photo.  I'm not sure whether this is a problem with the lens, the E-M1, or the combination.  The only other micro Four-Thirds lens I use on the body is the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 and I use it so rarely that I can't make a direct comparison.  There is a huge difference in the responsiveness, though, with the 35-100mm being significantly less responsive.''

Update 2015.09.07: It's been almost 1.5 years now since I got this lens.  It has been used almost every day--on the Panasonic GH3 first but lately on the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4.

There were early warnings about the build quality of the lens, claiming that it simply fell apart without any unusual circumstances.  I have tortured the lens in many situations and it has been great.  The front lens cap has fallen apart.  There is a little wear on the bottom, as I have put it down at skate parks.  (I wish the E-M1 was as healthy.  I have over the 150,000 shutter actuations apparently and it needs a replacement, along with a new eyecup mount.)

Portrait lens: 85mm f/1.2 and equivalents

Since the recent announcements of the FujiFilm and Panasonic/Leica 85mm f/1.2 equivalent lenses, I thought I'd take a look at such lenses from the camera makers themselves.

I'm not taking a look at the (usually ridiculous) Depth of Field argument.  I'm more interested in trying to understand why these lenses work and why anyone but a professional would buy one.  My gut feeling is--if you complain about the price, you don't know how or don't have a way to make money with the lens.

I'm not a portrait photographer, though I've tried modeling-type photography, and I've done many what I'll call quick portraits.  When I'm photographing high school sports, it's often easy and desirable to get a quick portrait of the athletes.  I often do this with either of two lenses which have effective 135 format ranges of 70-200mm for one and 100-400mm for the other.  Using them at about 1 meter/3.3 feet works well.

The 135 format has had an 85mm lens for portraiture for a while.  Canon has an f/1.2 lens and Nikon has an f/1.4 lens.  Barely touching on Depth of Field, we don't want it so thin that only the nose is in focus, unless we're working in reconstructive surgery, of course.  Of course, at a distance, it's less likely that we'll isolate facial features and likely that we'll just isolate our subject.

I'd suggest that any of these lenses are going to do the job, although I wonder which will do it best.  It's becoming more difficult to find really bad lenses, unlike 10 years ago and earlier.  For those who really feel that they want to pick up a 30 year old lens because it was great, you might want to re-think that.  I'd suggest that any lens was great because it was better than other available lenses from the time and had a photographer been given current equipment, he'd likely never go back.

• Canon 85mm f/1.2 US$2199.00
• Nikon 85mm f/1.4 US$1699.95

• Nikon 1 32mm f/1.2 US$899.95
• FujiFilm 56mm f/1.2 US$999.99
• Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 US$1599.99

Besides these few, there is also the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 85mm f/1.4 lens that generally (there may be a Nikon version having a focus confirmation) has no electronics with an exceptionally low price, US$349.99, I believe.  This one exists for many mounts.  It's not likely to be used as a backup for a wedding photographer's main system, just because it has no electronics.

The prices of the Nikon 1 system, FujiFilm X-system, and Panasonic/Leica micro Four-Thirds lenses are quite high, but they do have a rather large maximum aperture at f/1.2.  Shooting in natural light will be enhanced, as you'll be able to shoot at more difficult times.

It's a bit surprising that the Panasonic/Leica lens is somewhat larger than the FujiFilm lens, but I'm hoping that the companies have put more effort into resolving optical anomalies optically, rather than through software tricks, even though Panasonic was recently given an award for their software tricks.  Is FujiFilm's lens too small to be optically amazing and will it need tricks to correct for optical problems?

Obviously, the Nikon 1-system lens is the odd man out.  I don't expect professionals to be using the system, but it could be handy.  That said, US$899.95 is a large price for "handy".

If I were leaning toward buying a combination at the moment, I'd buy the FujiFilm X-E2 with their lens.  While my first guess is that the Panasonic/Leica design is better (to go with the price), the GX7 is too small and the GH3 isn't good enough photographically to make use of the lens.  Of course, there is the Olympus E-M1 and it is much better than the GH3 and rather a bit larger than the GX7.  However, the FujiFilm combination ($2399.98 X-E2 vs $2999.98 E-M1) is less expensive and the sensor has much more to it (ignoring size, concentrating on the filter pattern), especially if raw development software can take advantage of the advantages it offers.  At roughly US$4100, the Nikon Df and Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G lens would be a high image quality alternative, with the sensor and the image processor of the D4.  It all depends on how little depth of field you really need.  See what I wrote here.

Of course, a wedding photographer is probably already equipped with a Nikon D800 or Canon 5DMkIII and won't need another system but it would be useful to keep another focal length at the ready, without much weight involved.  I often keep the Panasonic GH3 around my neck while using the Olympus E-5, so I can cover telephoto and wide views.

Update 2014.03.16: I've seen a few people rate the FujiFilm and Leica/Panasonic lenses and they are both rated very well.  I wonder how they would be rated if they were switched to the people who rated the other brand well.  For US$999.99, I'd feel a bit better if there were imperfections because finding imperfections at a full price of US$1599.99 would make me unhappy.  I guess that explains why I have two lenses worth more than US$2000 each.  They're practically flawless.

I bet the E-M1 and Leica/Panasonic lens would be amazing and matched well.  Equally, the X-T1 and the 56mm lens would be matched well.  The lower density sensor with FujiFilm bodies would equal better image quality, but which lens is actually better.  In any case, who needs a dSLR to get those special wedding photos now?

Update 2014.03.19: FujiFilm lens review here and Leica/Panasonic lens review here.  The Panasonic lens seems to be the slightest degree of better (except vignetting wide open), but is it US$600 better?

Update 2015.05.21: Recently, Panasonic introduced a budget portrait focal length lens: 42.5mm f/1.7 with Power OIS.  At roughly US$400, it should be a good deal for the majority of users who don't need a more razor-thin depth of field.

Further back, FujiFilm introduced a different APD-version of their 56mm f/1.2 lens that produced a more pleasant bokeh.  It's priced about the same as the Panasonic/Leica lens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would consider a few things important in this category:

• Mobility
• Image quality
• Lens availability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Panasonic GH4 is loads better than just GH3+1

So, Panasonic is defying old (Japanese and Chinese) beliefs by using the number 4 for their professional model DSLM (Digital Single Lens Mirrorless--Panasonic's brilliant acronym) camera body.  It takes courage to go against such an old way of saying things, and they didn't go against it with consumer models.

This GH4 will have a lot to recommend it:

• Improved Viewfinder and rear display
• Improved focusing
• Faster processing
• Faster 1/8000th of a second shutter speed
• Faster 1/250th of a second flash sync
• Enhanced dynamic range at low(er) ISO sensitivity
• Panasonic lens profiles, similar to FujiFilm X-E2 and Olympus E-M1
• Better for current HD video
• Addition of 4K/Cinema 4K video

My biggest problem with the GH3 is when I'm using sunglasses with the viewfinder.  I occasionally end up with a black display, which makes "best guess" my operational mode.  The EVF (Electronic Viewfinder) on the Olympus E-M1 took care of all that (it does it too, on occasion), and I can assume (I've used it for a few minutes and it was good) that the FujiFilm X-T1 viewfinder is even better, due to raves I've seen about it so far.  However, the 0.67x magnification (as compared to a 135 format dSLR like the Nikon D4) is not entirely impressive, as the E-M1 using 0.71x and the X-T1 has 0.77x, as I recall.  I hope it's better than expected, and that it's not just an eye cup and an increased (10,000:1) contrast ratio providing most of the enhancement.  I'm sure the EVF of the E-M1 (or X-T1) is rather expensive, but with everything else they've enhanced, I'd hope that Panasonic would want to create a great shooting experience.  We'll see.  (Update: "DSLRmagazine (translation here) met Panasonic chief engineer Inoue. He confirmed the GH4 EVF is a lot better than the one used by the GH3 and that has been also achieved thanks of the use of aspherical lenses on the EVF."--it sounds much better.)

The Face Recognition/Eye Detection auto focus enhancements sound as though they'll likely simplify my work (as long as it works correctly), since taking photos of basketball, cross country, or other sports requires me to get at least one face in focus.  They've increased the number of focus points from 23 to 49, and you apparently have the ability to customize which you'd like to use as a pattern.  Supposedly, the focus point can be anywhere across the frame, but if there are only 49 points, how can that be?

Depth of Defocus technology should speed up accurate focusing by comparing the distance from correct focus, using specific lens information.  Whatever it takes to improve the sometimes laggy "world's fastest" (everyone has the world's fastest AF now) auto focus will be appreciated.  Using lens profiles within the camera is something already being done by the Olympus E-M1 and FujiFilm X-E2 and X-T1.  They've said that this sort of technology eschews the need for Phase Detect pixels on the sensor.  I'm not so sure, but compared to Olympus' (supplier's) half-hearted design attempt in the E-M1, we shall see.  The 35 pixels (areas? The X-T1 is using 86,000 PD pixels) used for phase detection weren't exactly a lot, but I think it's more about the cost than the number of pixels.

The improved burst speed is quite stunning--12 (twice as many as the GH3) frames per second, "up to approx.40 (including RAW)".  I'm assuming that means that the raw buffer will hold 40 frames.  The poorly translated press release needs some work.  They're claiming 7 (4.2 on the GH3) frames per second in continuous/predictive auto focus, which is higher than single AF on the GH3, which is 6. I haven't counted on the continuous auto focus because the GH3's predictions were wrong for my shooting, so hopefully, that of the GH4 will be closer, or I will get a faster response from the single AF.

They've increased the standard top end of the ISO sensitivity to 25,600 from 12,800 because they've found a way to handle chromatic noise better.  Given that I only use photos from the GH3 up to ISO 3200 on a regular basis, this could allow me to regularly use images at ISO 6400 and give my ISO 3200 photos an extra distance from extreme correction.  I would generally not condone using ISO 3200 but photographing sports in a gym or at a swimming pool leads to a lot of bad lighting.  In some cases, flash is permissible but my regular flash (Olympus FL-50) was damaged and is no longer functional and I don't care to spend money on another at the moment.  ISO 3200 on the GH3 seems to be a bit rougher than on the Olympus E-M5 (but not the E-M1 supposedly), but then, it's also rougher than the newer Panasonic bodies, the GX7 and GM1.  Then again, when the E-M5 was new, there were allegations that the ISO sensitivity numbers were higher than the actual sensitivity.

As with the enhanced processing, the dynamic range has been enhanced ⅓ EV at base ISO, which should be ISO 200 (but is apparently an extended ISO 100).  Is it enough to stave off the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera's great dynamic range?  Also, has the dynamic range been enhanced due to moving noise producing electronics away from the sensor, or has it been enhanced with better, cleaner processing?  (Given that I've seen the enhanced dynamic range at ISO 100, rather than ISO 125 even, I think they've re-worked their curves to emulate ISO 100 while actually using ISO 200, something many camera makers do.)

They've increased the fastest speed of the shutter to 1/8000th of a second and improved the flash sync speed to 1/250th of a second.  Working with their newest 42.5mm f/1.2 lens should be much easier in bright light, along with those Voigtländer lenses at f/0.95.  On the E-5, I'm above 1/4000th occasionally, so this will be of use to me on the GH4.  The shutter durability has been doubled to 200,000 uses, which is higher than Olympus' E-1, E-3, or E-5 at 150,000.

They've increased the readout speed of the sensor to reduce/suppress the rolling shutter/jello effect during video.  Obviously, no global shutter technology yet.  My understanding is that you'll have to spend significantly more to get devices with global shutter technology.

Of course, their big announcement for video is that they have 4K and Cinema 4K resolutions available.  They've also increased the upper bit rate for HD video from 72 Mbps to 200 Mbps.  I am not a video person in general, so I can't say much about these.  They've gone to a lot of trouble to allow the sensor to continue for longer periods of time without overheating.  In fact, they have a mode where you can use a GH4 without recording at all, but to feed an external recorder using a higher specification than can be put onto an SD card, via the HDMI port or the new interface module that connects below it.

However, they have a new adapter module: DMW-YAGH interface unit for professional applications.  This provides the inputs and outputs to make things work more easily, and enables a channel to record 4:2:2.  It would also be useful, if you had several GH4 bodies and needed to use them interchangeably on one cart, but still allow them to be mobile.  The GH4 body is somewhat different than the GH3 but still uses the same battery grip.

If I said that I was enthusiastic about this announcement, it would be an understatement.   I found the GH3 to be a useful camera body, with a number of flaws.  The company seems to have taken steps to correct the flaws while leaving the general design of the camera body as it was.  Given the reviews and output from the company's GX7 body, I was expecting quite a bit more from a GH3 replacement.  It seems that they've delivered.  I hope that I still feel that way when I have one in my hands for a few hours.

What they haven't mentioned are the price and delivery dates.  The rumor was under US$2000, which could easily be US$1999.99.  Still, it will be less expensive than the Canon 5DMkIII, which they're targeting.  Pre-orders are apparently available, starting on March 17th, so by then, they'll have finalized pricing, and will have an idea when they'll be able to finalize the firmware and ship bodies.

I wonder if there will be a long line, as there was with the GH3.  It took quite a few months before there was a considerable quantity available, though Panasonic often struggles to provide products other than rice cookers and home phones.

Update 2014.02.23: This week, I went to buy a micro Four-Thirds lens, the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8.  While talking with the salesperson, I had some thoughts about the GH4 and the FujiFilm X-T1, along with what he was saying about delivery of lenses.  Given that product manufacturing can be fraught with disaster and products can be delayed in being delivered to market, The GH4 seems the best product for me, even if the finer points of resolution of still photos isn't as good.

I'm not exactly in a rush.  The GH3 does okay in low light.  It's just not great.  If the GH4 is one stop better, that's a great step.  I've been looking for that perfect sports camera body, and the Nikon D4 might be that but not for me, not now.  If I was making US$250,000 each year, why not?   Besides, the hybrid abilities of the GH3 and GH4 are the reason I chose the GH3 anyway.

I was not extremely comfortable with the color from the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, but I'm hoping that the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens will be available later in the year, and while it's no Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5, it still has almost 4x zoom and the constant aperture will help.  It may be enough for cross country running.

I was hoping that the GH4 sensor would have Phase Detection auto focus available, but Panasonic have said that they found the performance increase to be more important.  Given my experience with Four-Thirds lenses on the GH3, if the GH4 AF performance with them is much faster, they might be as usable as on the E-M1, which wasn't as great as Olympus would like us to believe, at least, in my hands-on experience.

Update 2014.03.06: I saw this JPEG ISO sensitivity comparison.   It doesn't look as though it's a complete win, but it's better with the GH4.  Since I use photographs at ISO 3200, I'm interested in photos at ISO 6400.  There was improvement in the face, but not so much in the hands in the shadow areas.  I also thought that the face with the GH4 at ISO 6400 was an improvement over the GH3 at ISO 3200.  Since raw file conversion is not yet available, I won't hold my breath to see if it's the truth or a trick, but I expect that it's the truth.  Panasonic make good improvements in each generation of their processing.

I was reading this review of the X-T1 at Admiring Light.   It confirmed more of the quirks that would make it difficult for me to enjoy using it for sports.  So, if the GH4 doesn't cost a small fortune, it looks as though there is only one way to go for what I do.

Update 2014.03.08: Would US$1699.99 be too high a price?  It seems as though Panasonic is still trying to figure this out with only a week or so left for pre-orders to be allowed.  Obviously, it's a fine line with the perception that the E-M1 and X-T1 are equals, even though their video capabilities are inferior.  It won't matter to those companies for which the GH4 will be one of many tools in the shed, but for the hobbyist, it's a major sticking point.  Besides that, Panasonic has a routine about pricing too high, and then, discounting too quickly, making early adopters upset.

I have expected anything up to US$1999.99 but US$1499.99 would be extremely reasonable.  I don't see it lower than that, at least, until its replacement is ready to arrive on the market.

Update 2014.03.16: The US$1699.99 became a reality.  That's not horrible at US$400 more.  It is a better product with increased functionality.   The processing power alone adds to the price quite a bit.  I was a bit shocked at the price of the DMW-YAGH interface unit at US$1999.99.  It must have extremely noise-free pathways to be so expensive.  For a studio to buy it, I'm sure it would not be a huge purchase, and it will work with multiple GH4 bodies.  However, at $3299.99 for the pair, it shouldn't bother most people serious about film making.

I would say that the GH4 is a no brainer, but it's not an impulse item like chewing gum or mints.  If the GH4 is as good as the E-M1 or the X-T1 for stills, I think Olympus and FujiFilm will have a fight on their hands because video is not something either company does well.  Similarly, the Nikon D7100 and Canon 70D and 7D are targets for Panasonic and they don't do video well.

Update 2014.03.20: I was watching a discussion on Vimeo between Zacuto Films and a Panasonic representative who apparently knows the motion picture technical side quite well.  While you cannot record 4K 4:2:2 video directly to the SD Card, you can use either the HDMI output or the YAGH interface unit to do that, and you'll need to interface with an external recorder.  Something that The Camera Store brought up in their video on YouTube is that the YAGH interface is unpowered--there is no battery.  Therefore, you need to carry a battery with you to do handheld work, or you work close to an electrical outlet.  For US$1999.99, shouldn't there be a battery inside it?  I don't suspect most people in the business will be bothered, or will be using it handheld but who knows?  My ignorance of the motion picture industry counts here.  On both videos were mention of video and motion picture related options in the GH4, so that it would be easier to work with familiar measurements, rather than ISO sensitivity, for example.  Apparently, a lot of these options were available in the AG-AF100/AF105 micro Four-Thirds camcorders.  That means that the GH4 is a lot of power and ability at a very comfortable price, even at US$3299.99 with the interface unit.  Supposedly the next least expensive, similarly available product/combo would be something from Sony at around US$25,000.

I was glad to hear that the stills ability has improved, but sad that the viewfinder is still a bit odd optically.  It certainly dampens my enthusiasm for using it.  However, any improvement is great because the GH3 viewfinder is a pain for me.  The Camera Store video mentioned that the shutter noise is louder, but the enhancements seem worth it, especially the durability and doubled frame rate in single auto focus.

Update 2014.12.01: I got my GH4 about a week ago, and at a $200 discount.  It just feels right, as did the GH3.  It's very close to the Olympus E-5 dSLR in shape, but with a more Canon feel than Nikon, though it still uses PASM instead of Tv for S, Av for A, etc.

The viewfinder is better.  I don't believe I've had it black out yet but I have a feeling it has to do with the proximity sensor in the GH3 and the E-M1.  Last week, when I was using the E-M1, I had a black out but I somehow saw the image below on the rear display.  On the GH3, I never had the display facing out, so I never would have known.

The performance seemed good but not amazing--it is shipped with Continuous Auto Focus enabled.  Auto Review is also enabled, which not only slows things down, as it does with the GH3, but it's a battery waster--something that also seems consumer-oriented.  Are consumers the target buyers for the GH4?

Since the price of the GH3 has dropped below US$1000, it may be a more difficult choice to buy the GH4.  I suspect it's a very, very good choice, though.

Update 2015.01.03: After a couple of thousand photos--no, serious--a couple of thousand photos, and over 100 video clips, I'm feeling fairly secure about the GH4.  However, I wish that they had a !@#$ profile for the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.  I've found too many photos that weren't in focus, although video seems fine for the most part.  I'm sure there is firmware to be released.  I think they'll be refining firmware for a while.  I really wish that they would support significant Olympus lenses.  Surely, it would be to Panasonic's advantage to support Olympus lenses in Depth From Defocus.

If I was making a film, I don't think it would matter.  Manual focus lenses aren't a problem in film-making but I'm a sports photographer.  However, until late 2011, I'd never used auto focus for much more than testing.  I'd always manually focused for sports.  The problem for me now is that micro Four-Thirds lenses are too small.  I've tried manually focusing the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 multiple times without any repeatable success.  I was having a problem recently where the GH4 was focusing on the fence behind the rider, similar to the GH3 focusing on a fence behind the runners.  Back then, the magnified view got in my way.  It's not bad with the GH4, though.  I can see around it.

Still, I'm wondering if I should buy the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens.  I waited too long to get a holiday discount, but it seems permanently at US$999.99 now.  I'd rather spend money on the Metabones SpeedBooster adapter and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens combination, which would be big enough to focus manually.  It's too bad the Metabones SpeedBooster for Nikon G lenses doesn't have a focus confirmation chip, at least, that I can find.

Update 2016.01.17: It's been over one year and I've taken over 62,000 photos and made over 120 videos from many more video clips with the GH4.

When I arrive at a skate park, I reach for the GH4 first, ahead of the Olympus E-M1 or my recently-purchased GX8 or any of the dSLRs.

I've been using it with various lenses, including the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 and Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8.  The Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7 has been extremely useful in lower light situations, as has the Olympus 8mm f/1.8 fisheye lens.  I even bought the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 lens with the GX8 with a healthy discount.

The GH4 still picks the fence behind people, so no matter the AF enhancements, Panasonic has a long way to go.  Face detection works, but so slowly that it's not really usable.  It's slightly faster on the GX8 but it only takes a quick try with the Olympus E-M1 to see how great Olympus' implementation of face detection is.

There have been occasions when I was frustrated with the GH4 but I get more done with it and it feels more like an extension of my hand than any other camera body since the Olympus E-1.

Battery life is amazing and the viewfinder is almost always amazing.  On occasion, it blacks out, due to the angle with my sunglasses, but it works very well overall.  I've had the same problem with the E-M1 and the GX8.  It seemed as though the GH3's viewfinder was blacked out more than it was useful.

I can't say that the image quality is amazing in lower light, but it is manageable and the camera is responsive in conditions that cause the Nikon D7200 to stop and think...and think...and think.  I don't use images past ISO sensitivity of 3200, even though the top end of the normal range is 25,600.  Video seems better at that sensitivity but it's using a smaller resolution, even for 4K resolutions, which I don't really use.

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.

FujiFilm's latest mirror-less cameras

A while back, I questioned the need/desire to design today's mirror-less cameras like those of 50 years ago.  Fuji and Olympus were high on my list.  These two have been my favorite camera companies since I was a teen.  They have done some really impressive work over the years.  I wasn't sure why they wanted to return to other decades for designs.

FujiFilm was big in the news industry, although most photographers wouldn't even know that.  They still make some business-purposed cameras.  Most people now wouldn't even realize that their 135 format SLRs were fairly popular in the 1970s with the ST 601/605, 801, and 901 models, plus the AZ-1, their first auto exposure model that also signaled their move from Pentax screw mount to Pentax K-mount.  I knew a lot about them because I used to sell them, along with Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, and Canon.  I started with an ST605 as my first SLR.


Today, they're a very different company, especially since film is almost gone.

They looked back to some rangefinder/viewfinder cameras and did something the other companies weren't doing with mirror-less--hybrid optical/electronic viewfinders.

The trouble I remember with rangefinder/viewfinder cameras was getting the focus right.  Since you didn't look through the lens, you couldn't confirm focus at all.  Some of the cheaper cameras didn't even help you any scale in the viewfinder to guide you as to what would be in the photo.  Experimenting was expensive, but once you got the hang of it, you could remember what distance actually worked.

Today's Fuji X-series of interchangeable lens mirror-less rangefinders are much more helpful.  The rear display can give you a good view of your photo ahead of time.  The X-Trans sensors, for those bodies which have them, are quite adept at great image quality, surpassing other sensors of the same size.

What remains is the size and shape of the body and that polarizes most people.  It's the warm and fuzzy situation.  You're happy with the familiar and you don't want substitutes.  I want a good grip and a size that I can hold easily while using longer lenses.  Many people want something small that they can carry easily, especially when they can accessorize with a smooth leather case.  You'd think that I was talking about women, but the majority are men buying these cameras.

I guess my problem is that I'm just not a casual type behind the camera.  I take everything as a challenge!  That's probably why I'm better at sports than portraits or street photography.

However, I really admire what FujiFilm has done.  The latest X-E2's specifications look good, and the image quality will likely be slightly better than the X-E1.  Many of the models are impressive.  It doesn't surprise me that the company has gone their own way with the color filter.  For a while, they were putting their own sensors into Nikon bodies, similar to the way Kodak was working in the market.

Their auto focus has become faster and more reliable.  Their early problems with the sensors are gone.  They've added lenses, not that there are many, but they are sufficient for the kinds of cameras that they are.  I'm really thinking that they'll not be used for sports.  If they had an ultra wide angle lens, I'd probably buy one for that purpose alone.

I could see Ansel Adams using one, although I suspect that he could do wonders with a cardboard disposable camera.  He inspires me, and so does FujiFilm.

I saw the X-S1 in person the other day for the first time.   For a point-and-shoot, ultra-zoom camera, it's huge.  It was sitting between two Canon dSLRs and I didn't really notice it at first because it was a similar size.  Granted, the lens has much more reach because the sensor is so tiny, but the body size and the price were consistent with the others, also.  (Technically, it is mirror-less, but it's not a mirror-less system camera, so I just added it here.)

I just saw a rumor that Fuji make create a mirror-less dSLR-like camera body, probably grabbing the ST801 as a design reference.  If we wear the right clothes, start the 8-track tape deck, and use our fake 1970s cameras, it should feel as though the 1970s are back.

Update 2013.12.19: This new Fuji 10-24mm f/4.0 lens makes the system look even more valuable.   That, and an X-E2 or X-Pro1 would likely fill the rest of my needs for a few years.  Of course, they don't do anything for sport.

Update 2014.01.28: Given my previous bits about the 1970s, I think the X-T1 looks good, especially with the 70-200mm 135 format equivalent lens (50-140mm f/2.8) that is weather-sealed.  Maybe, they do sports after all.  It's not exactly  where I was thinking of going, but given the few alternatives, it might be the correct way to go.  If anything, FujiFilm really needs to find a way to provide a raw file with an ISO sensitivity outside 200-6400.  If images are usable past ISO 6400, a raw file would be preferable.

Update 2014.10.28: I tried the X-T1 in a store briefly and it was even more uncomfortable in my hands than the Olympus E-M1.  However, with extensive use, the E-M1 has become better, though the Panasonic GH3/GH4 is extremely comfortable.  FujiFilm has a grip accessory that fits on the front, as well as the battery grip.

FujiFilm continues to update their firmware and it's respectable.  Olympus actually updated the E-M1 firmware to version 2.0, which seemed unusual.  However, Olympus is selling quite a few bodies and FujiFilm is still working their way up.  It's sad that raw processing software has made it difficult to sell their bodies with an X-TRANS sensor.  It's getting better but hardly seems optimal.

In any case, FujiFilm seems to have created a Leica-like following of users.  They need a dedicated following, though not those who should be committed, if you get my meaning.  Their dedication to their users seems to have been met with dedication from the users.

Olympus, Fuji, and Style

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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