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.
Showing posts with label checklist engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label checklist engineering. Show all posts
Monday, March 10, 2014
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.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)