No, I'm not talking about Vin Diesel. I'm talking about Volkswagen Golf TDI Clean Diesel.
This time last year, I'd been having all sorts of issues with a 13 year old VW Golf GLS that I bought with fewer than 50 miles. It wasn't a paragon of reliability at any time, but spending US$500-$1000 nearly every month was difficult.
I searched for several cars and the dealership which serviced my car had two 2012 Golf TDIs in stock at a discount since the 2013 models had been available for months.
Switching to diesel wasn't a huge problem. I knew enough that I wouldn't put gasoline in the tank. Apparently, some TDI owners aren't that aware and VW had a couple of safety precautions that they used to help remind people. My only issue was finding the diesel pump, as it wasn't always out in the open. At one station, it was in the back, in the dark. Their price was lower, I guess, because it wasn't for the faint of heart to fill up. Many times, I've had to search for the diesel pump but a few stations mark it nicely. It's always amusing how many customers will pass the gasoline-only pump to use the combined gasoline-diesel pump to get gasoline. I love waiting. I love sarcasm more.
Finding stations with diesel has been an issue. While I was traveling, I would have loved to use Waze to help me there, but it doesn't allow me to customize it for the type of fuel, but then, neither does Scout. If I'm in unfamiliar territory, it's easier to have GasBuddy at the ready and switch to that, and it already knows that I'm looking for diesel fuel.
The price of gasoline has swung madly through the year, while diesel fuel has stayed within 40 cents, never being very cheap at US$3.899, though US$4.299 seems rather expensive. In my world, when I'm getting over 40 miles per gallon, I suppose it doesn't matter, but during the winter months, I may have trouble reaching 30 mpg because of warming up and moving slowly, staying in lower gears. I've seen just higher than 50 mpg, which is rather a bit higher than the 42 mpg stated. On my trip to Philly, I had 48.8 mpg, if I recall correctly, giving me a range of 664 miles.
Since I got the car just past 5500 miles, the first free maintenance had been finished. I took it for the 10,000 mile maintenance at the same dealer where I bought it. However, for 20,000 miles, I was between California and Ohio, so when I stopped in Arkansas, I had the service there. The mechanic botched the service, pinching the fuel filter. I had a huge leak. The next day, they took care of it, but the mechanic refused to reimburse me the fuel, even though he was given a voucher to do so. My next service will certainly not be there, especially since it's 12 dry hours from home.
The car really hasn't given me a cause for concern. If I look back at the first 30,000 miles of other VWs, I had a vapor lock problem with the 1985 GTI, plus a bent wheel. The 1986 GTI had a missing weld and a bent wheel and both front brake rotors had to be replaced. The 1990 Corrado had a bent wheel but it was quite a bit more reliable. The 1999 Golf GLS had 30 or so trips to the dealer for the power window regulator clips, plus an appetite for daytime running lights, and various electrical problems including the central locking system.
The only serious problem I've had with it is that it's all grown up. I found myself driving 90 mph when it felt like 65 mph with the 1999. It is very stable, though not flawless. The electrically-powered steering took some acclimation, but it's quite reasonable, and I don't have Asphalt 8 (video game) moments with it.
You might ask why I'm already over 20,000 miles. I took a trip from here to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, plus a trip to San Jose, California. Those totaled 1884 and 5702 miles respectively. Obviously, that's not a lot of the travel. The rest is rather local within the tri-state area. In fact, January 31st and February 1st, I was in southern Ohio photographing three basketball games. The trip is about 4 hours each way. I'm getting an average of about 10 mpg better than the 1999 Golf GLS, which is a good improvement. If I could drive more slowly on the highway and avoid little towns on the state roads, I'd do better. (I'm just past a total of 30,000 miles, meaning that I've added nearly 25,000. The MFI shows that I have another 2000 miles until the final free service.)
This was also my first car with an automatic gearbox. Yes, they had a manual available but between white and red, I chose red--and the better discount on the demonstrator. I might do it differently given the choice again. For some reason, I was completely uncomfortable with the transmission during the test drive. I suppose that shouldn't be surprising. Every Volkswagen I've had, the gear change was radically different in feel and it took a while to acclimate myself. Not only that, but the clutch was usually different also. I didn't want to be troubled with gearbox and/or clutch problems.
One thing is still certain. The car was certified as meeting ULEV II standards, so I can move to California without giving up the car, and that's a plus. It also means that it's not polluting as much as the old car, nor does it have a load of batteries to be recycled as a hybrid or fully electrically-driven vehicle would have. I can be concerned about the environment without being an activist.
Am I in love with my car on Valentine's Day? Not exactly, but I am satisfied. It's all dressed in red--maybe I should take it for a car wash.
Update 2014.05.06: I took my car for its 30,000 mile service a week ago Monday. I made an appointment, but they were so quick with it that I'd almost think that they didn't do anything. Supposedly, the change the oil and filter, rotate the tires, and other maintenance-type things. I suspect that they changed the fuel filter again, since the disaster at the previous VW dealer in Arkansas and my 20,000 mile service.
I'm heading toward California once the sale of my house is complete. While I was uncertain at the time I bought the car, I'm glad I settled on this certain model because it is a 50-states certified model. It's just too bad it's not much bigger in the back. I'm still not sure how I got to Florida in my 1985 Mazda RX-7 with my Japanese futon in the back and various things crammed in the front. I know that I had many things crammed into my 1999 Golf GLS when I moved up here. That Jetta Sportwagen looked like a winner but I bet it doesn't have all that much extra room.
Update 2015.11.24: At just over 80,000 miles, I've been busy.
When I sold my house in June 2014, I took a trip to New Jersey, to stay at the shore several days. It rained most of those days. As I wouldn't be on the east coast again, most likely, I took a weekend trip to Orlando to visit friends. That was 1100 miles each way. Returning to New Jersey, I had a nice day, picked up my things and started for California.
How did I put on 40,000 miles in just over a year, especially when I drove a lot of short trips? I really don't know. I'm about 70 miles from San Jose, California and I go there often. I've been to San Diego once, on one tank with some to spare. I've been to Orange County a couple of times. It is a big state. I haven't got as much fuel economy as I might have. 90 miles per hour is too easily achieved. Still, 35 miles per gallon and change is good. If I told it down to 60 mph, I'd see 42 mpg, probably, but traffic doesn't work that way in general.
The car has been good. Despite the emissions scandal, I still like the car. I'm disappointed in the company, but I suspect that they're not the only company to cheat. Apparently, Renault is being investigated at the moment, but it's difficult to believe that any company has not cheated.
I haven't had any major repairs, though the windshield had to be replaced once. About two weeks after having tint installed on the rear windows and colorless film on the front windows and windshield, a pebble propelled at the windshield started a crack that took over half of the glass. It couldn't have happened before the extra cost film, could it have?
As the year is ending soon, I'm wondering about so many things. Hopefully, the car will continue to be good, even after VW makes their modifications to the emissions control hardware and software. I don't need a car that coughs and sputters.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Comcast buying Time-Warner Cable
While I really dislike Time-Warner Cable, I really hate Comcast. Why would they be good together? They'd have monopoly security.
They've got agreements with municipalities for exclusivity from other cable companies. This is the way it has been since the early days of Cable TV. They had to pay to wire the area, so they wanted a captive audience. In some cases, they've made sure that homeowners' associations would have a no-antenna rule, so that you couldn't have off-the-air programming in your fancy schmanzy development. Thankfully, that didn't stop using DirecTV or Dish Network.
I've got through the various local cable companies and many have been personable and reliable. There was only one, American Cablecom, which handled the Audubon, PA apartment complex where I lived, surrounded by a large cable company, that things weren't good. The company had a 28 day repair clause. If a channel was down for more than 28 days, they would have to give credits. They would certainly show up on the 27th or 28th day each time.
When I lived in Altamonte Springs, FL, the tiny cable company was so bad that people in the apartment complex were hoping that Time-Warner would buy the company. They did, and service became somewhat better, and Time-Warner's marketing people showed us that they were nasty, vicious, and deceitful. Besides that, there was never a problem with service--it was all in "your set". When they sold the area to Bright House Networks, nothing changed but billing since the same local people were in charge. I swore I'd never have another bout with Cable TV.
Back when I lived in the Philadelphia, PA area, I was lucky enough to avoid Comcast. People hated Comcast. People hated to call Comcast, if there was a problem. You've heard that Philadelphia is one of the rudest cities in the U.S.A.? It can be. I swear that the people working for SEPTA (transportation authority) and Comcast are the worst ever, and I know how to swear very well. :-D
When I moved to my current location, Comcast had bought the smaller cable company that bought the local cable company. My adoptive mum was on the phone constantly as things did not work. It wasn't their problem. Toward the end, she would try to change channels, and in 3-5 minutes, the channel would be changed. The service technicians swapped the equipment 3 times and there was no change. At least, she didn't have to have someone yelling on the phone that the problem was in her set.
Now, with all that blah blah blah, does any customer really want Comcast and Time-Warner to become one huge entity? More than ever, I'm thankful for DirecTV.
They've got agreements with municipalities for exclusivity from other cable companies. This is the way it has been since the early days of Cable TV. They had to pay to wire the area, so they wanted a captive audience. In some cases, they've made sure that homeowners' associations would have a no-antenna rule, so that you couldn't have off-the-air programming in your fancy schmanzy development. Thankfully, that didn't stop using DirecTV or Dish Network.
I've got through the various local cable companies and many have been personable and reliable. There was only one, American Cablecom, which handled the Audubon, PA apartment complex where I lived, surrounded by a large cable company, that things weren't good. The company had a 28 day repair clause. If a channel was down for more than 28 days, they would have to give credits. They would certainly show up on the 27th or 28th day each time.
When I lived in Altamonte Springs, FL, the tiny cable company was so bad that people in the apartment complex were hoping that Time-Warner would buy the company. They did, and service became somewhat better, and Time-Warner's marketing people showed us that they were nasty, vicious, and deceitful. Besides that, there was never a problem with service--it was all in "your set". When they sold the area to Bright House Networks, nothing changed but billing since the same local people were in charge. I swore I'd never have another bout with Cable TV.
Back when I lived in the Philadelphia, PA area, I was lucky enough to avoid Comcast. People hated Comcast. People hated to call Comcast, if there was a problem. You've heard that Philadelphia is one of the rudest cities in the U.S.A.? It can be. I swear that the people working for SEPTA (transportation authority) and Comcast are the worst ever, and I know how to swear very well. :-D
When I moved to my current location, Comcast had bought the smaller cable company that bought the local cable company. My adoptive mum was on the phone constantly as things did not work. It wasn't their problem. Toward the end, she would try to change channels, and in 3-5 minutes, the channel would be changed. The service technicians swapped the equipment 3 times and there was no change. At least, she didn't have to have someone yelling on the phone that the problem was in her set.
Now, with all that blah blah blah, does any customer really want Comcast and Time-Warner to become one huge entity? More than ever, I'm thankful for DirecTV.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Sending a lens off to be repaired--a first for me
Today, I'm sending my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens to be repaired. It has an ugly lens flare, even with the lens hood in place and the sun out of the frame as you can see.
It seems odd for the most (at the time, before the Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2) expensive (US$1499.99) micro Four-Thirds lens to have such a flaw--or to be "Made in China". In fact, this is my first lens repair ever, which goes all the way back to the late 1970s. Truth be told, my Olympus SHG ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 was a refurbished lens, which means that there was some problem that was repaired but it is practically flawless since the refurbishment, even after my E-5, the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and flash fell from a seat to the pool deck during a swim meet I was photographing.
Even before I bought the GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, I saw the review on LensTip, citing the flare problem. I hoped that it was an anomaly, and I bought anyway. Later, I got the feeling that other reviewers held back.
I already have a love-hate relationship with it. Perhaps, the repair will change all that. Plenty of people rave about the lens, so I hope that I've been missing something with this certain unit. After I got the lens, I wasn't so eager to buy the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens, even though it would have filled a need since I have nothing so wide as 12mm.
This leaves me with the rather slow Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6. It won't even be pushed to be automatically focused in low light, so I suspect the Olympus MMF-3 adapter and my various Four-Thirds lenses will have to do or I'll just pull out the E-5 or E-1. The E-1 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 are such a good combination, even without IS of any kind.
Update 2014.02.13: I thought several times that I might go buy a micro Four-Thirds lens to fill the gap, but in the end, I just concentrated on getting regular shopping done before the roads froze again. I didn't want to fall on my ice. That Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 has been pulling at my wallet ever since I tried pre-production samples, along with the 12mm f/2.0. I even thought about the Olympus 60mm macro while it was on sale, but the current Four-Thirds 50mm f/2.0 macro is plenty for me since I really haven't done any macro photography.
Update 2014.02.16: It arrived on the 14th, before 10:30 a.m. I'm wondering how long it will take for them to handle it. I'm hopeful that it will come back a much better lens than it was. It really wasn't worth the money I paid for it. It seemed worth about half of the price for the optical quality I got.
Update 2014.02.22: Panasonic still hasn't acknowledged it, even though UPS said that it was delivered over a week ago. I'm wondering if this is some sort of game they play to extract a payment, rather than provide warranty service, since it's close to the edge.
Update 2014.02.24: I'm on my fifth call this hour to the service center to understand what's happening. They do not answer and the automated system seems to become more frail each time, giving me dead air instead of automated rubbish. As these toll-free numbers cost them more than a regular call and don't cost me anything, I will remain on the line until ejected from their system. I finally left a message, after they closed. I guess once the machine isn't fighting for its life, it can do adequate work as a phone system. Not only did I leave a voice message, but I sent an e-mail to the repair e-mail address: panacare@us.panasonic.com plus I sent a Tweet to the LumixPro people, and put the photo with the lens flare on Instagram while tagging Panasonic. It's probably not enough.
I suspect I'll have to engage the camera store where I bought the lens in order to get anything done. There are three other one star reviews on Yelp for the place. It's incredible that this is Panasonic's level of service in the U.S.A.
Update 2014.02.25: Supposedly, everything is finished. They were apparently readying it for shipment about the time I was calling. I wonder if they saw my phone number, matched it to the lens, and took care of it by replacing it with an already refurbished lens.
I don't know if that is a repair or replacement but either way, if it's working as well as the designers expected, I'll be happy that I didn't waste my money.
Update 2014.02.27: I have received my lens, not a replacement, just two weeks after I sent it to them.
According to Ruben Silva, there is no problem whatsoever. He said that there were "finger prints and grease/dirt on lens front and rear glasses", even though I cleaned the lens before I sent it to them. They think I treat a $1500 lens as though it was $15? Incredible. I'm guessing that if I sent it again, out of warranty, they'd find an expensive problem.
It seems odd for the most (at the time, before the Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2) expensive (US$1499.99) micro Four-Thirds lens to have such a flaw--or to be "Made in China". In fact, this is my first lens repair ever, which goes all the way back to the late 1970s. Truth be told, my Olympus SHG ZD 35-100mm f/2.0 was a refurbished lens, which means that there was some problem that was repaired but it is practically flawless since the refurbishment, even after my E-5, the 35-100mm f/2.0 lens, and flash fell from a seat to the pool deck during a swim meet I was photographing.
Even before I bought the GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 lens, I saw the review on LensTip, citing the flare problem. I hoped that it was an anomaly, and I bought anyway. Later, I got the feeling that other reviewers held back.
I already have a love-hate relationship with it. Perhaps, the repair will change all that. Plenty of people rave about the lens, so I hope that I've been missing something with this certain unit. After I got the lens, I wasn't so eager to buy the 12-35mm f/2.8 lens, even though it would have filled a need since I have nothing so wide as 12mm.
This leaves me with the rather slow Panasonic 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6. It won't even be pushed to be automatically focused in low light, so I suspect the Olympus MMF-3 adapter and my various Four-Thirds lenses will have to do or I'll just pull out the E-5 or E-1. The E-1 and the ZD 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 are such a good combination, even without IS of any kind.
 |
| GH3, MMF-3, and Leica 25mm f/1.4 |
Update 2014.02.13: I thought several times that I might go buy a micro Four-Thirds lens to fill the gap, but in the end, I just concentrated on getting regular shopping done before the roads froze again. I didn't want to fall on my ice. That Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 has been pulling at my wallet ever since I tried pre-production samples, along with the 12mm f/2.0. I even thought about the Olympus 60mm macro while it was on sale, but the current Four-Thirds 50mm f/2.0 macro is plenty for me since I really haven't done any macro photography.
Update 2014.02.16: It arrived on the 14th, before 10:30 a.m. I'm wondering how long it will take for them to handle it. I'm hopeful that it will come back a much better lens than it was. It really wasn't worth the money I paid for it. It seemed worth about half of the price for the optical quality I got.
Update 2014.02.22: Panasonic still hasn't acknowledged it, even though UPS said that it was delivered over a week ago. I'm wondering if this is some sort of game they play to extract a payment, rather than provide warranty service, since it's close to the edge.
Update 2014.02.24: I'm on my fifth call this hour to the service center to understand what's happening. They do not answer and the automated system seems to become more frail each time, giving me dead air instead of automated rubbish. As these toll-free numbers cost them more than a regular call and don't cost me anything, I will remain on the line until ejected from their system. I finally left a message, after they closed. I guess once the machine isn't fighting for its life, it can do adequate work as a phone system. Not only did I leave a voice message, but I sent an e-mail to the repair e-mail address: panacare@us.panasonic.com plus I sent a Tweet to the LumixPro people, and put the photo with the lens flare on Instagram while tagging Panasonic. It's probably not enough.
I suspect I'll have to engage the camera store where I bought the lens in order to get anything done. There are three other one star reviews on Yelp for the place. It's incredible that this is Panasonic's level of service in the U.S.A.
Update 2014.02.25: Supposedly, everything is finished. They were apparently readying it for shipment about the time I was calling. I wonder if they saw my phone number, matched it to the lens, and took care of it by replacing it with an already refurbished lens.
We show your item arrived, but its been resolved. The item has shipped back to you
I don't know if that is a repair or replacement but either way, if it's working as well as the designers expected, I'll be happy that I didn't waste my money.
According to Ruben Silva, there is no problem whatsoever. He said that there were "finger prints and grease/dirt on lens front and rear glasses", even though I cleaned the lens before I sent it to them. They think I treat a $1500 lens as though it was $15? Incredible. I'm guessing that if I sent it again, out of warranty, they'd find an expensive problem.
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.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
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:
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
micro Four-Thirds: Panasonic vs Olympus
I've seen a lot of petty battles over the years where technology is involved. The worst I've seen is Panasonic vs Olympus, driven by the fanatics alone.
My take is that both companies offer something great and without one or the other, the format would wither. This should be Panasonic + Olympus instead of Panasonic vs Olympus.
Panasonic brought about the AG-AF100/AF105, which convinced Zeiss to adapt their cine lenses. Given that the lenses have a typical micro Four-Thirds mount, they work just fine, and I would imagine that you could rent one for your Panasonic GH3. For that matter, you could use it on a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera.
Panasonic has done a lot for video while Olympus has conversely done a minimum for video. However, Olympus is still a leader in still photography, regardless of what Canon or Nikon might have you believe, though they don't have those negative advertisements any longer since their sensors' pixel density is high also.
Olympus is clearly doing a lot with their in-camera processing to provide a great image. When you put a micro Four-Thirds print up against prints from much larger sensors, it's extremely difficult to see a huge difference. Back in 2006, I was printing on 13x19 inch paper with 5.1 MP images from an Olympus E-1, so I can't imagine why a current micro Four-Thirds body with 16.x MP would have a problem competing with the rest. The pixel density should be similar to a 24.x MP APS-C sensor. If the sensor and image engine are the best they can be, it's down to the adjoining circuitry and the analog-to-digital conversion. It's all come a long way since, say 2000, or even 2003 when Four-Thirds equipment was introduced.
If Olympus and Panasonic had not joined forces to develop Live View with the E-330, DMC-L1, and Leica Digilux 3, would there be a micro Four-Thirds now? Would there be a mirror-less market at all?
I suspect that still photography and videography would have been kept to separate devices for simplicity, and profit.
It's not that relatively inexpensive digital motion picture equipment isn't available--RED has proven that--but that students have extremely inexpensive equipment available and can do everything on their own. Panasonic's GH2 and GH3 have shown how inexpensively someone can demonstrate their abilities as directors and photographers.
Live View has affected still photography in positive ways. When you can't get inside the crowd, having that fully-articulated rear display means that you can get the body at an angle and view the scene to get the image you want. N.B. Olympus: Your E-M1 is lacking in this respect (and several others related to the E-5).
micro Four-Thirds is stronger because of Panasonic and Olympus. Take away one company's lenses and you can get by but, unlike Nikon or Canon, you don't have a wide variety of third party lenses, so you need both Panasonic and Olympus selling their system by providing lenses.
If we should believe a Credit Suisse "anal"yst, Olympus and Panasonic will be out of the camera business shortly, along with Pentax and FujiFilm. That will be a dark time and I seriously doubt that Nikon, Canon, or Sony would continue to improve because they won't have anyone to show them how.
Update 2014.03.02: I've had some trouble with my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and I asked Panasonic to repair it. They said that it was fine: http://nobuyukishouldknowbetter.blogspot.com/2014/02/i-wont-be-buying-any-more-panasonic.html
I've been using the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 on the GH3 body and it has breathed new life into it. I'm shocked at how much better things look with a proper lens. I'm looking forward to the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens from Olympus later this year. I'm not saying that I'm abandoning Panasonic. I just don't want to use any of their lenses any longer, and I hope that I never have to have anything repaired.
Update 2014.03.15: Since the GH4 has arrived for pre-order, I haven't seen anything to replace the AG-AF100/AF105. The latest product in that category took PL-mount lenses, and the GH4 sales blurb said PL-mount lenses would be useful through a third party adapter. I guess a dedicated micro Four-Thirds camcorder wasn't popular at all, so we'll have to stick with the 29m59s limit of the GH3 and GH4.
My take is that both companies offer something great and without one or the other, the format would wither. This should be Panasonic + Olympus instead of Panasonic vs Olympus.
Panasonic brought about the AG-AF100/AF105, which convinced Zeiss to adapt their cine lenses. Given that the lenses have a typical micro Four-Thirds mount, they work just fine, and I would imagine that you could rent one for your Panasonic GH3. For that matter, you could use it on a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera.
Panasonic has done a lot for video while Olympus has conversely done a minimum for video. However, Olympus is still a leader in still photography, regardless of what Canon or Nikon might have you believe, though they don't have those negative advertisements any longer since their sensors' pixel density is high also.
Olympus is clearly doing a lot with their in-camera processing to provide a great image. When you put a micro Four-Thirds print up against prints from much larger sensors, it's extremely difficult to see a huge difference. Back in 2006, I was printing on 13x19 inch paper with 5.1 MP images from an Olympus E-1, so I can't imagine why a current micro Four-Thirds body with 16.x MP would have a problem competing with the rest. The pixel density should be similar to a 24.x MP APS-C sensor. If the sensor and image engine are the best they can be, it's down to the adjoining circuitry and the analog-to-digital conversion. It's all come a long way since, say 2000, or even 2003 when Four-Thirds equipment was introduced.
If Olympus and Panasonic had not joined forces to develop Live View with the E-330, DMC-L1, and Leica Digilux 3, would there be a micro Four-Thirds now? Would there be a mirror-less market at all?
I suspect that still photography and videography would have been kept to separate devices for simplicity, and profit.
It's not that relatively inexpensive digital motion picture equipment isn't available--RED has proven that--but that students have extremely inexpensive equipment available and can do everything on their own. Panasonic's GH2 and GH3 have shown how inexpensively someone can demonstrate their abilities as directors and photographers.
Live View has affected still photography in positive ways. When you can't get inside the crowd, having that fully-articulated rear display means that you can get the body at an angle and view the scene to get the image you want. N.B. Olympus: Your E-M1 is lacking in this respect (and several others related to the E-5).
micro Four-Thirds is stronger because of Panasonic and Olympus. Take away one company's lenses and you can get by but, unlike Nikon or Canon, you don't have a wide variety of third party lenses, so you need both Panasonic and Olympus selling their system by providing lenses.
If we should believe a Credit Suisse "anal"yst, Olympus and Panasonic will be out of the camera business shortly, along with Pentax and FujiFilm. That will be a dark time and I seriously doubt that Nikon, Canon, or Sony would continue to improve because they won't have anyone to show them how.
Update 2014.03.02: I've had some trouble with my Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 lens and I asked Panasonic to repair it. They said that it was fine: http://nobuyukishouldknowbetter.blogspot.com/2014/02/i-wont-be-buying-any-more-panasonic.html
I've been using the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 on the GH3 body and it has breathed new life into it. I'm shocked at how much better things look with a proper lens. I'm looking forward to the 40-150mm f/2.8 lens from Olympus later this year. I'm not saying that I'm abandoning Panasonic. I just don't want to use any of their lenses any longer, and I hope that I never have to have anything repaired.
Update 2014.03.15: Since the GH4 has arrived for pre-order, I haven't seen anything to replace the AG-AF100/AF105. The latest product in that category took PL-mount lenses, and the GH4 sales blurb said PL-mount lenses would be useful through a third party adapter. I guess a dedicated micro Four-Thirds camcorder wasn't popular at all, so we'll have to stick with the 29m59s limit of the GH3 and GH4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)