After two years, the D7100 has been replaced/surpassed. Strangely, it is a very minor update.
I'd commented a while back that they could have released a bigger still frame buffer in an updated camera body called the D7110. This is practically what they've done.
However, the newer auto focus module is more responsive in low light, similar to how it works in the D750, down to -3EV. It also has built-in WiFi, just like the D750. It includes the Expeed 4 processor and better ISO sensitivity. Interval shooting has been improved from 999 shots to 9999. Auto bracketing has been improved. Maybe, that's enough for a D7120. Maybe.
At US$1199.99, is it enough? In two years, the Canon 70D, 7D MkII, Pentax K-3, Olympus E-M1 and E-M5 MkII, Panasonic GH3 and GH4 (and various models from Sony, such as the a6000) have become competition.
I've wondered why it has taken Nikon so long to replace the D300 properly, as well as the D700. It's not a surprise that the D7200 is so similar to the D750, just as the earlier two were connected. (Ricoh-)Pentax' K-3 seemed a proper successor to the D300 with some great functionality, hampered with typically Pentax firmware. (As a perennial underdog, I wonder if the firmware had been written by Olympus that the K-3 would take a huge share of the US$1000-2000 interchangeable lens camera market.)
I'm not saying that the D7200 isn't welcome. I'm saying that it's just a bit late. Those who were waiting might have gone for the D750.
It feels as though Nikon doesn't believe that the market is worth much, or any, development. That seems reasonable since it took Canon 3 years to revise the 7D. It seems as though there isn't much money to be made in camera bodies under US$3000 for Nikon or Canon.
Thankfully, the price is good at US$1199.99. Hopefully, this means that the D7000 won't continue to be sold.
In any case, with the buffer handled, the D300 should have a proper successor, but in a more economical model. The Expeed 4 processor and revised image sensor should clear up the noisy photos issue from the D7100. The bigger range of ISO sensitivity speaks to the noise elimination in the sensor, and the better processing of the Expeed 4 processor.
I'm not in love, but I'm definitely in like.
Update 2015.04.03: Having shot indoors at Woodward West during a scooter competition, ISO 3200 was a necessity, as 1/250th of a second shutter speed was a minimum. Unfortunately, the Olympus E-M1 is as its usable (my opinion) limit, as is the Panasonic GH4 for still photos. The GH4 1080p video looked okay, though.
While I don't regularly shoot in such situations, I have enough times that I might want a more capable body. The D7200 is that body. Is it good enough at ISO 3200 to make a purchase around US$2600?
Obviously, it's not just the US$1199.99 for the D7200 but the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 is the same price, and of course, taxes count. The 135 Format-effective 22.5-45mm focal length range is slightly wider (but a lot shorter) than my current effective 24-80mm or 30mm fixed focal length. I would prefer a bigger range but keeping good image quality is important. If I used a superzoom lens, why bother with a better camera body? I could just buy an ultrazoom compact camera and throw it all away. Perhaps, a Pentax 645Z with a 3x normal zoom? The D750 might be able to keep up, though I might have to switch the zoom range to 24-70mm but I suspect that will raise the price quite a bit to get a weather-sealed lens. Is US$1199.99 enough for low light?
Update 2015.07.08: On Sunday, I bought the D7200 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, quickly replacing a Pentax K-50 and kit lens that was only an experiment. Someone I know had a camera stolen, and I gave the Pentax K-50 to him.
I'm having many new user problems, especially since this is the first Nikon product I've used extensively since film. I chose not to buy the D100 or D70 back in 2004.
The Black & White ISO 51, 200 and 102,400 modes are interesting. They only produce JPEG files but they work. It bothers me that the ISO selection shows both ISO Auto and ISO 100, for instance. As far as I'm concerned, it should show one or the other, but not both. Showing a specific Auto ISO range makes sense.
It's not difficult to find the metering choices, but the auto focus choices? They seem to be impossible to find. Hopefully, they are hidden in plain sight. It seems to be a sub-selection on a left-hand, rear-side button, but working the button to get that function is odd.
I took the D7200 and 18-35mm f/1.8 out around 11 at night and it didn't work nearly as well as either the Olympus E-M1 or Panasonic GH4. In many cases, the camera refused to work at ISO 25, 600, even though the E-M1 and GH4 would work. Alternatively, I had trouble with the E-M1 and the GH4 in the daytime. That wasn't amusing.
It will take a while to be accustomed to another brand, although shooting is fairly reliable.
I needed to update to Phase One Capture One Pro version 8.3.1 to have raw file compatibility.
Update 2015.07.27: I've been having too many new user problems. It was confusing that there is a menu option for 51 or 11 auto focus points, but nothing about the pattern. I found the control encircled by the AF/MF switch. It still didn't seem incredibly intuitive. The camera body is reliable. It's amazing to have 6 frames per second though, and think of it as slow. The Olympus E-M1 does 10 FPS and the Panasonic GH4 does 12.
I'm working on a full report of my experiences.
Familiarizing myself
Using the High ISO Black & White modes
Update 2015.09.20: The D7200 is a good camera body, but it's not incredibly better than the Olympus E-M1 or Panasonic GH4. Yes, the sensor is bigger. That gives the body great potential to be better.
Since I've got some experience with it, I'm getting better photos. Having the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens makes it a good combination. However, it's a very slight improvement over what I can do with micro Four-Thirds. The Olympus E-M1 has great facial recognition, so accurate focus for portraits with it is easy to get. The Panasonic GH4 and GX8 do fine, but they take more time. Naturally, with Phase Detection AF, there is no facial recognition and a slight mis-calibration of the lens can mean auto focus will not be in the correct place.
For skate park photos, it's not bad but the burst rate isn't fast enough to get the action every time. Got to say that the extra 1.3x mode is helpful, and I can get a similar effective focal length as with micro Four-Thirds. Also, when it's dark, the GH4/GX8/E-M1 EVF is much more useful, as I can actually see what's happening. With the D7200, I see the dark, just as I do with the Olympus E-1 and E-5.
Thanks to the bigger buffer (and the 6 fps burst rate), the D7200 doesn't fill up that quickly. If you consider 12 fps from the GH4, 43 photos come pretty quickly before the camera slows down significantly, there is a difference from the D7200.
Update 2016.01.11: It's been about a week since the emotional replacement for the D300, the D500, was announced.
Had this been available at the same time as the D7200, my choice would have been for the D500. The D7200 is sufficient, but doesn't feel substantially better than my micro Four-Thirds camera bodies, even if a few of the available lenses are worth the switch.
The extra US$800 gets you three times the focus points, a better metering array, a big buffer, and an Expeed 5-class processor for better stills work. The ISO 1 million+ sensitivity probably isn't very useful, but it is there, at least, for bragging rights. Having ISO 51,200 in the normal range instead of a high ISO black and white mode means that ISO 6400 might actually provide reasonable photos and ISO 3200 might be usable in everyday situations. I'm not finding ISO 3200 to be all that usable, except for Instagram and the high ISO modes are only useful for getting the shot when the light isn't there.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Monday, February 9, 2015
Got the Lumix/Leica/Panasonic 15mm f/1.7
Last week, I was down in San Diego and Orange County, California doing some photography and enjoying the time away from home. While I was gone, I noticed that Panasonic started some quick instant rebates. Are sales hurting? They just had instant rebates before Christmas day.
I still haven't decided on my video-making lenses but I've been trying to do something to make food photography better for me. In one of my initial digital-only shoots, I took an Olympus E-1 and the ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and used Ott-Lite lamps with daylight type bulbs for which they were known, to photograph ice cream without melting it, and to show sandwiches, waffles, eggs, and other items as realistically as possible. The images hit home with so many people and people were yelling at me for posting desirable images of food at night when restaurants weren't open.
So, thinking more casually, the Panasonic GM5 and 15mm f/1.7 lens seemed a perfect combination for casual food photography--maybe, even for serious food photography. While the GM5 also had an instant rebate available, I chose to wait, only buying the 15mm f/1.7 lens.
Either way, a US$100 rebate is significant--on US$599.99 or $899.99. I'd still rather get the GM5 without the 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. The GM5 and 15mm f/1.7 seem a perfect combination, especially up against the FujiFilm X-100T. I'm not saying that the GM5 is an incredible camera body but it's quite capable for its size and can generally keep up with the GX7.
So far, I've only had the 15mm f/1.7 lens on the E-M1. It seems an appropriate lens for the slim E-M1. The lens is tiny, given that it was meant for the GM1 and GM5 specifically. It's not a Leica design. It's a Panasonic design, approved by Leica. From what I've seen so far, it has the Panasonic purple fringing, according to various web sites' articles.
Pros:
Tiny
Sharp at most apertures
Keeps focus well for video
Cons:
No aperture ring lock for Auto setting
Fiddly bits with filter ring, front lens cap, lens hood
Occasionally hunts for focus in lower light situations
Processing interior photos with some studio lighting, I don't see a problem, but with exterior shots at night, the purple fringing is quite noticeable, and Phase One Capture One doesn't have a lens profile yet for the 15mm f/1.7 lens. I've only used it with the Olympus E-M1, so perhaps, it will be magically improved with the GH4. I suspect that the focusing will certainly be improved. It hunted quite a bit on the E-M1, whereas the GH4 can focus to EV -4.
I'm generally pleased with the sharpness and the ability to use it at a very close distance.
Outdoors, on the E-M1, it did well.
I need to take the GH4 and the lens out to see how well it will work.
Update 2015.02.10: I took the GH4 and 15mm f/1.7 out tonight. I was not surprised that the lack of stabilization was a problem. However, I was surprised that the lens hunted during auto focus, just as much as it did with the E-M1. I'd think that there will be a few firmware updates, although there should have been some already.
Update 2015.03.26: I've had the 15mm f/1.7 over a month now, and I've shot a lot with it, both on the GH4 and the E-M1.
It's a good video-making lens. It keeps up well. Without image stabilization, it is fine. Photos are almost always really sharp at any aperture.
On the other hand, I've lost the lens cap that goes with the lens hood already. The lens hood has unscrewed itself a number of times and I've noticed it early enough to keep it from falling. At US$80, I don't want to lose the lens hood. At almost $7.00, I can afford to replace the lens cap. The filter ring has to be unscrewed to use the lens hood, so that's a piece that can be lost easily and it's so dainty that you might never find it, until you bend it with your foot. Also, during still photography, it will hunt for focus in lower light situations, and the Panasonic purple fringing is present on the E-M1.
That said, it is one of two lenses that I use the most.
Update 2016.01.21: It's going on 1 year that I've had this lens. I've used it in the dark quite a lot to record video and take photos. It really has been a good lens, surprisingly. Thankfully, the drought has kept it from rainy conditions.
Using it on the GX8 has been good, and it looks a good fit.
I still haven't decided on my video-making lenses but I've been trying to do something to make food photography better for me. In one of my initial digital-only shoots, I took an Olympus E-1 and the ZD 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 and used Ott-Lite lamps with daylight type bulbs for which they were known, to photograph ice cream without melting it, and to show sandwiches, waffles, eggs, and other items as realistically as possible. The images hit home with so many people and people were yelling at me for posting desirable images of food at night when restaurants weren't open.
So, thinking more casually, the Panasonic GM5 and 15mm f/1.7 lens seemed a perfect combination for casual food photography--maybe, even for serious food photography. While the GM5 also had an instant rebate available, I chose to wait, only buying the 15mm f/1.7 lens.
Either way, a US$100 rebate is significant--on US$599.99 or $899.99. I'd still rather get the GM5 without the 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens. The GM5 and 15mm f/1.7 seem a perfect combination, especially up against the FujiFilm X-100T. I'm not saying that the GM5 is an incredible camera body but it's quite capable for its size and can generally keep up with the GX7.
So far, I've only had the 15mm f/1.7 lens on the E-M1. It seems an appropriate lens for the slim E-M1. The lens is tiny, given that it was meant for the GM1 and GM5 specifically. It's not a Leica design. It's a Panasonic design, approved by Leica. From what I've seen so far, it has the Panasonic purple fringing, according to various web sites' articles.
Pros:
Tiny
Sharp at most apertures
Keeps focus well for video
Cons:
No aperture ring lock for Auto setting
Fiddly bits with filter ring, front lens cap, lens hood
Occasionally hunts for focus in lower light situations
 |
| 15mm on the E-M1 looks reasonable with lens hood |
I'm generally pleased with the sharpness and the ability to use it at a very close distance.
Outdoors, on the E-M1, it did well.
I need to take the GH4 and the lens out to see how well it will work.
 |
| 15mm lens on the GH4 looks tiny |
Update 2015.03.26: I've had the 15mm f/1.7 over a month now, and I've shot a lot with it, both on the GH4 and the E-M1.
It's a good video-making lens. It keeps up well. Without image stabilization, it is fine. Photos are almost always really sharp at any aperture.
On the other hand, I've lost the lens cap that goes with the lens hood already. The lens hood has unscrewed itself a number of times and I've noticed it early enough to keep it from falling. At US$80, I don't want to lose the lens hood. At almost $7.00, I can afford to replace the lens cap. The filter ring has to be unscrewed to use the lens hood, so that's a piece that can be lost easily and it's so dainty that you might never find it, until you bend it with your foot. Also, during still photography, it will hunt for focus in lower light situations, and the Panasonic purple fringing is present on the E-M1.
That said, it is one of two lenses that I use the most.
Update 2016.01.21: It's going on 1 year that I've had this lens. I've used it in the dark quite a lot to record video and take photos. It really has been a good lens, surprisingly. Thankfully, the drought has kept it from rainy conditions.
Using it on the GX8 has been good, and it looks a good fit.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
FreedomPop for home
I've been using a phone or a mobile hotspot for my computer's internet connection from late 2006. It started with a Samsung A900--Lex Luthor's phone in Smallville. It was a lousy phone but the 3G connection was reliable, and the speed was better than my 3 Mbps DSL connection.
Lately, I've been using a Novatel Wireless MiFi device with Verizon. Service was really good at my last location, but just acceptable here. I gave up on Sprint around March of this year when the Sierra Wireless (now Netgear) device wouldn't connect for 6 hours.
Earlier this month, I was coming close to my full monthly allotment of 10 GB on the 10th day into my billing period. Uggggh. I'm currently about 4 GB ($40) over it. I haven't noticed anyone else using it, but DirecTV seemed to be using a lot, even though I wasn't streaming anything. I've been working on creating videos lately, but there wasn't that much I was uploading. In any case, paying loads for extra use, and not knowing how it was happening was difficult.
I looked for FreedomPop after seeing an article about it. Freedom Hub Burst is a home product similar to a mobile hotspot but without the mobile part. It needs an AC electrical outlet. They've been using ClearWire/Clear connections for quite a while. The only problem with this is that I have some spotty service with Sprint at home. Both ends of my apartment have LTE but my living room and part of my bedroom are a transition zone between 3G and LTE, so I end up with 1xRTT on my phone too often.
At $21.99 for 10 GB per month, it seemed reasonable, compared to $10 per 1 GB for an overage on Verizon. Normally, FreedomPop hasn't been charging for the service, but this home service is a bit different, and I'm okay with it. Like buying a phone with prepaid service, I needed to buy a device. They supposedly included an extra USB-attached mobile modem but it wasn't included in the box.
Receiving the package on Christmas Eve seemed gift-y. Opening the package and not finding useful instructions didn't. Actually, there was a little pamphlet that fell between the cracks, and I found it afterwards. It would have helped a lot but I already had a connection, read the instructions, and managed to find the page to get everything set. Looking at the pamphlet, it neglects to tell you the default password for the connection to the device itself, so how do you connect without a current connection?
It has been simple enough to get online, once I set everything. Speed is reasonable, though not extremely fast, nearly 5 Mbps. Perhaps, the LTE will improve as Sprint/Clear finish their deployment in this area. Response time seems minimal and it feels like a good connection. Unlike my phone, I can leave the device near a window on the edge of the apartment where the connection is better.
Having an extra 10 GB for about the same as 2 GB overage isn't bad. I can connect the TV and Blu-Ray player to it and they can update firmware to their CPU's content, even when I'm not home. I'm thinking that I shouldn't connect my DirecTV receiver, as it will take advantage of the connection in big ways. Now, my mobile hotspot can once again be mobile, and I can even update those extra iPhone apps without having to look for a WiFi connection elsewhere.
Update 2015.01.13: Saturday, I received a WiMAX/3G modem, like the one Sprint discontinued quite a while ago. I couldn't download the connection manager software from FreedomPop, so I downloaded it from Sprint.
It connected but then told me that there was no free 4G service available and that 3G service wasn't free. I only have one question--why send me this unusable piece of technology, to clear the warehouse?
Update 2015.03.27: The other day, the company offered me an upgrade for the useless WiMAX modem. For $29.99, I could get a Franklin brand LTE modem. It sounded great, but then, they wanted me to take a premium 2 GB data package for $21.99 per month. It's not horrible, when you consider AT&T and Verizon and I could cancel later.
However, they're counting on someone missing that, and I missed the data rollover option that they slipped into the WiMAX modem package, and they've been charging me $3.99 + tax until I checked practically every option on the web site.
Lately, I've been using a Novatel Wireless MiFi device with Verizon. Service was really good at my last location, but just acceptable here. I gave up on Sprint around March of this year when the Sierra Wireless (now Netgear) device wouldn't connect for 6 hours.
Earlier this month, I was coming close to my full monthly allotment of 10 GB on the 10th day into my billing period. Uggggh. I'm currently about 4 GB ($40) over it. I haven't noticed anyone else using it, but DirecTV seemed to be using a lot, even though I wasn't streaming anything. I've been working on creating videos lately, but there wasn't that much I was uploading. In any case, paying loads for extra use, and not knowing how it was happening was difficult.
I looked for FreedomPop after seeing an article about it. Freedom Hub Burst is a home product similar to a mobile hotspot but without the mobile part. It needs an AC electrical outlet. They've been using ClearWire/Clear connections for quite a while. The only problem with this is that I have some spotty service with Sprint at home. Both ends of my apartment have LTE but my living room and part of my bedroom are a transition zone between 3G and LTE, so I end up with 1xRTT on my phone too often.
At $21.99 for 10 GB per month, it seemed reasonable, compared to $10 per 1 GB for an overage on Verizon. Normally, FreedomPop hasn't been charging for the service, but this home service is a bit different, and I'm okay with it. Like buying a phone with prepaid service, I needed to buy a device. They supposedly included an extra USB-attached mobile modem but it wasn't included in the box.
Setup
Receiving the package on Christmas Eve seemed gift-y. Opening the package and not finding useful instructions didn't. Actually, there was a little pamphlet that fell between the cracks, and I found it afterwards. It would have helped a lot but I already had a connection, read the instructions, and managed to find the page to get everything set. Looking at the pamphlet, it neglects to tell you the default password for the connection to the device itself, so how do you connect without a current connection?
Connecting
It has been simple enough to get online, once I set everything. Speed is reasonable, though not extremely fast, nearly 5 Mbps. Perhaps, the LTE will improve as Sprint/Clear finish their deployment in this area. Response time seems minimal and it feels like a good connection. Unlike my phone, I can leave the device near a window on the edge of the apartment where the connection is better.
Having an extra 10 GB for about the same as 2 GB overage isn't bad. I can connect the TV and Blu-Ray player to it and they can update firmware to their CPU's content, even when I'm not home. I'm thinking that I shouldn't connect my DirecTV receiver, as it will take advantage of the connection in big ways. Now, my mobile hotspot can once again be mobile, and I can even update those extra iPhone apps without having to look for a WiFi connection elsewhere.
Update 2015.01.13: Saturday, I received a WiMAX/3G modem, like the one Sprint discontinued quite a while ago. I couldn't download the connection manager software from FreedomPop, so I downloaded it from Sprint.
It connected but then told me that there was no free 4G service available and that 3G service wasn't free. I only have one question--why send me this unusable piece of technology, to clear the warehouse?
Update 2015.03.27: The other day, the company offered me an upgrade for the useless WiMAX modem. For $29.99, I could get a Franklin brand LTE modem. It sounded great, but then, they wanted me to take a premium 2 GB data package for $21.99 per month. It's not horrible, when you consider AT&T and Verizon and I could cancel later.
However, they're counting on someone missing that, and I missed the data rollover option that they slipped into the WiMAX modem package, and they've been charging me $3.99 + tax until I checked practically every option on the web site.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
iPhone 6 cases and screen protectors
Oh, the trouble with switching phones can be huge. At least, this time I didn't have to get new accessories because I changed cables and connectors.
(tl;dr : I bought a Ballistic Tungsten Tough case and Otterbox Glass screen protector)
My iPhone 5c was about one year old and I switched from an iPhone 4s then, also switching from the 30 pin connector to the Lightning connector. When I got the iPhone 5c, I bought another Otterbox Defender case at the same time as I bought the phone.
It was poorly designed, apparently to be first to market. People were cutting out the screen protector because it was too far away from the screen it was supposed to protect. I swore I'd never buy another case from Otterbox.
I'd seen a load of Ballistic brand cases in another store near the Sprint store, and I was close to buying something else. A couple of months later, I ordered an SG MAXX case from the company directly, as the local store was almost out of them. It was just as good as that other brand, but it was easy to take off and put on the phone. Something that was practically impossible with the Defender case.
Okay, so, here I was buying an iPhone 6 with no Ballistic case in hand and I couldn't find a store ahead of time that carried them. I ended up with a Griffin case than claimed 3 feet for drop protection, and an Otterbox screen protector made of glass.
The screen protector was of great significance since that was a huge problem with the iPhone 5c cases. As I wrote earlier, many people cut out the Defender screen protector because of the gap between it and the screen. Ballistic had an add-in screen protector that made it difficult to see the screen. A corner of the protector would slip out on occasion. I ended up with an Invisible Shield protector, as it seemed an early and popular choice.
After that year, the Invisible Shield protector had become rather nasty. The instructions recommended installing it again from time to time, I guess so that you could clean the phone's display. Even when new, it seemed a bit wrinkled, and that seemed normal. Even car tint carefully installed can look like this because of the various layers.
The glass screen protector is practically perfect. There is some adhesive keeping it tightly attached, and it feels as though I'm directly touching the device.
While I could appreciate the Griffin case for its minimalistic design, I prefer not to break my phone if I drop it. No phone is attractive when it's in more than one piece. I also don't care to advertise the Apple logo out the back of the case. Why invite trouble?
So, I was in a Best Buy a few days later during the Christmas rush and found three Ballistic cases that were not on the company's website. I'm guessing that these are higher profit, lower cost cases made specifically for Best buy. I'm cynical, but is that wrong?
$34.99, $39.99, or $49.99? I wasn't sure what to trust. I still wasn't sure if they were fakes. I chose the $39.99 Tungsten Tough case, labeled 7+ feet drop tested. It's not as thin as the $34.99 case, but I had been using a case with a holster previously. I'm thinking that I still want that extra protection, although it's a pain to get the phone open quickly to answer a call.
How much is $849.99 worth to you? If you don't have enough protection and need to have the device fixed or replaced, what if that cost exceeds $49.99? Is a pretty case worth the extra cost of repairs?
Update 2015.04.03: The Ballistic brand case has been as good as the previous case for the iPhone 5c. I've dropped the iPhone 6 a few times and the case has kept the phone safe, and even the case seems to be fine. In fact, it is incredibly difficult to separate the phone and case. That's almost a good thing, although there was dirt inside of the case. It's surprising how good the iPhone 6 feels by itself but I'd hate to see it smashed on the floor.
It was a while later that Ballistic's web site showed the Tungsten-branded models that are apparently only available at Best Buy. That gave me a better feeling about spending US$39.99, because I'm not always trusting of Best Buy.
I still miss the holster clip, so I may buy one of those. I've noticed a problem with the phone further down in my pocket--lint. It's having more trouble with charging than usual. Some cables aren't working 100% of the time. The car charger sometimes stops charging during a trip, so I find that the phone is at 50% or less. I guess that's the problem of not having a case with a flap over the Lightning port.
(tl;dr : I bought a Ballistic Tungsten Tough case and Otterbox Glass screen protector)
My iPhone 5c was about one year old and I switched from an iPhone 4s then, also switching from the 30 pin connector to the Lightning connector. When I got the iPhone 5c, I bought another Otterbox Defender case at the same time as I bought the phone.
It was poorly designed, apparently to be first to market. People were cutting out the screen protector because it was too far away from the screen it was supposed to protect. I swore I'd never buy another case from Otterbox.
I'd seen a load of Ballistic brand cases in another store near the Sprint store, and I was close to buying something else. A couple of months later, I ordered an SG MAXX case from the company directly, as the local store was almost out of them. It was just as good as that other brand, but it was easy to take off and put on the phone. Something that was practically impossible with the Defender case.
Okay, so, here I was buying an iPhone 6 with no Ballistic case in hand and I couldn't find a store ahead of time that carried them. I ended up with a Griffin case than claimed 3 feet for drop protection, and an Otterbox screen protector made of glass.
The screen protector was of great significance since that was a huge problem with the iPhone 5c cases. As I wrote earlier, many people cut out the Defender screen protector because of the gap between it and the screen. Ballistic had an add-in screen protector that made it difficult to see the screen. A corner of the protector would slip out on occasion. I ended up with an Invisible Shield protector, as it seemed an early and popular choice.
After that year, the Invisible Shield protector had become rather nasty. The instructions recommended installing it again from time to time, I guess so that you could clean the phone's display. Even when new, it seemed a bit wrinkled, and that seemed normal. Even car tint carefully installed can look like this because of the various layers.
The glass screen protector is practically perfect. There is some adhesive keeping it tightly attached, and it feels as though I'm directly touching the device.
While I could appreciate the Griffin case for its minimalistic design, I prefer not to break my phone if I drop it. No phone is attractive when it's in more than one piece. I also don't care to advertise the Apple logo out the back of the case. Why invite trouble?
So, I was in a Best Buy a few days later during the Christmas rush and found three Ballistic cases that were not on the company's website. I'm guessing that these are higher profit, lower cost cases made specifically for Best buy. I'm cynical, but is that wrong?
$34.99, $39.99, or $49.99? I wasn't sure what to trust. I still wasn't sure if they were fakes. I chose the $39.99 Tungsten Tough case, labeled 7+ feet drop tested. It's not as thin as the $34.99 case, but I had been using a case with a holster previously. I'm thinking that I still want that extra protection, although it's a pain to get the phone open quickly to answer a call.
How much is $849.99 worth to you? If you don't have enough protection and need to have the device fixed or replaced, what if that cost exceeds $49.99? Is a pretty case worth the extra cost of repairs?
Update 2015.04.03: The Ballistic brand case has been as good as the previous case for the iPhone 5c. I've dropped the iPhone 6 a few times and the case has kept the phone safe, and even the case seems to be fine. In fact, it is incredibly difficult to separate the phone and case. That's almost a good thing, although there was dirt inside of the case. It's surprising how good the iPhone 6 feels by itself but I'd hate to see it smashed on the floor.
It was a while later that Ballistic's web site showed the Tungsten-branded models that are apparently only available at Best Buy. That gave me a better feeling about spending US$39.99, because I'm not always trusting of Best Buy.
I still miss the holster clip, so I may buy one of those. I've noticed a problem with the phone further down in my pocket--lint. It's having more trouble with charging than usual. Some cables aren't working 100% of the time. The car charger sometimes stops charging during a trip, so I find that the phone is at 50% or less. I guess that's the problem of not having a case with a flap over the Lightning port.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Sprint "Cut Your Bill in Half" deal only on plan, not your device. Is that a surprise?
It's apparently not quite the deal you'd expect, and of course, it depends on Verizon Wireless and (the new) AT&T's bad plans.
Re/Code
CrackBerry
Consumerist
DSL Reports
I'm not sure that there is a real story or not. I don't expect miracles anyway. The big two have been working a little bit more to be balance plans with service. However, if you get great coverage where you are--watch out for fake coverage maps from any of the big 4--Sprint should be a good deal. Now that Nextel is all but dead and the 800 MHz frequency band is available, there is a huge chance that Sprint could be dominant in certain markets. There are Spark areas like Milpitas, CA where Sprint is using 800 MHz, 1900 MHz, and 2500 MHz combined.
Verizon has dual frequency bands with their XLTE but who knows what device you need to make it work right now. I've searched multiple times to see if my current mobile hotspot will take advantage of it but they're not telling apparently. I'd prefer enhanced throughput.
Update 2014.12.30: I've been a Sprint customer since September 2000. I've seen great service and weird, poor service. Lately, it's very good everywhere but home. While I'm feeling just more than neutral about Sprint, Verizon (my mobile hotspot) doesn't really make me feel better, and the stories about AT&T and T-Mobile keep me away. YMMV--Your mileage may vary. Do your research.
Update 2015.11.19: The deal is back, mostly. There are more conditions, but I suppose it's a good deal, if you happen to have great coverage where you live.
Speaking of which, Sprint also made a big announcement about 77 locations for their LTE Plus service, which seems to be what they were calling Spark last year. (They were also mentioning LTE Advanced but I'm not sure if they meant that LTE was more advanced than their 3G service or they've actually put the newer technology into place.) If everything is working well, you can get tremendous speed. In fact, they had the service in town for a while. I was seeing 38 Mbps, up from 1-2 Mbps and then, a month later, it was gone and the old service had been restored. (I believe that they took the equipment back to their city of Overland Park, Kansas to help themselves.)
It was quite a bit better than the 7 Mbps that I normally see on my Verizon mobile hotspot, and Verizon still hasn't announced where they have their enhanced two frequency service--only that it exists.
Re/Code
CrackBerry
Consumerist
DSL Reports
I'm not sure that there is a real story or not. I don't expect miracles anyway. The big two have been working a little bit more to be balance plans with service. However, if you get great coverage where you are--watch out for fake coverage maps from any of the big 4--Sprint should be a good deal. Now that Nextel is all but dead and the 800 MHz frequency band is available, there is a huge chance that Sprint could be dominant in certain markets. There are Spark areas like Milpitas, CA where Sprint is using 800 MHz, 1900 MHz, and 2500 MHz combined.
Verizon has dual frequency bands with their XLTE but who knows what device you need to make it work right now. I've searched multiple times to see if my current mobile hotspot will take advantage of it but they're not telling apparently. I'd prefer enhanced throughput.
Update 2014.12.30: I've been a Sprint customer since September 2000. I've seen great service and weird, poor service. Lately, it's very good everywhere but home. While I'm feeling just more than neutral about Sprint, Verizon (my mobile hotspot) doesn't really make me feel better, and the stories about AT&T and T-Mobile keep me away. YMMV--Your mileage may vary. Do your research.
Update 2015.11.19: The deal is back, mostly. There are more conditions, but I suppose it's a good deal, if you happen to have great coverage where you live.
Speaking of which, Sprint also made a big announcement about 77 locations for their LTE Plus service, which seems to be what they were calling Spark last year. (They were also mentioning LTE Advanced but I'm not sure if they meant that LTE was more advanced than their 3G service or they've actually put the newer technology into place.) If everything is working well, you can get tremendous speed. In fact, they had the service in town for a while. I was seeing 38 Mbps, up from 1-2 Mbps and then, a month later, it was gone and the old service had been restored. (I believe that they took the equipment back to their city of Overland Park, Kansas to help themselves.)
It was quite a bit better than the 7 Mbps that I normally see on my Verizon mobile hotspot, and Verizon still hasn't announced where they have their enhanced two frequency service--only that it exists.
Sprint has decided to hide coverage deficiencies on the map with 100% LTE, then Spark
I came to this area about five months ago. I noticed that the majority of this city of 70,000+ people were covered by 3G, while the adjoining city of 22,000+ had strong LTE. I also noticed that Sprint seemed to be working their way up California SR 99, but skipping this area north of Modesto and resuming near Sacramento.
As time progressed, they added LTE capabilities and they've slowly crept into my apartment, but I'm still at many times seeing 1xRTT as LTE and 3G/EVDO fight over my phone.
I mentioned this to @sprintcare a while back, noting the huge roaming area encompassing the shopping area on the east side of the city. I was told to look at AIRRAVE as an option. It isn't a portable option and it doesn't fix the lack of coverage. It could only cover it up. Since that conversation, I started another with @sprintcare, as I noticed that the map showed LTE coverage while the behavior of the network had not changed.
They told me that there were no towers in the area. I told them that the maps didn't show that any longer. They told me to look again and again. I finally made screenshots of the map at the cross streets I told them, and the map near my apartment, on the edge of the roaming area. They never replied.
It's apparent that marketing is more important than truth. I assume my previous conversation about the roaming area caused them to falsify results on the coverage map. What else (and where else) have they modified the truth?
Update 2015.01.23: Two days ago, there was almost no service and my phone spent almost the whole day on roaming, not only near home, which wouldn't be unusual, but in other areas where LTE is usually strong. According to an acquaintance on Sprint, service was also bad there, so apparently, it was up and down California SR 99, not just where I live.
What was naturally amusing is that @sprintcare told me that there were no reported problems. Cable company, much? I made the comment that since September 2000 when I became a Sprint customer they only admitted to one problem. Later, they decided that there was an outage. They didn't mention that it was over multiple cities.
I was shocked to find that they updated the map to show Spark, not only over my city, but the highest performance over my apartment. It was amusing to see 1xRTT while viewing the new coverage map details. I believe that they might have a plan for Spark here, but I think they're jumping the gun with their marketing efforts. With the roaming hole, they shouldn't be able to claim coverage anyway but their map legend has no extra provision for Spark or LTE roaming.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have three frequency LTE coverage? I haven't exactly seen it working yet, although parts of the San Francisco Bay Area are working quite well. I've seen something upwards of 30 Mbps on occasion. I'd be really impressed to see upwards of 70 Mbps, especially since Verizon is working on two frequency LTE coverage, on capable devices, which my MiFi 5510L is not.
Update 2015.05.16: Spark is apparently working in parts of this town. I saw 30+ Mbps a couple of miles west of my apartment. I'm still struggling to keep a signal at home, and end up with 1xRTT or No Service far too often. I've been told that I should take my phone to be serviced. This is like "The problem is in your set." responses from the cable company that won't acknowledge their problems.
I would imagine that my service would be just fine here, if they had the other tower emplacement.
Update 2015.11.13: They apparently removed the new equipment about a month after it was working and restored the old equipment. I'm guessing that they wanted to show that they had the coverage, but only planned to map it and remove it, probably so that they could help the area around the headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas.
It is a good idea to give their employees good service, especially since they aren't paying full price for services. That way they can claim that there is no problem with service, because they have no problem with service. It's a bit like Congress--if the executives had to live with our poor conditions, they'd probably be willing to do more for the everyday people.
Parts of the San Francisco Bay Area are very good, but there is no consistency there.
As time progressed, they added LTE capabilities and they've slowly crept into my apartment, but I'm still at many times seeing 1xRTT as LTE and 3G/EVDO fight over my phone.
I mentioned this to @sprintcare a while back, noting the huge roaming area encompassing the shopping area on the east side of the city. I was told to look at AIRRAVE as an option. It isn't a portable option and it doesn't fix the lack of coverage. It could only cover it up. Since that conversation, I started another with @sprintcare, as I noticed that the map showed LTE coverage while the behavior of the network had not changed.
They told me that there were no towers in the area. I told them that the maps didn't show that any longer. They told me to look again and again. I finally made screenshots of the map at the cross streets I told them, and the map near my apartment, on the edge of the roaming area. They never replied.
 |
| What roaming area? |
 |
| What roaming area? |
It's apparent that marketing is more important than truth. I assume my previous conversation about the roaming area caused them to falsify results on the coverage map. What else (and where else) have they modified the truth?
Update 2015.01.23: Two days ago, there was almost no service and my phone spent almost the whole day on roaming, not only near home, which wouldn't be unusual, but in other areas where LTE is usually strong. According to an acquaintance on Sprint, service was also bad there, so apparently, it was up and down California SR 99, not just where I live.
What was naturally amusing is that @sprintcare told me that there were no reported problems. Cable company, much? I made the comment that since September 2000 when I became a Sprint customer they only admitted to one problem. Later, they decided that there was an outage. They didn't mention that it was over multiple cities.
 |
| Turbo 1xRTT? Spark? I wish. |
 |
| 3G map shows roaming area |
 |
| Voice is fair but data is 100%? |
I was shocked to find that they updated the map to show Spark, not only over my city, but the highest performance over my apartment. It was amusing to see 1xRTT while viewing the new coverage map details. I believe that they might have a plan for Spark here, but I think they're jumping the gun with their marketing efforts. With the roaming hole, they shouldn't be able to claim coverage anyway but their map legend has no extra provision for Spark or LTE roaming.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to have three frequency LTE coverage? I haven't exactly seen it working yet, although parts of the San Francisco Bay Area are working quite well. I've seen something upwards of 30 Mbps on occasion. I'd be really impressed to see upwards of 70 Mbps, especially since Verizon is working on two frequency LTE coverage, on capable devices, which my MiFi 5510L is not.
Update 2015.05.16: Spark is apparently working in parts of this town. I saw 30+ Mbps a couple of miles west of my apartment. I'm still struggling to keep a signal at home, and end up with 1xRTT or No Service far too often. I've been told that I should take my phone to be serviced. This is like "The problem is in your set." responses from the cable company that won't acknowledge their problems.
I would imagine that my service would be just fine here, if they had the other tower emplacement.
Update 2015.11.13: They apparently removed the new equipment about a month after it was working and restored the old equipment. I'm guessing that they wanted to show that they had the coverage, but only planned to map it and remove it, probably so that they could help the area around the headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas.
It is a good idea to give their employees good service, especially since they aren't paying full price for services. That way they can claim that there is no problem with service, because they have no problem with service. It's a bit like Congress--if the executives had to live with our poor conditions, they'd probably be willing to do more for the everyday people.
Parts of the San Francisco Bay Area are very good, but there is no consistency there.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Panasonic GH4 vs GH3 vs Olympus E-M1 (vs GX8?)
I've had the Panasonic GH4 a little over a week now. I just did some video clips yesterday, pretty much for the first time, although I took a couple of video clips with the GH3.
I had the GH3 for over a year and wanted to trade it before the trade-in value dropped too far. Unfortunately, it took a while to get a GH4.
I was enthusiastic about the changes to the GH4 because the GH3 was occasionally inconvenient, particularly, the EVF. Given that the GH3 was the first mirror-less camera body I'd ever used, getting used to the electronic viewfinder was difficult enough, but it always felt a bit broken.
I even had a problem when I was wearing non-polarized sunglasses where the viewfinder at some angles would be blacked out. I seemed to have a similar problem with the Olympus E-M1, but that seems occasionally to be a problem with the proximity sensor. I realized that when I saw the image on the rear display.
In any case, the viewfinder of the GH4 seems much better. There may be some odd behavior but I've only noticed positive results. As usual, the viewfinder is so bright that I can see better than just using my eyes. Despite the size difference between the E-M1 (0.71x compared to 135 Format) and GH4 (0.67x), I find the GH4's viewfinder to be very good. Size is not an issue. It is surprising that 1024x768 is an advanced resolution for an EVF. The FujiFilm X-T1's viewfinder is bigger at 0.77x but doesn't seem incredibly better to me, though I don't use it every day. The GH4's functionality is good enough that I could give up optical viewfinders, and that is difficult for me to believe.
Just today, I had a positive experience with the GH4's magnified manual focus view, unlike that of the GH3. My experience with focus, whether manual or automatic was difficult on the GH3. I was just moving from optical viewfinders and the resolution on the GH3 viewfinder was not great, and the distortions were not helping. Plus, the magnified view was just a huge problem, getting in the way of my ability to follow the action while focusing. Using the GH4, the magnified view was shown in the center, and I was able to see around it to keep up with the action. It's apparently possible that you can move it to suit you.
The battery is the same as the battery of the GH3, and the GH4 seems to sip battery power, though I generally leave the rear display in the closed position, rarely browsing what I have just taken. I wish that I could have done this with the E-M1. Its economical design seemed more of an attempt to use already-available parts than to create a serious replacement for the E-5 dSLR, for which it seems Panasonic created, with the GH3.
The rear display of the E-M1 can't be protected because it can't be reversed. It can be accidentally activated (far too easily, though I'm adapting), especially showing the focus point selection display, further depleting the battery life needlessly. Practically the first thing I noticed when I got the E-M1 was that I could not fold out the rear display to take a portrait-oriented photo of a building from a very low angle. You can slide it down or flip it up, but it shows a consumer-oriented display mechanism, unlike that of the E-5, GH3, or GH4. Of course, my E-1's rear display couldn't be reversed either, but that came with a plastic screen protector and of course, didn't have touch capabilities.
The E-M1 does not seem to sip battery power, and my first experiences with the camera body was that I would run out of power early, and end up being a door stop, and I would have to get the E-5 out of the bag. As the battery is small, so is the grip. I have acclimated to the E-M1's grip, but it can be uncomfortable coming from a dSLR, unlike the GH3 and GH4 grip.
Using each body, I find myself referring to every SLR, all the way back to my first Fujica SLR but focusing on the Olympus E-1, my first dSLR, which felt instantly intuitive. The GH3 and GH4 have the drive mode selector on the left shoulder of the top plate. I feel it might be better to have exposure controls there, including ISO and exposure compensation.
As well, Olympus should have done something similar with the E-M1, assigning it to aperture control rather than having the front dial assigned to exposure compensation. It was uncomfortable moving to the E-M1 from the E-5, and there are still times when it has been unintuitive, making for accidental changes that I didn't want.
I could hope that all companies come to use a standardized menu interface, but it feels that it won't happen any time soon. Olympus' Super Control Panel is really amazing, and Panasonic's Quick Menu is satisfactory. The regular menu systems are the opposite with Panasonic's being more easily navigated, in contrast to those from Olympus (8 levels within the Tools Menu, seriously, Olympus?). The extra video options on the GH4 should make professional people working in video happier.
I've recorded a few videos and it went well. Outdoors, it looked very real in 1080p, much like some documentary. Indoors, there was a similar feel, even though it wasn't extremely bright. Having been at the skate shop and their half pipe a couple of weeks earlier with the E-M1, I was surprised at how responsive and accurate the GH4 was. I used the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens in both cases.
Checking the photos and videos later, I was so pleased that the focus was great, surprisingly great. The photos and videos looked as though there was much more light than what the E-M1 had.
While I was taking video, I tapped the shutter release a couple of times and ended up finding two JPEG files. I need to analyze them further, but they were taken at unfortunate times and I wouldn't be able to use them.
There was a problem for me finding the button for video recording, but even when I left my thumb on it, I wasn't always able to start or stop recording when I expected. It's recessed to avoid accidental use. I'm sure I'll become acclimated to it eventually. I was thinking that it might be better if the video capture button was near the shutter release--in the front.
Many people value image stabilization and it may save me at some time. I haven't noticed that it works or not, whether it's in a lens or working the sensor platform. With the GH4 (and previously, the GH3) and 12-40mm f/2.8, I have no image stabilization, and I don't see any problem. I finally bought a tripod about a year ago, and I've used it so few times. When photographing sports in lower light situations, what will help other than more lighting?
At ISO 3200, you probably don't want to use the photos as your best work but from what I've seen, that could also be the story for APS-C and 135 Format sized sensors, as well, except for a very select few that include ISO sensitivity at 102,400 or greater. Regardless, film didn't do so well at ISO 3200--or 1600 or 1000.
Panasonic GH3 Pros:
Panasonic GH4 Pros:
Olympus E-M1 Pros:
I appreciate the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4 equally. The extra money for the GH4 is consistent with its extra functionality and ease of use. While I felt a bit betrayed by Olympus for the mess they created after the E-1 (Four-Thirds) body was released, the E-M1 is a very good camera body on its own, but with micro Four-Thirds lenses. 10 fps (E-M1) vs 12 fps (GH4)? They both work really well. I've seen plenty of reviews that say that none of these bodies are good for sports but I get my shots, though the GH3 made it much tougher and caused me to return to the E-5 dSLR in many cases. The only real problem is the lack of wonderful lenses but Olympus is working on that.
The GH3 should be a great body for anyone who is interested in high quality 1080p video, with still photography on the side. The price has come down quite a bit and it's a good compromise, especially with the fully-articulated rear display. I was able to get some good architectural photos at a very low angle, thanks to it.
I'm not even sure that the E-M1's video capabilities have improved over the E-5 and without the fully-articulated rear display, it's not nearly as flexible. Still photography is its domain and for the size of both the body and the system's lenses, I doubt there is a better compromise.
That said, the E-M1 is now the second most used body in my bag, rather than the E-5. I doubt that will change once I'm more accustomed to the GH4. It is both supremely comfortable and it's extremely capable. The little problems I had with the GH3 seem to have been fixed.
Update 2014.12.13: I've found that the GH4 and E-M1 really automatically focus micro Four-Thirds lenses well (although there is an odd performance issue between the E-M1 and 35-100mm f/2.8). I'm seeing mixed results with my Four-Thirds lenses. The E-M1 and 50mm f/2.0 macro are a great match. The E-M1 works better with the 50mm lens than any other body, including the Olympus E-1 and E-5. I need to really plan and test, but my 2004 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 wasn't very good with the E-M1. I suspect that Olympus only tested with the SWD version. It seemed that it worked well with the GH4.
As I'd found when I was using the GH3, auto focus was better with my Four-Thirds lenses than with the E-1 in low or ordinary light. My E-1 may have had a problem with auto focus, though it seemed okay in bright light. The E-5 is still faster with Four-Thirds lenses than the GH4, GH3, or E-M1, except with the 50mm macro. The 14-35mm f/2.0 is often a pain with auto focus but usally works reasonably well even with the GH4 and E-M1.
Update 2014.12.26: The GH4, as with the GH3, often focuses on something else entirely than what I put in the focus area. It often finds a fence way behind the person I want to photograph. Apparently, face detection is not useful.
Update 2014.12.30: Panasonic Face Detection asks me to register a face when I try to use it. If this happens every time I need to use it, it's going to be a pain. I hope it works beautifully.
I shot some 4K video the other day. I tried to pass it through the Sony 4K-upscaling Blu-Ray player and it wouldn't handle it. Maybe, it didn't like the file format. I need to transfer to a USB stick and feed it directly through the TV's port. That works.
Still having more fun/frustration with the auto focus. It seems to randomly lose focus in the middle of what I'm shooting. For a professional, it shouldn't be a problem since they won't likely be using auto focus at all--or the native lenses that suppose auto focus. I'm learning, although, I'm looking at lenses that aren't native or those which won't have an electronic interface.
Update 2015.01.20: I went to take some portraits. I'm not a portrait photographer but the E-M1 is quite good, partly because of face detection. Focus rarely fails. I really need to set up face detection on the GH4 to see how it works with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.
I keep wondering about the value of Panasonic going it alone with their DFD technology only working on their lenses. They need to work with Olympus for the sake of the format. On the other hand, I've noticed the slower performance between the 35-100mm f/2.8 on the E-M1 versus the GH3 or GH4.
Update 2015.02.09: The GH4 continues to impress in most cases. The auto focus is still a bit inaccurate (focusing on the fence behind a person rather than the person where the single focus point is place) and it would be better if it worked better with Olympus lenses since the premium Panasonic lenses are generally only adequate. That said, I bought the Panasonic/Lumix/Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens the other day. It has the typical purple fringing that seems to define Panasonic lenses but AF is almost always accurate.
I took a trip down south to San Diego and the LA/OC area, photographing at skate parks, both still and video. I also used the GH4 and Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 at a small concert venue and it performed very well, and I managed to hold it fairly still. Even though I was close to the speaker, it recorded the sound very well, and the video was good.
I bought some new USB drives, with USB 3.0 speed and copied the 4K video files onto one of them. After connecting it to the USB 3.0 port on the TV, I didn't really see improved performance. I'm just not sure the problem is with the TV or the GH4, given that they cost me about the same amount of money. There was something in Panasonic's latest firmware for the GH4 that mentioned improved playback of 4K files but I figured that it was for the rear display or the viewfinder.
Update 2015.12.11: Things have changed a bit in a year. The Panasonic GX8 and Nikon D7200 have moved the E-5 out of my current tools. In many ways, I have regretted buying the E-5. Until the GH4 or E-M1, there was no incredibly-usable alternative for my Four-Thirds lenses.
I looked at jumping to Nikon instead of buying the E-5 but the price of lenses was so significant that I hesitated, and the D300 was looking old in 2011. Since I now have the D7200, I'm not sure a Nikon body would have made me feel really good about the switch. While I get good image quality from the D7200, it isn't a clear difference over the E-M1 and GH4. It also doesn't work as well in lower light conditions.
The GX8 works in most conditions as well as the GH4 and E-M1. It's really small and the battery has about the same capacity as the E-M1, which isn't much. Since the rear display isn't exposed, that should save a bit of battery life. I have three batteries, as I have for the E-M1, versus two for the GH4.
I still pull out the GH4 first, as I've created over 120 videos in the last 12 months, mostly from video clips shot at skate parks. The GX8 has become a good companion to the GH4 for video. I used the E-M1 so much in a year that I had to have the shutter replaced, as I had apparently exceeded the 150,000 actuations. At 10 frames per second, that isn't difficult to do.
Almost all of my equipment is still weather-sealed and the GX8 adds to that. One of my most-used lenses, the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens is not.
Update 2016.11.24: Almost two years from when I got the GH4, I'm pleased to use it the most. I have over 100 videos on YouTube and appreciate the body's size and weight and battery life. The GX8 is fine at times but the grip doesn't quite match my hands, even if it's better than the E-M1's grip. Battery life for the E-M1 and GX8 are fairly bad.
I got rid of the Nikon stuff. It was marginally better with the lenses I had. Finding weather-sealed lenses was a major problem. Some of the lenses had a fluorine-coated front lens element and that was the extent to the weather-resistance. That's sadly amusing. You can depend on FujiFilm and Pentax for APS-C systems with clearly marked "WR" weather-resistant lenses. Sigma Sport line lenses are also weather-resistant.
The Olympus E-M1 has been succeeded with a Mk II model that is superior in most every way. The price is the sticking point for many people. In an era of almost zero inflation, the E-M1 Mk II is US$300 than Olympus dSLR flagships and something like US$700 more than the E-M1 was at launch. It feels as though the extensive AF grid will make it worth the extra $300 over what I expected and the dual card slots, articulated rear display, and more show real value. It's still a difficult price if you're moving from the E-5 dSLR, especially when the Panasonic GH4 feels so much better.
I'm glad to be using micro Four-Thirds for exactly what the reviews say isn't easily possible--sports. I don't know how other people photograph sports, but what I've seen people show me needs to be improved. For American Football, they can keep their Nikon D5. It's obvious that it works well.
I had the GH3 for over a year and wanted to trade it before the trade-in value dropped too far. Unfortunately, it took a while to get a GH4.
I was enthusiastic about the changes to the GH4 because the GH3 was occasionally inconvenient, particularly, the EVF. Given that the GH3 was the first mirror-less camera body I'd ever used, getting used to the electronic viewfinder was difficult enough, but it always felt a bit broken.
I even had a problem when I was wearing non-polarized sunglasses where the viewfinder at some angles would be blacked out. I seemed to have a similar problem with the Olympus E-M1, but that seems occasionally to be a problem with the proximity sensor. I realized that when I saw the image on the rear display.
In any case, the viewfinder of the GH4 seems much better. There may be some odd behavior but I've only noticed positive results. As usual, the viewfinder is so bright that I can see better than just using my eyes. Despite the size difference between the E-M1 (0.71x compared to 135 Format) and GH4 (0.67x), I find the GH4's viewfinder to be very good. Size is not an issue. It is surprising that 1024x768 is an advanced resolution for an EVF. The FujiFilm X-T1's viewfinder is bigger at 0.77x but doesn't seem incredibly better to me, though I don't use it every day. The GH4's functionality is good enough that I could give up optical viewfinders, and that is difficult for me to believe.
Just today, I had a positive experience with the GH4's magnified manual focus view, unlike that of the GH3. My experience with focus, whether manual or automatic was difficult on the GH3. I was just moving from optical viewfinders and the resolution on the GH3 viewfinder was not great, and the distortions were not helping. Plus, the magnified view was just a huge problem, getting in the way of my ability to follow the action while focusing. Using the GH4, the magnified view was shown in the center, and I was able to see around it to keep up with the action. It's apparently possible that you can move it to suit you.
The battery is the same as the battery of the GH3, and the GH4 seems to sip battery power, though I generally leave the rear display in the closed position, rarely browsing what I have just taken. I wish that I could have done this with the E-M1. Its economical design seemed more of an attempt to use already-available parts than to create a serious replacement for the E-5 dSLR, for which it seems Panasonic created, with the GH3.
The rear display of the E-M1 can't be protected because it can't be reversed. It can be accidentally activated (far too easily, though I'm adapting), especially showing the focus point selection display, further depleting the battery life needlessly. Practically the first thing I noticed when I got the E-M1 was that I could not fold out the rear display to take a portrait-oriented photo of a building from a very low angle. You can slide it down or flip it up, but it shows a consumer-oriented display mechanism, unlike that of the E-5, GH3, or GH4. Of course, my E-1's rear display couldn't be reversed either, but that came with a plastic screen protector and of course, didn't have touch capabilities.
The E-M1 does not seem to sip battery power, and my first experiences with the camera body was that I would run out of power early, and end up being a door stop, and I would have to get the E-5 out of the bag. As the battery is small, so is the grip. I have acclimated to the E-M1's grip, but it can be uncomfortable coming from a dSLR, unlike the GH3 and GH4 grip.
Using each body, I find myself referring to every SLR, all the way back to my first Fujica SLR but focusing on the Olympus E-1, my first dSLR, which felt instantly intuitive. The GH3 and GH4 have the drive mode selector on the left shoulder of the top plate. I feel it might be better to have exposure controls there, including ISO and exposure compensation.
As well, Olympus should have done something similar with the E-M1, assigning it to aperture control rather than having the front dial assigned to exposure compensation. It was uncomfortable moving to the E-M1 from the E-5, and there are still times when it has been unintuitive, making for accidental changes that I didn't want.
I could hope that all companies come to use a standardized menu interface, but it feels that it won't happen any time soon. Olympus' Super Control Panel is really amazing, and Panasonic's Quick Menu is satisfactory. The regular menu systems are the opposite with Panasonic's being more easily navigated, in contrast to those from Olympus (8 levels within the Tools Menu, seriously, Olympus?). The extra video options on the GH4 should make professional people working in video happier.
I've recorded a few videos and it went well. Outdoors, it looked very real in 1080p, much like some documentary. Indoors, there was a similar feel, even though it wasn't extremely bright. Having been at the skate shop and their half pipe a couple of weeks earlier with the E-M1, I was surprised at how responsive and accurate the GH4 was. I used the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens in both cases.
Checking the photos and videos later, I was so pleased that the focus was great, surprisingly great. The photos and videos looked as though there was much more light than what the E-M1 had.
While I was taking video, I tapped the shutter release a couple of times and ended up finding two JPEG files. I need to analyze them further, but they were taken at unfortunate times and I wouldn't be able to use them.
There was a problem for me finding the button for video recording, but even when I left my thumb on it, I wasn't always able to start or stop recording when I expected. It's recessed to avoid accidental use. I'm sure I'll become acclimated to it eventually. I was thinking that it might be better if the video capture button was near the shutter release--in the front.
Many people value image stabilization and it may save me at some time. I haven't noticed that it works or not, whether it's in a lens or working the sensor platform. With the GH4 (and previously, the GH3) and 12-40mm f/2.8, I have no image stabilization, and I don't see any problem. I finally bought a tripod about a year ago, and I've used it so few times. When photographing sports in lower light situations, what will help other than more lighting?
At ISO 3200, you probably don't want to use the photos as your best work but from what I've seen, that could also be the story for APS-C and 135 Format sized sensors, as well, except for a very select few that include ISO sensitivity at 102,400 or greater. Regardless, film didn't do so well at ISO 3200--or 1600 or 1000.
Panasonic GH3 Pros:
- 1080p image quality and video format/bit rate flexibility
- Video industry support
- Grip comfort and battery life
- Multiple function buttons
- 5 custom sets--3 positions on mode dial
- Fully-articulated rear display
- Silent mode
Panasonic GH4 Pros:
- Lower light auto focus ability and responsiveness
- 4K/C4K video
- Video industry support
- Video format/bit rate flexibility
- Grip comfort and battery life
- Improved EVF over that of the GH3
- Multiple function buttons
- 5 custom sets--3 positions on mode dial
- Fully-articulated rear display
- Manual focus magnification mode
- 1/8000 of a second shutter speed
- Silent mode
Olympus E-M1 Pros:
- 5-axis image stabilization
- Electronic ViewFinder clarity
- Button feature set toggle switch
- Responsiveness
- Phase Detection pixels for tracking, and PDAF with Four-Thirds lenses
- Effective Face detection
- 1/8000 of a second shutter speed
I appreciate the Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4 equally. The extra money for the GH4 is consistent with its extra functionality and ease of use. While I felt a bit betrayed by Olympus for the mess they created after the E-1 (Four-Thirds) body was released, the E-M1 is a very good camera body on its own, but with micro Four-Thirds lenses. 10 fps (E-M1) vs 12 fps (GH4)? They both work really well. I've seen plenty of reviews that say that none of these bodies are good for sports but I get my shots, though the GH3 made it much tougher and caused me to return to the E-5 dSLR in many cases. The only real problem is the lack of wonderful lenses but Olympus is working on that.
The GH3 should be a great body for anyone who is interested in high quality 1080p video, with still photography on the side. The price has come down quite a bit and it's a good compromise, especially with the fully-articulated rear display. I was able to get some good architectural photos at a very low angle, thanks to it.
I'm not even sure that the E-M1's video capabilities have improved over the E-5 and without the fully-articulated rear display, it's not nearly as flexible. Still photography is its domain and for the size of both the body and the system's lenses, I doubt there is a better compromise.
That said, the E-M1 is now the second most used body in my bag, rather than the E-5. I doubt that will change once I'm more accustomed to the GH4. It is both supremely comfortable and it's extremely capable. The little problems I had with the GH3 seem to have been fixed.
Update 2014.12.13: I've found that the GH4 and E-M1 really automatically focus micro Four-Thirds lenses well (although there is an odd performance issue between the E-M1 and 35-100mm f/2.8). I'm seeing mixed results with my Four-Thirds lenses. The E-M1 and 50mm f/2.0 macro are a great match. The E-M1 works better with the 50mm lens than any other body, including the Olympus E-1 and E-5. I need to really plan and test, but my 2004 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 wasn't very good with the E-M1. I suspect that Olympus only tested with the SWD version. It seemed that it worked well with the GH4.
As I'd found when I was using the GH3, auto focus was better with my Four-Thirds lenses than with the E-1 in low or ordinary light. My E-1 may have had a problem with auto focus, though it seemed okay in bright light. The E-5 is still faster with Four-Thirds lenses than the GH4, GH3, or E-M1, except with the 50mm macro. The 14-35mm f/2.0 is often a pain with auto focus but usally works reasonably well even with the GH4 and E-M1.
Update 2014.12.26: The GH4, as with the GH3, often focuses on something else entirely than what I put in the focus area. It often finds a fence way behind the person I want to photograph. Apparently, face detection is not useful.
Update 2014.12.30: Panasonic Face Detection asks me to register a face when I try to use it. If this happens every time I need to use it, it's going to be a pain. I hope it works beautifully.
I shot some 4K video the other day. I tried to pass it through the Sony 4K-upscaling Blu-Ray player and it wouldn't handle it. Maybe, it didn't like the file format. I need to transfer to a USB stick and feed it directly through the TV's port. That works.
Still having more fun/frustration with the auto focus. It seems to randomly lose focus in the middle of what I'm shooting. For a professional, it shouldn't be a problem since they won't likely be using auto focus at all--or the native lenses that suppose auto focus. I'm learning, although, I'm looking at lenses that aren't native or those which won't have an electronic interface.
Update 2015.01.20: I went to take some portraits. I'm not a portrait photographer but the E-M1 is quite good, partly because of face detection. Focus rarely fails. I really need to set up face detection on the GH4 to see how it works with the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens.
I keep wondering about the value of Panasonic going it alone with their DFD technology only working on their lenses. They need to work with Olympus for the sake of the format. On the other hand, I've noticed the slower performance between the 35-100mm f/2.8 on the E-M1 versus the GH3 or GH4.
Update 2015.02.09: The GH4 continues to impress in most cases. The auto focus is still a bit inaccurate (focusing on the fence behind a person rather than the person where the single focus point is place) and it would be better if it worked better with Olympus lenses since the premium Panasonic lenses are generally only adequate. That said, I bought the Panasonic/Lumix/Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens the other day. It has the typical purple fringing that seems to define Panasonic lenses but AF is almost always accurate.
I took a trip down south to San Diego and the LA/OC area, photographing at skate parks, both still and video. I also used the GH4 and Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 at a small concert venue and it performed very well, and I managed to hold it fairly still. Even though I was close to the speaker, it recorded the sound very well, and the video was good.
I bought some new USB drives, with USB 3.0 speed and copied the 4K video files onto one of them. After connecting it to the USB 3.0 port on the TV, I didn't really see improved performance. I'm just not sure the problem is with the TV or the GH4, given that they cost me about the same amount of money. There was something in Panasonic's latest firmware for the GH4 that mentioned improved playback of 4K files but I figured that it was for the rear display or the viewfinder.
Update 2015.12.11: Things have changed a bit in a year. The Panasonic GX8 and Nikon D7200 have moved the E-5 out of my current tools. In many ways, I have regretted buying the E-5. Until the GH4 or E-M1, there was no incredibly-usable alternative for my Four-Thirds lenses.
I looked at jumping to Nikon instead of buying the E-5 but the price of lenses was so significant that I hesitated, and the D300 was looking old in 2011. Since I now have the D7200, I'm not sure a Nikon body would have made me feel really good about the switch. While I get good image quality from the D7200, it isn't a clear difference over the E-M1 and GH4. It also doesn't work as well in lower light conditions.
The GX8 works in most conditions as well as the GH4 and E-M1. It's really small and the battery has about the same capacity as the E-M1, which isn't much. Since the rear display isn't exposed, that should save a bit of battery life. I have three batteries, as I have for the E-M1, versus two for the GH4.
I still pull out the GH4 first, as I've created over 120 videos in the last 12 months, mostly from video clips shot at skate parks. The GX8 has become a good companion to the GH4 for video. I used the E-M1 so much in a year that I had to have the shutter replaced, as I had apparently exceeded the 150,000 actuations. At 10 frames per second, that isn't difficult to do.
Almost all of my equipment is still weather-sealed and the GX8 adds to that. One of my most-used lenses, the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens is not.
Update 2016.11.24: Almost two years from when I got the GH4, I'm pleased to use it the most. I have over 100 videos on YouTube and appreciate the body's size and weight and battery life. The GX8 is fine at times but the grip doesn't quite match my hands, even if it's better than the E-M1's grip. Battery life for the E-M1 and GX8 are fairly bad.
I got rid of the Nikon stuff. It was marginally better with the lenses I had. Finding weather-sealed lenses was a major problem. Some of the lenses had a fluorine-coated front lens element and that was the extent to the weather-resistance. That's sadly amusing. You can depend on FujiFilm and Pentax for APS-C systems with clearly marked "WR" weather-resistant lenses. Sigma Sport line lenses are also weather-resistant.
The Olympus E-M1 has been succeeded with a Mk II model that is superior in most every way. The price is the sticking point for many people. In an era of almost zero inflation, the E-M1 Mk II is US$300 than Olympus dSLR flagships and something like US$700 more than the E-M1 was at launch. It feels as though the extensive AF grid will make it worth the extra $300 over what I expected and the dual card slots, articulated rear display, and more show real value. It's still a difficult price if you're moving from the E-5 dSLR, especially when the Panasonic GH4 feels so much better.
I'm glad to be using micro Four-Thirds for exactly what the reviews say isn't easily possible--sports. I don't know how other people photograph sports, but what I've seen people show me needs to be improved. For American Football, they can keep their Nikon D5. It's obvious that it works well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)