Thoughts of a first-time mFT user - Panasonic GX7

[Manfred M]

Initial thoughts – Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

With a related topic discussing the merits of different camera formats in another thread, so I thought I would share my thoughts as a first time mFT user. After a number of years of shooting full-frame (most of my shooting lifetime, if I count 35mm film, just about 2 years with a DSLR), a 1.5 crop-factor D90 DSLR for about 5 years and about four days, with a mFT. The Panasonic GX7 is not an inexpensive camera and runs at around the same price range as enthusiast level DSLRs.

I had a very good, hard look at the mFT format prior to opting for a DSLR about five years ago. At the time, the format was quite new and the lens selection was still limited. The viewfinder technology was rather primitive and the upgrade path to full-frame was (and still is) non-existent. I was not ready to put down the cash for a full-frame body, so the direction I took was right for me.

I bought a Panasonic AF100 mFT video camera about 4 years ago and bought two lenses, a 14-140mm and 100-300mm lens to use with it. As I tend to shoot more stills than video, having two lenses that get perhaps 100+ hours of shooting a year and spend the rest of the time sitting on a shelf. This has always bothered me a bit, so I have been looking at getting a body to use with these for the last few years. I had been dropping by my friendly neighbourhood camera store (actually it’s downtown) every time a new model came in; i.e. the Olympus and Panasonic offerings. The GX7 caught my attention last fall, but the person in the store suggested that I might want to wait to see what the GH4 (out later this month) would do for me. I was frankly unimpressed by the value of the Olympus models and the lack of in-lens image stabilization. When the spec (and price) of the GH4 came out (ouch!), the decision became a lot easier; so I picked up the GX7 last week.

The reason for buying now is that I am planning one or two backpacking trips later this year, so small is highly desirable. The camera body and lenses are tiny when compared to my D90 and even more so against the D800. I figure a few months of regular shooting will get me on autopilot, even when using some of the more obscure features before we head out on the trips. Right now I am thinking of traveling with just the 14-140mm lens, but because of the relatively marginal low light performance, am thinking of picking up small but fast prime as well (the f/1.7 20mm is getting very good reviews).

I fully admit I’m still near the beginning of the learning curve, but have shot enough to at least make some general observations on usability, image quality, etc. and how they compare to my other gear and the results I’m getting.

Controls / Operability - First of all small means that that there is less real estate on the camera body for controls and buttons, and the ones that are there are smaller than what is seen on crop frame and full frame cameras. This means some of the adjustments I am used to making while looking through the viewfinder are simply not possible. This is really due to their location, and the size of the buttons. This slows down the shooting a bit. Some adjustments that I use all the time via buttons, are out of necessity run through the menu.

Viewfinder - The viewfinder is both a wonder and a disappointment. One of the chief advantages of the mirrorless cameras is that they have done away with the mirror and pentaprism (or pentamirror) and have replaced them with a tiny LCD screen viewfinder. The one in the GX7 is 2.8 million dots and can display the entire AdobeRGB gamut. It can be tilted by up to 90°. The largest advantage is “what you see is what you get”; as the sensor drives the display. I don’t think that the colour accuracy is quite what I would like it to be and in bright light (back-lit) situations it becomes almost useless, especially when shooting with glasses. On the other hand, I can see the entire image without glasses and almost the whole viewfinder with them. The viewfinder is not going to be great for action shots, as there is significant “tearing” during the image refresh. On the other hand, “peaking” focus is available (it has to be turned on) and works extremely well when focusing manually.

Sensor size – The GX7 has a 16MP 17.3 x 13.0 sensor. My D90 has a 12MP 23.6 x 15.8mm sensor and the D800 a 36MP 35.9 x 24mm sensor. The main impacts are going to be that the larger print sizes I tend to use are not going to be up to snuff. Loss of around 2 stops of DoF are also going to result in my shooting images with more focused backgrounds.

Autofocus - Contrast detect autofocus has improved, but is still not in the same class as phase detect. On the D800, the focus seems almost instantaneous (probably in the order of 1/10 sec) and even with the “fast” contrast detect on this camera, I would suggest a best case of ¼ sec, and often slower. Again, not unexpected, but disappointing. This alone will need to improve before the mirrorless design can be considered to be mature.

“Features” - As might be expected as an “enthusiast” level camera (my D90 is marketed at the same user segment), it comes loaded with features that I find to be rather useless (effects, built in panos, HDRI, etc.), but this is to be expected. Trying to strip out the unwanted defaults and setting up a stripped down, simplified setup that I prefer does take some time. The camera is extremely customizable, but I have not found any way to turn off some of the functionality I don’t like (specifically the way the view magnifies while the camera seeks focus).

Being able to natively control the camera through an iPad or Android tablet is a nice feature, something I had to buy a CamRanger for with my D800. While I do use it with the D800, I’m not sure if it is a feature I will use on this camera.

Low Light Performance (high ISO) - While low ISO settings are quite clean (native ISO is 200, ISO125 in “extended” mode), low light performance is anything but stellar with 800 ISO (perhaps 1600) probably as far as I am willing to comfortably push it. Add to that the relatively slow glass that I have, this will be a bit problematic in low-light situations. For a shallow DoF photographer, the loss of around 2-stops is also going to require some adjustment; but I knew that going in, so that is something I was planning on.

Size and weight – that darn thing is almost tiny (part of the attraction for sure) and the weight’s not too bad either. The downside is that image stabilization is even more important than with a heavier camera, where the mass of the camera and lens help damp down some camera shake, but seems a fair trade-off. In-lens stabilization works well and I can’t comment on the in-body stabilization, as I don’t have any lenses without it. That being said, Panasonic puts out a Leica – mFT adaptor, so I’ll be able to use all of my Leica glass on it.

Conclusions – I guess I did my research and things have panned out about where I felt they would. In spite of some comments made in a recent post, the mFT mirrorless cameras are not yet a match for the classic crop frame DSLRs. I can’t comment on the larger Sony bodies, as I haven’t taken more than a few shots with one; but suspect that focus speed might be an issue. I expect that the wide DoF might be of interest to macro shooters, but the viewfinder performance and high ISO noise will keep the birders and casual wildlife photographers away (I have the Lumix f/4 – 5.6 100-300mm lens, which give a FF equivalent of 600mm).

Fun, portable, light weight, usable and very good image quality; especially at smaller sizes (posting on the internet and A4 / 8-1/2” x 11” formats) and shooting at lower ISO settings.

On the other hand, if you want to maximize image quality at a similar price and you are fine with having a slightly heavier and bulkier camera, stick with the 1.5 to 1.6 crop facture DSLRs.

[thequacksoflife]

Manfred

I'd agree with much of what you say but a few things intrigued me about high iso. If I remember rightly the d90 has the same sensor as the D300?? and my own findings suggest that the gx7 is better at high iso than the d300. Not in the same league as the Fuji x-trans sensor I'd agree and probably a stop worse than the 16mp APSC Sony sensor. I'd imagine that the 16mp m4/3 sensors perform similarly noise wise to the current 24 mp Sony/Toshiba sensors. Certainly the Olympus E-M5 has a 16mp Sony sensor and this is probably a crop of the 24 mp sony sensor, I think I'm right in saying that the d7100's 1.3 crop makes the 24mp sensor in it the equivalent of a 16mp m4/3.

I'm puzzled why the lack of in lens stabilisation bothers you about the Olympus cameras. The Olympus crew RAVE about the 5 axis in body IS All your lenses are therefore stabilised?? confused.

If you shoot video i'd have thought the GH4 would have impressed you. The pro video crowd seem really impressed not just with 4k but the 1080p as well.

The 20mm is nice, some prefer the 17 f1.8 from Olympus. The 14-140 is probably as good as the Nikon 18-200 (a friend much prefers it to the Canon 18-200)

I sort of disagree with your last comment (well I would I ditched APSC) When I look at the IQ from the Canon crop sensors in reviews from say Imaging Resource they seem little/if any better than the top m4/3 and yes m4/3 are behind the Sony/Tosh APSC sensors BUT the killer for me was lenses. Oh look another 18-xxx lens yawn. The APSC crowd have been ignored by Nikon/Canon/Sony.

Definitely for BIF the AF performance is not there yet but you can get the occasional usable shot.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Sv47-nzwqA...Image00010.jpg

I am of course only talking about APSC. Full Frame totally different issue

Curiously I just came across this regards the GH4

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...c-gh4A.HTM#IQC

[Venser]

In spite of some comments made in a recent post, the mFT mirrorless cameras are not yet a match for the classic crop frame DSLRs.

After enlarging a number of photos (36" x 24") from my E-M5, I'm putting my Nikon D700 along with the zoom trifecta plus all my primes up for sale. I can't tell a difference other than size and weight of the equipment I carry.

[Mike Buckley]

A very thorough write-up, Manfred. I'm sure I won't be the only person to be grateful for your time and attention to detail.

Thanks to that, I can immediately see that the mFT format is not in my immediate future. Though my wife and I enjoy hiking, we only hike about five or six hours at a time before returning to our hotel or apartment for dinner and wine. So, our need for lighter equipment is not as important. Moreover, imagine me telling my wife that I want a lighter camera system, when she, who is about 60% of my size, already carries a heavier backpack than I do because she carries the binoculars and our water among other items.

[davidedric]

Thanks, Manfred. A comprehensive and thoughtful post. As another recent entrant to m4/3 I recognise much of what you say, but have somewhat different conclusions. It's a bit late here now, but I plan to marshal my thoughts and offer a parallel narrative.

Best regards,

Dave

[Shadowman]

one advantage of the MFT is that it fits well with some venues where the DSLR just seems a bit out of place, namely block club parties, definitely museums, and sometimes tightly packed parades.

[ajohnw]

You have already had disagreement posted Manfred and i wont add any more other than frankly your post doesn't in any way reflect the actual characteristics of the format.

I feel I should also add that you have bought a camera that may well be smaller than all or at least many of the others so why say it's difficult to use. The choice was yours. It actually dwarfed by your lenses. When you mentioned what you had bought I was rather surprised. Both manufacturers offer a wide choice of camera styles.

When some one buys m 4/3 they have 2 rather basic choices. A compact style camera or one that offers very similar functionality to a dslr. I own both. The reason for the last one is control even though my compact style camera isn't too bad. Some are little more than compacts. Some are too small for what is on them - best sort this out before buying.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Manfred I'd agree with much of what you say but a few things intrigued me about high iso. If I remember rightly the d90 has the same sensor as the D300?? and my own findings suggest that the gx7 is better at high iso than the d300. Not in the same league as the Fuji x-trans sensor I'd agree and probably a stop worse than the 16mp APSC Sony sensor. I'd imagine that the 16mp m4/3 sensors perform similarly noise wise to the current 24 mp Sony/Toshiba sensors. Certainly the Olympus E-M5 has a 16mp Sony sensor and this is probably a crop of the 24 mp sony sensor, I think I'm right in saying that the d7100's 1.3 crop makes the 24mp sensor in it the equivalent of a 16mp m4/3.

My observation is based on the single print I made and frankly it surprised me as well. The quality was about the same as I get out of my D90, and the GX7 being a lot newer should have had a better result. From what I’ve read, Panasonic kept with a more traditional sensor design with additional design and layout optimizations, rather than going with a back-lit design like the newer Sony sensors and the quality improvements over the previous generation appear to be incremental.
Now that I’m back home and have access to all of my equipment, I am going to repeat to see why I got this result.
The D7100, is a 1.5 crop, not a 1.3, by the way.

I'm puzzled why the lack of in lens stabilisation bothers you about the Olympus cameras. The Olympus crew RAVE about the 5 axis in body IS All your lenses are therefore stabilised?? confused.

First of all 5-axis is marketing babble; it’s three axis design plain and simple; x-y-z. Counting simulated “rotation” by simultaneous motion in two axes at once does not add additional axes. From a design standpoint, I prefer the in-lens implementation; it is more robust approach. I have a mechanical engineering / design engineering background, so I base my views on preferring a solution that is technically more robust.

I can understand why Sony (with all of the legacy Konica-Minolta glass) went this way and to some extent I can understand that Olympus might have tried to do this to reduce lens costs, but this does not seem to be reflected in end-product pricing. Yes, both of my lenses have in-lens stabilization.

If you shoot video i'd have thought the GH4 would have impressed you. The pro video crowd seem really impressed not just with 4k but the 1080p as well.

Actually I’m quite impressed by the GH4; the only thing that does not impress is the price. In order to turn it into a usable camera with XLR input (i.e. phantom power microphone input), one needs to add the interface unit that doubles the price. I’m simply not in the market for this type of gear right now.
The other issue with 4k is that it is still a fairly new technology and I tend to wait for at least one full generation before investing in the new technology. I’m not convinced that the 4k approach is going to catch on; remember 3-D, DAT, HD-DVD and all the other technologies that never got traction.

The 20mm is nice, some prefer the 17 f1.8 from Olympus. The 14-140 is probably as good as the Nikon 18-200 (a friend much prefers it to the Canon 18-200)

Performance of the 14-140mm seems very similar to my wife’s Nikon 18-200mm.

I almost bought the camera with the f/1.7 20mm, but decided not to at the last minute. I’m still working on figuring out if I need a fast fixed lens. The Leica Suummilux f/1.7 15mm and f/1.4 25mm also look interesting, albeit a touch more expensive and heavier than the Panasonic pancake design. The Olympus f/1.7 17mm and 25mm are also possibilities.

I sort of disagree with your last comment (well I would I ditched APSC) When I look at the IQ from the Canon crop sensors in reviews from say Imaging Resource they seem little/if any better than the top m4/3 and yes m4/3 are behind the Sony/Tosh APSC sensors BUT the killer for me was lenses. Oh look another 18-xxx lens yawn. The APSC crowd have been ignored by Nikon/Canon/Sony.

Sorry, I can’t comment on the Canons as I have only shot my brother’s cameras a couple of times. My issue is that most of my shooting is with the three f/2.8 Nikon pro lenses (14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm).

I agree that the APS-C line has been ignored over the past year by Canon and Nikon, but certainly not Sony. Frankly, if I were starting from scratch, the mirrorless camera I liked best is the Sony NEX-7. It is a bit larger than the Pen and GX7, but still smaller than the DSLRs.

I’m not quite sure where Canon was going, but Nikon seemed to be heading into the Nikon 1 line for the lower and mid-end amateur market and stripped down full-frame cameras (D600 / D610) for the enthusiasts. Unfortunately for them, the Nikon 1 concept never really caught on in North America and Europe (although it seems to be quite successful in Asia), so that shredded that concept.

Definitely for BIF the AF performance is not there yet but you can get the occasional usable shot.

Agreed, and to me this just means learning to work with this constraint. I’m not too concerned about subjects that are not moving too much, but I was not impressed with my efforts on moving subjects (i.e. a friend’s dog and some people shots).

[inkista]

Manfred, welcome to the club!

Some thoughts.

Right now I am thinking of traveling with just the 14-140mm lens, but because of the relatively marginal low light performance, am thinking of picking up small but fast prime as well (the f/1.7 20mm is getting very good reviews).

I love the 20/1.7 pancake, but you may also want to consider the new Oly m.Zuiko 25/1.8 and 17/1.8, as they're around the same price neighborhood. [edit: ah. I see you already know this.]

Controls / Operability - First of all small means that that there is less real estate on the camera body for controls and buttons, and the ones that are there are smaller than what is seen on crop frame and full frame cameras.

I'm considering getting a GX-7 myself. How's the "dial" around the shutter button? I desperately miss having a dual-wheel system of some kind on my cheapie G3, and something's obviously better than nothing, but is it usable or annoying?

... Some adjustments that I use all the time via buttons, are out of necessity run through the menu.

Do not forget, however, that you now have access to the full menu through the viewfinder, so using the menu does not necessitate taking the camera down from your face. In addition, the touchscreen interface, and quick access panels can cut down menu diving annoyance to a large degree. Whether you shoot Olympus or Panasonic, nearly the first piece of advice to any newb is to learn to use the quick access panel/menus, rather than the default menus. And no, you're not imagining it. The Pansonic menus are demented. Not as bad as Olympus's , but still pretty bad compared to Canon/Nikon.

Also, have you played with autofocus point selection via touchscreen yet?

One thing I will note is that you don't yet have any fast primes for the format, and that's actually where these cameras really shine--particularly for wide-to-short-telephoto lengths. I think you'll end up nudging your idea of the format's performance upwards a little when you get your hands on one.

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks for the insight, Manfred. ISO performance will prevent any of the smaller formats from being a consideration for me personally for serious photography for at least a couple of more sensor generations. For general purpose photography, I think they are the way to go. Just wish the controls were easier/more familiar. I have a Nikon V1 and it alone will make the upcoming three week trip to Europe with us. When size/weight is THE priority, there's no contest.

[Manfred M]

You have already had disagreement posted Manfred and i wont add any more other than frankly your post doesn't in any way reflect the actual characteristics of the format.

I feel I should also add that you have bought a camera that may well be smaller than all or at least many of the others so why say it's difficult to use. The choice was yours. It actually dwarfed by your lenses. When you mentioned what you had bought I was rather surprised. Both manufacturers offer a wide choice of camera styles.

When some one buys m 4/3 they have 2 rather basic choices. A compact style camera or one that offers very similar functionality to a dslr. I own both. The reason for the last one is control even though my compact style camera isn't too bad. Some are little more than compacts. Some are too small for what is on them - best sort this out before buying.

John
-

John - I have no issues agreeing to disagree.

I personally feel there is a role for the format; after all I just shelled out $1000 last week to buy a GX7 body, after a lot of research.

I handled the full Panasonic and Olympus lines at the camera store and I feel that all of the bodies are quite small compared to crop factor DSLRs (and tiny compared to my full-frame body). The mechanical design of having to house the mirror chamber and pentaprism / mirror and autofocus modules result in a larger body, which means there is more room for controls.

Yes, there are two basic designs in the higher end mFT; the quasi-DSLR look found in the OM-D and GH3/4 formats and the quasi-rangefinder look of the E-P5 and GX7. The quasi-DSLR are a touch larger than the quasi-rangefinder camera, but still smaller than the crop-frame DSLRs.

I had two key priorities in choosing a body; the "best" image at the best price. Because I have two Panny lenses with in-lens stabilization capabilities and Olympus does not support this; so this was one strike against Oly. That left, at the higher end, the GH3 (older technology), GH4 (significant price premium for features I do not want right now) and the GX7 (current technology with excellent image quality). Add to that I am familiar with the Panasonic brand and service (I own two high end Panasonic video cameras), it seemed the obvious choice. Add to that I just did not like the feel of the Olympus cameras as much as the Panasonics when I handled them, the choice seemed obvious.

The reasons for my comments was to share my first impressions shooting with the new camera for around four days. I stand by my comments, as they reflect my experience.

[Manfred M]

Manfred, welcome to the club!

Thanks – into the steep part of the learning curve myself

I love the 20/1.7 pancake, but you may also want to consider the new Oly m.Zuiko 25/1.8 and 17/1.8, as they're around the same price neighborhood. [edit: ah. I see you already know this.]

Agreed and I was looking at the Panny 7-14mm lens too. I’m going to want a few months of shooting the camera under my belt before I consider additional lenses.

The main reason for the purchase is that (assuming schedules and timing work out) is that I want to head off to Europe for a few weeks this summer to do some backpacking with my youngest daughter. My wife and I are planning to go to India for at least a month, again backpacking at least part of the time, so I don’t want to carry as much camera gear as I usually do; we simply won’t have the room.

I'm considering getting a GX-7 myself. How's the "dial" around the shutter button? I desperately miss having a dual-wheel system of some kind on my cheapie G3, and something's obviously better than nothing, but is it usable or annoying?

The dual-wheel was a big selling point to me and in spite of the unusual placement, it works very well. Kudos to Panasonic on that one.

Do not forget, however, that you now have access to the full menu through the viewfinder, so using the menu does not necessitate taking the camera down from your face. In addition, the touchscreen interface, and quick access panels can cut down menu diving annoyance to a large degree. Whether you shoot Olympus or Panasonic, nearly the first piece of advice to any newb is to learn to use the quick access panel/menus, rather than the default menus. And no, you're not imagining it. The Pansonic menus are demented. Not as bad as Olympus's , but still pretty bad compared to Canon/Nikon.

I’ve figured that one out already and I’ve started to play around to customize it. I’m not comfortable enough with the camera to do this while looking through the viewfinder just yet. I haven’t played around with the custom modes yet, but expect that they will be very useful.

Also, have you played with autofocus point selection via touchscreen yet?

Not yet. I’m still trying to figure out how I want to set up the touch screen. I’m not sure how useful this will be for my shooting style (lock focus and then recompose).

One thing I will note is that you don't yet have any fast primes for the format, and that's actually where these cameras really shine--particularly for wide-to-short-telephoto lengths. I think you'll end up nudging your idea of the format's performance upwards a little when you get your hands on one.

I’m planning to shot for a while before buying any lenses; I’ve got the 14-140mm and 100-300mm, so I have a lot of the range covered. Wide angle and primes are the question mark right now.


The only thing that I've noticed is that the battery life seems to be quite short as compared to my DSLRs.

[inkista]

Agreed and I was looking at the Panny 7-14mm lens too. I’m going to want a few months of shooting the camera under my belt before I consider additional lenses.

Yeah, I did the same. I had the 14-42 kit, the 20/1.7, and Samyang fisheye, and then took a while finding out what else I wanted/needed. BTW, the 9-18's working pretty well for me, but it is incredibly fiddly--it's only compact when you're not using it. In use, it's extended. Almost like having an old Barnack collapsible lens... only not nearly as cool.

The dual-wheel was a big selling point to me and in spite of the unusual placement, it works very well. Kudos to Panasonic on that one.

That's fantastic to hear. Thanks!

BTW, one more thing--the irritating zooming in while focusing thing--have you tried turning MF Assist off? Or is this something else?

The only thing that I've noticed is that the battery life seems to be quite short as compared to my DSLRs.

That's liveview all the time (+smaller batteries) forya. :/ LCDs chews through power more than nearly anything else. It surprised me when I rented an X100S, and discovered that the OVF didn't really save much on battery life over the EVF/back LCD--guess it was the LCD overlay in the OVF whut ate the battery.

[thequacksoflife]

My observation is based on the single print I made and frankly it surprised me as well. The quality was about the same as I get out of my D90, and the GX7 being a lot newer should have had a better result. From what I’ve read, Panasonic kept with a more traditional sensor design with additional design and layout optimizations, rather than going with a back-lit design like the newer Sony sensors and the quality improvements over the previous generation appear to be incremental.
Now that I’m back home and have access to all of my equipment, I am going to repeat to see why I got this result.
The D7100, is a 1.5 crop, not a 1.3, by the way.

Manfred I think you have misunderstood me

The D7100 is a 24mp 1.5 crop camera. It also has a subsequent option of 1.3 crop on top of the 1.5. When you apply that the 24mp APSC sensor becomes a 16mp sensor which is the same size as m4/3. that would make the 70-300 have a FOV of a 600mm at the long end.

Given the D7100 sensor is made by Sony I made the comment that I would expect it's high ISO to perform in line with the 16mp m43 Sony sensor used in the Olympus E-M5. Make sense?

High ISO tests of the 24mp APSC sensor seem worse than the 16 mp ASPC

Actually I’m quite impressed by the GH4; the only thing that does not impress is the price. In order to turn it into a usable camera with XLR input (i.e. phantom power microphone input), one needs to add the interface unit that doubles the price. I’m simply not in the market for this type of gear right now.
The other issue with 4k is that it is still a fairly new technology and I tend to wait for at least one full generation before investing in the new technology. I’m not convinced that the 4k approach is going to catch on; remember 3-D, DAT, HD-DVD and all the other technologies that never got traction.

Price surprised people if I remember, predictions were for higher but hey each to their own. The chap from the Camerastore did a video review and he loved the 1080p.

Curiously in the UK you can buy an older GH3 and as part of the package get a free battery, grip AND 25 f1.4.

I almost bought the camera with the f/1.7 20mm, but decided not to at the last minute. I’m still working on figuring out if I need a fast fixed lens. The Leica Suummilux f/1.7 15mm and f/1.4 25mm also look interesting, albeit a touch more expensive and heavier than the Panasonic pancake design. The Olympus f/1.7 17mm and 25mm are also possibilities.

Price is very variable on these in the UK I've seen the Oly 25 f1.8 and Pan 25 f1.4 for considerable variation. All are capable.

I agree that the APS-C line has been ignored over the past year by Canon and Nikon, but certainly not Sony. Frankly, if I were starting from scratch, the mirrorless camera I liked best is the Sony NEX-7. It is a bit larger than the Pen and GX7, but still smaller than the DSLRs.

I'll disagree on the Sony lenses a few but not many. The one that impresses me is Fuji. Auto focus was poor on the XE1/X-Pro 1 but I've read good things about the XT1

cheers

Pete

[ajohnw]

John - I have no issues agreeing to disagree.

I personally feel there is a role for the format; after all I just shelled out $1000 last week to buy a GX7 body, after a lot of research.

I handled the full Panasonic and Olympus lines at the camera store and I feel that all of the bodies are quite small compared to crop factor DSLRs (and tiny compared to my full-frame body). The mechanical design of having to house the mirror chamber and pentaprism / mirror and autofocus modules result in a larger body, which means there is more room for controls.

Yes, there are two basic designs in the higher end mFT; the quasi-DSLR look found in the OM-D and GH3/4 formats and the quasi-rangefinder look of the E-P5 and GX7. The quasi-DSLR are a touch larger than the quasi-rangefinder camera, but still smaller than the crop-frame DSLRs.

I had two key priorities in choosing a body; the "best" image at the best price. Because I have two Panny lenses with in-lens stabilization capabilities and Olympus does not support this; so this was one strike against Oly. That left, at the higher end, the GH3 (older technology), GH4 (significant price premium for features I do not want right now) and the GX7 (current technology with excellent image quality). Add to that I am familiar with the Panasonic brand and service (I own two high end Panasonic video cameras), it seemed the obvious choice. Add to that I just did not like the feel of the Olympus cameras as much as the Panasonics when I handled them, the choice seemed obvious.

The reasons for my comments was to share my first impressions shooting with the new camera for around four days. I stand by my comments, as they reflect my experience.

I have mentioned this before Manfred - Olympus do support Panasonic lenses. I have owned both of yours - sold and replaced with Olympus quality in one case and size in the other. Part of the m 4/3 policy is that lenses will be common providing the license agreements are signed etc. Not sure where the 2 types of IS are now but I'm sure one of my Pen's will turn off internal IS when a Panasonic lens is fitted. I am also sure they will perform lens firmware updates. On the other hand a seemingly Olympus person commented on a dpreview forum that some of this sort of thing may change. For instance I see no auto turn off in the EM-5 menu. Actually I get the impression that the lens tells the camera the correction parameters it needs on these systems - only one manufacturer comment on this aspect on one lens. A 4/3 lens but that is where it started. The approach makes a lot of sense when software correction is used.

Actually I have shot my cameras with both IS's on. They don't seem to mind. That's why I am fairly sure there is no auto turn off in the E-M5 but it's a quick menu job to turn it off.

I have been where you currently are in many ways with the E-PL1, no thumb wheels, E-P3 a nice large thumb wheel well placed that could be split into 2, and the E-M5 2 at last. There is a need to think carefully about how the camera is to be used especially button programming.

I base my set up's around P mode as there will always be some method of setting all possible apertures and speed combinations that can be obtained at what ever ISO the camera is set at. That gives aperture and speed priority in one setting. On cameras with two thumb wheels it would be extremely odd for the other wheel to not set exposure compensation. On one wheel cameras a button can be used to change the wheel mode or the mode dial used for aperture etc. There is a need to lock exposure and focus independently and to change iso settings. These buttons need to be easy to find and are all that are needed really. Start this way and add as you find need and use for more. There can be rather a lot in these cameras. I only use manual mode for flash to force an exposure time at some aperture.

For focus I either use single af, single af and track or continuous. The only real need for continuous for me so far is birds in flight. I have mentioned 50% success rate on seagulls against a dull background so very little contrast. Actually it was better than that and they were flying towards me. Frustrating though. When I get round to some local kites I don't expect any problems but contrast AF doesn't know which way to go - shorter or longer.. I find it's best to control focus with the shutter button which also activates IS via a 1/2 press. After all the camera does need to be focused when the shot is taken. I also set manual focus assist - magnified view that can be set via a thumb wheel when it's activated. I understand focus peaking can be improved on some lenses this way on an E-M5.. Not sure about others. The 2x converter is used for that on the E-M5.

Irritations as some aspects of the cameras tend to be similar - a magnified view button if I assign one. One press allows me to move the square that will be enlarged, a 2nd press actually does it - I suspect that the contrast AF indicators could be shown in the viewfinder as a lens is manually focused. It would even be possible to move an indications square about to show where a user was going to manually focus the camera. - Moving squares about. It's far quicker to use the screen touch focus area and shoot feature. A virtual button turns the touch screen on, a button switches from viewfinder to screen, suspect Panasonic will be the same.

My ISO results have been mixed. As a for instance I recently posted a flower shot ISO 1600, 1/125 sec purposefully under exposed by 1/3 EV. Some dark end noise relatively easy to deal with. I have also posted shots at 25,600 iso. 1/15 sec. This is the original. Olympus do turn noise reduction of on jpg's as the raw was identical. It can be processed out for web shots sizes or even bigger on this shot.

http://www.23hq.com/ajohnw/photo/14725541/original

On the other hand seagulls 1200 ISO hopeless and very short exposure times. No problems with 800 or 400. Colin may have hit on the reason for this - software boosting part EV's

Back lit sensors score on ISO. At least that's the idea. The pixels need wiring which limits the size of the actual pixels on other types. The back lit ones have wiring on the none sense side. I'd guess back lit may be a Sony patent.

Image quality. Well for some reason on Pen's at least Olympus use a thicker materials in front of the sensor. However the main effect is fringing. Not the same as CA and packages often have sliders to remove it.. I have seen comments that the E-M5 doesn't have an anti aliasing filter. There may be another reason. I have an E-620 4/3 camera. Similar problems to Pen's it seems. However it seems the E-5 has far higher resolution and no fringing - thinner anti aliasing filter. In practice the Olympus - Panasonic IQ aspects apart from maybe the tendency to fringe are another web myth. I know via shots I have taken that even the kit lenses are perfectly capable of fully utilising the 12mp on earlier Pen's and have seen nothing any different at 16mp. Fringing - once, shooting into a back lit duck on water. More contrast than a jpg could handle and just about in raw. With a Panasonic lens actually not well known for excellent CA and pretty obviously corrected on an Olympus camera.

One thing about the camera that Manfred has bought that jpg shooters might not like is the tone curves. Most cameras tend to compress highlights. Canon are well known for resisting doing this. Until recently they just chopped them off leaving raw for any recovery. This has other effects as metering is aimed at producing jpg's. Nikon have always compressed them. Olympus too. The GX7 appears to use Canon style tone curves. As I was primarily a Canon shooter I would want to find out what that meant rather quickly just in case. They may just be using a lower general contrast curve leaving little more in raw or they might be Canon style which I feel should be in all cameras as an option because it gives full contrast in highlights but on the other hand it can be a right pain for people who like to use jpg's.

The GX7 also only has internal IS when the shot is taken. I did find that frustrating on Pen's but only nuts like me would try manually focusing long lenses even up to 500mm with a high magnification factor. Not much fun focusing a 100mm macro lens via camera movement by hand with a 7x view either. This is where I feel these cameras can be a let down and can't replace a viewfinder. While full time in body stabilisation can't hold a view for focusing as well as in lens it's a big help and the only differences will really be at rather longer focal lengths. On long lenses the image moves about a bit. It fascinates me that the IS still copes when the shot is taken. On Panasonic in lenses the image flips periodically and it also copes when the shot is taken. The flip can mean reframing.

Sorry about all of the seems etc - qualifications - I really do comment on the basis of what I see. Literally. I suppose I could use "well I have read on the web" instead but would take up more space.

John
-

[thequacksoflife]

Performance of the 14-140mm seems very similar to my wife’s Nikon 18-200mm.

I ought to add I have the f3.5-5.6 version. For such a long focal length it is rather small.

[Manfred M]

BTW, one more thing--the irritating zooming in while focusing thing--have you tried turning MF Assist off? Or is this something else?

I’ve been trying to find a solution to that and I’m going to have to do some more digging, as I haven’t managed to deactivate that “feature” yet. I read somewhere that it can’t be turned off when using single point focusing, so I will play with it some more tonight. The best I’ve done is to have it time out in 0.5 sec.

That's liveview all the time (+smaller batteries) forya. :/ LCDs chews through power more than nearly anything else. It surprised me when I rented an X100S, and discovered that the OVF didn't really save much on battery life over the EVF/back LCD--guess it was the LCD overlay in the OVF whut ate the battery.

That’s my read on it too. I guess the best thing to do is to disable the back LCD by default and only light it up when in chimping mode.

[Manfred M]

Manfred I think you have misunderstood me

The D7100 is a 24mp 1.5 crop camera. It also has a subsequent option of 1.3 crop on top of the 1.5. When you apply that the 24mp APSC sensor becomes a 16mp sensor which is the same size as m4/3. that would make the 70-300 have a FOV of a 600mm at the long end.

Given the D7100 sensor is made by Sony I made the comment that I would expect it's high ISO to perform in line with the 16mp m43 Sony sensor used in the Olympus E-M5. Make sense?

High ISO tests of the 24mp APSC sensor seem worse than the 16 mp ASPC

Definitely a misunderstanding on my part

Price surprised people if I remember, predictions were for higher but hey each to their own. The chap from the Camerastore did a video review and he loved the 1080p.

Everyone here was expecting it to come in a somewhere around the price of the GH3, so the actual selling price; around $1900 Cdn + taxes basically means almost double the cost of the GX7, for what is likely similar image performance. The GH3 and GH4 are in many ways video cameras first and still cameras second. Panasonic has often been accused of building a better video camera than still camera (I guess this is because of their roots in the video business). The GX1 and now the GX7 are notable exceptions.

Curiously in the UK you can buy an older GH3 and as part of the package get a free battery, grip AND 25 f1.4.

Not so here in Canada.

Price is very variable on these in the UK I've seen the Oly 25 f1.8 and Pan 25 f1.4 for considerable variation. All are capable.

Unfortunately the market here is primarily controlled by two large camera chain stores that sell at list price. I do use two smaller out of town stores that sometimes discount

I'll disagree on the Sony lenses a few but not many. The one that impresses me is Fuji. Auto focus was poor on the XE1/X-Pro 1 but I've read good things about the XT1

This is one camera I did not look at, simply because I was looking purely at the mFT. The Sony Nex-7 is a friends that I shot, ditto with the Nikon 1. My interest was purely in seeing how others have implemented mirrorless.

[Sponge]

One thing I will note is that you don't yet have any fast primes for the format, and that's actually where these cameras really shine--particularly for wide-to-short-telephoto lengths. I think you'll end up nudging your idea of the format's performance upwards a little when you get your hands on one.

+1

Also the 2.8 zooms and Panasonic 7-14. The primes especially are sharp wide open so that helps a little with DoF by not having to stop down so far. Manfred, if you're worried about fast AF then you may want to look at other alternatives to the Panasonic 20mm 1.7. It's an impressive tiny lens that gets me very sharp results but the AF is lacking in comparison to most other m43 lenses, especially indoors and low light. Unfortunately, Panasonic didn't improve AF with the newer version.

As far as the EVF, the best would be the one in the E-M1 (same as the Olympus VF-4) which offers similar magnification to the Canon 1DX. I wish I could just switch out the EVF in my Olympus E-M5 with the VF-4. I don't think turning off the LCD is going to save much battery because from what I understand the EVF drains it as well.

[ajohnw]

I ought to add I have the f3.5-5.6 version. For such a long focal length it is rather small.

I was looking at this on 10 :1 zooms yesterday compared with Canon on crop. No point at all using the 24-300mm EF lens on crop compared with either 14 to whatever. The Canon 18-200mm just about matches m 4/3 resolution sensor size wise which is unusual but only at the centre and way short at the edges. Comparing the Pansonic to the Olympus there is a difference in philosophy. Olympus push up central resolution at the expense of borders and corner but no where near as extreme as the Canon. Panasonic lower but more even. I didn't like the last Pansonic lens I owned that was like that.

The reason I looked was that I bought an 18-180mm 4/3 lens to use with an adapter to keep AF etc. On that one rumour says that they optimised either end of the range. To me at it's "macro" limit it's too soft and that word describes it generally. Unfortunately so far I haven't found a meaningful test result on this lens only amongst best in class comments.

I'm not sure I would ever be happy with lenses like this as when I go out I usually have no idea what I will be shooting. Often have never been were I am going before. On FF with 28-300mm things are different but oh the size and weight and the fact that it wont make best use of the format. General impression though is that it would be likely to exceed m 4/3 capabilities.

John
-