M4/3 comes of age at Photokina...
- Thread starter arad85
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,627
- Name
- Julian
- Edit My Images
- No
rjbell said:
Wow that looks old/retro and all in a bad way. Good description of it too
Not likely to be a hot seller is it
- Messages
- 10,055
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't understand how Hasselblad can attempt to sell it as a 'Pro' £5k camera when underneath the pretty unimpressive exterior it's the same NEX-7 and uses the same NEX E-mount lenses? I saw another post elsewhere saying it's good that Hasselblad are working with Sony because it encourages better lenses but the Zeis/Sony lenses already announced are built for the NEX bodies anyway?
Whoever buys these are ridiculously swayed by the brand and have way too much cash!
Cheers
Steve
Whoever buys these are ridiculously swayed by the brand and have way too much cash!
Cheers
Steve
OP
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 4,627
- Name
- Julian
- Edit My Images
- No
arad85 said:
Haha looks better than the real McCoy too
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 828
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmmmm.
Piling on the lbs is a mistake IMVHO. I think this GH3 is probably losing my interest. Shame, I was looking forward to it.
Christ, given the choice I'd have the 650D.
M43 seems to be loosing it's direction, knocking out the same cameras and lenses for increasingly higher price tags.
OP
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well... they're not exactly the same lenses now are they.
That is where all the excitement is in m4/3 IMHO. A 70-200 f2.8 equivalent that is a 1/4 the size and weight of it's full frame brethren - and half the cost too... A super sharp 150mm f1.8 equivalent available, an 85mm f1.2 and 300mm f2.8 announced - what's not to get excited about?
People get far too hung up on body size when the saving is in the lenses.
Llamaman
Proud Addick
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Seems a little unfair. The EM-5 was significantly different to any prior m4/3 cameras. I haven't seen anything that evolutionary in APS-C DSLR for a long time. The new f2.8 lenses might be higher price, but they're not rehashes or exsiting lenses - they're entirely new designs with no doubt a hefty R&D bill to pay. I agree there's a tendency for Panny and Oly to release slow zooms every 5 minutes, but you don't have to buy them and it's not ALL that they're doing. The 2.8 zooms, power zooms and 12mm, 45mm, 75mm primes are all recent and aren't to be sniffed at.
And whilst the GH3's size and weight might not appeal to the usual m4/3 crowd, I don't think we're the target market. It might be the size of a 650D, but I bet more videographers will prefer it to the Canon on features so the size is moot.
There's the GF, G and GX line that offer small m4/3 bodies, so it's not like we're starved of choice by Panasonic.
- Messages
- 4,422
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its not so compact size and ridiculous price tag presumably.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,906
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I sort of agree, but it's all down to mm and what is the limit for each of us.
My G1 is about as big as I want to go. With a 20mm f1.7 fitted it'll just fit in the Lowpro bag I bought for my GF1 but it's a strain and it'll only go in one way. It'll also just fit in the pocket of the two winter jackets I wear most. So, at the mo if it's summer and I want to take a compact camera and lens system out with me I take the G1+20mm in the Lowpro bag and in the winter when I'm wearing a jacket it'll fit in my pocket.
The new GH3 with its slight increase in size in every dimention may very well just be the odd mm too much. I could buy a bigger bag but every mm increase in size takes the packege further away from the CSC solution I bought into.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,692
- Name
- Lloyd
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You know things are bad when the Leica M-E seems like a cracking deal in comparison.
As for the GH3's size, I predict that most of them will sit on tripods shooting video, the GH2 is seen as quite a camera in video circles. Size isn't an issue then, in fact it'd still be compact by video standards.
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When you think about it a m4/3 camera body should really be no smaller or bigger than a APS-C mirror-less anyway. The difference in sensor size would easily be catered for in the same body.
DSLRs are that size because that is what people want as it makes them comfortable to hold if you have man size hands and a lot of people find even the smaller DSLRs too small.
The GH3 is probably sizing up to fit that need as it could easily have been made smaller couldn't it?
DSLRs are that size because that is what people want as it makes them comfortable to hold if you have man size hands and a lot of people find even the smaller DSLRs too small.
The GH3 is probably sizing up to fit that need as it could easily have been made smaller couldn't it?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,906
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
If they'd been GH3 size from day 1 I wouldn't have bought into the system. I wanted a compact camera system, not something nudging APS-C DSLR size, simple as that.
This is at least in part what killed FT. Removing the mirror box and VF was supposed to give a smaller system. OK, the lenses are still smaller and so the package as a whole is still smaller but the degree of advantage for MFT is eroding by the mm, IMVHO.
I can see the big men need a big camera and we can charge more for it because it's big... argument, but personally I grew out of that attitude decades ago.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,422
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah thats my point, now the nex6 is out they really need to be releasing one.
Llamaman
Proud Addick
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Your language ("is eroding") infers you are seeing a trend. I don't agree;
The GH3 is just one camera and is no basis for making predictions.
The GF5 was no larger than the GF3 (in fact, the opposite). http://j.mp/T3rDYq
The G5 was no larger than the G3 (longer but less tall)
http://j.mp/MZ12me
The GX1 is smaller than the GF1 (it's natural predecessor).
http://j.mp/T3snN7
So the trend isn't towards larger cameras at all.
As I've said before, the GH3 is a niche product for a niche market and one should not draw conclusions about the rest of Panny's range from it. The larger size allows more manual control dials which the target market want. Why compromise the GH3 to satisfy casual stills-shooters who are already served by the G5, GX1 and GF5? There's no such thing as the perfect camera for everyone, and design choices have to be made. Whether Panny called this one right, only time will tell.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,906
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
"Yeah thats my point, now the nex6 is out they really need to be releasing one."
Apart from my lenses being MFT fit?
There's often an alternative system to buy into my annoyance is that I've bought into a system and now see no camera I want to buy within that system.
Apart from my lenses being MFT fit?
There's often an alternative system to buy into my annoyance is that I've bought into a system and now see no camera I want to buy within that system.
- Messages
- 4,422
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I see why your frustrated. I'm sure there will be one out soon.
Is this your only system or do you have a dslr too?
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,906
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
What I meant was the size advantage offered by MFT erodes by the mm.
I've no doubt that the GH3 will sell especially to vid shooters. I'm not a vid shooter. I bought into the system because I wanted a smaller system than my DSLR set up and any increase in size and weight reduces the advantage MFT offers for me.
That was and is my point. It's a personal opinion. The GH3 is probably too big for me to consider. Others are perfecrtly free to buy it.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,906
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I have a 5D and a bag full of lenses. It was my intention to slim down my DSLR kit or even move completely to MFT but with the increase in size I'll now look at other manufacturers systems.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You are "lucky". You use MF a lot - the other two systems don't have anything like the quality AF glass available for them that the m4/3 does.
Zeiss are now going to make APS-C sized glass, but that's about it for the moment....
- Messages
- 4,422
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Food for thought...
I will probably have the GH3 on my shopping list but it's not the (almost) sure thing I'd hoped for, far from it.
You got some decisions to make.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,906
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
The lens spec interests me more than actual quality...
With MFT I was hoping to add a wide angle, a longish zoom and a macro to effectively replace my 12-24mm, 70-300mm and 150mm macro. That'd give me a system I'd be more or less happy with. Then there's the complaints I have with my current EVF in very low light to think about before the 5D and lenses can go.
With any system I'd want a compact and fastish standard AF lens for occasional use. With MFT I have the 20mm f1.7, Fuji have a 35mm f1.4 and Sony now have the 35mm f1.8 so together with some manual lenses and a couple adequate zooms for occasional use all would be viable systems for me.
I have ranted about the GH3 but I will take a look at it but TBH for me it's gone from being the front runner to an outside possibility before I even know what the image quality is like. On the plus side I'm sure I could pick it up and be using it in 5 minutes with my existing lenses and it has the articulated and reversible screen but its size means that its package advantage over the others in this respect is reduced.
Last edited:
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,906
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
You got some decisions to make.
I have GAS. I'd like to buy a new camera to get nearer the overall performance of my 5D with the intent of hopefully and ideally fully replacing it or at least allowing me to sell most of my lenses, perhaps just keeping the body and one or two lenses.
Something I posted on another forum, but will share it here as well.
This is my 'theory' for an ideal set up based on my own needs and also highlights some of my fears/roblems with m4/3:
1. Travel/city - the ideal situation is lots of zoom, tiny and amazing IQ......which is not going to happen . Therefore we need to compromise and prioritize. Firstly for me size/weight is priority followed by IQ and for what I shoot zoom is not that important. I would also add that changing lens is rather annoying and so would stick with one lens on a body. Based on that I've been using the Fuji X100 and Olympus XZ-1 which has been working rather well. Only problem is both cameras are not really pocketable (XZ-1 is bulky) and would like one of them to be that. Given my criteria I can see the X100 and RX100 (bloody names) being the ideal travel set up. Really the Sony is leaps and bounds ahead with size and IQ (need to save up ).
2. Flexibility/Studio work - frankly in terms of flexibility with lens and flash systems DSLRs (Nikon and Canon) are really the best at the moment. Mirrorless is catching up, but its not that cheap and still not as flexible. Going to test this theory with the D700.
This does lead me with trying to understand where mirrorless systems at the moment fit into the whole picture. Can it conceivably replace both the above? What if you want to do some serious outdoors/landscape work and the travel setup doesn't cut it and a studio setup is too heavy? Is mirrorless the answer? Or you can ask does it really provide you with something a lot better than the RX100 in IQ?
The smaller fast zooms is an advantage, but it does come at a price and for my own needs anything over 85 or 100mm is not really necessary. Travel wise I want to see in practice how much of an IQ boost one gets with a m4/3rds over the RX100. Personally I love the way Fuji generates pictures, but here again other than the X100 it gets a little bulky, but maybe suitable as the more powerful companion to a P&S.
We are definitely in an interesting time for technology - bigger sensors meaning better IQ is slowly diminishing as technology gets better and we look now at lens to deliver a relative advantage. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
This is my 'theory' for an ideal set up based on my own needs and also highlights some of my fears/roblems with m4/3:
1. Travel/city - the ideal situation is lots of zoom, tiny and amazing IQ......which is not going to happen . Therefore we need to compromise and prioritize. Firstly for me size/weight is priority followed by IQ and for what I shoot zoom is not that important. I would also add that changing lens is rather annoying and so would stick with one lens on a body. Based on that I've been using the Fuji X100 and Olympus XZ-1 which has been working rather well. Only problem is both cameras are not really pocketable (XZ-1 is bulky) and would like one of them to be that. Given my criteria I can see the X100 and RX100 (bloody names) being the ideal travel set up. Really the Sony is leaps and bounds ahead with size and IQ (need to save up ).
2. Flexibility/Studio work - frankly in terms of flexibility with lens and flash systems DSLRs (Nikon and Canon) are really the best at the moment. Mirrorless is catching up, but its not that cheap and still not as flexible. Going to test this theory with the D700.
This does lead me with trying to understand where mirrorless systems at the moment fit into the whole picture. Can it conceivably replace both the above? What if you want to do some serious outdoors/landscape work and the travel setup doesn't cut it and a studio setup is too heavy? Is mirrorless the answer? Or you can ask does it really provide you with something a lot better than the RX100 in IQ?
The smaller fast zooms is an advantage, but it does come at a price and for my own needs anything over 85 or 100mm is not really necessary. Travel wise I want to see in practice how much of an IQ boost one gets with a m4/3rds over the RX100. Personally I love the way Fuji generates pictures, but here again other than the X100 it gets a little bulky, but maybe suitable as the more powerful companion to a P&S.
We are definitely in an interesting time for technology - bigger sensors meaning better IQ is slowly diminishing as technology gets better and we look now at lens to deliver a relative advantage. Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
OP
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't want the ultimate in portability, just something that is small enough to carry about, flexible enough that I can do everything I want (I often go wider than 24/28mm EFL) and has good enough image quality that I'm not worried about printing out something at 18" x 12" or thereabouts. I also only want one "system" so I can capitalise on accessories and I need a viewfinder (I'm not about to get varifocals just so I can see the back LCD easily
). Given all that, image quality at a reasonable kit size is where I'm at. The other non-DSLR systems don't interest me as they don't have enough quality in the lenses for my liking - plus the lenses are bigger. The fixed lens cameras are interesting, but only as an add-on.I am getting as good if not better product images from the G5 as I did with the 5D2 from a studio environment.
I'm really liking M4/3 and will only buy the GH3 if the image quality is improved. I'm really after a second body as I will add a 35-100 as soon as I can, but that may be a OM-D or it may be a G5 - or maybe I'll wait...
Llamaman
Proud Addick
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Is there a reason why you won't consider the GX1, G5 or OM-D? Sounds like for you it's GH3 or bust?
The OM-D in particular has excellent IQ and many claim it to be close to FF DSLR in all but very challenging conditions? It's cheaper than a GH3 too (or about the same if you buy the grip).
The G5 hasn't had enough reviews to be certain yet, but I doubt the GH3 will be miles ahead (there hasn't been time for much processor development between the releases). And the multi-aspect sensor has gone from the GH3 so that advantage is lost too.
In short, if you're not fussed about video, the GH3 is just an interesting diversion. The best stills m4/3 is the OM-D, and Panny's most suitable offering is the G5. Apart from extra dials, the GH3 probably won't offer much to a stills shooter over the G5.
OP
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Except it isn't clear what sensor the GH3 has. Numerical spec wise it is identical to the OM-D sensor. No idea what performance is like though....
Llamaman
Proud Addick
- Messages
- 7,422
- Name
- Not an addick!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
History tells us that Olympus normally squeeze more out of a processor than Panasonic, so even if the GH3 has the OM-D sensor it's unlikely the performance will be better. Probalby less good, in fact. So I'd still say the OM-D is the best stills m4/3 until proved otherwise (and I'd put money on it if I was a betting man!).
For disclosure purposes: I'm not an Olympus fanboy by any means - I've never owned one and have a Panny m4/3. But it does appear the OM-D is the m4/3 daddy for the time being...
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,906
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
My first MFT was a GF1 and I quickly decided that back screen shooting wasn't for me, so that's the GX1 out.
The G5 AFAIK uses GH2 improved (or maybe just the same) technology and whilst that'll be better than my current G1 these days it isn't state of the art and looking at examples and reviews on line it can't get near to matching let alone exceeding the very best CSC's from other manufacturers. Also, I have issues with my current G1's EVF and the G5's is the same. So that's out.
The OMD has no built in flash and that's important to me. There are also what appear to be some incompatibilities with existing lenses including the 20mm f1.7 which I have so the points against it begin to stack up. There are also reports of a "fan noise" and whilst some claim that they can't even hear it I'm sure it'll have me drop kicking the camera over a hedge in 3.2 seconds. So it's probably out.
I am hard to please but as I'll be paying upwards of £1k for a body alone I make no excuse for being awkward and choosy
If I don't like anything on the market I just wont bother, I'll use my existing kit until something that suits me comes out.I don't want the ultimate in portability, just something that is small enough to carry about, flexible enough that I can do everything I want (I often go wider than 24/28mm EFL) and has good enough image quality that I'm not worried about printing out something at 18" x 12" or thereabouts. I also only want one "system" so I can capitalise on accessories and I need a viewfinder (I'm not about to get varifocals just so I can see the back LCD easily
I am getting as good if not better product images from the G5 as I did with the 5D2 from a studio environment.
I'm really liking M4/3 and will only buy the GH3 if the image quality is improved. I'm really after a second body as I will add a 35-100 as soon as I can, but that may be a OM-D or it may be a G5 - or maybe I'll wait...
Good reply!
The quality of the lens is important, but a more flexible flash system differentiates m 4/3rds from my own preference of Fuji. This is a great time for compact systems, but no doubt pressure will come from APS-C. I think the first system to nail tracking AF will steal a huge march....
OP
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In what way? I'm not familiar enough with Fuji, but the new flash and GH3 introduces zone wireless TTL AFAIK...
Yes, I agree...
