Wedding photographer: Yesterday I bought an old Canon 5D body for 300$, I have 50 & 85mm lenses for it.I'm reading about this new 4/3rd Olympus and can say that Olympus is better in every aspect than the old 5D, except photos.Full Frame is amazing!!!
I had a very rude comment to make about cotton types and underpants, but instead I will just roll my eyes.
Really comparable with modern mobile phones? Really? There are tons of scenarios where 4/3 will lay the smack down on mobile phones, least of which is ease of manual control.
Ribbit74: I know this must not be a new thing, but there's a huge difference in how Panasonic and Olympus JPG's handle the yellow colors (e.g. the yellow tubes of paint). Panasonic looks yellow-green. Olympus looks... yellow. RAW looks fine on both. Can the Panasonic JPG color shifts be tweaked?
In general it is shifted towards blue a bit. The yellows are "cold" by default. Yes, as in all Panasonic cameras you can tweak this. I go one step further and don't use in-camera processing any more as the color-cast was not to my liking. The old 16Mp sensor seemed a little IR sensitive, so us pasty northerners came out more red than expected or seen by the eye.
Well, I was hoping for more in the high-ISO department, but this studio scene doesn't show me one important thing to me: Long exposure noise. Bulb-mode type stuff.
The reviews I have seen to date look very promising vs. the older 16Mp sensor.
naththo: How about some people who use APS-C sensor size for birds and animals photography and for car race and sports shooting, using zoom length gets 1.5x the focal length has much better advantage over the FF which is no good due to not enough focal length and you end up having to buy RATHER expensive zoom lens to work well with FF. Like says for APS-C they might only need 200-400mm. But for FF you still have to end up getting 400-600mm which will cost you more. Its crazy. Please do not give up on APS-C.
If you have exactly the same pixel density per sensor, C vs. full frame makes no difference in "reach", only weight and size of the camera system. Just crop to zoom! Of course this depends on the capability of the lens to achieve the resolution to allow a high quality crop. It also depends on you large your account is, and how strong your arm is to lift a fast FF zoom lens for long periods.
Dang, this is going to make choosing the Panasonic GX8 a little tougher. This is like my long dead Sony R1, only much smaller, and I loved that camera.
Donald M Mackinnon: For £1069 you can buy a kit that would defeat the GX8 on every conceivable front. The worrying aspect of this price is it puts the GX8 beyond the budget of possibly many current mft users. The price will inevitably drop but in two years time will it be down to £600? Any camera shop in the UK will tell you right now that the "camera to have" is the Nikon D5500 - currently £599
Except for stuffing it in your bag with a telephoto zoom lens, walk-around lens, a few pancakes, etc. and still being able to hike. The equivalent size and weight of comparable reach lenses for a FF camera vs m4/3 is significantly larger and heavier (aperture differences between FF and m4/3 are understood).
Well, this may be the camera for me. I will wait to see what long-exposure low-light noise looks like, and if acceptable I will pay the $$$ for a camera that works well with my lens collection. The dust and moisture sealing are a bonus.
FrankS009: Hope to purchase this camera in the next year. What is not to like?
How does it fit in the hand?
Hmm, did not realize. Not up to speed on all models anymore, I haven't been in the gear-head mode in a bit.
stabilization is on Panasonic lenses. They have no compelling reason to put it on the body and thus open up lens sales to competitors. Sure it is nice to have a freebie, but I doubt IBIS is coming to Pana micro 4/3 any time soon.
Chris2210: So is it antennae or antennas? I'm relaxed about either [no one these days says stadia, do they?]... but it can't be both.
Is it doughnuts or donuts? It can't be both... or can it? Darned English language. Blizzard, wizard. Hmmm
Timmbits: The flat shape is very impractical; they should make them cylindrical (as Panasonic did a very long time ago as an alternative to the gopro, but unfortunately didn't seem to have any success (that's a failure from marketing, not because of the product))The cylinder is more aerodynamic, harder to snag and bang on things, easier to mount on things like the side of helmets. This is really playing it safe. Wish more would innovate.
However... this does tell you for how much those cameras costing hundreds more SHOULD be selling for - what they are really worth!
Contour still makes them cylindrical.
liquidsquid: I'm not sure if this is possible. White LEDs contain phosphors to generate the colors other than blue (of which the LEDs are based upon). The phosphors do not really turn on and off that fast. There is a charge time and a discharge time much longer than 1/2,000,000 AFAIK. If anything you will wind up with a rainbow effect on moving subjects as the various phosphors ramp up and back down in brightness as different colors will have different response times.
I suppose if you heat the phosphors, they turn on and off faster. Also it may be that the peak power so overwhelms the ramp-up and down, it doesn't matter. The again I don't think those images are in the 1/2Meg range.
Oh, bear in mind that a bare-die LED (one without phosphors) can switch on and off at a pretty good clip (small LEDs can go 10MHz+), but a lot depends on the physics of the LED's die, and the size of it. A big honking high-power LED has a lot of self-capacity, meaning it is difficult to turn the LED on and off quickly, especially at 2MHz rates. The assumption is you use a high-power driver circuit that can reverse-current briefly to drain that charge back out.
The developer is best-served using multiple-color LEDs rather than whites to avoid phosphors, and a good diffuser to mix those colors before reaching the subject.
In all, I think is price point is not going to be met unless volume is rather large.
(p.s. I am an engineer and have worked on such things, though not for flash photography)
I'm not sure if this is possible. White LEDs contain phosphors to generate the colors other than blue (of which the LEDs are based upon). The phosphors do not really turn on and off that fast. There is a charge time and a discharge time much longer than 1/2,000,000 AFAIK. If anything you will wind up with a rainbow effect on moving subjects as the various phosphors ramp up and back down in brightness as different colors will have different response times.
Surprising high ISO results for a first release. Hmm...
liquidsquid: Tempting... one of my favorite lenses is a 50mm F1.x (cannot remember right now) old good Minolta adapted to m4/3. It would be nice to get automatic features and less coma wide-open.
Hopefully it is under $1K, but I doubt it.
Yeah, but it was $35, and the center of the lens is far better than the edges. Playing in the "sweet spot". Honestly I don't use it much any more, got tired of the manual focus struggle on moving subjects. I could nail quite a few shots by pre-focusing, but it required too much thinking.
Tempting... one of my favorite lenses is a 50mm F1.x (cannot remember right now) old good Minolta adapted to m4/3. It would be nice to get automatic features and less coma wide-open.
I've got to try this! Plenty of subjects around here. To get rid of the monochrome result you could use a few color-tuneable RGB LED hobby kits placed at different locations. That may add some real pizzaz to the result without post.
Heefe: Funny how people are so obsessed with the size of the sensor...
OMG, for all of the "experienced" photographers around here, they sure fail at math.
F2.8 (or any F value for that matter) of full frame exposure time for the same ISO ratings is the SAME as exposure time on a smaller sensor like m4/3 at equivalent focal length. How hard is that? The ONLY difference is DOF.
Sure light gathering ability is greater on the larger lens, but that is to cover a larger area of sensor, so the light is spread over a greater area. The light intensity on ANY GIVEN SURFACE AREA of the sensor is the same. Note AREA not the same as PIXEL.
That little patch of greenery is the most telling, as it seems to confuse the snot out of the NR routines. The Sony NEX shows artifacting, The GX7 shows smearing, the EP-5 handles it well with just some resolution loss, and the RX100 II smears it out as well, but not as bad as the GX7. Of course this is all at ISO 12800, a setting I have never used.
Still considering the sensor size and resolution... if I have to look this close to see a flaw consider me really impressed.
Of other Note: Greenery is cyan-ish on Sony, yellow-ish on the m4/3 which is consistent with my experiences with the same WB settings.