tjbates: As a Panasonic GH2 owner, I bought the E-M10 because I wanted to see for myself what all the fuss is about. The E-M10 stills image quality is definitely a step up from the GH2. It's a keeper!I find autofocus more accurate on the GH2 with the same Olympus lenses. The viewfinder on the GH2 is still - after all these years bigger, brighter and clearer.I miss the C1,C2 and C3 dials that the Panasonic cameras offer and the extra external controls. On the E-M10, I waste too much time scrolling through the Super control panel and miss shots even after assigning all Fn buttons. The GH2 is operationally faster. I know Olympus offer the Myset feature but only one Myset can be programmed to an Fn button. The GH2 can easily be used one-handed. Great for parents! The E-M10 requires two hands.The Olympus software better than Panasonic but unbearably slow.The Olympus has auto ISO in manual mode!Overall the E-M10 is fantastic but I'll keep the GH2 for video.
Wanted to update my impressions of the E-M10 after 3 weeks of use.I've now discovered the target auto focus mode and find it to be superior to my GH2 for nailing focus on a moving subject.To use- press left arrow next to OK, then INFO and then scroll to the focus mode with tiny stand alone boxes.This little wonder really can keep a sharp focus on subjects moving towards the camera at 3.5 f/s. I still miss the C1-C3 dials on the GH2 but have found a work around on the E-M10 by assigning Myset1 and Myset2 to the ART and SCN mode positions. Olympus software is very slow with Raw files but okay with Jpegs.My files look like film - I'm very impressed. Lovely film like grain and beautiful rich colours without adding saturation to skin tones.My focus accuracy is 90% better than my 5DMK2 and the file quality is very similar.
As a Panasonic GH2 owner, I bought the E-M10 because I wanted to see for myself what all the fuss is about. The E-M10 stills image quality is definitely a step up from the GH2. It's a keeper!I find autofocus more accurate on the GH2 with the same Olympus lenses. The viewfinder on the GH2 is still - after all these years bigger, brighter and clearer.I miss the C1,C2 and C3 dials that the Panasonic cameras offer and the extra external controls. On the E-M10, I waste too much time scrolling through the Super control panel and miss shots even after assigning all Fn buttons. The GH2 is operationally faster. I know Olympus offer the Myset feature but only one Myset can be programmed to an Fn button. The GH2 can easily be used one-handed. Great for parents! The E-M10 requires two hands.The Olympus software better than Panasonic but unbearably slow.The Olympus has auto ISO in manual mode!Overall the E-M10 is fantastic but I'll keep the GH2 for video.
Whichever way I look at it - the E-M10 looks like a marketing mistake in favour of the consumer. That doesn't happen very often.The E-M10 is marketed as an entry level OM series camera - however on paper and I'm sure in reality - this camera looks to perform (purely in terms of image quality) as well as the E-M1. That's pretty special for a camera about half the price of it's bigger brother.
How about this one-
No 24/25p = no sale.
RichRMA: A bit ridiculous. m4/3rds, 16mp for $2000 versus FF from Nikon or Sony for the same price. What exactly makes the Panasonic worth that kind of money? At $1000 a body, premium m4/3rd cameras were ok, not for $2000.
It is indeed a video thing. There are several reasons why m4/3 is popular with videographers and therefore worth the price over FF Nikon and Canon.1. Panasonic know how to make cameras (GH2 and later the GH3) without noticeable moire and aliasing and near HD resolution.2. EVF3. Smaller lighter lenses that are tack sharp wide open - unlike many fast aperture FF primes.4. Improved codec over all other cameras in this price bracket with an EVF.
If you're just shooting stills then I'd go with FF as well. Infact that's why I use both formats.But right now for video, unless you want to hack a $3K 5DMK3 and then add an EVF, I'd suggest m4/3 is indeed worth $2,000. I'd pay a lot more if it had an internal broadcast codec like ProRes422.
"The Lumix GH3 made a surprising appearance, sporting a '4K' badge that may indicate future developments for video in the GH-series."
Was DPReview actually there? If so, did you forget to ask if the badge did indeed indicate future developments or not.No other info? Strange - doesn't sound like a "report" to me.For many of us - this is one of the most exciting cameras and we don't get any information.
kadardr: I used to be a marketing guy and one of the anticompetitive strategies was repositioning the competitor product. From the pros and cons Df is much worse than D610, lame, out of style, there is an imbalance of sensor, processor, and af speed and coverage, it is out of anything, especially of scope. Cheap selection of materials, bad handling, too expensive.From the review I envisage Nikon Df to be a camera for meticulous old farts with a bunch of old Nikon lenses. This vision simply cannot be true. There is no company on earth that want to put such a product on the market.
It is obvious that this time the review went too far.
I'm all for the retro approach to modern digital cameras, but I just walked past the window of my local camera store where the Df sat next to the latest lineup of retro cameras and the Df looked cheap and a little silly - like a wedding cake of buttons and dials. I don't know why, but the silver finish - to me looks cheap. That said, I'd love to try it out but with poor low light AF it wouldn't make it onto my Santas list.
Interesting. A study that tries to prove that recording a memory actually inhibits recall.
Taking a quick photo for a record of a moment or scene is maybe different to "making" a photo where one may observe and study a scene before recording the scene. Memory is certainly enhanced by the latter.If the findings of this study are true, then I'm not too concerned because after time passes my memory will certainly fade quicker than a print or a photographic file.
Elaka Farmor: If your mind are just focused to take pictures, there is a problem. But if you are "here and now", in the present moment, there is no problem with the memory. All depends on if the mind is with you in the moment, that´s it. I have experienced it.
Totally agree. Photographs help with memory after several months or years but if one is actively participating and not just observing then one will recall the moment as well as having a photo or two for years to come.
On the GH3 page - must be a typo. "What we liked""What we like" ..... should read "What we don't like."
Everywhere else - this camera is a slam dunk. Strange that DPR thinks differently. The GH3 almost suffered the same fate. It was only for it's "video capabilities" that GH3 reluctantly gained the Gold award.Looks like anything in this bracket is and will be compared to the OMD-EM5 from now on and for evermore. Fair enough, but the viewfinder eye cup will not fall off the GX7, the flash doesn't require two pieces of plastic to be removed and a separate flash installed, the menu layout on the GX7 doesn't require a diploma in frustration and the button layout and grip allows for one handed "eye-to-viewfinder" use- unlike the OMD-EM5.I say this as a GH2 user and someone thinking of getting an OMD-EM5 if only for the fact that I've now got a fantastic collection of Olympus prime lenses. That said - the GX7 looks so much better on paper. It even shoots 25p video! I know the GX7 viewfinder is suspect but it's still so much better than the GH3 and OMD-EM5. IMHO.
Lack of in-camera RAW processing. What is that exactly and when would I ever use it? Strange score. Something' up.
One of Cartier Bresson's most famous photographs is of a man jumping over a puddle. When interviewed he said the photograph was taken "blind" from a very low angle between pickets on a fence. And so it is. Some of my best action shots have been taken chasing my kids around the garden with auto focus and motor drive. 1 in 100 and I nail it.It's entirely believable to me that the photo is real.
I find with the right auto focus technique, I can achieve a better success rate with a moving subject with my Panasonic GH2 than my Canon 5DMKII or my Canon 50D. The truth is that if you are serious about action shots then only the absolute top of the line DSLR cameras (Canon 1DX etc) will achieve the desired result even without great technique. When it comes to static subjects - particularly people shots - mirrorless really comes into it's own with face recognition. No longer do I miss the shot because I'm searching around for the right focus point to select. I have easily 3 times as many successful shots with mirrorless over my Canon DSLR's.
Fascinating subject. One of the main reasons why FF has become less desirable is the size and weight of lenses. A different design approach to the lens/ sensor relationship could help miniaturize lenses.
dw2001: love these focus tracking test where you shoot at like F22 and absolutely everything in the frame is in focus...that really gives you an idea of how the focus tracking performs....
yeah right dw2001 - whatever.
I try to avoid a smaller aperture (higher f stop) than f5.6 on m4/3 due to diffraction. Good thing many m4/3 lenses have fantastic performance wide open.
King Penguin: Ok it sure is a cute and attractive camera with great form and controls............but why would you purchase this when for the same(ish) money you can have a camera with a sensor FOUR, yes that's right, FOUR times the area, ie, a Nikon D600.
In 2013 bigger does not necessarily mean better. Come on guys keep up!
tjbates: I'm one of the many selling my DSLR gear and now enjoying the benefits of m4/3 for capturing people. My 5DMK2 is still in my kit for landscape/ architecture photos, but honestly I really don't need it.
I mostly photograph my kids. Back in 2008 I thought getting the "best" was getting a FF DSLR. To my surprise, a few years later, I discovered for many situations that applied to me, that this not necessarily true. Now with a m4/3 camera, I'm nailing almost all of my shots due to face recognition. Always eye ball sharp. My composition is not compromised due to the silly diamond shaped focus arrangement and my lenses are extremely sharp and contrasty at their widest aperture. Not so for my Canon L glass. No more stopping down to get a sharp shot. For me, the bokeh argument is dead.
And now without doubt, for many who have actually tried m4/3, it is abundantly clear that handling, speed and accuracy is no longer owned by FF. FF and their slapping mirrors are a hang over from film days.
Antonio. Sorry, I meant the DOF argument. I think you get the idea.
"FF may all be mirror-less sooner or later." Mirror or no mirror - FF or not, the laws of physics will always determine the size of the attached lenses to cover a sensor. Hence one of the main reasons for the popularity of m4/3. Tiny lenses!
Amazing technology. Sadly in Canon's hands the best we can expect is that it'll be put into a camera body with no headphone jack and lousy downscaling to produce horrible moire and aliasing artefacts.