 |
tjbates
Lives in
United States
Joined on
Feb 13, 2011
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
I don't quite understand this article. Sports photography for any multimedia outlet is photojournalism.
Thanks for the thorough review!
I don't agree at all that the EVF is improved over the GH2. To my eye it's slightly smaller, dimmer and softer than the GH2 EVF especially shooting stills in 4:3 crop mode and to make matters worse, there is no focus peaking when shooting video. Pity.
I also agree with comments that argue the whole point of m4/3 is to make a smaller camera than DSLR's. The GH2 works because it's small but easily operable with one hand.
Thanks for the thorough review!
I don't quite agree about the EVF being improved over the GH2. To my eye it's slightly smaller, dimmer and softer than the GH2 EVF especially shooting stills in 4:3 crop mode and to make matters worse, there is no focus peaking when shooting video.
I'm not a fan of street photography and I'm certainly not a fan of sneaking up on people in the dark. Wow what a hero! Imagine how interesting his work would be if he got out of his stupid truck, spoke to people, got to know their story and with permission made some interesting portraits. Preditor on wheels. What a wally!
PC Wheeler: I'm currently using a GH2. From the studio samples I see little to recommend the GH3 vs. the GH2, so I await the full review before pulling the trigger on a GH3.
Of course, IQ isn't everything and the GH3 has many other things to recommend it (larger grip, likely faster performance, etc.) -- and certainly more video flexibility. Still the GH3 IQ, based only on the studio samples, is not promising and looks poorer (jpegs only) than the OM-D.
Alas, I far prefer Panasonic GH ergonomics over the Oly mft bodies I've used. So it's stay with my GH2 or upgrade to the GH3 at a non-trivial expense. The DPR review of the GH3 will be a major deciding factor. Considering the GH3 price is about the same as the 35-100 f/2.8 OIS lens, there are definitely priorities to consider.
I agree with you about the GH3 viewfinder. Just awful. Have to say, I don't like the OM-D E-M5's viewfinder either. Glad to say I'm still happy with the GH2 viewfinder. It's sharp, clear, and bright.
tjbates: A bit off topic but.....I tried the GH3 in a local camera store.
I compared the viewfinders with the GH2 and the GH2 for me won hands down. The GH3 viewfinder seemed a little smaller, darker and slightly soft. Many have commented on the GH3 viewfinder being soft but I was pretty shocked to see how small the viewfinder image appeared especially in 4:3. It was like looking down a tunnel in comparison. Of course it's a personal choice, but for me I'm hanging on to my GH2.
Thank you Cyber Angel for defending me against John Kock from the Milky Way.
A bit off topic but.....I tried the GH3 in a local camera store.
I compared the viewfinders with the GH2 and the GH2 for me won hands down. The GH3 viewfinder seemed a little smaller, darker and slightly soft. Many have commented on the GH3 viewfinder being soft but I was pretty shocked to see how small the viewfinder image appeared especially in 4:3. It was like looking down a tunnel in comparison. Of course it's a personal choice, but for me I'm hanging on to my GH2.
tjbates: First thing I'd be checking out is the reported 12-35mm lens image stabilisation problem.
http://vimeo.com/59358100
The problem is with video
http://vimeo.com/59358100
First thing I'd be checking out is the reported 12-35mm lens image stabilisation problem.
http://vimeo.com/59358100
Here are some very nice samples.
http://robinwong.blogspot.de/2012/11/olympus-mzuiko-17mm-f18-review.html
Wow - these guys seem totally at a loss as to what to manufacture next. Maybe they are completely overwhelmed by the success of smartphones. As a consumer, I feel that we've been led down this path of ever increasing pixels and then low light ability and then retro styling etc, etc. The fact is that anyone that has a clue about what he or she are doing can get great results out of any digital camera format. The megapixel race is a smoke screen. If you're printing murals then go ahead and use a Nikon D800 but if your printing 8x10 then 4 megapixels has always been plenty. If you're cropping a lot then 16 megapixels is enough.
I use FF and m4/3. The smaller format is wonderfully light and I can't pick the "qualtiy" difference unless I'm at 100%.
Maybe what they should be saying is that they'll try and catch up with Olympus in the fast prime lens department.
What about a circular sensor?
It appears that Olympus are having success with the OM-5 because of the way it looks. Doubt they'll dump the OM film camera look.
It's funny to me that one of the main critisisms of Canon was that they didn't have auto focus lenses optimized for video. The thing is that anyone who has a clue about focussing for video with a DSLR doesn't use auto focus even if it is available.
Now we have a lens that apparently can't easily be manually focussed. OOoopps.
Which market is this for?