ZeneticX: nice review
will there be an A7 II review after this?
Samsung NX1...anywhere on the horizon? Would be very interesting to see. But now it is March already and zip after such encouriging news in december from you guys.
Jorginho: As a stills cam without PDAF I think it is not a good actionshooting cam either...If so...it loses out there to many of its brethern too. 86% for such a cam with such restricted use eems on the high side.Also I note that the "performance" of the Gh4 is slightly higher than the A7s. I think with 7,5 fps with AF-c 9that works really well) that difference might be a lot bigger.
It is not an action cam, it is not a landscape cam, it is not a 4K videocam. It seems to be a very restricted cam. GH4 is a 4K videocam, is good in action and compared to its peers, it is the best around even better than EM1. Not so with A7s at all. Strange score.
As a stills cam without PDAF I think it is not a good actionshooting cam either...If so...it loses out there to many of its brethern too. 86% for such a cam with such restricted use eems on the high side.Also I note that the "performance" of the Gh4 is slightly higher than the A7s. I think with 7,5 fps with AF-c 9that works really well) that difference might be a lot bigger.
mpgxsvcd: I am so glad I bought the Olympus E-M5 MK II last weekend. It runs circles around every A-PSC camera that Nikon and Canon make in this price range. The E-M5 MK II has better video capabilities, better features like 5 stop IBIS, Live Time, 63 megapixel mode, Great AFC tracking, and better burst speeds. Not to mention that it is much smaller, lighter, and less expensive.
Nikon and Canon both need to realize that mirrorless will be the future whether they like it or not.
How is the focustracking? I wondered about that. Did you test it? with what lens. What speeds are possible (fps)? In the end, I remember quite a few m43 users being really underwhelmed by the Em5 mk2. But now it seems the tables have turned. I think if you are not upgrading from D7100 and may be d7000, d7200 is actually a very good camera for an APS-c DSLr at that price.
justmeMN: I guess Real Photographers aren't supposed to use articulated LCD screens. I don't understand why.
(The Nikon D5500 has one, but this camera doesn't.)
my Gh4 has a swiveling screen and has stood for hours in the damp of a waterfall and wet snow falling on it. Not a hickup. What are you talking about? Em5 markII now has the same screen and weathersealing. NX1 has a weathersealed flipscreen...
ryan2007: In the micro four thirds class, Panasonic has always been innovative and first to the market place with great products. They were the first with the 12-35 & 35-100 mm 2.8 zooms.
Good for micro four thirds and Panasonic. I knew from the start they were a better product than Olympus in this MFT's niche.
Hej Impulses...I think the Oly 40-150 is really big compared to the 35-100 Panny. Yes, usefull reach but 100 mm more at twice the weight? To me a bit too much.Misolo: 300 f4 right around the corner. We all know that. Why argue?
WE MFT USERS WHO SHOOT SPORTS AND WILDLIFE ARE WAITING AND WAITING FOR A GOOD LONG FAST ZOOM! WAKE TF up Panasonic.
100-250 mm does not translate into 800 mm. It is 500 mm. When you look at the 100-300 mm you see it is realy small for such a FL. As always DOF is less stellar, but for shutterspeeds it is the same as any other f4 to f5.6 lens. Again: 100-250 mm f2.8 to f4 or so. Would makeit bigger for sure, but smaller than any APS-c DSLR lens for the same FL. The 50-200 mm f2.8 to f3.5 Oly weighs just under a kilo. With the newer tech, slowerglass but longer FL at the long end we may expect a 100-250 mm f2.8 to f4 to be roughly that size and weight may be a little smaller and lighter. I have seen quite a few people expressing similar needs, so I think this would be a lens that sells much better than a 42,5 mm f1.7 with a 45 f1.8 Oly around. Or a 30 mm macro....
Not cynical but to my mind shortsigtened.If so, no reason to come up with any long zoom and one that does not work too well hardly seems a good incentive to keep those who bought it in the system.Most cars to my minds are not systems, so better compare those to bridge cams it seems.Gh4 has the best C-AF of all mFT cams it seems, may be joined with Oly EM1. It works well. If you do come out with a cumbersome YAG for video a 2K or so, then there is enough reason (and a bigger market I am sure) for a 100-250 mm F-fast (2.8 to f4 or so) weathersealed lens with the same very good specs of the 35-100.Oly finally comes out with a longer zoom and a fast 300 (600 mm) prime. This also negates your Subaru comparison.I also use a D800E occasionally and such a cam is in fact a reason to want such a lens I think.
Yes...nut no Image stabilsation. Not much of a problem for fast shooting but now you are hanpered when the birdie is sitting still on a branch and you could get away with lower shutterspeeds, lower ISO and better IQ.
Panny should not rely on Oly, it should stop making a zillion of sub 100 mm lenses and get ONE GOOD 100-250 mm F2.8 to F4 lens. That is all. Anyone seriously thinking that the 2K Yag has a better future and gets them more than a good weathersealed zoom like I described above at 1,5 K /$?
"Just needs an update" and "nothing wrong" do not mix too well. I have it. It needs much faster zoommotors. It needs a much better zoomring and especially focusring ( very stiff), it needs better IQ beyond 200-250 mm. It needs weathersealing too...
The below 100 mm lenses of both brands are great. But Olympus is addressing the needs of all its users. Panasonic is leaving serious wildlife, BIGF and actions shooters in the cold. So no, you are deadwrong: Oly does a much better job here.
Akpinxit: nicely constructed model , but with same IQ as Canon 7D it no match for a6000
have fun with your Ferrari motor in your Fiat.
Kim Letkeman: No PDAF ... same grip ... same OIS specs ... not that exciting.
High end video specs ... now that's exciting. Now we wait to see how good the codec is at any bandwidth ... and of course how long it can record before giving up ...
Seems that the EM1 uses CDAF only with m43 lenses and it does pretty well. So PDAF (if correct( is not needed at all.
Also: it is not an EM6, it is an MKII. There is a reason for that..it is supposed to be closr to its predecssor. A lot of things are better so I think everything is like we should expect of such a cam.
stevo23: So underwhelming. Not sure why they bothered with this.
Yes for some this will be underwhelming. Like all cams will have huge numbers of people not being too thrilled by it.
The pro's compared to MKI:1/16000s shutter vs 1/4000sElectprnic shutterFar superiror video from first shots40 MPixel output RAW, without the downside of smaller photosites, better colour, better high noise but restricted use.SwivelscreenBetter controls on the camFar better EVFMuch faster and better AF, probably also AF-C (as it seems EM1 does AF-c without PDAF and it works good).Even better IBISHDR inbody and FocusPeaking (great for those whow ant to shoot video with nonstabilsed, MF lenses)
I think for an MKII that is quite an extensive list of very usable features. But to each their own.
Terry Breedlove: Beautiful camera that improves in every way that I wanted included better high ISO performance. Olympus needs to hit the next EM-1 replacement out of the ball park because the EM-5 II is so good. Makes purchasing the current EM-1 hard to justify.
Well I yes and no. Of course Em2 cannot be worse in anything than EM5 MKII. But one thing is missing for EM5 MKII: 4/3 lens support. What I think is going to happen is that EM2 will be what Olympus has in mind for its 4/3 user group: compatibility with those lenses. So it is a very good 4/3 m43 cam, whereas EM5 MKII is sqaurely aimed at m43 users.
photo perzon: Olympus E-PM2 weighs the same as GM1 or GM5 and has almost twice the DXO ISO performance and built in IS, and if you want you can put a VF-4 on it
@AdamT: aha...I am not the only one to note this. I have GH4 and EPL5. The DR is better clearly on the GH4. But I was astonished that shooting Noctilucent clouds were bettert oo, een though DxO for instance said it was a bit the opposite. It is not even difficult to see the GH4 is better than EPL5 at high ISO in the dark. I was doubting my own view, but your remark seems to confirm this.
bluevellet: I find it amusing people get hung up with the "dated sensor" comment. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.
Even ignoring the competition with bigger sensors, m43 sensors have remained largely the same since 2011-2012, since the jump to 16MP. With only marginal improvements through better image processing and those improvements are still hotly debated in forums here. I don't think it would be responsible for DPR to hide this tidbit about the sensor in the overall review.
This is the same situation as to when 43 DSLRs and early m43 cameras were stuck with the dated 12MP sensor for many years. All my 43 cameras are from that era, they take fine photos, you just have to be aware of their limitations compared to more recent cameras with the latest sensor tech.
GX1/G3/G5: worse DR especially than GH2GH2/G6: worse DR, tonal range and colour sensitivity (and noise) than Sony mFT sensor (GH3. EPL5/EM5)SOny mFT sensor: somewhat worse DR than Panasonic EM1/GH4 sensor
There is a clear difference that is easily notable between the first and the second 16MPixel mFT sensors and the last two.
EM5 using the Sony sensor indeed will be criticised, but mainly for the reason (I think) that we now have EM10 with that sensor, EM1 with a somewhat better sensor and now EM5 MarkII again...The main problem may well be it lacking good focus for AF-C. Where EM1 and GH4 offer it, the EM5 is unsure here.
Peopel are "hung up" because that statement and yours is incorrect. Evident by DxO measurements. 56 score for the GX1 16 MPixels, 60 for the GH2 and 61 for G6. Compared to 71 for the GX7 and 74 for the GH4 (the best sensor out there. Evident by the various reviews here on dpreview too.
If it is correct, who cares. But it is not. Finally, as as user of all 16MPixel mFT sensors the difference is signficant.
When we look at Fuji..what has changed? Sony? Significant changes since NEX7 (2011)? No. So even reltively. Reltive to what is it long in the tooth? Not most of the competition. And most certainly not when we take a peak at canons APS-c sensors...
It is nonsense.
Jorginho: Dated sensor? It is here since GX7, 1,5 years old. How is it dated. No mor edated than the Sony 24 Mpixel sensor. Nor the Fuji 16 Mpixels. This is not the same sensor we found in the GH2, GX1, G5, G6 etc....Nor is it the same sensor found in the EM5 or GH3 which were made by Sony. Like the Gh4 review says, I noted it is better than the one in the GH3/EPL5 /EM5 in especially Dynamic range, but also the other known parameters.I also looked at the RAWs od the RX100III and GM5 at ISO6400 and ISO 12800. In the bulb mode, the RX100III at ISO 6400 equals the GM5 at ISO12800 (moreless). I do not see it coming closer and it does not seem equal.
@ yslee1. There is something to it, but that was not noted I think as a difference in IQ in the GM1 vs GX7 or so. GM1 "The Sony NEX-3N, however, uses an APS-C sensor and should have a slight edge over the MFT Panasonic camera as ISO rises. Our studio test scene shows them to be closely matched at low ISOs and interestingly, the GM1 has a slight edge at ISO 6400."' NEX3N isn't the best Soy APS-c, but it is close. GM1 did better in RAW in high NOIse. They also noted the FUji APS-c sensor just slightly being better at high ISO. In short: the electronic shutter did not have any effect on dpreviews take on the GM1 and most likely will not have it on the GM5. If a sensor can compete with good APS_c sensors a year ago, such a mFT sensor is not all of a sudden outdated a year later.