h2k: The headline: "Rock Steady"
The teaser image: A camera on... wooden planks.
Those wooden planks might have petrified and are technically stone, aka rock.
gmarmot: I fully understand that most people here are photo geeks, as am I, however I'm a bit mystified at folks who downgrade micro 4/3 because of image quality, & say a larger sensor is necessary. What are you doing with your photos? I'm retired & been traveling in 21 3rd world countries for 6 years (sometimes backpacking). My 1/2.3" sensor images were often good enough that at a slide show folks were shocked to learn what camera I used.The point is that most photographers will not need a sensor larger than the EM5II has, and the viewers of their pics will not know the difference. Carrying 36+ oz of my EM5 (now EM5II) and lenses going from 24 to 600 mm, is the absolute max size and weight that is feasible for me.As I'm 62 and grew up shooting film in 35m and larger sizes, I would like to have the image quality of a sensor larger than 35mm full frame, but the weight, size, and cost would, in no way, be worth it.How many of you actually need a sensor larger than this one?
"How many of you actually need a sensor larger than this one?"
Need? Very very few.
mosc: I'm skeptical of DPR's comments on the high resolution mode with various lenses. Each pixel doesn't change size when it's moved. I think DPR is incorrect when it says a lens is perfectly fine for 16mp but not for 40mp. None of the 8 shots taken are more than 16mp. They're all 16mp, they're all the same resolution as all the other samples. The lens only needs 16mp of resolution to give a 40mp image... provided you take 8 of them with precise shifts and do a lot of math.
It's possible the issue is lens related but if it is I'd say it probably has to do more with the algorythm's inability to deal with "digitally corrected lenses" more than the lens's lack of resolution.
"None of the 8 shots taken are more than 16mp."
Many of the m43 lenses do not provide the 16MP of resolution.
But that prompts an interesting test: a high res mode shoot-out of kit lens vs prime. E.g. Oly's own 14-42mm vs. 25mm @ 25mm.
But I doubt the test would uncover something unprecedented. I expect the slight blur, characteristic to zooms, to reappear in the high-res images.
Nice sensor. Nice lenses. Nice location.
I like how DPR is getting out more these days!
P.S. Still no EVF...
fatdeeman: Oh dear, the shadows in the processed ISO 200 shot are awful, I've been spoilt by my NEX 5n. The low noise floor in modern Sony sensors really does make the files very robust when it comes to recovering shadows.
Could this technology not be incorporated into a 4/3 sensor?
Who cares what's in the shadows. If it were worth human attention, it would have been well lit.
Otherwise, Pana sensors have tad bit more read-out noise compared to the Sony's ones.
Also Sony (unlike Pana) does manipulate the point of black to remove the noise in the shadows. That, despite the fact that it needs it less than Pana. To achieve the same effect with the Pana images, just get the RAWs and process them yourself.
Jorginho: Well...very niced cam for the size. But I have to wonder what it gets us over a GM1 or GM5 basically...Selfies?
> It's not any cheaper than the GM1
German prices:GM1's MSRP is 700€GF7's MSRP is 500€
brendon1000: This is the sort of camera that mirrorless is all about. Good IQ in a very small compact body with small compact lenses too.
Sony and Fuji offer better IQ especially the A7 but those aren't terribly small anymore once you factor in the lenses.
That's probably why recent DPR's m43 galleries are full of "social", almost candid, photographs.
Depending on a situation, full black or full white/silver m43 camera with a pancake lens rarely if ever stands out. Something that is extremely hard to accomplish with even the smallest DSLR.
JeanPierre Thibaudeau: This camera seems to produce some of the most beautiful colours I've ever seen. But strangely, at ISO 12800, they also seem to loose a lot of saturation. Nonetheless, I just might buy one for me and keep the ISO at a reasonnable level. Very nice!
@Jean, it is not camera function per se. It is the function of the RAW development. The built-it in-camera JPEG conversion generally tends to err on the safe side of things. While the dedicated PC software has much more CPU/RAM resources to analyze the image in detail and produce better results.
DPR should post more of the stuff!
Here is an interesting blog:
"But to be honest when we’re looking at mirrorless cameras, and entry-level DSLR cameras, and high-end compact cameras, we don’t know which of those will become mainstream."
That's quite telling that Canon itself, after so many years, doesn't consider entry-level DSLRs to be mainstream.
Even more revealing is the dismissal of the mirrorless by throwing them together with the compacts and entry-level DSLRs.
Private and/or family businesses - we need more of those.
Video recording of GH4+OIS vs. E-M5/2+IBIS side by side.
Interestingness: Sorry to hi-jack this post on what looks to be a wonderful mkII camera but this is relevant...
A recent post on Steve Huff's site will hopefully shut up some of these annoying Sony fanboi's. As a m4/3's user I'm really impressed with how the EM1 did and even as someone who will NEVER own a Sony branded cam, I have to say how disappointing the A7s did overall. If I dropped $2400.- (CDN pricing) on that thing I'd be rushing back for a full refund!
PS - The 1st person who comes up with a NOT-A-SONY sticker for my camera has a customer right here - shut up and take my money!
"Like Olympus would never ever do that."
Of course not. It would harm their street cred as the company which was running THE longest financial fraud in history.
Nordstjernen: After I went from DSLR to Sony FF mirrorless my camera bag has shrunk to less than half bulk and weight without limiting my photographic projects. Now I can go ultra-compact when I want to, which never was an option with DSLR due to bulky and noticeable heavier cameras. The result? I am using my camera more than ever before!
Now I am looking forward to the 90 mm portrait/macro lens! Nice to see the other offerings too, which should strengthen the brand and system quite a lot. The FE mount is still very young, so I think we have to wait a few more years until all needs are covered - compact lenses, bright lenses, long lenses, ultra wide primes, etc.
"The FE mount is still very young, so I think we have to wait a few more years until all needs are covered - compact lenses, bright lenses, long lenses, ultra wide primes, etc."
I only wish they have started with the compact lenses. We have already a plenty of systems with the larger lenses.
But even current size savings are noticeable. Not enough for me personally - but still a step in the right direction.
IMO Sony does not need many small lenses. Even a single walk-around pancake prime, say around f/3 - f/4 and ~40mm. Make the lens cheap and use it as a promo kit - and it would do a great deal to tilt the size perception of the whole FE system.
disraeli demon: Glad to see the μ4/3 lens stable continuing to expand. Before switching to mirrorless, I was using Nikon APS-C and was constantly disappointed by the lack of compact fast primes for that format. Four years on from switching, Nikon does have a 40mm macro for APS-C, but neither they nor Canon offer a 60mm f2 (i know there are "nifty fifties," but that extra 10mm does make a difference). Neither company has anything to match the range of fast wide-angle primes offered by μ4/3... Or Fuji...
> Why getting rude?
Because repeating the same stuff many many times doesn't make it true.
> Most won't be interested.
How could ever you know?
No manufacturer tried *ever* releasing such lenses.
Not everybody out there is a f-number nazi.
Considering the high ISO performance of the modern cameras, even f/4 primes should do fine for the most tasks. Some people just want a smaller package, with least possible compromises. Without shrinking the lenses, it is simply impossible.
@HFLM, so where is the equivalent 2.6/30mm for the DX - of the size/etc equivalent to Pana 1.7/20mm?? Why you equivalency trolls always spin only one way? I do not care about why the larger lens is "better" than the smaller lens. I want to have a *smaller* lens, equivalency be damned. DX system has no smaller lenses. While m43 has larger equivalent lenses. I have the cake - and I can eat it too. Samsung NX is pretty much the only APS-C system which has smaller primes - but sadly yet no camera body worth buying.
"A recent post on Steve Huff's site will hopefully shut up some of these annoying Sony fanboi's."
Well, here I would be considered a m43 fanboi, but the Steve's post is really so subjective that it is not funny.
Don't waste your time reading it, I can easily provide here a TL;DR version of his comparison: PanaLeica 25mm is a great lens; Oly colors rule; the end.
> Two lenses are almost the same sized.
That was pretty much my point: one of the largest primes on the m43, is about the same size as the smallest Nikon DX prime.
In the end, if DSLR lenses were as small, I probably wouldn't have "upgraded" to a mirrorless.
xpda: What will this offer that I don't already have with the Panasonic 45mm macro lens? (A serious question. Do I need both lenses?)
@xdpa, as macro goes, you would gain nothing. For macro lens, longer FL is an advantage.
The problem is, longer the FL of macro lens is, more expensive it is. The 30mm is an affordable native macro lens for m43.
Compare: the PL 45mm (in Germany) MSRP is 800€ (red dot and all), the Oly 60mm - 600€. The 30mm - 380€.
Though I dislike short macro lenses, I probably would get me the 30mm.