Previous news story    Next news story

Pro shooter to cover London 2012 using Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5

By dpreview staff on Jul 27, 2012 at 16:54 GMT

Panasonic has announced that Getty Images sports photographer Dean Mouhtaropoulos will be covering the London 2012 Olympic Games exclusively using its recently-announced Lumix DMC-G5. His images will be displayed both at the Getty Gallery next to London's Olympic Park, and on Panasonic UK's homepage. With sports photography traditionally the preserve of large SLR cameras, the company is hoping to showcase the capabilities of its mirrorless model in this notoriously-demanding field. We suspect the press release has more to do with making the most of its Olympic sponsorship than swaying other pros, but it should be interesting to see the results.


Press release:

Panasonic team up with leading sports Photographer and reveals the camera he’ll be using at London 2012 Olympic Games

Having recently announced the London 2012 Olympic Games Images Gallery at the Getty Gallery, Westfield Stratford City, Panasonic is pleased to announce that leading sports photographer, Dean Mouhtaropoulos will be exclusively using the newly announced Panasonic DMC-G5 LUMIX G camera to capture the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Dean Mouhtaropoulos has been granted access to the London 2012 Olympic Games to capture the unique, emotional and historic Olympic moments. Having worked for Getty Images (the Official Photographic Agency of the International Olympic Committee) for 9 years, Dean is well versed in capturing epic sporting moments including both Football and Rugby World Cups, the Olympics, Champions League football, World Championships in Swimming, Diving, Hockey, Athletics to name but a few.  With Dean’s extensive experience photographing sports, and his passion for photography that dates back to his 12th birthday, when he was first given a camera, Dean was the obvious photographer to be tasked with this momentous and epic task.

With historic moments captured in a fraction of a second, Dean needs a fast, responsive, lightweight camera with outstanding image quality. Panasonic is providing Dean with a DMC-G5 LUMIX G camera to capture the games on.  The G5 is a new addition to Panasonic’s multiple award winning LUMIX G range of cameras – having only been announced last week.

Perfectly designed for a sports photographer, thanks to its compact, classically designed and easy-to-grip chassis the LUMIX G5 is effortless to carry around, yet still provides the superior image quality required for such historic shots.

With a new 16.05-megapixel Live MOS sensor; the Venus Engine VII FHD image processor; and an ISO range of up to 12,800, the LUMIX G5 provides stunning image quality, even in low-light situations – perfect for demanding shooting conditions like the Olympics.

There are no second chances when shooting at the Olympics – that split second moment is there to be captured and you need a camera you can rely on. With highly precise, light speed Auto Focus, the G5 ensures you’ll never miss the perfect shot. Additionally, the LUMIX G5’s rapid burst shooting capability - at six Frames per Second (FPS) at full resolution - can capture multiple shots of fast-moving subjects with stunning clarity.

Dean will also carry a selection of LUMIX G Lenses in his kit bag, ranging from 7mm-300mm [1] including the recently launched 12-35mm [2] X lens, suitable for capturing a wide range of scenes thanks to a versatile zoom and F2.8 brightness in the entire zoom range,.

Images taken by Dean using the G5 will be showcased at the London 2012 Olympic Games Images Gallery at the Getty Gallery based in Westfield Shopping Centre, Stratford (4th July-15th September).  Visitors to the gallery will be able to interact with Panasonic’s showcase of Smart VIERA TVs showing live London 2012 Olympic content both in 2D and 3D being uploaded from all Olympic venues.

Additionally, Panasonic will be posting ‘Lumix G Photos of the Day’ on Panasonic’s homepage (www.panasonic.co.uk) throughout the Olympic Games – so keep a check on the website as this will be updated daily. From the homepage visitors will also be able to link to the Lumix Lifestyle (www.lumixlifestyle.co.uk) page to view the full Panasonic London 2012 photo gallery. Thorough the Lumix Lifestyle community there will also be a section on Panasonic at London 2012, including general information on Panasonic's equipment at London 2012, a biography of Dean and product information and images on the G5. If this wasn’t enough Panasonic’s London 2012 Flag Tags App will be featured on the site, as well as a gallery of sports photos taken by Lumix Lifestyle members.

Panasonic has been a supporter of the Olympic Games since 1988 and this latest announcement is just an example of the innovative, creative and informative ideas Panasonic is offering for people to fully enjoy London 2012.


[1] 35mm equivalent: 14-600mm

[2] 35mm equivalent: 24-70mm

Comments

Total comments: 301
123
RichardAB
By RichardAB (Aug 8, 2012)

I think it wil be very interesting to hear from the photographer after the event, I hope he'll talk about the experience.

He's taken lots of great shots, imho, of the 2012 games.

I'd like the negative whingers below to provide a link to show their own best sports shot, then we can see if they have a clue about what they're talking about - I doubt they have anything worth seeing.

I'm also left wondering if the whingers are jealous, would they feel differently if the shots featured American competitors and the Games were in the USA?

2 upvotes
dash2k8
By dash2k8 (Aug 9, 2012)

By bringing in nationality into your argument, you lost all steam.

Meaningless accusations aside, you challenged the WHINERS to post their best sports shots as a way to validate their own comments. That's the equivalent of movie critics who can't produce their own movies being unqualified to judge. You think Ebert ever filmed his own movie? Yet he's a respected critic. There are mostly wedding photog's on this board, so you're not going to see any sports photos posted, but that doesn't mean we don't know a lousy photo when we see it. The Panasonic photos are soft (heavy noise reduction) and colors look a bit too saturated to my eyes. Just because I don't have an Olympic press pass doesn't mean I can't be disappointed.

1 upvote
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Aug 7, 2012)

pannumon has a very good point. The problem of giving a camera like that to a photojournalist is that they will have no experience of using anything like that!

And to be fair, I think his shots are improving

0 upvotes
dash2k8
By dash2k8 (Aug 9, 2012)

Yeah, improving... with the games already done with the prime events. The men's 100M, the swimming events... Not sure what other signature events are left for him to redeem the G5.

0 upvotes
zapado
By zapado (Aug 10, 2012)

I'm not sure why you seem so angry about the photos being taken with this camera. Are they up to the level of the high-end Canons/Nikons? No, but for a consumer grade camera that costs probably 1/3 of those (conservatively), it's holding it's own pretty well. I agree the photos weren't great to begin with, but he is certainly improving over time. I would also be interested to see how much compression is being done to put them up on the web/whether or not they're being processed from RAW/etc.

I should clarify, I don't mean you in particular. I mean everyone in this message thread who has shown a degree of anger I'm not sure is warranted and I don't really understand towards a consumer camera.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
pannumon
By pannumon (Aug 7, 2012)

The Panasonic site is showing shots of just one photographer with no prior experience of the gear he is using. It does not make sense to judge him or the gear by comparing his shots to the best shots of all the others. Even comparing portfolios of 100 best photos taken by a photographer at the Olympics would not be fair, because it's crucial to know your gear.

By the way, in my opinion Dean has succeeded pretty well. I'm expecting more action photos as he is getting used to the system. Maybe he will take more less challenging shots with narrow depth of field, as well.

2 upvotes
dash2k8
By dash2k8 (Aug 9, 2012)

I think he opened himself to this criticism by accepting this job, wouldn't you agree? I wouldn't go into a huge event like this without full confidence in my gear and then hoping people would get off my back. If he doesn't demand the best of himself, why should we lower our standards of critique and "come to accept this quality"?

0 upvotes
Dougbm_2
By Dougbm_2 (Aug 6, 2012)

Embarrassing for Panasonic. I think he may have done better with the FZ200 actually judging by the image quality seen here (and 12fps).
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200-hands-on-review-19711

But then again a lot depends on the photographer.
eg Dan Chung and the iPhone (plus binoculars!!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/27/london-olympics-2012-smartphone

0 upvotes
dash2k8
By dash2k8 (Aug 6, 2012)

Each day I check the Lumix Olympics site, waiting to be wowed. So far it's been hugely disappointing. The pictures look overly noise-reduced. As others have said, what a great way to kill the product's PR. Oh, and the photog who agreed to do this did not help his reputation at all. What a waste of time. I hope he sold his photo soul for a really high price, cos he's gonna need all of it to buy redemption.

0 upvotes
FrankCorn
By FrankCorn (Aug 6, 2012)

A very poor advert for Panasonic. Totally unremarkable images and a wasted opportunity. Think I'll give Getty a call.

1 upvote
achilles1974
By achilles1974 (Aug 5, 2012)

I share the sentiment of many others here. These photos only reinforce my appreciation for having a nice DSLR and a compliment of lenses. If I came away from the Olympics with these photos, I would be battling a severe case of depression. I hope to go in 2016 and I will be armed with everything allowed for a spectator.

2 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Aug 3, 2012)

pathetic

1 upvote
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Aug 3, 2012)

Well, it's a week now, I'm calling it a day. I had been expecting better then this.

BTW, it's nothing to do with action, these shots bring home the difference between smaller and larger sensors.

When are we going to see a 35mm mirrorless?

Oh, wait a minute, there is another manufacturer whose name starts with L....

0 upvotes
Canadianguy
By Canadianguy (Aug 3, 2012)

This is what is coming out of the Nikon/Canon camp

http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2012/08/01/2012-london-olympics/

Compared what is being shown by Panasonic - not even close.

They need to play to their strengths and fast action sports is not it.

2 upvotes
Carol Stee
By Carol Stee (Aug 4, 2012)

Thanks for sharing these photos. The difference between the Nikon/Canon shots and the Panasonic G5 isn't simply image quality, the Nikon/Canon photographers have more talent.

0 upvotes
thincrust88
By thincrust88 (Aug 2, 2012)

Just viewed the pics on the Panasonic website...

I'm sorry, but not a single image stands out.

0 upvotes
Blaufeld
By Blaufeld (Aug 2, 2012)

I too think that lately the photographer is choosing poorly. I doubt that with an high-end camera these images could be better - they simply "lacks pizzaz", even if they are "good enough" for the typical magazine/web Olympics report.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
jagge
By jagge (Aug 2, 2012)

You are soo right. A few above the average enthusiast standard, but getty stuff, nahhhh.

And they are all a bit soft I think, absolutely not a good advertisement for the G5. Where are the razor sharp shoots with good dynamic range.

Not here for sure

Jakob

1 upvote
PStu
By PStu (Aug 3, 2012)

Maybe one or two pictures stand out. This shot from the weightlifting competition, http://www.lumixlifestyle.co.uk/london-2012/photos-of-the-day/day-4-1st-august/mens-69kg-weightlifting-3/#galleryimage, is really interesting, but it goes for a long exposure rather than high ISO.

0 upvotes
Blaufeld
By Blaufeld (Aug 1, 2012)

" The stuff we can buy now for $899 (G5) or $1299 (The Olympus OMD) is so much better when it comes to on sensor performance than anything that pros shot at the Olympics four and eight years ago that it's laughable. And the two targets for the work haven't gotten one lick better. All the images are destined for magazines or the web. The images, from a quality point of view, whether from a 16 meg Nikon D4 or a 16 meg Panasonic G5 are both ultimately limited by the conversion to CMYK (much more limited gamma, weaker blacks), the transfer to a lower line screen resolution, the lower reflective value of the cheap paper and the vagaries of matching inks to an electronic sensor output. Bigger isn't going to make a difference. Same with relative noise performance."
Kirk Tuck, original post at http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.it/2012/07/the-ever-changing-perspective-of.html
I gave you a little bit of advice: read his blog, thake a look at his LEVEL of work and the GEAR he uses. ;)

4 upvotes
RichardAB
By RichardAB (Aug 1, 2012)

What a great article, thanks for posting the link. Hopefully the camera snobs will read it.

0 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (Aug 1, 2012)

He is a good writer and photographer, but not a sportsphotographer and he is wrong in this case. The photos made by the pros at the Olympics four years ago are way superior to what Panasonic has shown here.
You can judge even in web-size and the CMYK process dont cancel it out either.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
JohnnyRX7
By JohnnyRX7 (Aug 1, 2012)

marketing stunt at the end of the day

1 upvote
BobBill
By BobBill (Aug 1, 2012)

eyedo. Likely you.

First. The press shot quality are a function of the shooter, not the equipment and most certainly depend on viewer inclinations. If you had no idea of the equipment being used, would you know?

Second. I must admit little interest in this event for its self-serving venue and outrageous cost.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
PerL
By PerL (Aug 1, 2012)

Surely these shots are substandard from a technical point of view compared to what we are used to see from the Olympics. And yes, I would spot that immidiatly even if I did not know which camera was used.

0 upvotes
eyedo
By eyedo (Aug 1, 2012)

Maybe it's just me..I've not seen any shots that impress me from the Olympics with the Panny camera.However,I have seen the news pool photos with the pro camera gear and they really are outstanding.

1 upvote
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Aug 1, 2012)

Such as....?

1 upvote
Kissel
By Kissel (Jul 31, 2012)

Fast and reliable AF really matters for sports photography, and Panny proved it's capable back in the times when GH2 was introduced.
G5 doesn't shine with it's continious shooting though, with only 6fps, but hey, it's a enrty-level camera.

0 upvotes
Blaufeld
By Blaufeld (Aug 1, 2012)

A REAL pro photographer is well able to do competent shots even with a speed of 2-3 frames per second, "spray-and-pray" is the REAL mark of a wannabe.
And I'm not sorry for anyone feeling offended, soccer dads included.

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 2, 2012)

"Spray and pray". I love that expression !

0 upvotes
jagge
By jagge (Aug 2, 2012)

at blaufeld:

I just have to give a comment to your funny statement.

Its almost a bit tirering this nonsense " a pro could do it with 2 fps"..... Its such a dumb statement. WHY do you think there is a market for these fast cameras that very few consumers can afford ? Why do they all offer fast fps ? Why do sports shooters use them ?? Because it gives them a lot more keepers and enable them to catch that crucial moment where everything is right. And they dont wait for that soccer player to have the right expression during a shot to the ball, now they fire at fullll speed when he hits the ball and sorts afterwards.

But i guess you buy that jazz about "zone focusing" and will claim that AF can be left out by a real pro.

Its so funny these meaning less statements that keeps being repeated. Gear doesnt matter, MP myth, its the photographer, bla bla.

Its the COMBINATION of gear and photographer, its not rockets science but your claim is a joke.

Jakob

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jul 31, 2012)

Do you find something unorthodox about this picture? Should professional photographers know better than showing "'double posterior" to the viewer: http://www.lumixlifestyle.co.uk/london-2012/photos-of-the-day/day-3-30th-july/show-jumping-at-greenwich-park/#galleryimage

1 upvote
carpandean
By carpandean (Aug 1, 2012)

See, now imagine how much more isolated those double rears would have been on a FF shot. Aren't you glad he used m4/3 now? ;-)

(Note: since he use f/4.6 on a f/2.8 max lens, he actually chose not to isolate them as much. Just trying to be funny above.)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MDwebpro
By MDwebpro (Jul 31, 2012)

Product sales is all about marketing and advertising.

The intended point of this exercise is not "swaying other pros," but to send a message to serious amateurs: "These are the kind of shots that are possible with this camera. Buy one and you, too, might produce photos like these."

I suspect a TV commercial and magazine ad campaign featuring Dean is also in the works.

3 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

I love the expression "serious amateur" that can be understood in two ways: the conventional one, it's to say a non-professional. And the other interpretation that stands for "a kind of person who is very far from being a professional". I suppose the Panasonic campain is aimed at this sort of people who believe they can reach a Canon EOS-1D C results with a very handy camera. But that's well known, hope makes sales !

Anyway, to everybody, anyhow you shoot, don't forget the very good Olympus advice: don't be a tourist ! (cf: http://youtu.be/lwnSqr7zMeo )

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jul 31, 2012)

It's all about people on DPR forums who bought G5, so they might have some bragging rights, otherwise they feel bad about OM-D urinating on G5 on every occasion marking its territory :-)

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

I assume your comment, forpetessake, is not aimed at me as I don't own any Olympus product. And to be complete, I won't ever buy a product of this company that has such an unspeakable way of being. As a resident of Japan reading japanese newspapers, I can assure you the whole case of Olympus is a lot larger than what most of the newspapers in the world have reported. The scandalous Michael Woodford's issue is just the tip of the iceberg, and even after he won his cause, Olympus didn't change anything in its attitude. For me, it's a NO WAY ! Loud and clear !

0 upvotes
carpandean
By carpandean (Aug 1, 2012)

Forpetessake, the G5 and OM-D are not comparable cameras, nor are they priced as such (roughly 30% lower for G5.) The upcoming GH3 will be more comparable to the OM-D (though, it will likely have higher spec video capabilities, too.)

0 upvotes
Blaufeld
By Blaufeld (Jul 31, 2012)

MMhhhh... the top ten earning photographers in the US make money shooting corporate/political portraits and architectural portfolios with medium format cameras.
So according to the conventional wisdom of the typical poster here, they are not "Pro".

0 upvotes
stillrds
By stillrds (Jul 31, 2012)

These images didn't look right to me so I looked at the originals by removing the dimensions from the image path. Looks like they've been compressed too heavily even before scaling down – the average file sizes were well below what you'd expect – either they've been compressed before/during uploading process or the 'standard' quality setting was used. What a waste.

0 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Jul 30, 2012)

Looks like he is carrying the unreleased 35-100m F2.8 as well. This is the lens that makes m4/3s a legitimate professional camera system.

Focal Length: 89mm ISO: 160 Aperture: f/2.8 Exposure: 1/3200sec

http://www.lumixlifestyle.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/253-534x712.jpg

1 upvote
PerL
By PerL (Jul 30, 2012)

So far the results dont impress. At least not those from tbe swimming or the fencing. Looks muddy with unclean colors, low contrast.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
fmian
By fmian (Jul 31, 2012)

A 200mm standard tele f/5.6 eqiv DOF lens that isn't available yet doesn't sound as appealing as a full frame system camera with a whole host of 'super' tele lenses to choose from that is easily available.
At least the lens you mentioned would alleviate some of the pressure from the photographer to shoot shallow DOF at longer focal lengths.
I bet he would be looking around him at all the other photogs with more suitable gear, wishing he could have been paid big bucks to use that stuff.

2 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Jul 31, 2012)

35-100/2.8 for 4/3" should be among the cheapest lenses for beginners with a very low spec of 35mm equivalent of 70-200/5.6.

1 upvote
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Jul 31, 2012)

Professional??? LOL. What profession?
As far as I've seen majority of professionals used Canon 70-200/2.8L, and that one is the real deal, not the dim and inferior quality Panasonic lens.

1 upvote
Kissel
By Kissel (Jul 31, 2012)

2 forpetessake - so far the only canon's 70-200/2.8 that's really worth it's price is the pretty expensive 2nd edition of a stabilized version. The older two versions canon's 2.8's are not that fantastic. Besides, for sports photography I'd rather use 300/2.8 or 400/2.8.

0 upvotes
carpandean
By carpandean (Aug 1, 2012)

"As far as I've seen majority of professionals used Canon 70-200/2.8L, and that one is the real deal, not the dim and inferior quality Panasonic lens."

Dim? You do know that crop factor only affects the DOF, not the brightness. In other words, if you took the same picture with a Canon 5D + 70-200/2.8 and with a Panasonic G5 + 35-100mm/2.8, the images would be equally bright, but a little more depth would be in focus on the latter. Fast lenses on 4/3 are just as good for low light as they are on APS-C or FF, but it is more difficult to isolate the subject.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Jul 30, 2012)

>Webmaster did care more about bandwidth consumption than IQ
@bargello
Now the question is: is this only a bandwith concern? ;)
It's like an athlete saying he can run a marathon and running a mile to prove it...

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bargello
By bargello (Aug 1, 2012)

You are right, they are running a mile and obviously they are not going to show us if they're going to take a medal in the marathon :D
Perhaps at Getty Gallery

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 30, 2012)

Hmm....I like today's shots much better, maybe it's just a case of getting used to the camera :D

0 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Jul 30, 2012)

In the photo of the athlete on the pommel horse (251) there are lots of artifacts in the black, dark area and the same is true for the overall view of the arena (249).
I suspect that jpeg compression was awfully strong.
Those snapshots tells us nothing.

0 upvotes
bargello
By bargello (Jul 30, 2012)

@LensBeginner: you're right. Webmaster did care more about bandwidth consumption than IQ.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Jul 30, 2012)

Hmm, a few questions:
1) Would one be allowed to take say a FF camera with 800 mm telephoto into the spectator areas?
2) Would the other patrons allow one to use this equipment?
3) Would one want to cart this equipment around at the Olympics (or other) sports venues (never mind having to lug it on foot from the closest public convenience).?

Might be that Panasonic are advertising the portability/convenience of these cameras together with ease of use at these types of events whilst maintaing better IQ than one would get with a simple compact?
Not so dumb.

0 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 30, 2012)

Funnily enougth, in one of shots you can see a spectator with a big L series lens :D

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

And me, I've seen a spectator with a Nikkor 1200-1700 f 5.6-8... but he is exhausted now and I don't feel he'll soon get ready to cover the Olympics (cf: http://gigamir.net/upload/img/gallery/84873/gallery_2b74a555b7a7dcb418fddfddd5efc87d.jpg ).

0 upvotes
Seagull TLR
By Seagull TLR (Aug 2, 2012)

@Antony John "visitors are prohibited from bringing lens longer than 11.8 inches in length, nor can they bring tripods or monopods. Professional photographers with media credentials are allowed monopods." - Aug 2012 issue of Popular Photography p.62 to 63

0 upvotes
MarcMedios
By MarcMedios (Jul 30, 2012)

Takes some balls!

0 upvotes
Peter 13
By Peter 13 (Jul 30, 2012)

The guy is getting paid to showcase Panasonic. For the right kind of money, he will be shooting the games with an iphone.

2 upvotes
LWW
By LWW (Jul 30, 2012)

So that is different to any other working photographer?

3 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Jul 30, 2012)

This is in a way similar to a composer writing a piece on a given theme *and* for a given complement.
Any other working photographer works only on a given theme.
There are simply more limitations, but constraints are often a necessary spur to creativity...

0 upvotes
Peter 13
By Peter 13 (Jul 30, 2012)

"So that is different to any other working photographer?"

Yes, in most cases they are paid to deliver photos, not to use specific gear.

0 upvotes
carpandean
By carpandean (Jul 30, 2012)

Two additional comments:

1) I don't care for the composition of many of his shots.

2) Comparing 100% crops, the noise seen in the jpegs on the website is at least a stop worse than what I find in my own shots (generally, OOC jpegs, unless I want to do a lot of post) with my GX1 and I set NR all the way down (-2). Any other m4/3 users seeing the same?

1 upvote
LWW
By LWW (Jul 30, 2012)

So this is of any consequence? Dean is on the job and being paid - you are not. Read it and weep!

2 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Jul 30, 2012)

carpandean is right (well, almost... I think that noise he sees is induced by jpeg compression, actual sensor noise should have disappeared after so strong a resizing process...)

It's not about weeping.
It's about spreading misinformation.
99.9% of commercials misinform.
This is no different.
We should keep real...

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (Jul 30, 2012)

Im not impressed either. Those are the worst "pro" shots of the Olympic so far.

3 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Jul 30, 2012)

The irony is that sporting events are possibly the ONE place where so called "pro" gear (D4, IDx) actually DOES make a lot of sense. High ISO (hence fast shutter), high burst rate, subject tracking, fast tele lenses etc.

Sports photography is fiercely competitive so photographers want to level the playing field as far as possible. Ten years ago that may have meant a D30, but then expectations were lower too. A lot lower.

Is a DSLR still a prerequisite for professional work in every area? No, and it never was. Will mirrorless cameras catch up for professional sports work? One day perhaps - when lag-free EVFs and on-sensor PDAF have caught up. But today? Right now? Emphatically not.

Of course that does not mean you can't get a very decent shot or two with a G5, but when your livelihood is depending on it....?

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
carpandean
By carpandean (Jul 30, 2012)

I'm a m4/3 user and I completely agree with this.

Mirrorless cameras in general and m4/3 in particular are newer, growing systems that are constantly evolving. DSLRs, too, are evolving, but at a slower rate. Thus, the gap is closing (especially, if you compare with APS-C DSLRs.)

That said, there are, and will likely continue to be for some time, areas in which the gap is most pronounced. Sports/action shooting is probably the most severe of these areas.

Of course, a professional photographer, whose livelihood depends on selling his/her photos, is going to choose the best system, even if the difference is not huge. And, of course, a FF system is going to be that better system (if not, why put up with the extra money and weight?) For the rest of us with smaller budgets and less willingness to lug around a heavy kit, m4/3 can show itself to be a viable choice, producing very good image quality in most situations.

2 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 30, 2012)

I'm afraid taht so far I'm not particularly impressed.

And this is not a kit issue. In fact it seems he has demonstrated that iso 1600 performance is more than good enougth for web sized photos.

And that semi fisheye is impressive.

BUT, he seems to always be shooting from public access areas, i.e. does he actually have a photo pass?

Also, the shots of the canoe practise are, really, snapshots.

Not that impressed with the cycle race pair either. OK, the idea of having public and cyclists in front of palace and fountain was a good composition idea, and well executed, even if it did mean showing the backs of the racers.

So what's the excuse for the other shot?

BTW, I think I have made this clear before, I'm NOT a professional, I'm here for the fun!

1 upvote
MMehresUSA
By MMehresUSA (Jul 30, 2012)

I find it disturbing that DP Review would post a "news article" like this - and in so doing basically act as a shill for Panasonic. There is absolutely zero value to this matter from a photographic perspective. Why would anyone really care that a corporate sponsor of the Olympics is paying someone big bucks to use their camera? I mean really. What poor judgment.

Dear departed Phil would never waste reader's time - or prostitute the site to a manufacturer - with drivel like this.

4 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (Jul 30, 2012)

Dpreview is run by Amazon, what else do you expect ?

2 upvotes
ambercool
By ambercool (Jul 30, 2012)

It's funny how there are a lot of you guys who talk a lot of talk, but have no professional link, no professional photos, no professional e-mail, or even work experience. If there was an Olympic gold for that(trash talk) there would be massive ties for first place across the board. LOL

I bet if a lot of you were given an AE-1 with 400-1600ASA film, you would be utterly disappointed by enlightenment alone.

Mouhtaropoulos earned his spot, and I'm sure he's enjoying himself while more ignorance is spread and ignored.

3 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Jul 30, 2012)

Good on you for telling us as we are.

0 upvotes
IZO100
By IZO100 (Jul 30, 2012)

says the guy who use an Olympus, lol

0 upvotes
ambercool
By ambercool (Jul 30, 2012)

IZO100, it's a good thing you don't make any kind of living from photography.

1 upvote
Blaufeld
By Blaufeld (Jul 30, 2012)

I suggest to take a look at the 28 July post of Tuck on his blog, "The Visual Science Lab".
I concur with him: there are too much self-appointed "Pro Photographers" that cling to old-fashioned (and corporate-fuelled) concepts of what is and what is not "Pro gear".
Please remeber that the 2008 Olympics saw the "pro" use of a Canon EOS 30D,
a camera that today is totally trumped in every aspects by a lowly Olympus OM-D or Panasonic G3.

0 upvotes
Andy Spawn
By Andy Spawn (Jul 30, 2012)

I'm a Olympus M4/3 user. Originally I thought Panasonic is nearly the same as Olympus in M4/3 camera system. After I see the shots, I think I was wrong. Olympus's image quality is better than Panasonic. I use E-P3, 12mm F/2.0, 45mm F/1.8, and 70-150mm F/4-5.6

1 upvote
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Jul 30, 2012)

I think you'll find the OM-D a much better comparison to the G5 than the E-P3!

2 upvotes
Andy Spawn
By Andy Spawn (Jul 31, 2012)

OM-D is better than E-P3 in image quality but I don't like the bulkiness of OM-D. I like E-P3 sleek design. That's why I did not buy OM-D. I'm looking forward to the next PEN.

0 upvotes
RunStrom
By RunStrom (Jul 30, 2012)

All of your comments seem to state the obvious, that this camera is not the one that serious photographers would choose, to get the “classic” winning photo of front line Athletes. This camera would be far more suited to getting almost street photography type shots, of victories just lost, hardship in the Olympic trenches and private moments from the competitors.

1 upvote
backayonder
By backayonder (Jul 30, 2012)

I just hope he's not going to regret this later when he sees all the images taken by his peers who used Pro Nikon and Canon gear.

2 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Jul 30, 2012)

Ten kilos of camera gear, instead of one to two kilos, can make a difference, not always to the heavier gear's advantage. Sometimes portability is more important than anything else!

But I totally agree - hope he'll be happy with what he uses for this event!

1 upvote
dash2k8
By dash2k8 (Jul 29, 2012)

Did anyone notice that just about all of Dean's pictures were taken at 8mm? Does that show a lack of confidence in the zooms?

Thus far I've not been made a believer of the G5. The shots were not inspiring at all. Anyone among us with some skill (and an all-access press badge) could have taken those shots. I'll reserve judgment till the end of the Games.

1 upvote
dkord
By dkord (Jul 29, 2012)

I agree with Villebon,
At the Olympics you're going to see the best indoor lighting in the world.
Not the same as shooting in a high school or some college venue.
He will also have great access to the events and the prime locations for shooting.
Most of the games are start to finish type events so he can pre-focus and anticipate where the athletes will be. How do you think it was done pre-auto focus?
He can take as many shots as he wants and cull through many many images and misses.
How can anyone who's competent fail in that situation?

4 upvotes
villebon
By villebon (Jul 29, 2012)

In a way it's kind of funny reading comments from the know-it-all idiots who can't fathoms the idea of the Panasonic G5 being used at the Olympics.

These appliance users have no idea on how sport photography works except what they imagine: long lens and high ISO. They are ignorant that the indoors meets are lighted for television at ISO 200.

It's all about the photographer. The average appliance user wouldn't last a day at the Olympics with the top of the line camera equipment: all they would take would be amateur snaps worthy of the delete bucket.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
dash2k8
By dash2k8 (Jul 29, 2012)

At the same time, despite the perfect lighting, the pros still prefer the 1DX's and D4's. I agree that the average user couldn't take anything great even with great equipment, but that does not negate the need for the best gear.

Think of it this way: would you bring your best Canon/Nikon gear to the Olympics, or would you say,"Great lighting! Let me bring my PnS!"?

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
joejack951
By joejack951 (Jul 30, 2012)

ISO 200 for TV is not going to yield ISO 200 for still photography. Video doesn't worry about motion blur; it needs it to look natural.

0 upvotes
Tom Goodman
By Tom Goodman (Jul 29, 2012)

News Flash: Picasso is being sent to cover the Olympics armed only with a number 2 pencil. Everyone eagerly awaits a verdict on his equipment.

5 upvotes
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Jul 30, 2012)

Pfft, I can't imagine doing the Olympics with a 2B. Yes, it has greater sharpness, but it doesn't have the necessary dynamic range of a 4B or even a couple of 8B's, as long as you have a spare sharpener as they go blunt quicker. The 2B just doesn't have the same chiaroscuro, even in the hands of a professional.

2 upvotes
Tom Goodman
By Tom Goodman (Jul 30, 2012)

Too late, meanwhile. He left Paris a week ago and he doesn't have email in London. You could try sending him a cable, however.

1 upvote
meanwhile
By meanwhile (Jul 30, 2012)

Touché :-)

0 upvotes
Michael S.
By Michael S. (Jul 29, 2012)

Puh...actually I can't follow Panasonics's marketing intentions here...

To give an example - I have chosen randomly one of the iso1600 pictures of the opening ceremony and here is a 100% untouched crop from it:

http://www.pbase.com/bountyhunter/image/145037509

These looks like an iso12800 above picture if taken with my D3s.

So I can't see the point.

1 upvote
Andy Spawn
By Andy Spawn (Jul 30, 2012)

That's what I think. The image is not sharp enough, not much detail.

0 upvotes
Juck
By Juck (Jul 29, 2012)

Lots of pointless posturing here by the M4/3 fanboys.

There isn't an amateur or professional alike that wouldn't cover the Olympics with a Lumix, Kodak Brownie, I-Phone or Potato-Print if the manufacturer dropped a solid-gold Buick in their lap.

This is a publicity stunt.

Done. Go about your business.

3 upvotes
LWW
By LWW (Jul 29, 2012)

Or from another perspective, there is also a lot more "pointless posturing" from the DSLR heavys that really are expressing a position of insecurity due to the emergence of a credible alternative. And no I'm not a fan person of any format/brand - only the one that is good for purpose.

Publicity stunt - maybe, and a very good one.

7 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 29, 2012)

Well I'm not here on business. Photography is my passion, perish the thought that I would try to make a living out of it...that would ruin the fun!

But what is a professional photgrapher doing reading an article about an enthusiasts camera?

3 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 29, 2012)

@ Juck
Or a G12 or P7000.

'publicity stunt' sounds negative.
Perhaps 'promotional campaign' is what it actually is.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Camera_Advertising_EOS

http://www.photoreporter.com/article/nikon-d5100-ad-campaign-marketing-strategies/1

Marketing is marketing.

@ Michael S.
You are comparing a 700 dollar camera to a 6,300 dollar camera.
If they looked the same there would be a lot of cheesed off nikon users.

1 upvote
Michael S.
By Michael S. (Jul 29, 2012)

Actually I am NOT the one who said: "Look we give a professional one of our cameras to cover the Olympics and the look then good enough...".

Maybe YOU should change your perspective...I just wrote I can't see the point of this marketing move. I am NOT comparing those cameras but saying it is complete nonsense of Panasonic to give the impression that you can use the G5 for "professional" work - however you may define "professional".

0 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 29, 2012)

"If they looked the same there would be a lot of cheesed off nikon users."

I wouldn't be. Suprised, but not cheesed off at all. Over the years I have frequently found that newer cheaper cameras can outperform my older expensive ones! I think this is always good news.

And I was looking forward to a Nikon mirrorless camera, especially something like a Nex5 with a Nikon mount!

No, I was cheesed off when the J1 was launched.

Comment edited 51 seconds after posting
1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 29, 2012)

@OttoVonChriek wrote "No, I was cheesed off when the J1 was launched."

Ironically, with a J1 or V1 at the Olympics you may actually be able to track an athlete in AF-C Mode.

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 29, 2012)

@Michael S.
"Look we give a professional one of our cameras to cover the Olympics and the look then good enough...".
Where is the above quote from, please?

Your 1st post,
'I have chosen randomly one of the iso1600 pictures of the opening ceremony and here is a 100% untouched crop from it:

http://www.pbase.com/bountyhunter/image/145037509

'These looks like an iso12800 above picture if taken with my D3s'

Your last post,
'I am NOT comparing those cameras'

Contradiction? Certainly seems that you are comparing them.

Panasonic are sponsoring the Olympics.
I think it would be strange if they didn't use this as an opportunity to promote their products.

At no point in the article does the article even use the word 'Professional' in fact they don't even use it to describe the photographer.

2 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 29, 2012)

@Markie6,
If I thought I could have saved over 5,000 dollars, personally, I'd be cheesed off.

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Jul 28, 2012)

Quite few photos...
And small... Too small...

1 upvote
bohemyo
By bohemyo (Jul 28, 2012)

I checked BH photovideo and nothing came up about the lens 7-300. Is there a Panasonic G series 7-300mm zoom lens?

0 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 28, 2012)

The article states "lenses ranging from 7mm-300mm".

I think the hyphen may have been added by an over zealous editor, perhaps it should have read: "lenses with focal lengths as low as 7mm and as high as 300mm" (i.e. not all in one lens !).

1 upvote
Rooru S
By Rooru S (Jul 28, 2012)

Keep searching for it. You will find it ;)

2 upvotes
Aleo Veuliah
By Aleo Veuliah (Jul 28, 2012)

No, they mean, that the photographer is using many lenses, starting with the 7-14mm, with others for the middle range, and the 100-300mm for the long range.

Notice that 7mm to 300mm covers 14mm to 600mm if we do the equivalence to fullframe 35mm sensor size.

The difference in size of the Panasonic Lumix G system lenses (or Olympus Micro 4/3) is huge, noticeable on the long focal range.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Skytalker
By Skytalker (Jul 28, 2012)

It is very obvious to me that some people in here have never worked wih high end cameras and never have had to shoot in very difficult conditions to deliver the task.
Ultimately the laws of physics cannot be broken inspite of any talent one might have. It is true that most of the photos can be taken with any of the cameras on the market, but not all. For some instances you need to have the right setup to aquire the right image.
Then of course we would need to define what is a "right" image...

The rest are just bedtime stories...

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 28, 2012)

I totally agree with you. But we are talking here of marketing sweet-dreams-machine. It's obvious a lot of us are aware that a very good mirrorless camera can't beat a D4 in critic situations. It's all about giving fantazies for amateurs who want to buy "that camera that works as a pro one". As they won't ever have to take pictures in very critic situations, they will always be pleased by their purchase that provides good photos as if they were good photographers. Sort of viagra as to say.

4 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 28, 2012)

It would also be true to say that photos taken today wouldn't have been possible in the past due to the technical limitations of technology of the past (under same conditions).
The better the technology becomes the more people seem to forget that we did ok in the past.
Would it be true to say that the mfts of today would give the high end DSLRS of 12 years ago a run for their money?

3 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 28, 2012)

This is interesting. As science progresses laws of Physics do get broken. This is why we don't fall off the edge of the earth.

However, I'm not aware of any physical law which says that it is obligatory to have a mirror in order to achieve good focus tracking. Far from it, in fact mirrorless phase focus systems do exist.

But a real scientific look also reveals that CAF is potentially better than phase AF. It's current limitations are dependent on the limitations of analysis algorithms vs processing speed and the electronic shuttering capabilities of sensors. These are resolvable technological issues.

i.e. the laws of physics (and Moores law!) are telling us that mirrorless cameras will eventual become the choice of professionals, because they will be better.

Mind you, the laws of optics suggest that the format will probably not be 4/3, ;-)

2 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 28, 2012)

I don't think we need to go 12 years back. The ISO 6400 performance of a G5 is infinitely superior to that of Canon 5D MkI ;-)

2 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 28, 2012)

'as if they were good photographers.'
I think you meant to write,
'as if they were using a 6,000 dollar D4'
While having a pro body is an insurance policy for those critical situations, how often do these situations occur even for professionals?
I don't think anyone's comparing it to a D4 are they?
If anything they're comparing it to entry to mid level APS-C cameras.

4 upvotes
Skytalker
By Skytalker (Jul 28, 2012)

@OttoVonChriek: Well, the Canon 5D mk1 doesnt go up to ISO6400. Please get your facts right.

This is just a sample of people assessing systems wthout having the faintest idea what are they talking about.

Second, there samples on epozine of G5 shots, and if ISO 6400 looks good to you then, with due respect, you should see your oftamologist.

People this is what I am talking about. Users spend money based on comments which are hilarious and untrue.

1 upvote
FTW
By FTW (Jul 29, 2012)

Can you tell me something that a DSLR like the D4 does more or better than a NEX7 mirrorless. There is only one field where a large heavy DSLR takes advantage, and that is handheld Makro. But in sports, I can compete any DSLR with any NEX. Sports are mainly shot on tripods and ball heads, so shooting here gives any advantage to a D4. A NEX-7 bursts at 10 frames per second in good light conditions, so, where is the problem. No photo seen by any individual has ever revealed what camera shot it. Important is what the IQ of the shot is, nothing more.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
SDPharm
By SDPharm (Jul 29, 2012)

@ Skytalker: Well, the Canon 5D mk1 doesnt go up to ISO6400. Please get your facts right.

He did. You either don't have a sense of humor, or don't read carefully, or both. Didn't OttoVonChriek say "The ISO 6400 performance of a G5 is infinitely superior to that of Canon 5D MkI ;-)" Sigh, even the smilie at the end of the sentence failed to open you eyes.

0 upvotes
Skytalker
By Skytalker (Jul 29, 2012)

It is very obvious I have not read carefully. My appollogies OttoVonChriek!

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 28, 2012)

Until ILC vendors solve the issues of EVF blackout in burst mode, poor AF tracking, and an extremely limited selection of dark variable aperture zooms, DSLRs will continue to be the number one choice for covering sport or pretty much anything where top-level IQ and shooting speed are requirements, and where MF studio cameras aren't practical.

2 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 28, 2012)

Sorry for my ignorance, but what does ILC mean?

I think Sony do make a camera which does not black out, or even blink like a DSLR, in burst mode.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 28, 2012)

ILC (Interchangeable-lens camera) but technically a G5 is an MILC (Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera).

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 28, 2012)

Right (for now). Speed is basically a question of shutter, of buffer, of sensor size and of luminous lens (f1.2 to f2.8). Your camera includes all that good elements, it's OK. One or two, it's still feasable (but with a lot of failed pictures). Just one, success is already a question of very good timing & luck. None, forget about it, fast subjects are the most objective ones, it's to say if you can't get the good tools, whatever your skill or your talent may be, it's out of reach on a normal basis.

0 upvotes
Altruisto
By Altruisto (Jul 29, 2012)

Nikon solved the problem of AF tracking, and their Nikon 1 cameras are pretty good at it. Now we have to wait for a photographer oriented model with that technology. Canon have began too with their latest Rebel the hybrid focus technology, I didn't try it. But I have a J1, and believe me, focus traccking in continuous mode is a dream. I picked a series for a swimmer and all shots were spot on.

0 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Jul 30, 2012)

I have no EVF blackout in burst mode with my 'MILC', so it seems it is only SLRs that have that problem!

Wide angle shots are always (or nearly always) better when taken with 4x5, MF, or FF, cameras, while narrow angle shots are often just as good taken with smaller sensor MILC, like the NEX-5N, or the V1!

0 upvotes
Professor999
By Professor999 (Jul 28, 2012)

First photos from the opening ceremony are up on the panasonic site.

0 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Jul 28, 2012)

The only Panasonic 300mm lens I can see is the 100-300 F4-5.6
At DOF equivalents of 200mm F/8 and 600mm/F11 will this be able to easily separate the subject from the background like in so many winning shots of athletes? If not, I can't see it being highly considered in this field of photography.
Also, someone correct me if my DOF equivalents are wrong.

0 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 28, 2012)

Well, a 4/3 camera has only slight less Dof than an APS-C camera (i.e. most DSLR's). There is however a much bigger gap between APS-C and the Full frame cameras that sports photographers tend to prefer.

On the other hand a lot of people do very nice telephoto shots using consumer telephoto lenses and APS-C cameras with similar characteristics.

Just to add to the complication, there is no 'micro' advantage for telephoto lenses, so potential lenses could include the entire 4/3 offering. And there are a number of f2.8 telephostos, bith zoom and primes...except not all of them have formware mods to improve operation with CAF.

2 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Jul 28, 2012)

I was assuming he would be using Panasonic lenses only.
...Yes, the article states only Panasonic G lenses.
So he is limited to deep focus on super tele shots, unless the background is really far away. ie. Can't separate the winning runner from all the other runners behind him.
The longest F/2.8 lens they have has a 70mm equiv focal length.
Does not seem like the Panasonic system is designed for sports shooters.

0 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 28, 2012)

Hmm yes, if he limits himself to Panasonic micro4/3 lenses then he really is making life difficult.

As for the system, I would say one of the advantages of FT is that you can also use a DSLR, such as an E3. Now I wonder if anybody actually does this...

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Jul 28, 2012)

You are right about Panasonic lenses, BUT...

Olympus makes a 150mm 2.0 lens (I think). I'll let you figure out the equivalent. It is not that far from a 300mm 2.8. Also, the lens is very sharp. It will not focus quickly on a m43 body, since it is a PDAF lens and would need an adapter, but it would work on a m43 body for situations where focus is preset, such as focusing on a hurdle that a runner is going to leap over, etc. Also, as somebody pointed out, Olympus 4/3 lense can be used on DSLR bodies, the E5, so you can use the same lenses on mirrorless and DSLR systems if you want, and not have to choose one over the other.

The same is true for 600mm equivalent, where Olympus makes a 300mm 2.8 lens.

1 upvote
Chez Wimpy
By Chez Wimpy (Jul 30, 2012)

>The longest F/2.8 lens they have has a 70mm equiv focal length.

No. According to the EXIFs he is also using the 35-100/2.8 (the 70-200 equivalent lens) which has been announced... but not yet released.

0 upvotes
pc168
By pc168 (Jul 28, 2012)

It seems all or most of the reviewers over the net are using version 0.2. So, they're getting the first batch of production version 1?

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
OttoVonChriek
By OttoVonChriek (Jul 28, 2012)

All cameras can take a good photo. The photographer needs to know the characteristics of the camera, and then create around those capabilities.

This is of little comfort to a professional photojournalist. The 'Pro' must shoot what the editor wants using kit that withstand a daily hammering. And there's no excuse for not carrying al the bulk that may be required.

I'm an ethusiast. I can take the shots I like, not what an editor wants to see. Playing around with different types of kit is also part of the fun.

Size and weight is a major obstacle; it can prevent me from taking equipment with me on trips. Especially when travelling for work.

Oh yes, I find four thirds quite interesting and potentially very useful. But on forums like this you can be left with the idea that these are nothing more than fashionable toys.

So kudos to Olympus for this initiative, which is surely aimed at showing what can be done with such a compact system; it has nothing to do with converting professionals.

2 upvotes
Total comments: 301
123