« Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlik, R.I.P. | Main | The Story Behind the Olympus Scandal »

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Comments

This will give Panasonic an opportunity to charge a high price for a model that will become obsolete every 12 months (or sooner).

I look forward to this Panasonic as I do to the Olympus E-M5, and am also in agreement as far as to the image quality, size and performance balance of the m43 systems. I still use a full frame camera for work, especially with tilt and shift lenses, but there is no way I'm taking anything except an m43 camera when going on a vacation where a variety of lenses are useful.

Inoue said "but while phase-detection can be faster ... the AF sensor alignment is not always accurate, even when the sensors are built into the imaging sensor itself."

Can someone explain this?

I think Panasonic already proved that the GH2 could be an alternative for certain DSLR's, such as the Canon 60D (you can see the analysis in dpreview)

Very exciting news from my perspective. I'm a Canon DSLR user at the moment but I'm looking to move to m4/3rds. The "system" is missing fast zooms so knowing those are at least on the map for the future is a big plus. The autofocus (particular autofocus tracking) is the other big sticking point. I'm interested in bird photography and having a hand holdable 200-600mm equivalent lens (panasonic's 100-300mm f4-5.6) that I can carry all day is pretty exciting.

I need to see two things from Micro 4/3 in order for the format to replace my full frame camera:

First, a sensor with 12 stops of dynamic range. (Sony has accomplished this benchmark in their NEX series).

Second is, a 7mm f/2.8 prime lens. (Prime, not zoom; f/2.8, not f/4.0).

I find all this new focus on m43 somewhat irritating. If everyone and his/her grandma start carrying around a nice m43 camera instead of a dSLR (like everyone and his grandpappy is doing now), then I will no longer feel special. I'll no longer be a member of a small, knowing group.

@David H: I'm sure you are saying this tongue-in-cheek. Lots of people carry a camera [of varying size] - doesn't mean they know how to use it.

Bring it on, I like the EVFs better than optical since you can review and set everything with your eye in the finder, rather than having to switch to reading glasses to see some rear LCD menu. They are also larger than APS-C DSLR finders, they feel more like a FF finder.

Note to Pany... American males have larger hands than who Olympus designed for. And to Hell with the stupid touch screen if it doesn't say Apple or Android on the back.

"We will aim for a high-end camera to demonstrate that mirrorless cameras can be alternatives to DSLR cameras, not just a step-up from compact cameras,"

Wait... didn't Fuji already "demonstrate" this?

And if Olympus stays afloat, isn't their OM-D line also doing exactly this? Heck, Pentax has an APS-C mirrorless that takes all K-mount lenses, how much of an alternative to DSLR is that?
Panasonic is playing catch-up...

@MJ,

I have an GF1 that is almost 2 years old and it doesn't feel a bit absolete for the work I'm using it for....

http://blogger.xs4all.nl/stomoxys/gallery/37578.aspx

Greetings, Ed


I turned 30 a few days ago, so I'm part of the generation of small electronics and plastic cameras (as opposite to, I guess, Mike's generation of big, metal, heavy equipment).

So here's my question: why does he like the tiny Micro 4/3 models and I hate them?

Aren't they too small, border with uncomfortable and unusable?

I know Panalympus are selling lots of them quite well, but I just don't get their target audience.

I decided to pass on buying a Olympus OM-D-whatever because I bought a GX1 last December and am happy enough working without a viewfinder.

I have found the GX1 to be an improvement over the GF1 in almost every respect, but if Panasonic's aiming to improve upon GX1's peformance with a new model in the near future and succeeds, I'm prepared to replace my GX1 in a heartbeat.

I can't honestly agree re sensor size being adequate. I do agree that they can produce some excellent results, but then when you get a good one you're stuck when trying to produce a serious image, imho. Went to A77 from full frame Kodak, then Canon then Sony and miss full frame (but my back doesn't.

As a serious photo geek who prints pics typically larger than 8x10 I get frustrated.

For snaps they're great. That said, I'm never without mine and the technology is progressing rapidly and maybe someday soon...

One of those damned if you do, damned if you don't conundrums.

I completely agree re the balance between full frame and m4/3. My go to camera is a Leica M9, but the camera that does all the things that can't do is m4/3. I don't feel that m4/3 takes a back seat at all. Obviously if you go down the pointless road of pixel peeping yes FF is 'better', but that ignores the sheer productivity of an m4/3 system when size and ergonomic's are taken into account. They are able to punch well above their weight, and the thing that particularly impresses this Leica owner is that Panasonic in particular have aimed for high quality lenses, a road down which some of the other compact system manufacturers seem loath to go.

This is kewl news.
I wonder why the big photo boys avoid M4/3 like the plaque. Is it corporate ego?

I can easily imagine full frame will become like large format in status and role. And quality.

Except for shallow DoF. But let's face it, that was more often a problem than a feature.

This phrase struck me

".. the best balance of camera size, lens size and pixel size for good image quality"

So, "good image quality" is all that drives the process? Price of everything, value of nothing. That's the phrase that springs to mind.

If you like no depth to your photos, meagre possibilities for leveraging DOF etc etc - then by all means...

Small sensors are a kind of dumbing down in my opinion - 'course that is just my opinion

mmmmmm.... I agree with lots of people here
in my way: leica M9 sensor is more than two years old. combine a full frame sensor ala M9 with those 12 dynamic range stops and some good and fast focus peaking... forget about autoexposures, autofocus, autoanything, and you can imagine a very nice evil or whatever perhaps with an M mount or a new mount.
phisics have their limits. if you want high image quality forget about small form factor sensors (this will help with bokeh, etc)... but if you want autofocus and autoexposure you will need motorized lenses.
what do you prefer?
-high quality images
-small equipment
-autofeatures
pick two.
i will take the first two anyday.
panasonic could easily build an FF M body with all the electronic bells and whistles to achieve great image quality... that would be real top notch equipment. but I suppose they dont want to piss off their partner leica... or perhaps not, as leica would start selling more and more lenses and resurrect their canada facilities... just dreaming. I suppose panasonic wants to sell some lenses also (hey! they could compete with cosina and slrmagic... with prices more of this world)

The comments to this entry are closed.