Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: tgross01 on December 25, 2014, 08:10:49 pm
-
I am curious why the Olympus EM1 and Fuji XT-1 are touted so highly and not the Panasonic GH4. I understand the Fuji, but why Olympus instead of Panasonic. I have read so many negative comments about the Olympus menu system which appears to require one to reinvent the wheel, whereas the most important choices such as ISO, white balance etc are located on dedicated buttons on the GH4. Is there a problem with the quality of images?
-
My impression is that most m43 users see the GH4 as primarily a video camera. As one of those users I can't say I've given it much thought. The Panasonic model I opted for was the GX7. I really like the Olympus OM-D user interface. The menu system is overwhelming at first because there are so many config options, but once you've got all that stuff set up you don't need to mess (much) with it further. Accessing often-changed options is easy with the Super Control Panel.
-Dave-
-
I too was interested in responses to the initial question---which I thought was legit. As a user of a GH3 and a lost GH2 in the Med. sea, I thought comment re: the GH4 deserved comment---aware that the video aspect seemed to be on reviewers minds. I am not geekie enough to really know the difference between the 3 & 4 models, but I think the 4, other than its bigger size & its video capabilities, deserves a comparision to other 4/3 cameras.
your observations/comment please
-
I am especially interested why Kevin Raber who uses the GH4 for video doesn't use it for stills? He touts the Oly and Fuji XT1.
-
I am curious why the Olympus EM1 and Fuji XT-1 are touted so highly and not the Panasonic GH4. I understand the Fuji, but why Olympus instead of Panasonic. I have read so many negative comments about the Olympus menu system which appears to require one to reinvent the wheel, whereas the most important choices such as ISO, white balance etc are located on dedicated buttons on the GH4. Is there a problem with the quality of images?
The video from the GH4 is excellent, the stills are "meh". Obviously if youhave something better to hand you will use it.
Edmund
-
I believe you know the answer to your own question.
It is the video of the GH4 that stands out, not so much the stills.
I can't comment on the GH4 but I used to have a GH2 and the stills were OK but once I got the Fuji it became clear that the GH2 had to go...
If you primarily shoot stills then definitely the Fuji is a better choice.
I have no experience with the Olympus.
-
I never heard anybody say GH4 stills are MEH. DXO rates it slightly higher than OLY EM1.
-
I am still not fully convinced that the Fuji is the better camera--perhaps it is (the camera) Well, what about Panny lens comparison?? "If you primarily shoot stills then definitely the Fuji is a better choice." If stills are the criteria, are you saying that the Fuji lenses are better than the Panny Lumix lenses?
Raymond
-
I never heard anybody say GH4 stills are MEH. DXO rates it slightly higher than OLY EM1.
I don't know why it is Meh. The video is out of this world, perceptually sharper than an MF print, and I also got some wonderful stills extracted from video where one can choose the subject's expression. But the still images are just nothing special. Maybe the sensor is optimised for 4K, DxO base their tests on 8 Mp, I think.
A Sigma DPx is a still camera ... costing 15% of the GH4 with zoom lens and making incredible stills.
There are a lot of nice cheap still cameras, but only one GH4 when it comes to 4K video AND stills.
Edmund
-
The Panasonic GH4 has the same sensor as the E-M1 and yet, as commented, it seems to be the Oly that gets all the plaudits. My take on it is that it is a hangover from the E-M5: now if any camera can be described as a gamechanger it is the E-M5 especially with its frankly awesome IBIS and for 18 months it had a full-on cult status simply because there was nothing else to touch it. Since then both companies have released new models within weeks of each other (Panasonic GX7 and GH4 and the Olympus E-M1) and each time they seem to be labelled according to their predecessors: Olympus for stills, Panasonic for video. Yet the GH4 equals the E-M1 in image quality, the E-M1 showed Olympus had caught up with Panasonic on menu functionality, and the E-M1 was heavily criticised for poor video (compared to GH4). And the E-M1 gets the kudos. I guess you also have the Olympus has concentrated until recently on prime lenses while Panasonic has excelled at zooms which also feeds an outdated but subliminal concept of 'photographic tool'.
As for Fuji it seems to be gaining a cult status comparable to that of the E-M5 and good luck to it - and it gets a level of recognition despite criticisms about its autofocus (even with the XT1).
It seems the press are as open to preconception as anyone...(no surprise there, then). Still, the more competition the better.
-
I am still not fully convinced that the Fuji is the better camera--perhaps it is (the camera) Well, what about Panny lens comparison?? "If you primarily shoot stills then definitely the Fuji is a better choice." If stills are the criteria, are you saying that the Fuji lenses are better than the Panny Lumix lenses?
Raymond
I've heard that many times, and find it to be utter nonsense. In fact, at base ISOs, I find the Panny a better stills camera than the Fuji.
People who don't think the current Pannies aren't the equal of either the Fuji's and especially the current Olympuses either haven't used them, don't know what they're talking about or don't understand PP.
-
I've heard that many times, and find it to be utter nonsense. In fact, at base ISOs, I find the Panny a better stills camera than the Fuji.
People who don't think the current Pannies aren't the equal of either the Fuji's and especially the current Olympuses either haven't used them, don't know what they're talking about or don't understand PP.
Interesting. Can you elaborate? Which Pana vs which Fuji. Better at what or in what?
-
At the level of performance available with all of these cameras, the best one is the one you know best and have learned to extract all of its creative capabilities from. Assuming that you don't use the automatic modes and just point and shoot, in which case all of these cameras are a waste of money, there is a pretty steep learning curve that has a long tail. Pick any one of these cameras, read the manual thoroughly, and shoot, shoot, shoot. In about a year your choice will become the best camera and you will be getting the best possible exposures from it.
-
The GH4 is, I think, perceived mainly as a video camera. As such it probably tends to get overlooked when it comes to stills.
I own the GX1, GX7 and GH4. I bought the GH4 primarily for 4K video. I must say that the 4K video from this camera is nothing short of stunning. I have a 28" 4K monitor on my computer, so I can view the GH4 video in all it's glory, and it is very impressive.
Since buying the GH4 I have not picked up any of my other MFT cameras. Stills image quality is easily as good as the GX7. I should state I only shoot raw, so I have no idea what incamera jpgs look like. The camera gives up nothing in stills image quality to any other MFT camera, in my opinion.
Any differences in image quality would require extensive pixel peeping to discover and would then likely boil down to personal preferences as much as anything. I should also state that I do not give a rat's behind about high ISO performance. What I do care about is image quality of both stills and video and the GH4 more than makes the grade, FOR ME. YMMD.
-
I also think that the Oly gets more press than the GH4 as a stills camera due to the IBIS. It works really well, and stabilizing every lens is a huge selling point to some (myself included). Not to mention it moves stabilization out of the lens, thus leading to lighter, easier to design lenses. Too bad the Oly prices on lenses doesn't seem to reflect that....
-
I started with the Panasonic G1, owned the GH2 (gave it to my brother) own the GH3 and GX7. I am primarily a stills guy but my wife and I do make videos when we are shooting our landscapes. Anyway, all I can say is learn your camera and it will give you want you want. I have played with though never owned the EM1 or E5. They are great cameras. I've seen fantastic captures from that, the Fuji series and Sony! They all have their strength and weaknesses.
But I will agree with the point that pany gets little credits for their stills. I don't shoot JPEG, only raw and I like to do PP. However, I've taken award winning, captures judged by folks in that have been this a lot longer than me and this from my "lowly" G1 all the way to my GX7. My point being it really comes down to the photographer knowing his tools! Pick your weapon and go for it. But DO NOT believe Panasonic doesn't take care of the stills side of the house. Not true!
Mark
-
The video from the GH4 is excellent, the stills are "meh".
Seriously? Who says?
I got the GH4 for video work and left my 5D3 strictly for stills. But while the GH4 stills are obviously not going to compete with the 5D3 in any area other than DR which the GH4 wins, the stills are fantastic and are frequently included in final submissions to commercial clients. After over a year, it still continues to astonish me.
-pw
-
Since time has passed when this subject matter was brought up, Panasonic is about to release the GX8 which supersedes the GX7.
So my question is this: the GH4 is viewed as a video camera rather than stills by many commentators. Will there be a GH5(improved stills capability as well as video) or will there be movement towards the GX8 as a replacement for stills at the expense of a GH?????
In other words, as a GH3 and prior GH2 user, what direction (GX or GH) would I be looking at going into the future and updating what I have--for stills?
I'm not about to change brands as I think the Pannys are just fine.
-
I would go with the GX8 for stills. My attention is to sell the GH2/GH3 and get the GX8. I did notice on M43 rumors site Panasonic/Fuji/Toshiba have an announcement to make concerning a possible new organic sensor in September http://www.43rumors.com/ft2-panasonic-fuji-toshiba-will-have-an-announcement-before-mid-september-organic-sensor/#disqus_thread This could possible change everything especially if this sensor is put in the new GH5. Still a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and if you are in the market now go with the GX8.
Mark
-
For anyone who likes rangefinder-style handling and VF placement the GX7 & 8 are a pleasure to use. The GX8's slightly larger size means more room for your right thumb and less accidental button pushing & dial spinning. Image quality with the 8 in particular is well into cork sniffer territory…simply not an issue for most people and situations.
-Dave-
-
This guy compared the GX8 in RAW to the FF Nikon D750 and, believe it or not, the GX8 is actually better in terms of detail and noise at 200 and 6400.
Not better by miles, but still visibly better.
http://www.soundimageplus.com/soundimageplus/2015/8/21/dslr-or-mirrorless-panasonic-gx8-compared-to-nikon-d750
-
This guy compared the GX8 in RAW to the FF Nikon D750 and, believe it or not, the GX8 is actually better in terms of detail and noise at 200 and 6400.
Not better by miles, but still visibly better.
http://www.soundimageplus.com/soundimageplus/2015/8/21/dslr-or-mirrorless-panasonic-gx8-compared-to-nikon-d750
Now you've gone and done it, we're gonna get soooo bombed. ::)
My take on the thread topic is that the GH4 is Panasonic's top camera for stills and video photography, with its top body for stills use and for video use, and the highest price. IOW it's a great stills camera.
Its still images are as good as the E-M1 and its performance in terms of AF and other features is as good, with each model having a few pros and cons as usual in any head-to-head comparison. Ergonomics for stills is top notch, possibly better than the E-M1, which has excellent ergos but clearly puts more emphasis on (retro) style, while the GH4 is function-first.
It's a travesty that people want to give the impression that the GH4 is 'for video', when it is at least deserving of equal-first ranking of all m43 cameras, for stills photography. IMHO.
-
I'm with you on that.
I like the stills ergonomics of my GH4 better than any other camera I own (although the Hasselblad is pretty damn good too).
Although I admit in technical quality terms it isn't up with the A7Rii, my hand ALWAYS goes to the GH4 first for anything out of the studio because I just like shooting with it better... and for the vast majority of uses 16 megapixels is just fine. IBIS is the only major lack, but with OIS on a couple of lenses it holds up surprisingly well.
Cheers, Hywel
-
Now you've gone and done it, we're gonna get soooo bombed. ::)
My take on the thread topic is that the GH4 is Panasonic's top camera for stills and video photography, with its top body for stills use and for video use, and the highest price. IOW it's a great stills camera.
Its still images are as good as the E-M1 and its performance in terms of AF and other features is as good, with each model having a few pros and cons as usual in any head-to-head comparison. Ergonomics for stills is top notch, possibly better than the E-M1, which has excellent ergos but clearly puts more emphasis on (retro) style, while the GH4 is function-first.
It's a travesty that people want to give the impression that the GH4 is 'for video', when it is at least deserving of equal-first ranking of all m43 cameras, for stills photography. IMHO.
Ain't THAT the truth.
I've shot them all from the GH1 onwards, and it's still almost bracing to me how good the GH4 is for stills in almost every (but not every) environment. And for me, the form factor/ease of use factor of Panny is so much better than anything else I've ever shot with.
If people want to keep up the charade of "Panny for video, Oly for stills", I won't try and correct them.
-
For me, the question is still, "Why the GH4?" Or the GX8 for that matter. Both are somewhat better than my GH2, particularly the GH4 for its better ergonomics and viewfinder, but in terms of IQ, I don't see a great leap forward. I downloaded the RAW files noted in the earlier comparison to a D750 and, yes, the GX8 does perform better at ISO 6400, but its still pretty grainy. Lr will fix the issues in any of these cameras if you shoot RAW, but it would be nice have a higher ISO capability in any M43 camera.
-
How much of this is the market's perception that Panasonic is not a "real" camera company, compared to "old" brands such as Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Olympus?
-
How much of this is the market's perception that Panasonic is not a "real" camera company, compared to "old" brands such as Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Olympus?
Wouldn't be surprised, photographers can be a notoriously conservative lot. Just look how hard Samsung is having at making a go with, what is supposedly, a decent system.