Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: NigelC on June 02, 2014, 07:02:44 am
-
Thinking about supplementing or replacing my GH2 which with 20/1.7, 14-140 and 100-300 is my jack of all trades. Main criteria is best stills quality; I do video but not with any expertise, although I appreciate the autofocus quality and the crop mode on GH2 in video. I also make a lot of use of the format change on the GH2. Nothing really wrong with it (except tactile feel), indeed a very well thought out camera but would be nice to have less noise at higher sensitivity settings. I have tried a GH3 a while back and found it very comfortable to use but jump in size may be a bit self-defeating for M4/3. I feel GH4 maybe overkill with my "idiot mode" approach to video but while OMD-5 appears best for stills, seems less able to hold focus in video.
Any thoughts? I am inclined to think at the moment I won't see a game changing improvement from anything on the market and best investment would be most capable noise reduction software.
PS. I use DP Merrills 1/2/3 for pure pictorial stuff that might end up in big enlargements and they are my go to cameras whenever I can work round their shortcoming.
-
while OMD-5 appears best for stills
E-M5 does not have EFCS, that means shutter shock, look here = http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827
so in Olympus realm you need to go for E-M1 or E-M10
-
E-M5 does not have EFCS, that means shutter shock, look here = http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651827
so in Olympus realm you need to go for E-M1 or E-M10
Or E-P5.
I think the only camera that would challenge the Oly lineup is the GH4. Supposedly, although I haven't seen hard numbers confirming it, the GH4 sensor may have just a little more DR than the Oly sensors. But I'm guessing the gains are marginal at best, if they are real.
-
Or E-P5.
true - but it seems OP wants some grip...
I think the only camera that would challenge the Oly lineup is the GH4. Supposedly, although I haven't seen hard numbers confirming it, the GH4 sensor may have just a little more DR than the Oly sensors. But I'm guessing the gains are marginal at best, if they are real.
GH4 has the same sensor as E-M1... GH4 being a more video oriented camera has AA filter, E-M1 does not... GH4 has DFD focusing technology to increase CDAF speed, E-M1 has PDAF on sensor... IMHO GH4 has only the following advantages : much better video camera, DFD (w/ Panasonic m43 lenses so far), electronic rolling shutter for stills (but that means 10bit raw) and probably bigger grip for bigger hands... the rest goes towards E-M1
-
GH4 has... electronic rolling shutter for stills (but that means 10bit raw)
Please could you provide evidence to back up that statement.
-
Please could you provide evidence to back up that statement.
http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/ds8/c3/IS00006AE.pdf
PS: 12bit container for 10bit raw.
-
Nigel: I'm kind of in the same place you are - still liking the GH2 and wondering if there is a worthwhile upgrade. I like some of the newer features like focus peaking and IBS in the Olympus cameras. But still, I can't justify to cost of an upgrade just for the IQ between a GH4 or Olympus OM1 - I don't think it is dramatically better.
-
Nigel: I'm kind of in the same place you are - still liking the GH2 and wondering if there is a worthwhile upgrade. I like some of the newer features like focus peaking and IBS in the Olympus cameras. But still, I can't justify to cost of an upgrade just for the IQ between a GH4 or Olympus OM1 - I don't think it is dramatically better.
I used to own GH2, GH3 and E-M1... I absolutely do recommend that if your budget allows to change from GH2 to E-M1 (now that costwise E-M1 is quite more affordable than GH4).
the only 3 advantages that GH2 has
1) you have it already
2) true multi-aspect sensor
3) might still be better video camera than E-M1 (using firmware hacks)
as for being dramatically better... again - check the shutter shock illustration (see the link above), better viewfinder, solid 1 stop increase in DR, better ergonomics, x-sync and optical remote TTL control, blinkies (might be used to detect raw clipping preshot), IBIS or OIS vs just OIS, etc... GH2 is 2 generations old camera
-
http://www.semicon.panasonic.co.jp/ds8/c3/IS00006AE.pdf
PS: 12bit container for 10bit raw.
Hmmm. I'm not convinced you can make that assumption on just reading that brief spec sheet.
It tells you there is indeed a 10bit electronic readout mode that does 22.5 fps max
But above that it specifies not only a 10 bit mode @ 22.5fps, but also a 12bit mode @ 14.7 fps
How do you know its only the 10bit mode available, and they aren't just quoting that one to show the best framerate figures?
-
Hmmm. I'm not convinced you can make that assumption on just reading that brief spec sheet.
you can't jump over your head - so you can't implement rolling shutter better than your sensor does allow
But above that it specifies not only a 10 bit mode @ 22.5fps, but also a 12bit mode @ 14.7 fps
that only says that data bus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-voltage_differential_signaling ) can dump (has throughput) data off sensor @ 14.7fps in 12bit mode... that's it, and for a rolling shutter is specifially says how it works.
How do you know its only the 10bit mode available, and they aren't just quoting that one to show the best framerate figures?
get rawdigger, shot a raw w/ electronic shutter and see gaps in histogram vs raw with mechanical shutter
-
Any thoughts?
Well we appear to have a boatload of Oly fanboys around here, so I'll throw in my counter tuppenceworth (and as a purchaser of the Gh2/Gh3/EM5/EM1)
The GH3 and EM5 probably share the same sensor. So in terms of ultimate still quality, there isn't anything in it - except if you shoot in the dangerous shutter shock speeds, in which case its a slam dunk for the GH5 because of the totally electronic shutter mode. I still run into issues with my EM5 occasionally, even shooting with the hideously unsettling 1/8th of a sec delay mode on all the time.
The GX7 seems to be right up there as well with virtually identical IQ to the GH3 and EM5, and I don't think the EM1 really improved on the IQ of those either.
I would say its a case of choose the camera from any of those based on preference, features and ease of use rather than any difference in IQ.
And if you're shooting base ISO only, the gap between those and the GH2 isn't THAT great. It does seem to be the higher ISOs where the newer sensors show less noise, especially chroma. If I'm shooting landscapes, I generally still gravitate to the GH2 much of the time as I like the multi aspect sensor, and that camera doesn't seem to exhibit shutter shock with the lenses I use - maybe because its an older, slower mechanism.
Note - if you're used to the panasonic menu's you won't have too much trouble sticking with the newer Panny cameras, but this might not be the case with Oly. Many people really despair with the way Oly do some things. You need to do your research on what would bug YOU.
-
The GH3 and EM5 probably share the same sensor. So in terms of ultimate still quality, there isn't anything in it
GH3 has a thicker AA filter again
And if you're shooting base ISO only, the gap between those and the GH2 isn't THAT great.
it is in deep shadows (=DR)... naturally not in S/N above deep shadows
that camera doesn't seem to exhibit shutter shock with the lenses I use - maybe because its an older, slower mechanism.
x-sync = 1/160 vs x-sync = 1/320 (official ratings)... so GH2 has 4 times less energy from shutter blades impact to deal with (and probably no IBIS inside helps too)
-
that only says that data bus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-voltage_differential_signaling ) can dump (has throughput) data off sensor @ 14.7fps in 12bit mode... that's it, and for a rolling shutter is specifially says how it works.
No, it specifically gives specifications for ONE rolling shutter MODE. It isn't clear whether that is the ONLY mode they allow.
get rawdigger, shot a raw w/ electronic shutter and see gaps in histogram vs raw with mechanical shutter
To clarify here - I'm not saying I know that you're wrong, because I don't know one way or the other. I just would find it strange if the top end camera did NOT allow a 12 bit stills mode while doing electronic shuttering.
What I'm looking for is conclusive proof, because if it does prove to be the case, then its highly unlikley I'm going to buy a GH4, and it might push me to get another GH3 while the rebates are on. But I'd like to know for sure, and I'm still not seeing conclusive evidence presented.
-
GH3 has a thicker AA filter again
The GH3 itself can still exhibit moire in stills. its not as if its got a strong AA filter! I've shot the GH3 and EM5/1 side by side with the same type of lens and there is VERY little in it.
Many would also argue that a too weak AA filter is actually detrimental to IQ!!
it is in deep shadows (=DR)... naturally not in S/N above deep shadows
The GH2 is certainly a little noisier in the shadows, but its not a million miles away, and they did a good job in sorting out the banding as well compared to the earlier sensors.
There won't be as big a jump going from a GH2 to anything new, compared to going to the GH2 in the first place from one of the 12MP sensors. Not at base ISO shooting anyway.
-
No, it specifically gives specifications for ONE rolling shutter MODE. It isn't clear whether that is the ONLY mode they allow.
your assumption that Panasonic in marketing specs decided to omit a higher bit resolution rolling shutter mode does not seem to be right - having 2 different modes in marketing material is always better than having just one mode (just like they did with output - they listed what is possible in 12bit and what is possible in 10bit) ... so we can safely assume that there is no rolling shutter mode where readout is done w/ on die ADCs operating in 12bit mode...
To clarify here - I'm not saying I know that you're wrong, because I don't know one way or the other. I just would find it strange if the top end camera did NOT allow a 12 bit stills mode while doing electronic shuttering.
because it is essential to have as fast whole frame readout as possible = 10bit mode for ADCs instead of 12bit mode... and video mode (and CDAF/LV/EVF probably) do not require 12bit (not enough bus throughput to dump 12bit raw @ 4K/30fps)
What I'm looking for is conclusive proof
rawdigger shall show you then... you shall be able to detect the difference between 10bit data in 12bit container and honest 12bit
-
I've shot the GH3 and EM5/1 side by side with the same type of lens and there is VERY little in it.
shutter shock for example is a good AA filter alone... but it is natural for a video oriented camera to have a thicker AA filter... I do not have E-M5, but the difference moire-wise between GH3 (which I had) and E-M1 (w/o AA filter) is quite clear
Many would also argue that a too weak AA filter is actually detrimental to IQ!!
I just noted that they have different strength AA... the rest is up to a owner
The GH2 is certainly a little noisier in the shadows, but its not a million miles away
no, just 1+ stop... that is noticeable
and they did a good job in sorting out the banding as well compared to the earlier sensors.
There won't be as big a jump going from a GH2 to anything new, compared to going to the GH2 in the first place from one of the 12MP sensors. Not at base ISO shooting anyway.
well, there was GH1 w/ 14mp mutli-aspect sensor, not only cameras w/ 12mp regular sized sensors
-
I have the GX7 for street and travel. Although I love the electronic shutter, I really think the E-M1 with the first curtain shutter and sensor stabilization is the best all-round choice for a stills camera.
On the other hand, with the zoom lenses you're using I'm not sure how much improvement you'll see - but should definitely notice a difference with the 20mm and even enjoy it more with the Oly stabilization.
-
but should definitely notice a difference with the 20mm and even enjoy it more with the Oly stabilization.
but then wasn't there some banding (EMI) issues w/ Olympus cameras and P20/1.7 @ high gains (hight ISOs) ?
-
Some useful information - thanks. Of course I forgot about GX7 - that's got a lot going for it. Couple of other considerations are that I once had an Olympus 8080; if their menus haven't progressed a lot since then that would definitely put me off. And yes the zooms put a ceiling on ultimate performance so perhaps my most important requirement is to keep the feature set of the GH2 with better noise performance. Thinking about it, the format change is something I use a lot; obviously you can crop later but then you lose a bit of sensor area. So maybe I should stick with the GH2 and concentrate on optimal techniques for noise reduction because "jack of all trades" to me includes low light use (of course indoors the GH2/20mm is a nice discrete combination).
-
So maybe I should stick with the GH2 and concentrate on optimal techniques for noise reduction because "jack of all trades" to me includes low light use (of course indoors the GH2/20mm is a nice discrete combination).
low light will be forcing you to underexpose (vs optimal sensor saturation) in many cases because for example of exposure time consideration - so better readout noise is essential and so new generation of sensors (be it from Sony - like EM5/GH3 or Panasonic - like EM1/GH4) are helpful (as deep shadows will be pushed in raw conversion or using higher gains /aka dialing higher ISO on camera/ pre exposure)... so unless the budget is an issue I'd move on to a new camera...
-
Hi All,
I had been wondering why the GX7 was pretty much ignored in this inquiry for a stills camera. Today the original poster asked about it. Would the GX7 be inferior in some way to the GH's and the OM5?
Bluekorn
-
Some useful information - thanks. Of course I forgot about GX7 - that's got a lot going for it. Couple of other considerations are that I once had an Olympus 8080; if their menus haven't progressed a lot since then that would definitely put me off. And yes the zooms put a ceiling on ultimate performance so perhaps my most important requirement is to keep the feature set of the GH2 with better noise performance. Thinking about it, the format change is something I use a lot; obviously you can crop later but then you lose a bit of sensor area. So maybe I should stick with the GH2 and concentrate on optimal techniques for noise reduction because "jack of all trades" to me includes low light use (of course indoors the GH2/20mm is a nice discrete combination).
Its a tough one.
I'm lucky as I have a number of MFT cameras, so I tend to pick the one best for a particular job. I often do paid work which requires a totally silent camera in often low light, I used a G5 for a while to do this (which is pretty much the same sensor as the GH2) but now I have the GH3, this tends to get used just because it gives a little bit of extra headroom at the high ISOs. I say little because I tend to limit myself to ISO1600 with either camera. I suspect if I needed to go to 3200 or 6400, then a GH3/EM5 type would indeed start to be far preferable and it wouldn't then be a 'little bit' extra.
However for landscape work at base ISO, well .... really ..... while the newer sensors might indeed have cleaner shadows, what I find is that if you're pulling the files THAT much so that you start to notice the difference between a GH2 and a GH3, to be honest, other aspects of the image start going to $hit anyway, and if I knew that I needed to do some severe PP work on the final file, I'll probably have done a 5 stage bracket anyway, and then any difference disappears.
Worth mentioning that in the UK anyway at the moment, Panasonic are doing some really interesting deals, where you buy a GH3 body, then they give you a grip, battery, and a 25/1.4 pannyleica lens free. If you wanted those things in the first place, the body is almost free!
I don't see the GH3 as being particularly big myself, as I tend to have a lot of lenses, so then the system size as a whole is dictated by these, not the body.
If you haven't tried a GH3 in person though, I recommend you do first if you were considering one, as many people (myself included) consider the viewfinder to be really dreadful. Awful colour reproduction (greens especially) and blurry edges if you move your eye at all from dead centre. Different people seem to be affected different amounts by this. Some claim they can't see anything wrong. Drives me insane. Doesn't affect the final pictures of course ;D
I have been on the fence about buying a GX7 to replace my EM5 for a while. Still might do it as there is lots about the Oly that bugs the hell out of me, and the shutter shake is often a huge issue, but the IBIS is excellent and it often lets me take excellent pictures hand held with some older 4/3 lenses I have. However I tested the GX7 IBIS as well and while I didn't like the fact that it doesn't stabilise the viewfinder when you half press the shutter, the actual stabilisation itself worked far better than I'd expected. If small and better high ISO is something you're after, I would look at the GX7 seriously.
-
but then wasn't there some banding (EMI) issues w/ Olympus cameras and P20/1.7 @ high gains (high ISOs)?
Yes, this is something I've seen first-hand. I use the 20mm with my GX7...IMO they make a great combo.
As for the GX7 in general: it can be unwieldy with larger lenses so in addition to the 20mm I stick with small ones like the Olympus 12 & 45mms, or the Panasonic 14–45mm when appropriate. For deep DOF pic taking the 14–45 is excellent, by far the best "kit" lens I've ever owned. Overall I prefer RF-like cameras, with the (E)VF placement at top left, so the GX7 is right in my wheelhouse. The menu system is straightforward, though the camera isn't as micro-configurable as the E-M1/5. The only non-optimal thing about it is the top right button & dial placement. I have to always be on guard not to push or turn something by accident with my thumb. Otherwise in most respects it's my favorite of the m43 cameras I've owned.
-Dave-
-
although I like the GX7 (&20mm) I don't think you can expect more than 1 stop from the stabilization.
although I think the GX7 grip (and shutter release placement) could easily have been improved, I'm satisfied with the handling with the 35-100 -- but a real grip like the OMD 1 will be better.
-
Hi All,
I had been wondering why the GX7 was pretty much ignored in this inquiry for a stills camera. Today the original poster asked about it. Would the GX7 be inferior in some way to the GH's and the OM5?
Bluekorn
I have been using the GX7 for a couple of months. Really impressed but I don't have anything else to compare it with. I have tried SLR lenses on it and the smaller ones work well in manual mode but not a 80-200 Nikon lens because you can't hold it firmly and manual focus at the same time. In general the handling is first rate. When comparing these systems then money must come into the equation. The GX7 seems - in the UK - to be in the middle purchasing bracket but the value must be nearer the top?
-
I went from the Panasonic GH2 (owned it 3 years) to the Oly EM-1 last November. I rarely do video, but for still shooting it was definitely a worthwhile upgrade for me. Modest improvement in image quality, but the biggest factor for me is that the electronic viewfinder in the E-M1 is miles ahead of the one in the GH2, coming as close as I've seen to an optical viewfinder. Brightly lit areas don't get washed out, and when set up correctly, the overall brightness of the image in the viewfinder pretty closely matches the captured image. And the live-view histogram is accurate! Something that the GH2 just rarely got right.
"Feel" is a subjective thing, but to me the E-M1 is a joy to use, whereas I always felt like I was fighting with the GH2. Maybe the GH3 and/or GH4 compare favorably, but I haven't handled those so can't speak to their pros and cons.
-
GH4 is currently the best µ4/3 body for stills. It is also beautifully matched to your lenses.
The E-M1 is, by comparison, now a niche camera for people specifically wedded to legacy or non-IS primes and who also spend most of their time in gloomy conditions with no tripod and a love of photos taken with such slow shutter speeds that any gesturing, walking or even blinking people or moving subject matter (even leaves!) are rendered as 'special effects'.
Comments above do not take price into account. The E-M1 on sale is currently a better value proposition, no doubt.
Comments above do not take size or weight into account. The GX7 is currently the pick of the rangefinder-style brigade, and the E-M10 or used E-M5 are best overall value, edging the G6 out only because it is a notch behind (one generation) in several areas, but still a very fine camera. It just seems to offer little or no advance from your excellent GH2.
-
Since my last post I have bought a Tamron 14-150 lens specifically made for Four Thirds. It came onto the market a couple of weeks ago. IMO a very good lens that works well with the GX7.
-
true - but it seems OP wants some grip...
GH4 has the same sensor as E-M1... GH4 being a more video oriented camera has AA filter, E-M1 does not... GH4 has DFD focusing technology to increase CDAF speed, E-M1 has PDAF on sensor... IMHO GH4 has only the following advantages : much better video camera, DFD (w/ Panasonic m43 lenses so far), electronic rolling shutter for stills (but that means 10bit raw) and probably bigger grip for bigger hands... the rest goes towards E-M1
In other words, after filtering out all the irrelevant English: OP GH4 E-M1 GH4 AA E-M1 GH4 DFD CDAF E-M1 PDAF IMHO GH4 DFD m43 E-M1. ;D
-
GH4 is currently the best µ4/3 body for stills.
well, just one thing: E-M1 has EFCS, GH4 does not... that along with no AA for E-M1 and sufficiently strong AA for GH4 (video!) means that GH4 is robbed of noticeable resolution
-
I am coming late to this thread, but I am growing extremely fond of the E-M1, which I have had for about a month. Part of this is due to the truly excellent Olympus 4/3 lenses that can be used with an adapter. Michael has written about this camera and the lenses on this site and I think that his high praise is spot-on.
-
I'm a big fan of the Oly EM-1 and the EPL-5 with the VF-4. I only uss Zuiko fast primes. The image quality is excellent. The built-in IS on the EM-1 is
excellent. Pixel for pixel, the EM-1 is about as good as it gets. I am disappointed with the video quality--which is really too bad being that the IS is so damn good. If I were into shooting video, I'd opt for a Panasonic, no question.
-
well, just one thing: E-M1 has EFCS, GH4 does not...
You really are scratching the bottom of the barrel to mention a firmware fix for an E-M1 design fault as a 'special feature'. And remember, the GH4 has true silent shutter mode, an actually genuinely useful feature as opposed to a fix for a flaw. I am most reluctant to ever again own a camera without a silent shutter mode. So useful once you have experienced it.
that along with no AA for E-M1 and sufficiently strong AA for GH4 (video!) means that GH4 is robbed of noticeable resolution
Actual close examination of test photos shows nothing 'noticeable'. It's a marketing gimmick, based on a technical reality that amounts to nothing in practice. Don't fall for tricky techie talk.
-
You folks seem like a knowledgeable bunch. Can someone correct my assessment? Solely based on the comparison tool on dpreview.com, the GX7 consistently loses out to the E-M5 in detail resolution. I was going gaga over the GX7 ever since it came out, but the dpreview test put me off it.
Does it have to do the lens they used on that review? Is it generally accepted that E-M5 resolves more than the GX7?
Thanks.
-
I have no clue re. dpreview's testing procedures. But I own an E-M5, E-M1 & GX7. Resolution amongst the three is essentially identical.
Re. "shutter shock": mechanical shutters vibrate at resonant frequencies. The E-M1's EFCS simply implements a feature the sensor already supported. It works. What's to complain about? BTW, silent shutter is nice too.
-Dave-
-
You folks seem like a knowledgeable bunch. Can someone correct my assessment? Solely based on the comparison tool on dpreview.com, the GX7 consistently loses out to the E-M5 in detail resolution. I was going gaga over the GX7 ever since it came out, but the dpreview test put me off it.
Does it have to do the lens they used on that review? Is it generally accepted that E-M5 resolves more than the GX7?
Thanks.
I think it would be mad to choose among these cameras based on image quality test reviews. Try them in your hand, take some pictures, then decide on which you can live with. They all produce excellent quality pictures.
Jim
-
In my opinion the Oly's OMD's and the PEN E-P5, on the Panasonic side the GX7 and GH4 are up there with the. Oly's.
-
Thanks for the inputs.
-
The E-M1 is, by comparison, now a niche camera for people specifically wedded to legacy or non-IS primes and who also spend most of their time in gloomy conditions with no tripod and a love of photos taken with such slow shutter speeds that any gesturing, walking or even blinking people or moving subject matter (even leaves!) are rendered as 'special effects'.
Nothing could be further from the truth, IMO. Your comment is totally specious, based on my encounters with local E-M1 owners. Granted there are those that get a woodie about using legacy adapted lenses but that cuts across all m4/3s bodies and models. Nothing wrong with that approach really but your comment isn't intellectually honest, but hey you are entitled to it! :)
Comments above do not take size or weight into account. The GX7 is currently the pick of the rangefinder-style brigade, and the E-M10 or used E-M5 are best overall value, edging the G6 out only because it is a notch behind (one generation) in several areas, but still a very fine camera. It just seems to offer little or no advance from your excellent GH2.
Can't disagree with these comments. The truth is we are presented with many good choices. I just hope Olympus and Panasonic prospers and continue to innovate.
I don't think it's surprising that two Magnum photographers have embraced the GX7 for their use, Ian Berry and Thomas Dworzak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_LtdDw5Tk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY_LtdDw5Tk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9cPJyW_9MY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9cPJyW_9MY) - Both posted almost 1 year ago.
-
Don't have a gh4, but two gh3's, oly em1 and em5.
Gh3 is a great camera, not the very best still file in low light but good, kind of a warm cast out of the can even in raw as yellow/warm seems to be somewhat global.
The em1 is a GREAT camera, not so great menu (though you only have to learn and set it once) built like a rolex, actually build as well as a leica . . . but the em-1 like the gh4 uses a panasonic sensor. Nice sensor but not deep, not incredibly color receptive.
The em-5 is not as good a camera, but has a sony sensor, very, very sharp, picks up color very well, allows for very nice post work. The downside of the em-1, it's a little too small, some of the buttons and knobs are hard to work, even with small hands, but that file is something.
For stills, I'd buy the em-5 in a heartbeat compared to all the rest.
For video the gh3, for build quality the em-1.
BTW: The olympus do not track focus well. Extremely fast focus, great evf but they don't track. The Gh3 and especially the gh4 will track focus almost as well as the best dslr.
IMO
BC
-
If you haven't tried a GH3 in person though, I recommend you do first if you were considering one, as many people (myself included) consider the viewfinder to be really dreadful. Awful colour reproduction (greens especially)
In digging through some old posts, I noticed I'd said this in the past.
As there are still some people considering GH3s (as there seem to be some good deals about at the moment and the stills output from that camera is still pretty much up there with the best MFT offerings), I thought I should add that I ended up buying a number of additional GH3 bodies about a year after the initial one, and it should be noted that Panasonic quietly changed the viewfinder in the later models. The colour rendition is MUCH better. The optical path seems unchanged, so some people can still see a little fuzziness in the corners, but even that might be a little improved as well.
-
true - but it seems OP wants some grip...
GH4 has the same sensor as E-M1... electronic rolling shutter for stills (but that means 10bit raw)
So, digging this thread up again, because recently the EM1 got the firmware update that allowed 'electronic rolling shutter for stills', however this still maintained 12bit Raw. How could that be when you were fairly categoric that the data sheet implied the sensor only allowed 10bit e-shutter ?
-
If you have never used an OLY m4/3 camera, try to lay your hands on one for a bit to see if you can tolerate the menu system. I could not and moved to Panny. I found the Oly menu in particular and the whole user interface in general to be one of my more frustrating technological experiences, and I have been using computers since DOS was the standard. Most people don't have great problems with Oly's, so it is a "your mileage may vary" situation. I've a very happy GX-7 user and am sitting here looking at a bunch of GX-7 images from Myanmar I printed to 17 X 22 and they are as sharp and colorful as you could want.
-
If you have never used an OLY m4/3 camera, try to lay your hands on one for a bit to see if you can tolerate the menu system. I could not and moved to Panny. I found the Oly menu in particular and the whole user interface in general to be one of my more frustrating technological experiences, and I have been using computers since DOS was the standard. Most people don't have great problems with Oly's, so it is a "your mileage may vary" situation. I've a very happy GX-7 user and am sitting here looking at a bunch of GX-7 images from Myanmar I printed to 17 X 22 and they are as sharp and colorful as you could want.
I have a em5 and a gx7 and I agree about the menu on the em5 but lately I have been favouring the em5 because I find it's image quality to be on a par with my Nikon D700 and D600. I can handhold the em5 at 1/13th second and get sharp background images and blurred movement of people. The em5 remembers the settings when I switch off and switch back on unlike the gx7 which returns to a default setting. Both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses and I enjoy switching between them.
-
This thread is quite old and I'm sure the original poster has already made their decision on a replacement for their GH2. However, today an obvious upgrade would be the G7. The G7 is inexpensive and provides nearly everything a GH2 user would want in an upgrade - the key missing items being in body image stabilization and true multi-format framing. Otherwise, the G7 is essentially the GH2 all over again but with everything improved and enhanced. Everything about the G7 feels completely normal to a GH2 user so there is a short learning curve that only applies to the new features. Those new features include focus peaking, 4K video, post focus and wireless operation to name the key ones.
Perhaps the nicest improvement in the G7 is the physical ergonomics. The GH2 hand-fit was not ideal and frequent bumping of the ISO and white balance buttons were common complaints. The G7, while being nearly exactly the same size as the GH2, somehow makes the hand fit just about perfect. Panasonic relocated the buttons slightly and added more thumb room. They also changed the actual switches making them less prone to accidental bumping and then added an optional lock out for the main controller button panel. The G7 is more comfortable to hold and accidental setting changes are rare. Throw in the enhanced view finder, the dual control wheels and all the other goodies and it's a no-brainer upgrade.