john_hinkey

<p>Having BOTH Nikon and m43 gear I would recommend ditching the 28-70 for use on the GH4, if not just for the field of view change going from DX to m43.<br> I would recommend getting a used 12-35/2.8 Panasonic - it's fantastic for video and the OIS is great too. You can also manually focus if you'd like.<br> m43 has become my preferred video camera even over my D800 - the video is just way better and the m43 rig is very compact and far easier to use.<br> For stills, m43 is just fine in bright light when you can keep the ISO down to 100 or so.</p>

<blockquote> <p>On one hand, I need a viewfinder. Period. And I commonly require a small camera. So I have tried the V1, the EP-5, and the X-Pro 1. When it comes right down to it, nothing matches the responsiveness of the DSLR. So I don't know why Nikon would introduce a mirror less high-end camera unless they can jump 2-3 generations in technology.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well then you need to try the latest mirrorless cameras that are a couple of generations more advanced than those you just listed. True you can't shoot sports or fast action with them, but my GX7 is more than fast enough for my casual photos of my 11 year old kids and performed superbly on my last vacation.<br> Oly EM1, Pany GH3 and GX7 are all excellent cameras with very very good EVFs. Plus the focusing accuracy is better than my D800 (though not as fast). And if you haven't used a truly silent electronic shutter it's great (for the right situations).</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>let's base our speculations on sensible notions. a compact FX mirrorless camera doesnt need 36 or even 24 MP. it just has to be able to use legacy glass at native length with weight/bulk savings and enough sensor resolution for acuity w/out introducing diffraction/focus errors/ AF issues. based on available research, that sweet spot is 12-18mp, folks.</em><br> I would put the sweet spot around 24MP for FX. The 36MP high resolution sensor doesn't introduce AF or diffraction issues though it may reveal more clearly what issues exist (it does make it easier to correct them since it's not possible to fix what you can't see). 24MP for DX is a little on the high side though the dynamic range improvement at base ISO is beneficial.</p> </blockquote> <p>I submit there is no "sweet spot" from a technical standpoint. Mirrorless + compact has no necessary defacto connection to the number of MP on the sensor. A lot of my legacy glass can take the 36MP of my D800 quite easily (some of my AF glass cannot). I'll say it again - Sony I think got it right by having essentially the same body with 3 different sensors. Pick which one you want for your application.</p>

<p>Why does a compact mirrorless Nikon body have to have a low MP count? My A7R can use all of those 36 non-AA MPs with legacy Nikon glass just fine. I certainly would want the 36MP option in my Nikon mirrorless camera when using my 70-200/4VR and other Nikkors.<br> I think Sony has the right idea with the A7, A7R, and A7S variation in the MP count - though they are a bit rough around the edges as implemented. The prices are reasonable as well for what you get. Smaller physical size does not need to correlate with price.</p>

<p>Yes, yes they should - Sony sort of did it with the A7, A7R, and now A7S.<br> See my thread at: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1299958<br> I want a FF mirrorless for:<br> - Smaller, lighter body<br> - No more AF fine tune BS<br> - Accurate DOF preview with fast glass<br> - Accurate focusing either in AF or MF modes<br> With my photo $$ I bought a Sony A7R to accomplish the points above that my Nikon D800 cannot. <br> If Nikon can come out with the (IMHO) silly DF, then they ought to be able to come out with a decent FX mirrorless for the crowd that don't need huge FPS or killer continuous AF.<br> My m43 gear is really great except when I need really low DOF and higher ISO low noise . . .</p>