marcus_a

<p>I was watching recently a documentary about an archaeological dig which took place in the 1970's and they showed many images that were stills shot on slide film.<br>

I noted that the slide images were instantly recognisable for what they were and had a certain je ne sais quoi that seems generally missing in most digital images.<br>

Not wanting to veer down the 'film is better than digital' route.<br>

More wondering why Nikon, Canon etc do not include picture control settings like "Kodachrome 64" for example as options you can select. Or why Kodak do not sell camera control setting lists to do so.<br>

Fuji do this in the X Pro etc with a Velvia setting I believe. I don't think Canikon ever have.<br>

If anyone has secret sauce Picture Control settings for a D3x to emulate Kodachrome, I would love to hear them!</p>

<p>Interesting Tom. For me, it is too small. When asked whether I wanted free battery grips or free 4/3 adaptors with my 2 bodies I ordered the free battery grips without pause because without them the cameras are just too small for me to be comfortable and confident holding them. Also of course it means double battery life and the batteries are really one of the more pathetic parts of the camera!<br>

Laurentiu - ah; well that wisdom you must seek alone!;-)</p>

<p>Laurentiu - Ming Thein has a very good look at that lens on his blog. he said:<br>

"In a stroke, I think this lens becomes the defining do-it-all-and-anywhere for M4/3; yes, it’s a bit large, but the useful range, reasonably large aperture, solid build, outstanding optics, very close minimum focusing distance more than outweigh that. It’s not a cheap lens; but then again, I can’t think of any others with the same spec that are. Optically, this is one of the best zoom lenses I’ve ever used. It can replace a couple of primes in your kit quite easily; paired with the 75/1.8, I suspect this will make an outstandingly flexible travel combination. And yes, I’ve ordered one to go with my E-M1. MT"</p>

<p>http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/13/lens-review-the-olympus-12-40/</p>

<p>I read that the A7 is the same EVF as the Olympus EM-1 but other than that, I presume that the price difference in the other two EVF's stems from Sony's "Rich Dentist Pricing Policy" for all things RX1!</p>

<p>Olympus have a 40-150mm constant f2.8 weathersealed pro zoom for M43 to be released in 2014. It matches the excellent 12-40 f2.8 being released with the EM-1<br>

That gives 24-300 equivalent at f2.8 in only 2 lenses, built to high standards and full weather sealing.<br>

One of each on 2 EM-1 bodies and that is a pretty fair lightweight option and that's what I am doing. A similar quality fast UWA (a 7-12 f2.8 is assumed) is promised for 2015 or 16, which will give 14mm - 300mm at f2.8 in 3 lenses.<br>

I shall be adding the shortly to be released Sony A7 24mp mirror less with a fast 35mm on it for the portable high IQ option - or a Sony RX1R if that is cheaper.</p>

<p>Don, I don't think you will be disappointed.<br>

I'm personally (YMMV!) less impressed with the Panasonic offerings than the Olympus offerings but I have a somewhat curmudgeonly view of video and so that probably colours my view there! For me, video belongs on video cameras, not my stills cameras and is as much use to me as an ashtray on a motorbike.<br>

You presumably live in the USA where prices actually fall - I live in New Zealand, where they never do so until the replacement for a camera is actually out and there is never any significant difference between MRRP and so-called 'street' price - so it makes no sense for me to wait. All I do is deprive myself of the benefits of the EM-1 system in the meantime!<br>

In real world shooting, unless you shoot sports for a living, frankly the modern m43 cameras can compete perfectly well for most uses now.<br>

I may well combine mine with the rumoured new Sony FF mirrorless system which is apparently going to be available in two bodies very soon, one offering 24Mp and one offering 36Mp and both costing less than $3000. That would give a high res small option and a lower res tough, fast option and all weighing masses less than Canikon offerings.</p>

<p>Good point, Karim - and it shows how quickly we accept new things as de rigueur!<br>

AFAIK a Leica M has one slot for example and until very recently hardly any others did.<br>

I do sometimes wonder why more cameras do not have an internal memory chip you can use - they are pretty small and a spare 16gb overflow would be a lifesaver in some circumstances.</p>

<p>If you will pardon me for jumping in...<br>

I can say categorically that at least two members of Magnum are using M43 cameras for assignments, so some pros are certainly seeing the benefits of the system.<br>

I just returned from 10 weeks shooting projects and assignments in SE Asia. I took a 2 body Nikon kit (D3s) with the Holy Trinity and a Panasonic GH3 with the 12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8.<br>

My camera bag weighed 17kg. Since I took 12 flights and carried that bag on, I was fairly paranoid because the maximum limit on all the flights (3 different carriers) was 7 kg. Combining that bag weight with 30+ centigrade and 90+% humidity was not my idea of fun.<br>

I did paid work on the trip and shot for an outdoor exhibition which opens in 10 days and has around 60 prints at A1 size.<br>

About 75% of all my work on the trip was done with the GH3 because the Nikon stuff was just such a PITA to carry. <br>

Every piece of that Nikon kit is now headed to the dealer having been PXd for a 2 body EM-1 system. Yes the IQ at low light levels is better. Yes the battery lasts longer and yes I am losing my second card slot (something I am annoyed about but will have to work around somehow). I sent the GH3 back too - too much video not enough stills in the DNA.<br>

The new 12-40 f2.8 and 40-150 f2.8 are likely to be outstanding (the 12-40 reviews all agree it is, the 40-150 is due next year and is likely to be equally good): combined with the tiny but excellent 12mm f2 for keeping ISO lower in poor light I am confident the gains will exceed the losses for me and my work (NGO, charity, government and commercial).<br>

I know my back will be the better for it. Due to the lower cost, insurance premiums will fall and body replacements in 2 years will cost 25% of the current system.<br>

This solution won't work for everyone, but for some it will. Horses for courses, as they say. I hope that the EM-X in 2 years time has 2 card slots - I am betting it will, even if one is in the battery grip.</p><div></div>

<p>The quoted prices are taken directly from Photo & Video International in Christchurch and are current as of this moment...! I also did not say that it was cheaper to import - other posters suggested it as a solution. P&V advised me this morning that Nikon prices in NZ are going up again by the end of February, btw.</p>

<p>I do not expect those 'sectors of the community' who feel offended that anyone might want to change their gear because of the price to chime into a debate which actually asked what Canon gear would be the equivalent of my Nikon gear and what other "good reasons" they might have for sensibly advising against it.</p>

<p>The whole point of the original thread (and thanks Yakim for pointing it out!) was a debate on whether it was wise to change because of cost going forward - hardly something I would concern myself with if I could afford it happily!</p>

<p>Those who wish to <rant> because my gear choices and brand choices - or the amount I choose to spend in comparison with them - do not happen to co-exist with their personal prejudices really should find somewhere else to do it. This is supposed to be a forum for constructive advice, not trolling and flaming! As my old teachers used to say "Read the question!"</p>

<p>What is absurd about wanting to save money?<br>

What is absurd about wanting decent manufacturer back up and availability of rental gear?</p>

<p>The point is that - small and relatively minor differences apart - both systems produce excellent results. One just costs less to buy and has a wider lens range than the other.<br>

The D3 is probably better than anything Canon have now - but when the EOS-2D or whatever appears soon, it will probably be better, until the D4 comes out.<br>

But it will probably still cost less. I don't see how that is absurd. I have bought 3 bodies in 3 years and will almost certainly by at least 1 every 3 years going forward.</p>

<p>If we had no reason to change bodies - better autofocus, more accurate metering, better high ISO performance, more card slots, faster shooting speed - etc etc, we would all still be using cameras that were made 10 years ago - or film, for that matter - and camera companies would go bust. Last I looked, most of us were not! These things all improve and make shooting easier and usually help improve results. Ditto computers and software. My 3 year old Mac G5 runs software at half the speed of my wife's 12 month old Intel Mac Book Pro, for example.<br>

Sure, we probably don't HAVE to change them - but I know that my D3 makes shots my D200 does not and I know that the D5 will make shots that the D3 does not and so on. The same is presumably true of Canon.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think Canada is more welcoming these days to those of us without US passports, but I see your point! </p>

<p>Of course, the warranty system is intended to prevent us from doing that. Funny that a manufacturer should whinge so much about 'grey market' sales when their own policies actually cause the problem for them.</p>

<p>I note several references to Nikon prices "falling" after a product has been out a while.</p>

<p>Sadly this rarely happens in NZ. The D3 was NZ$7500 12 months ago and is now NZ$9,500!</p>