bob_meyer6

<p>Micro Four Thirds. A wide variety of cameras from very compact to very ergonomic, Eye-level viewfinders (or not) and tiltable viewfinders and screens, and a wide variety of small, high quality lenses.<br>

A black Panasonic GX7 will be very unobtrusive. Use it at eye level, tilt up the EVF and look down into it, or tilt the LCD screen and set the camera in your lap. </p>

 

<p>The G3 is a good buy in terms of IQ, but the GX1 offers much more robust build quality (more metal, less plastic) as well as more manual controls in a smaller package. The metal adds to the cost, cramming all the goodies into a smaller package adds to the cost. The fact that there seem to be a large number of people who value what the GX1 offers adds to the price, if not the cost. Whether those things are worth the price is up to you. No one's forcing you to buy one. I wouldn't pay for a GX1, but I'm perfectly willing to let other people choose differently.</p>

<p>Wow, Bruce, that's one of the most reasonable and logical posts I've read on any forum. I made a similar point on another forum in a thread about lens tests. Poor focus, camera and subject movement, inadequate DOF, and inadequate sharpening have a far greater impact on image quality and subjective lack of "sharpness" than any variations in sensor or lens (assuming we're talking the current generation of equipment).</p>

<p>I'm not a big fan of the NEX system, but that's largely because I think the native lens selection pretty much sucks. But if the primary goal is legacy lenses, NEX has a lot to offer. I'd agree the 5N is the sweet spot in that system right now.</p>

<p>Regardless of all the apparently good reasons to call this the "mirrorless" forum, I don't think I'll spend much time here. I'm interested in mirrorless SYSTEM cameras (MILCs, CSCs, EVILs, whatever you want to call them). Those with interchangeable lenses and other accessories. Micro 4/3rds, Nikon 1, Fuji X, etc. I have little to no interest in Canon S95s, G1Xs, Panasonic P&S cameras, and the like, and NO interest in wading through hundreds of posts about P&S cameras to find the posts dealing with MILCs.<br>

In common industry usage, mirrorless cameras are a completely different genre than P&S cameras, and mixing them up in one forum shows both a lack of understanding of where the industry is going and what users want to see.</p>

<p>I don't think 4/3rds bodies and lenses ever really sold well enough to justify the investment it would take to create an SLT type adapter. Personally, I'd rather have Olympus invest in development of more high quality lenses that work natively on all m43 bodies than on an adapter to allow the relatively few 4/3rds lenses to work on those bodies.</p>

<p>FYI, the Panasonic GH2 has a multi-aspect sensor. Not circular, but larger than the standard m43 sensor. If you select 3:2 or 16:9 format you get the greatest sensor area that will fit the image circle. There's an interactive image showing the various formats here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGH2/ almost all the way down the page.</p>

<p>Yes, you have to rotate the camera to get vertical shots, but it does let you shoot 3:2 images without losing data as you would if you cropped from the 4:3 format. I shoot the vast majority of my shots at 3:2, but sometimes 16:9.</p>

<p>Yes, you do have to choose before you shoot, but really, you should be giving at least that much thought to a photograph before you push the shutter release anyway.</p>

<p>A couple of more thoughts: Airel S is not correct about the sensor in the GH2. It's a multi-aspect sensor, and can natively shoot in 4:3, 3:2, 16:9 and 1:1 formats. This isn't done by cropping from the standard 4:3 sensor. The camera has an oversize sensor that can actually use the maximum size of each format within the image circle of the lens.<br>

I also have to disagree with his comments on zoom lenses. The 14-42 is a fairly typical kit lens, but the available 14-45, 14-140 and 100-300 are quite good. And remember, that 100-300 has equivalent FOV to a 200-600 on FF!<br>

On the flip side, though, because of the smaller sensor, DOF is deeper than on a camera with a larger sensor. About two stops worth compared to FF, less than that compared to APS-C.</p>

<p>I've done just what the OP is asking about. I also have a 50D, and now a GH2 as well. I'm very happy with the GH2. I'd say I can rely on it for 90% of what I shoot.<br>

Is noise at high ISO worse than the Canon? Yes, but not as much as you might guess. And the images respond very well to LR3 noise reduction. And, truth be told, I rarely shoot at ISO1600 and even less often at 3200. At 800 and lower noise simply isn't an issue at all.<br>

AF tracking of moving object <em>moving toward or away</em> from you is still a weak spot of m43, but the GH2 is the best of the bunch, and good enough it's not a major issue for me. If you shoot a LOT of sports, it's probably not the right camera, but for most people I think the AF is good enough. Oddly, it does a better job of tracking moving objects in AF-S mode than in AF-C.'<br>

The flash system is certainly not as sophisticated as Canon's in terms of dealing with multiple flashes. But flash exposure is very accurate with a single on-camera flash. The Canon off-shoe cord II works with m43 system flashes, btw.<br>

The resolution of GH2 images is very impressive. The AA filter is relatively weak. I actually think the GH2 out-resolves the 50D.<br>

The biggest issue I've found with it is AF of moving objects in dim light. Shooting a wedding reception, for example. Partly it's the AF, and partly the absence of fast zooms. I'll still use my 50D and 2.8 zooms in that situation. But for pretty much everything else, I'm much more likely to pick up the GH2 now.<br>

Panasonic, btw, has announced 'fast' 12-35 and 35-100 lenses to be available sometime in 2012. Speculation is that the 12-35 will be at least f/2.8, maybe 2.5.</p>

<p>I currently use the following lenses, all Panasonic:<br>

7-14 Brilliant, sharp, contrasty. Fast AF. As good as any Canon lens I've ever used.<br>

14-45 Very good for a kit lens. I wouldn't hesitate to use it in any situation where the focal length and aperture are suitable. Fast, quiet AF<br>

45-200 A decent, very compact zoom for the price. A bit soft at the long end, but no worse than similarly priced tele zooms in any other system.<br>

14-140 My favorite 'walk-around' lens. At least as sharp as the 14-45. Fast AF. A bit heavy for m43. But outdoors, it's probably on the camera most of the time.<br>

20mm 1.7 Very sharp, very small and light. AF is a bit slow, but it's never been a problem for me.<br>

Oh, I also use a 50mm 1.5 Canon FD lens with an m43 converter. One of the advantages of m43 is the ease of using literally thousands of legacy lenses. Adapters are available for almost any mount you can imagine.<br>

Like I said, for 90% of what I shoot the GH2 is more than "good enough."</p>

<p>I would consider it pretty much equal to similarly priced tele zooms in other systems. Good, not great. A bit soft at the long end, but not dreadful by any means. It's certainly not the equal of, say, a Nikon or Canon 70-200 2.8 lens, but it's not at that price point, either.<br>

I'll take issue with Sanford on the 14-140. It's an excellent lens. Every bit as good as, and I think slightly better than, the Panasonic 14-45. In fact, I'd say the 14-140 is the best 10X zoom on any ILC.</p>

<p>I've just uploaded a few images; my first time doing so. They happen to be photos of cars, so I'd like them to show up in the 'Cars and Vehicles' gallery, but I don't see any way to do that. Many thanks for any help you can give me.</p>

<p>Pixel Peeping in a good way? No, I don't think so. My point is that looking at a tiny section of an image at a magnification that no one would ever use to look at an actual photograph is an interesting exercise, but not terribly relevant. That fact that you can see additional detail at, say, a 60x enlargement doesn't mean you'll be able to see it in a 16x20 or 20x30 print.<br>

Science and truth are fine, but the truth isn't always relevant. A Ferrari with 600 HP will probably be faster than a similar Ferrari with "only" 500 HP. But both will exceed the performance that one can actually make use of on public roads. Similarly, if 4000 dpi contains all the detail you can see in the size of print or display you'll actually use, the extra detail captured at 6000 dpi may not be relevant "on public roads."</p>

<p>MF film cameras could always out resolve 35mm film cameras, and 8x10 film out resolve MF; but for the vast majority of uses 35mm was "good enough." I suspect that for the vast majority of uses 4000 dpi is "good enough." Whether that is true or not isn't apparent based on this test.</p>

<p>"The difference was clearly seen by casual observation of blowups of a small part of an architectural image."</p>

<p>Sounds to me like the printed equivalent of pixel peeping on-screen images at 100%. How large would the entire image be if blown up to the same level as these "small parts" of the image? And how closely would you actually view that image.</p>

<p>No one I know views 40x60 prints (as an example) at arm's length. Would the difference in detail really be visible at normal viewing distances?</p>