Okay so the Leica T is in the news...

[peterb]

meanwhile the GH4 has quietly been getting nothing but utterly glowing reviews.

The other day:

Panasonic Lumix GH4 Full Review

And today from the Photography blog:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review | PhotographyBLOG

Enjoy!

 

[dhsimmonds]

The downside of the Leica T is the necessity to invest in yet another series of lenses. At the moment there are only two the 17mm F2 Summicron prime and a slower medium zoom Elmarit. I am sure that the lenses are superb as Leica make beautiful optics, but the competition is very fierce in this sector.

The Leica fraternity and wanabe Leica types will buy into it as it is at a very appealing price. That price increases a bit having paid Leica's price for the accessory EVF though!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Actually, there are more Leica lenses available for m4/3 than for the Leica T

 

[Godfrey]

The downside of the Leica T is the necessity to invest in yet another series of lenses. At the moment there are only two the 17mm F2 Summicron prime and a slower medium zoom Elmarit. I am sure that the lenses are superb as Leica make beautiful optics, but the competition is very fierce in this sector.

The Leica fraternity and wanabe Leica types will buy into it as it is at a very appealing price. That price increases a bit having paid Leica's price for the accessory EVF though!

Not if I adapt R and M mount lenses to it. I'd get the body, the EVF, the M-mount adapter and the R->M-mount adapter. Not inexpensive, and bulky, but I have more than enough lenses to go around from 18mm to 180mm that way.

However, I look forward to a FF sensor model. That's what I want for my R lenses, and is why I own the Sony A7. Leica's made the lens mount big enough to accommodate a FF sensor easily, and that lovely unibody construction can certainly handle keeping everything in good alignment...

G

 

[Godfrey]

meanwhile the GH4 has quietly been getting nothing but utterly glowing reviews.

The other day:
Panasonic Lumix GH4 Full Review

And today from the Photography blog:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review | PhotographyBLOG

I'm thoroughly delighted with the Olympus E-M1 in this category for still photography, and it still has capabilities that the GH4 does not with respect to my FT lenses and image stabilization. But if I do happen to get into doing motion work as I keep saying to myself I'd like to, I'll add a GH4 body to my kit for that.

As usual, no one camera does everything best...

G

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

I'm sure that the GH4 is going to prove to be an extremely capable video tool for an acceptable price. What I cannot understand, is why Panasonic is not integrating any kind of IBIS in their top of the line bodies. Do they not see that many people shoot with adapted lenses ? Or even with native lenses like their own 7-14mm ?

As long as Panasonic does not integrate IBIS, I'll be with Olympus.

c u
Rafael

 

[peterb]

Hi Godfrey,

Olympus M's have always been stellar. This is probably the first time I've seen reviewers actually rave about Lumix in the high ISO dept!

 

[NamSsurt]

One of the Panny models does have IBIS. I believe it's the GH7, but I'm an Olympus user. Way back from the OM-2. However never believe that they want to make it easier for you to use someone else's lenses. They want you to spend your money with them. By making it possible to use alternate lenses they make the system attractive, but by making the competitor's lenses harder to use they effectively are pushing you to heir lenses.

 

[Godfrey]

One of the Panny models does have IBIS. I believe it's the GH7, but I'm an Olympus user. Way back from the OM-2. However never believe that they want to make it easier for you to use someone else's lenses. They want you to spend your money with them. By making it possible to use alternate lenses they make the system attractive, but by making the competitor's lenses harder to use they effectively are pushing you to heir lenses.

The Panasonic GX7 has IBIS, but it's not as sophisticated a system as the Olympus 5-axis IS system.

 

[Godfrey]

I'm sure that the GH4 is going to prove to be an extremely capable video tool for an acceptable price. What I cannot understand, is why Panasonic is not integrating any kind of IBIS in their top of the line bodies. Do they not see that many people shoot with adapted lenses ? Or even with native lenses like their own 7-14mm ?

As long as Panasonic does not integrate IBIS, I'll be with Olympus.

c u
Rafael

Kirk Tuck recounted an excellent reason for Panasonic sticking with OIS ... nothing to do with the superiority of stabilization with one over the other, but having to do with sensor heating:

The Visual Science Lab.: Image Stabilization In Body or In lens? Seems like a straight win for Olympus, unless......

So, as I said earlier, E-M1 for stills and some video, GH4 for video and some stills makes very good sense to me. Given Sony's connection with video, I suspect similar reasoning for the A7 bodies applies as well.

G

 

[Godfrey]

Hi Godfrey,

Olympus M's have always been stellar. This is probably the first time I've seen reviewers actually rave about Lumix in the high ISO dept!

The phrase "have always been stellar" seems a bit of a pull given that the Olympus OM-D series (E-M5, E-M1, E-M10) is barely two years old. ;-)

G

 

[drofnad]

The Panasonic GX7 has IBIS, but it's not as sophisticated a system as the Olympus 5-axis IS system.

I was impressed by this fellow's surprising results --surprising if believing that the GX7's 2-axis stabilization would be inferior (as he, too, did).

*The GX7 vs the OM-D E-M5, battle for my affection, Round 1 – IBIS, EVF’s & LCD’s | Tyson Robichaud Photo-blography

(Reviewer Tyson Robichaud claims to be neutral and presuming the superiority of Oly's 5-axis vs Pany's 2-axis,
but his tests showed the latter to be better in many instances!?)

I’m really amazed by, and confident in my findings and the only other thing that I would really like to do is to test multiple copies of the EM5 and the GX7 to see if the IBIS findings at these shutter speeds are consistent between bodies. The OME EM5 does really well, and in some cases better down to 1/25sec or even 1/15sec comparatively, but I feel that “testers” will take one shot at 1/25sec with the 75mm lens for instance and proclaim that “X is better than Y” which, at that time, in those conditions and with that lens at that shutter speed is correct.
But what about overall, at differing shutter speeds, differing apertures?

WoRLd-WiDe wOndEr !

-d.

 

[Godfrey]

Interesting but one person's rather subjective testing is hardly definitive. I don't know anything about the E-M5 anyway, I have the E-M1. Its IBIS has allowed me to make consistently sharp hand held photos at as low as 1/60 sec with a 500 mm lens. I think that's pretty good.

 

[ptomsu]

The EM1 is simply the best m43 camera out there today. The GH4 may be better in some situations and definitely WRT video, but as an all rounder I always would choose the EM1.

Only reason I sold all m43 gear is because there is something MUCH better - Fuji X Trans and especially the XT1 and the meanwhile very great Fuji lens collection.

 

[Godfrey]

...
Only reason I sold all m43 gear is because there is something MUCH better - Fuji X Trans and especially the XT1 and the meanwhile very great Fuji lens collection.

"...something MUCH better..."?

Sorry, but I disagree on that. I'm not very fond of the XTrans sensor and didn't like the XT1 body's feel and control layout much. The Fuji lenses are good, but I prefer what I have in mFT and FT lenses, and the E-M1's sensor produces raw files that I find easier to get what I want out of in a smaller-than-35mm sized sensor.

But let's not make this into DPReview. ;-) You're happy with the Fuji, that's cool with me. I'm happy with the E-M1 and the A7.

G

 

[ptomsu]

"...something MUCH better..."?

Sorry, but I disagree on that. I'm not very fond of the XTrans sensor and didn't like the XT1 body's feel and control layout much. The Fuji lenses are good, but I prefer what I have in mFT and FT lenses, and the E-M1's sensor produces raw files that I find easier to get what I want out of in a smaller-than-35mm sized sensor.

But let's not make this into DPReview. ;-) You're happy with the Fuji, that's cool with me. I'm happy with the E-M1 and the A7.

G

Especially the XTrans sensor was the deal breaker for me. Simply because of the sensor size, the way how this sensor draws and the presets for different film modes you can not only apply to JPEG but also RAW. Since that became available in LR5 I did not want to shoot the Oly any longer.

But I understand that there are different tastes and preferences. And especially the layout and buttons of the XT1 really resonate with me, while I never became friend with the layout/buttons of the EM1. I would have loved the XTrans sensor in an EM1 style body with IBIS though, but this is only wishful thinking.

But enjoy the EM1 - and the A7.

 

[Godfrey]

LOL!

I never use "film modes" or rendering presets in any camera. Never really liked the look of Fuji color films anyway. (ACROS 100 is wonderful, however.)

For reasons I cannot easily articulate, Fuji cameras argue with my fingers on their controls and menus. Not all Olympus or Sony cameras agree with me either, but the E-M1 and E-1 are masterpieces of ergonomics in my book. The A7 is clunky but works better than the Fujis.

I tend to prefer the more square proportions of 3:4 sensors (I often crop FF to the same proportions*or to square, it seems).

And the Xtrans sensor produces files that always seem fussy to adjust properly to me. Tried them over and over again, I just don't get the results I want very easily if at all.​

Such it is. This thread, however, is about the Panasonic GH4, which is a lovely piece of equipment, and particularly for video work... ;-)

G

 

[ptomsu]

Godfrey,

just to clarify - this thread is about Leica T and not GH4 - at least the name implies - but anyway I will stop arguing and not further hijack here WRT Fuji.

But also Leica T is APSC and I have come to the conclusion that 43/m43 just is a too small sensor size - APSC seems to be the optimum. This is also I think the reason why Leica choose APSC and not m43 or FF, just to make the lenses decent size and prize - whatever is decent for Leica

Anyway Fuji also fall in this terrain and I know some like and others do not like the results (files). I belong to the crowd liking them - you obviously do not. In the end all these cameras (A7x, Fuji X, m43) are great performers today. So nothing new here. Just some have different preferences

Enjoy you selection, which is really great - I mean that from my heart! And I keep enjoying your photos!

Best regards

Peter

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey,

just to clarify - this thread is about Leica T and not GH4
...

But also Leica T is APSC and I have come to the conclusion that 43/m43 just is a too small sensor size - APSC seems to be the optimum. This is also I think the reason why Leica choose APSC and not m43 or FF, just to make the lenses decent size and prize - whatever is decent for Leica

Thank you for the compliment!

The title is a bit misleading... The thread is in the Micro 4/3rds Cameras section and the content of the first post refers only to the GH4. Only the title said something about the Leica T.

I had/have several APS-C cameras and did a lot of shooting with them. I've never been fond of the 2:3 proportion however, even in 35mm film my favorite print was an 11x14 (almost perfect 3:4 proportion). Cropped to 3:4 on the typical APS-C sensor, you're shooting with a 16x21.3 mm sensor, which isn't that much bigger than 13x17.3 mm. You lose less from FT format going to my other preference square (1/4 vs 1/3 of the format area).

I believe the reason Leica chose APS-C was due to available sensors from Sony, and the fact that their camera's traditional format has been 2:3 since the 1920s. It does keep lens and body size down nicely, but not as nicely as FourThirds allows since the format diagonal is so much longer.

Given the enormous diameter of the lens mount AND the overall size of the body, I would not be too surprised to see a T model at some point in the future with a full 35mm sized sensor. Handling one at the shop on Sunday, it's not a small camera ... it's not so much different in size from the M type 240, really.

But back to the GH4. They had one on the shelf on Sunday so I was moved to look at it. Reminds me more than anything else of the Leica R8 based on the shape, but much more petite and light-weight.

G

 

[ptomsu]

Thank you for the compliment!

The title is a bit misleading... The thread is in the Micro 4/3rds Cameras section and the content of the first post refers only to the GH4. Only the title said something about the Leica T.

I had/have several APS-C cameras and did a lot of shooting with them. I've never been fond of the 2:3 proportion however, even in 35mm film my favorite print was an 11x14 (almost perfect 3:4 proportion). Cropped to 3:4 on the typical APS-C sensor, you're shooting with a 16x21.3 mm sensor, which isn't that much bigger than 13x17.3 mm. You lose less from FT format going to my other preference square (1/4 vs 1/3 of the format area).

I believe the reason Leica chose APS-C was due to available sensors from Sony, and the fact that their camera's traditional format has been 2:3 since the 1920s. It does keep lens and body size down nicely, but not as nicely as FourThirds allows since the format diagonal is so much longer.

Given the enormous diameter of the lens mount AND the overall size of the body, I would not be too surprised to see a T model at some point in the future with a full 35mm sized sensor. Handling one at the shop on Sunday, it's not a small camera ... it's not so much different in size from the M type 240, really.

But back to the GH4. They had one on the shelf on Sunday so I was moved to look at it. Reminds me more than anything else of the Leica R8 based on the shape, but much more petite and light-weight.

G

I agree with your statements on useable sensor size from APSC if you crop down to 4:3 - then the size advantage is almost gone. But as I prefer either 3:2 or square I would need to crop on 43 down to 3:2, which even further reduces useable sensor size. My preference for 3:2 comes maybe from my decades long background shooting film cameras (yes I am that old - had my first DSLR a Minolta SRT101 back in 1967 if I remember right). The other format preference is square, which comes from my time with Hasselblad V system - one of the most exciting camera systems I ever used. Reminds me that I should actually get another 503C for a cheap price

Anyway mainly I prefer 3:2 and was never really happy with 43. But I have to agree that 43/m43 in combination with sensor size gives most of the times a real size advantage (most of the time).

I have the same feeling as you do that the Leica T could easily hold a FF sensor. And I would really welcome a FF Leica T solution with FF AF lens lineup. Finally the AF R system But given the slow and long development cycles with Leica I have the fear this will not happen in the foreseeable future (speak next 3-5 years).

Coming back to the GH4 - I need to handle one, but from what I can tell reading reviews this camera indeed comes close to the old Leica R camera ecosystem - even a bit smaller. And offering such advanced video capabilities (4k) is for sure a big plus. Also keep in mind I really loved (love) the EM1, I just had to make a decision to minimize my investment for different systems and finally the XT1 won after considering all what is very important for me - obviously different things than for you.

But I might even go back into m43 once the Oly Pro system is really complete with Pro lenses - and I am hoping here for more than just the 7-14 and 40-150, but rather some 70-300 with at least constant aperture 4 etc. or an organic sensor with all its advantages, speak higher dynamic range paired with higher resolution so cropping to any format would no longer be a concern.

Meanwhile the Fuji X system will be my preferred solution - but never say never again

Times are really exciting!