Decisions, decisions

[tribal-warrior]

I'm surprised that you're finding an optical viewfinder a drawback. Although I mostly shoot M43 these days, I prefer the OVFs of my SLRs. Nice and clear and great for low light. If light levels drop too much, I can't see a thing through an EVF.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I'm surprised that you're finding an optical viewfinder a drawback. Although I mostly shoot M43 these days, I prefer the OVFs of my SLRs. Nice and clear and great for low light. If light levels drop too much, I can't see a thing through an EVF.

Why not change the setting for the EVF?

 

[Godfrey]

I'm surprised that you're finding an optical viewfinder a drawback. Although I mostly shoot M43 these days, I prefer the OVFs of my SLRs. Nice and clear and great for low light. If light levels drop too much, I can't see a thing through an EVF.

Shows how different we all are. I have exactly the opposite problem: I can't see a thing through SLRs when the light levels dim, it's bright light with EVFs that's a bit problematic.

G

 

[ptomsu]

Shows how different we all are. I have exactly the opposite problem: I can't see a thing through SLRs when the light levels dim, it's bright light with EVFs that's a bit problematic.

G

I fully agree!

Meanwhile I ditched all my OVF cameras (DSLRs) and will not go back anymore from the quality and practicality I am getting from the EM1M2 and the XT2 EVFs. Just so many advantages and no disadvantages in my opinion!

And things will only get better with the next generation of EVFs

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Shows how different we all are. I have exactly the opposite problem: I can't see a thing through SLRs when the light levels dim, it's bright light with EVFs that's a bit problematic.

G

We are indeed different. Although I mainly use electronic viewfinders these days, I still prefer a good optical one, particularly in low light. It does get dark, but so does the view outside the viewfinder. An EVF lags and gets grainy when the light is lacking, even the good ones. What I have found though is that when I set the EVF to b&w and peaking to red, manual focusing becomes very easy, and superior to any OVF that I know of.

 

[Matix]

Phil, I think we'd all like to read of your views once you give the E-M1mkII a good try out.

My head keeps on saying "get the Nikon kit, you know it has better high iso support, superior AF and the 300 f4 PF is a great lens" but my heart says "can you really live without an EVF? Can you really go back to no instant feedback on EV and composition without having to take your eye from the viewfinder?".

Louis

Hi Louis and all, well finally I get some time to report on my experiences with the E-M1 Mark II. After 3 or more weeks to work with the camera, I am afraid to say that it has now been put up for sale. Why? The camera is certainly amazing, it has such power and potential, but it is also a lot of work to set up and use that takes away from the spontaneity that I enjoy with my cameras, in my opinion of course.

As I have the G85 now, and the GX8 which I have had for more than a year... I really cannot justify the investment for many reasons. Firstly, the images that I managed to get from the Mark II are not in my opinion, that much better than the G85 or the GX8, both of which have their strong points, mostly that they are much easier to set up and use to 'quickly get the shot....'

I did not spent hours setting up the Olympus in vain, yes it took hours to set up the way I thought it should be similar to the Mark I I had a year or so ago, and I was keen to see the things that it could do, but really I did not have the chance to do a lot of things that it could do, as I just wanted to use it on a daily basis, for my landscapes, nature and wildlife... and for that, it did not have that much of an advantage.

I shot around 800 images, and several times took the G85 and the GX8 with the same lenses, and apart from major pixel peeping I could not see the difference, and that very small.

For example, the focusing... the Lumix is faster and more accurate, especially with Lumix lenses. Apart from the C AF which I rarely have found to be a problem for me, and potentially the fast frame rate I could not see the advantages.

The 5 axis Dual Stabilization is amazing on the G85 with the PL 100-400 and 100-300 Mk II, and while ok with these lenses on the Olympus it was not the same, with the Lumix and PL 100-400 the stability is rock steady with the Dual active, the viewfinder image does not move, the Olympus does not have this on the Lumix lenses of course, but while good it is not even close.

The images?, honestly, the clarity and sharpness in both JPG and RAW is not noticeable different with the minimal exception of the difference in resolution, but I cannot see it myself as a deal breaker.

Colour? JPG's are slightly warmer with the default settings on the Mark II, but the G85 in Raw and Capture One removes even that slight advantage.

General handling and usability, the G85 is so close to the feel in the hand that it is not worth arguing on it, if only the G85 had the same tactile feel on the 4 way arrows as the Mark 2, it would be a close winner. Ergonomics are relatively the same, but IMHO the G85 setup and access to quick change makes more sense than the buried dual functions with the 1/2 lever on the Mark 2.

The shutter on the Mark 2 is great compared to the GX8, but then the G85 shutter is so slick, quiet and totally amazing that that is a winner and negates the need for silent mode.

I was waiting for the GH5 to make a final decision, but after getting to try one for an hour or so, I decided that it may be a nice videocentric camera, but did not really appeal to me. For the same price I would have stayed with the Olympus Mark 2, but have decided that the kit I have now, with the lenses and results I am getting will do me for the foreseeable future.

I will post some samples of the comparative shots I have done as soon as I have some time do properly sort and put them in order.

Phil

 

[ptomsu]

@Phil

interesting observations and - but completely opposite to my preferences and own findings.

Good luck with your decisions anyway

Peter

 

[k-hawinkler]

Ain't it great to have all these wonderful options! :facesmack:

 

[Matix]

@Phil

interesting observations and - but completely opposite to my preferences and own findings.

Good luck with your decisions anyway

Peter

Thanks Peter, my findings may have been different if I had not invested heavily in Lumix lenses, all G or Panasonic Leica quality, so not fully compatible with the newer Pro from Olympus. For example, the new 12-35 and 35-100mm f2.8's and the PL 12-60 and 100-400mm are not able to take advantage of the dual stabilizing features, and as I mature this is more important to me.

Changing would have been a prohibitive expense, as even my cameras are all Panasonic now... 2 x GX7 bodies which I use mainly for travel with the dual Black Rapid harness, 7-14 and 12-35mm in place, and the GX8 and G85 now for landscapes, wildlife and nature shooting. The kit is working for me I guess, so for sure my findings were subjective.

Phil

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Thanks Peter, my findings may have been different if I had not invested heavily in Lumix lenses, all G or Panasonic Leica quality, so not fully compatible with the newer Pro from Olympus. For example, the new 12-35 and 35-100mm f2.8's and the PL 12-60 and 100-400mm are not able to take advantage of the dual stabilizing features, and as I mature this is more important to me.

Changing would have been a prohibitive expense, as even my cameras are all Panasonic now... 2 x GX7 bodies which I use mainly for travel with the dual Black Rapid harness, 7-14 and 12-35mm in place, and the GX8 and G85 now for landscapes, wildlife and nature shooting. The kit is working for me I guess, so for sure my findings were subjective.

Phil

There's another important side to this also:
The G85 offers so much of what the E-M1 II offers for less than half the price that one must really need those extra features of the Olympus to pay the extra bucks. In addition, the Panasonic feature ergonomics than in many photographers' view are better than those of the Olympus and certainly much closer to those of the Nikon cameras that I also use.

Don't misunderstand me; the E-M1 II is the king of the m4/3 hill in most ways, but just as I wouldn't shell out the monies needed to buy a Nikon D5, I wouldn't for the E-M1II either. I find Phil's writeup to be spot on in my case, but again: needs and likes vary. For others, it may be the other way around.

Me? I sold the G85 also, since I'm so happy with the GX8/GM5 combo

 

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Peter, my findings may have been different if I had not invested heavily in Lumix lenses, all G or Panasonic Leica quality, so not fully compatible with the newer Pro from Olympus. For example, the new 12-35 and 35-100mm f2.8's and the PL 12-60 and 100-400mm are not able to take advantage of the dual stabilizing features, and as I mature this is more important to me.

Changing would have been a prohibitive expense, as even my cameras are all Panasonic now... 2 x GX7 bodies which I use mainly for travel with the dual Black Rapid harness, 7-14 and 12-35mm in place, and the GX8 and G85 now for landscapes, wildlife and nature shooting. The kit is working for me I guess, so for sure my findings were subjective.

Phil

Makes perfect sense.
For identical reasons - my lenses with one exception are all Olympus - so my preference is the E-M1II. The one PL lens exception I have is the Nocticron. It works fine on my Olympus cameras, although not all features work.

 

[biglouis]

Thanks, Phil, for posting your experiences with the EM1-II.

In the meantime I made a choice and opted for the GH5 because like you most of my lenses are Lumix, with the one exception of the Oly 7-14/2.8 Pro.

It is too early to say whether there is a massive difference with the IQ compared to the GX8 and GX80 I own.

I made the choice for the GH5, despite the fact that I only intend to shoot stills, on the basis of a lot of peeping at bif and other bird photos posted on Flickr and also the positive recommendations of Daniel Cox over at Natural Exposures.

One thing I will say about the GH5 -it felt bigger when I got it home than it did in the store
It is a BIG m43rds camera.

But after a couple of days the penny dropped. This is a pro-body, in much the same vein as the pro-bodies from other manufacturers. All the controls fall to place perfectly - with one exception which is the playback control, which I have mapped to another fn button. The joy stick and selection wheel are massive improvements in erognomics. Both the EVF and rear screen are excellent. I do wonder if my perceived improvement in IQ is evidence that shutter shock on the GX8 is worse than I was aware of, although the lack of an AA filter may also be a reason.

Even this early the GH5 is an improvement over the GX8. My PL100-400 is turning in better results and I was on the verge of selling it. I doubt if that is the Dual IS because I am generally taking bird photographs at shutter speeds of between 1/1000 and 1/2000. But the big improvement is in the focus points (255 vs 49, iirc???).

I did my first piece of 'pro' work with the GH5 the other day - some photographs of a landmark for an associate who needed the photo in a hurry for book she is completing and I have to say - although this also applies to the GX8 - that it was a joy to work with the camera.

The only decision I now have is whether to sell my GX8 or my GX80. I don't really want three m43rds bodies - and I can always use the cash released for other gear. I'm leaning towards keeping the GX8, despite its accepted drawbacks. Each time I pick up the GX8 it is like putting on a comfortable pair of slippers and it makes me want to use it. I find the GX80 a bit too small, even though I have small hands.

Anyway, that is a short summary of what I have experienced with the GH5 so far. I am unlikely ever to use it for video but I did want a better more rugged body for outdoor, especially, birding photography and one which might allow me to get better performance out of the PL100-400 which was lacking on the GX8. Time will tell if I have achieved that.

LousiB

 

[Matix]

Thanks, Phil, for posting your experiences with the EM1-II.

In the meantime I made a choice and opted for the GH5 because like you most of my lenses are Lumix, with the one exception of the Oly 7-14/2.8 Pro.

It is too early to say whether there is a massive difference with the IQ compared to the GX8 and GX80 I own.

I made the choice for the GH5, despite the fact that I only intend to shoot stills, on the basis of a lot of peeping at bif and other bird photos posted on Flickr and also the positive recommendations of Danial Cox over at Natural Exposures.

One thing I will say about the GH5 -it felt bigger when I got it home than it did in the store
It is a BIG m43rds camera.

But after a couple of days the penny dropped. This is a pro-body, in much the same vein as the pro-bodies from other manufacturers. All the controls fall to place perfectly - with one exception which is the playback control, which I have mapped to another fn button. The joy stick and selection wheel are massive improvements in erognomics. Both the EVF and rear screen are excellent. I do wonder if my perceived improvement in IQ is evidence that shutter shock on the GX8 is worse than I was aware of, although the lack of an AA filter may also be a reason.

Even this early the GH5 is an improvement over the GX8. My PL100-400 is turning in better results and I was on the verge of selling it. I doubt if that is the Dual IS because I am generally taking bird photographs at shutter speeds of between 1/1000 and 1/2000. But the big improvement is in the focus points (255 vs 49, iirc???).

I did my first piece of 'pro' work with the GH5 the other day - some photographs of a landmark for an associate who needed the photo in a hurry for book she is completing and I have to say - although this also applies to the GX8 - that it was a joy to work with the camera.

The only decision I now have is whether to sell my GX8 or my GX80. I don't really want three m43rds bodies - and I can always use the cash released for other gear. I'm leaning towards keeping the GX8, despite its accepted drawbacks. Each time I pick up the GX8 it is like putting on a comfortable pair of slippers and it makes me want to use it. I find the GX80 a bit too small, even though I have small hands.

Anyway, that is a short summary of what I have experienced with the GH5 so far. I am unlikely ever to use it for video but I did want a better more rugged body for outdoor, especially, birding photography and one which might allow me to get better performance out of the PL100-400 which was lacking on the GX8. Time will tell if I have achieved that.

LousiB

Whew, thanks Louis that is interesting.

When I decided to sell the Olympus I was starting to feel like I was the only one to not love the E-M1.2 unconditionally... the some confirmation that others were in the same situation. I will be following your experiences with the GH5 carefully, very interested to hear how it works out for you... like you I totally am not a video shooter, tried it once years ago with Super VHS, and found out that it is a lot of work and you need to be an octopus both in shooting and editing... and a sound man, and two other cameras shooting... full credit to video shooters, they work hard to get the job done.

Phil

 

[ptomsu]

Thanks Peter, my findings may have been different if I had not invested heavily in Lumix lenses, all G or Panasonic Leica quality, so not fully compatible with the newer Pro from Olympus. For example, the new 12-35 and 35-100mm f2.8's and the PL 12-60 and 100-400mm are not able to take advantage of the dual stabilizing features, and as I mature this is more important to me.

Changing would have been a prohibitive expense, as even my cameras are all Panasonic now... 2 x GX7 bodies which I use mainly for travel with the dual Black Rapid harness, 7-14 and 12-35mm in place, and the GX8 and G85 now for landscapes, wildlife and nature shooting. The kit is working for me I guess, so for sure my findings were subjective.

Phil

Well Phil,

this is the "old" issue I already mentioned and discussed so often, that Olympus and Pana who are the main drivers behind the m43 standard have no intention to manage that their systems are fully compatible. It would be easy for both do open up their lenses and bodies to fully support compatibility but unfortunately they are not interested at all.

This is why I never would even try to interchange the both systems and hope for best performance

This is really unfortunate and actually shame on both of these "so much glorified" vendors.

Peter

 

[ptomsu]

Thanks, Phil, for posting your experiences with the EM1-II.

In the meantime I made a choice and opted for the GH5 because like you most of my lenses are Lumix, with the one exception of the Oly 7-14/2.8 Pro.

It is too early to say whether there is a massive difference with the IQ compared to the GX8 and GX80 I own.

I made the choice for the GH5, despite the fact that I only intend to shoot stills, on the basis of a lot of peeping at bif and other bird photos posted on Flickr and also the positive recommendations of Daniel Cox over at Natural Exposures.

One thing I will say about the GH5 -it felt bigger when I got it home than it did in the store
It is a BIG m43rds camera.

But after a couple of days the penny dropped. This is a pro-body, in much the same vein as the pro-bodies from other manufacturers. All the controls fall to place perfectly - with one exception which is the playback control, which I have mapped to another fn button. The joy stick and selection wheel are massive improvements in erognomics. Both the EVF and rear screen are excellent. I do wonder if my perceived improvement in IQ is evidence that shutter shock on the GX8 is worse than I was aware of, although the lack of an AA filter may also be a reason.

Even this early the GH5 is an improvement over the GX8. My PL100-400 is turning in better results and I was on the verge of selling it. I doubt if that is the Dual IS because I am generally taking bird photographs at shutter speeds of between 1/1000 and 1/2000. But the big improvement is in the focus points (255 vs 49, iirc???).

I did my first piece of 'pro' work with the GH5 the other day - some photographs of a landmark for an associate who needed the photo in a hurry for book she is completing and I have to say - although this also applies to the GX8 - that it was a joy to work with the camera.

The only decision I now have is whether to sell my GX8 or my GX80. I don't really want three m43rds bodies - and I can always use the cash released for other gear. I'm leaning towards keeping the GX8, despite its accepted drawbacks. Each time I pick up the GX8 it is like putting on a comfortable pair of slippers and it makes me want to use it. I find the GX80 a bit too small, even though I have small hands.

Anyway, that is a short summary of what I have experienced with the GH5 so far. I am unlikely ever to use it for video but I did want a better more rugged body for outdoor, especially, birding photography and one which might allow me to get better performance out of the PL100-400 which was lacking on the GX8. Time will tell if I have achieved that.

LousiB

Thanks Lois for these interesting observations.

Unfortunately I already thought this would finally be the case and I can only second that from all my feelings and own experiments I never would combine both Panasonic as well as Olympus m43 equipment to achieve best results. Now it is once more verified.

Have fun with the GH5 and the 100-400 and pleased keep posting some wonderful results. I might be on the fence for this combo too

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I disagree that mixing Olympic and Panasonic equipment doesn't work well. For certain pieces, yes, but that problem exists within most camera system.

I've used the Zuiko 75mm on all my Panasonic bodies, I use the tiny flash that came with the EM-1 with the GM5, the PL 14-50mm works better on the EM-1 than on any Panasonic body etc.

 

[Godfrey]

I had no problems mixing Panasonic/Leica FourThirds and Micro-FourThirds lenses with my Olympus bodies over the years, and vice versa. They've worked well.

Sure, some new features built into the latest bodies might not work with some of the other manufacturer's lenses. So what? This is the basis for picking one body or lens over another, not for saying that they're not compatible. The lenses are perfectly compatible, but each manufacturer has to do something to differentiate their products. So Olympus builds features into their lenses that work with some of their bodies better, and the same for Panasonic. This is what 'coopetition' is all about; these things are features beyond the Micro-FourThirds interchange and compatibility specification.

G

 

[biglouis]

I think Peter is referring to some pro lenses where a common dual IS standard would be nice. I'd certainly like to give house room to a 300/4 at some point but I am not put off by the lack of dual IS functionality with the GH5. However, if P and O can ever make their dual IS a standard of some kind that would be a nice addition.

Personally, I won't be changing my 7-14/2.8 Pro any time soon to the new Leica 8-18 - the Oly functions fine on the GX8/GX80 although I have not had a chance to use it with the GH5 yet. It is a stellar performer and the lens which finally persauded me to change my system entirely to m43rds.

LouisB

 

[ptomsu]

I think Peter is referring to some pro lenses where a common dual IS standard would be nice. I'd certainly like to give house room to a 300/4 at some point but I am not put off by the lack of dual IS functionality with the GH5. However, if P and O can ever make their dual IS a standard of some kind that would be a nice addition.

Personally, I won't be changing my 7-14/2.8 Pro any time soon to the new Leica 8-18 - the Oly functions fine on the GX8/GX80 although I have not had a chance to use it with the GH5 yet. It is a stellar performer and the lens which finally persauded me to change my system entirely to m43rds.

LouisB

I fully agree! ++

And I think the Only 7-14 is a perfect example of a lens that works nicely on Panasonic as well as Olympus bodies. But it does not require dual IS and a decent IS is more than perfect for a WA lens like this.

This is totally different for telephoto and super telephoto lenses that are obviously delivering better results with perfectly aligned dual IS etc.....

So this is why I would try not to avoid mixing m43 lenses and bodies of different vendors without carefulness. But I admit that my standards are obviously different from many other users posting here

End of the day what really matters is the outcome of all these discussions here and one very important thing is that the GH5 seems to perform perfectly well with the 100-400. So if I were to shoot heavily wildlife such as birds where I need the reach of this lens, I know what my preferred choice would be now. That means I of course could try first also that lens on my EM1.2, but I would know from the beginning that combining t with the GH5 would even deliver better results in the end.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

All this discussion around IS and dual IS makes me a bit thoughtful. My long telephoto combo is a Nikon D2Xs, a camera that isn't really useful beyond ISO 400, with an old Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF (450mm eqv.). I don't use that combo in the dark of course, but during daylight hours, I get some very sharp photos, more than sharp enough for the stock agencies. Are we getting so dependent on crutches that we forget how to walk?