Marcio Kabke Pinheiro

Good video too. In good light the image is really good, but the dark segments in the begenning are somewhat noisier, no?

​When using adapted lenses, you must dial manually in the focal lenght of the lens that you're using; you can use a adapted zoom lens, but will have to choose a focal lenght, dial in the value and stay with it. With m4/3 zooms, there are no problems, since the focal lenght value is transmitted electronically.

Downloaded the John files (Curiosity is a great video, by the way). One improvement is visible: tree leaves don't became a blotchy mess, like the E-M5 - the bitrate helped a lot. Some doubts about sharpness (because of some other test videos) and low light performance.

I was planning to get a LX100 to film some live music concerts in 4k - the original plan was to buy a Panny 12-35 f/2.8 to use with my GX7 (my current camera for movies), because I shoot handheld in these cases; since the LX100 is cheaper than the 12-35mm AND comes with a 4k camera attached, was an obvious choice... ...until today. Now I think that this NX500 could be the one; I know that I'll have to buy a stabilized lens for handheld shooting, but I know that the NX1 image is much better than the LX100, and I suppose that the NX500 would be the same. For daylight work, I can use rigs / tripods and my bunch of legacy glass - and in this scenario, I know that the NX500 probably will be better. But about low light performance, my question for Andrew or someone that already used both cameras in low light: supposing that the NX500 have the same low light performance of the NX1, is it better than the LX100? My question is because of the sensor pixel pitch of them - 3,86 microns in the LX100, 3,63 in the NX1/NX500; the LX100 pixels are slightly larger, but the Samsung sensor is BSI. Which one have the clearer / less noisier image in ISO 1600 and 3200? Any help would br appreciated (disclaimer: I'm not a pro, since I don't have the money for the perfect camera for the concert scenario, the Sony A7s )

E-M1 is still interesting for people that shoot stills with the older 4/3 glass, since it have PDAF focusing and this new E-M5 is only CDAF. And it has more controls and (I suspect) that the weather sealing still be better in the E-M1. But for movies (and for me), this new one is much more interesting. The great question is moire and aliasing. Bigger bitrates are better, but if poorly implemented (like in the new A7 II), are useless. What worries me is that all the rumor sites says that the sensor in this new E-M5 is the same Sony sensor from the E-M5; for stills, it still (no pun intended) a very good sensor; but since it is somewhat old, I don't know if it is capable tu use full readout for video. The sensor code is IMX 109, but I could not find its datasheet anywhere. If they use the E-M1 sensor without PDAF (which is a variant from the GX7 / GH4 sensor, with PDAF), would be amazing - this sensor is full readout and (yes) 4k capable. No words about the HDMI output quality yet, too. But the presence of a full tilt LCD (the "pure photography" people are complaining all over the Olympus forums about it) hints that Olympus is taking the video side seriously.

"The GM1 is $749 with 12-32mm lens." The GX7 kit is even cheaper, $589,99 in eBay.

Maybe the (supposed) use of Tizen as the operational system of the camera is speeding up the development process. And now is very clear that Samsung put an insane amount of power processing in the camera - probably the NX1 will have a longer lifecycle, being updated by firmware. And clearly they have a very clever manager taking care of this project.

Gordon Laing in the (very detailed) CameraLabs review said that there is no filter thread, hence the confusion.

Will follow closely the reviews of this camera. Specially one from Andrew, when possible. I was planning to buy the 12-35mm f2.8 to shoot handheld with my GX7, because of the OIS. But as stated previously, this camera have a lens with better specs with OIS AND records 4k for a lower price than the 12-35mm alone. I guess that the 12-35mm f2.8 might have a better optical performance for stills, but probably not a lot for video. Will miss the flip screen, and touchscreen will be missed for stills - but I have better cameras for stills. And to people which wants a single "do it all" camera, it one of the best packages on the market. Very good, Panasonic.

I have this RJ adapter, but for Nikon G mount. Not Metabones standard, but much better than Mitakon's and other chinese options - and it costs 1/3 of Metabone's price. 0.72x crop factor, and a full stop in gathering light, both confirmed. Could not test about increases in sharpness (did not had time), but for sure no decreased quality in center of the image. In general, the reports are some increase in center sharpness and a little decrease in the corners. It have a "blue dot" flare problem when pointed directly to a strong light source, though. Good design point: the optical assembly is screwed in the adapter - you can screw / unscrew it to correct infinity focus and other issues with specific lenses (in fact you can even dissasembly the entire optical element - I made it by accident...). The mechanical quality is good too - on par of other RJ adapters. If you need absolutely maximum quality, I think Metabones still the way to go. But if you are on a budget, or want to experiment a little with focal reducers, it could be a good option.

I would put in the list some improvements in focus peaking for video, too. In my GX7, peaking is HUGELY useful, especially with older lenses. And to Olympus: I've bought the GX7 instead of the E-M1 only because of the lacking video mode in the E-M1. Improve it, and I will buy one ASAP. And a guess that a lot of people too.

Another thing that Olympus could address in a firmware update, besides 24p/25p: enabling focus peaking during the video recording (if I'm not wrong, the peaking dissapears when the record button is pressed). And as I said in a previous post, could be useful a test that stress the codec, like tree leaves in a windy day. Some footage that I've saw from the E-M1 have the same muddy problem that happened in the E-M5, albeit much less pronounced.

Very curious about your E-M1 review. I was in the USA in the end of the last year, and used the opportunity to get some new gear - here in Brazil none of these cameras are available, and when (and if) they arrive here will be around 3x the USA price. Love my GH2, but I need a new one, for both stills and video. The options were the GX7 and the E-M1. The GX7 ticked a lot of right boxes - windowed focus assist + peaking was a thing that once I thought that would be ideal for my needs, and when I saw it implemented I was overwhelmed. The low profile of the GX7 was a must too - a lot of people don't take it seriously, and are much more relaxed than in front of a 5D. But the E-M1 came, and the stills quality were amazing. The ergonomics looked well too (except the on/off switch). The 5-axis IBIS was a dream for video. But when the video specs came...a low bitrate codec and no 24p. Olympus lost a 100% sure sell. I was even more sad after testing the E-M1 in B&H Photo in NY - the handling was amazing, the responsiveness, the superb EVF, the stabilizer...but because of the codec, 24p and some features, it was the GX7 that came back home with me. (Very good stills - a bit worse than E-M1 - but a VERY good video mode, better than GH2 with the lighter hacks, very good high ISO performance and much less banding). Suggestion for the E-M1 testing, if I can say one: scenes with a lot of moving details, like tree leaves in a windy day; it was the kind of scene that breaks the E-M5 codec, and I saw some footage from the E-M1 before my trip and saw the same problem (albeit much less pronounced than the E-M5). This and no 24p were the deals breakers - but I want to see what you can extract from the E-M1 (you have much more knowledge than me). If Oly updates the video mode with a firmware upgrade, I can bought one - but I don't have hopes about it, looks like that Olympus and Fuji really don't care about video. Regards, Marcio

I guess that is something related to the simpler IS technology. Olympus never enabled IS for recording in their Pen line too (used an eletronic IS, very awful) until the E-P5 - which have the 5-axis IS too.

Yeah, I'm getting one in December because I want it for stills too. Only for video, I think that the G6 is a better package.

I've saw some good samples of it. Looks good, G6 style. http://youtu.be/fn4xsbRe5cU

Just a guess: I think that Canon could have something under the wraps - always thought that the 70D sensor, with that Dual Pixel AF, makes much more sense in a mirrorless camera than in a DSLR. Maybe the 70D could be kind of a "testing body" - like the RX1 clearly was a step towards the A7/A7r.   This new Nikon DF was not spotted by the rumors / leaks, too.   Of course, Canon being blind is a very good assumption too. :)

Video from the A7 - moiré festival. http://youtu.be/oh3dKWglaXQ

Andrew, you don't used any kind of rig in the handheld shots? Since the lens is somewhat heavier than the m4/3 lenses, it could not stress the mount? (not when shooting - then you always have one hand in the lens - but when "resting", lens facing down between shoots). And do you think that this lens could be also valuable to Micro Four Thirds cameras?

Probably they will refine a little bit the details (the rubber (?) around the camera looks rough, just like happened with the pre-production GH3 - just look at the pre-production pics of the GH3), but looks like that the shape (controls, etc) is almost final.   I think that the E-M5 is a beautiful camera, but this one is almost hideous - the grip looks like a tumor that had grown from an E-M5. :) Ergonomically, I guess that the camera will be very good, but I think that, if the intention was to make a Pro camera, to use the 4/3 lenses and it users, would be better to go the "DSLR" route instead the retro look.   The camera probably will be awesome, at least for photos (I don't have many hopes in the video section, Olympus and Fuji don't give a damn to video), but the looks could hamper somewhat it success.   Looks like that Olympus is a little lost in what to do - the E-P5 was launched overpriced, and the GX7 lauch just worsened the situation even more. And they start licensing their most valuable asset (the 5-axis IBIS) to (probably) make money; Casio launched a point&shoot with it, and probably the new NEXs will bring it to - and killing a possible video market for Olympus.

A video comparison between the GX7 and the GH3, shot simultaneously. Best video demo I've saw so far. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdQ3hVb9qug   And I must say that I'm impressed by the GX7 video quality in this comparison (albeit I think that the focus point of the cameras is different in some shots).

Thanks again for the info, Julian. Reliable information about video in GX7 is already scarce. About the EVF: saw some complaints about it being too small. How it compares against GH2, G6 and GH3?

  Thanks a lot for the info, Julian. Did you have time to test other aspects, like moire, aliasing, noise, low light performance? 

  Great. Julian, do you mind to check these two things in the camera?   - Focus peaking working during video recording, not only when paused (I guess it works, but some peaking implementations don't); - If the "PIP" zoom window for focus assist works during video recording too.   Thanks in advance. :)

Don't know if it is the right topic to post it, but this film was made too with the M Type 240. Beautiful grading. https://vimeo.com/70717584