Bob Goldberg

If you're referring to the Digidirect video, then we clearly disagree. The effects of rolling shutter look worse the faster the camera moves and the closer you are to an object. In that video, the camera was moving so fast that virtually everything was indistinguishable. Cameras aren't usually moved that rapidly in rolling shutter tests. Usually, you like to see more controlled tests with two cameras side by side, because it's hard to judge it accurately without a comparison camera. But, the truth is, that actually looked pretty good to me. I'm not convinced the E-M1 II is any better than this. Also, there are other things that affect the appearance of rolling shutter including the sensor area used for video. I know rolling shutter in stills is worse the higher the bit depth is. That's why some MFT cameras reduce the bit depth in stills from 12 to 10 bits when e-shutter is used, to reduce the jello appearance. I'm not sure in what way this applies to video though.

I don't think the video released yet is an indication of all of the possible IQ advantages this camera will give. If you need 4k/60p for fast action, you can't really do that with the GH4 or any other camera. Also, the IBIS may be a difference maker to some, and some would say this will make a difference in video quality. The oversampled 4K (full sensor) will likely yield the sharpest video yet out of MFT. Not to mention the grading advantages of 4:2:2 video. It's tough to argue that wouldn't make a difference in IQ. Also, as previously mentioned, you can do 5K video (using the 6K photo mode) with 1:1 pixels, which will likely yield sharper video than the GH4 can produce, with minimal moire or other artifacts. And it's also full sensor. This is entirely independent of the 6K anamorphic mode that's coming in the future. So, there are definitely two ways to shoot beyond 4k, and either of those modes would give you an additional capability to add further stabilization in post, and still output 4k video.

I just wanted to chime in with a more detailed explanation of the 6K photo mode, which can also be used for 5K video (with 1:1 pixels). There is unequivocally no upscaling or downscaling in this mode. And if you shoot 5K video in this mode, you have extra pixels on the vertical to allow you to decide precisely where you want to crop out the 5K video. And you can also use the extra pixels to do some image stabilization in post, and still retain 5K video quality. https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58907335 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58907720 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58644769 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58646338 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58646032 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58650895 https://***URL removed***/forums/post/58817553

​Yeah, I was referring to the AX33, which is the 4K successor to the CX730. It does have about 1/9 the sensor area of the E-M5 II (assuming a 20% crop, which I don't know). One advantage of the AX33 is that it does 4K with exactly 3840x2160 pixels, so it should be very sharp and nearly artifact free. The small size of the sensor also helps reduce rolling shutter. Even though the sensor is 1/9 the size, it's a more efficient sensor than current MFT sensors, so it should perform well in low light. Not as well as MFT, but decent. For the average consumer looking for great video quality with great stabilization (when walking), I'd recommend the AX33. The reason I use MFT (Panasonic specifically) is because I want to maintain top notch video quality at focal lengths other than wide angle. I'm just not convinced that the zoom lenses on these compacts and camcorders are all that great, except at the widest angle. For instance, with the GH4, I can maintain the same quality at 300mm eq. as I can at 30mm eq. I don't think that's possible with a compact or camcorder. My GH2 (with good lenses) maintains MUCH better detail at longer focal lengths than camcorders and compacts. Also, I still think that MFT cameras, like the GH series, maintain an edge in terms of fine detail and sharpness over camcorders (even at their best focal lengths). And the difference in low light performance should not be underestimated either, especially at longer focal lengths. None of the reasons I choose MFT have anything to do with shallow DoF or artistic effects (or stabilization). It' purely IQ considerations, and that's the reason I don't use camcorders. But, again, not to sound like a broken record, if the IQ wasn't there, then the next logical option would be camcorders (not an MFT camera without top notch IQ).

​The E-M10 also uses digital stabilization. And looking through the VF is hardly a comprehensive test. But any testing is helpful.

​There's no contradiction. Testimony implies someone's opinion. Since when have I ever listened to ANYONE about anything. Even you will agree that I don't care what anyone else thinks. Cameras don't give testimony and they don't lie. Their output (unedited) doesn't lie. ​There's no such thing as a (seriously) handicapped OOC (i.e. unedited) comparison IMO. If you have a trained eye, you can make do with any settings. Most camera manufacturers do not allow the settings to go low enough to negatively impact actual fine detail. The only way you can handicap a comparison is by compressing or editing it. And I've never said otherwise. Certain in camera settings do look much worse when compressed, but as long as you avoid any editing, it's all good. And most of my comments to Inquisitive were just to get him to post the OOC footage. I simply guessed that the in camera settings he used on the GH2 looked worse when compressed on YT. But I was probably wrong about that on review of his footage. The GH2 was so markedly better in the OOC comparison that I believe he did something wrong at the editing step before uploading that severely degraded the GH2. ​The full stabilization set includes digital, which isn't any real technological advantage of Olympus cameras or IBIS. Digital stabilization can be included on future Panasonic cameras and done in post. If you want to really know the advantages of IBIS, then use IBIS only. Regarding Sony's "drift", have you compared the balanced steadyshot to IBIS only (without digital). Somehow I doubt you've actually tried it seriously, but I doubt that Sony's Balanced Steadyshot drifts more or performs worse than 5-axis IBIS only. Not from the examples I've seen and my own usage. BTW, feel free to respond as often as you want. No need to do it right away. I'm not going anywhere.

​You're wrong. Where did I ever "admit" that I'm forming an opinion based on internet testimony. I think OOC internet examples are a perfectly valid way to form an opinion, especially when they're shooting the same thing. But, not to toot my own horn, I really do have a pretty good eye for spotting quality, even without a direct comparison, especially if the difference is massive. But it always helps to have a comparison. I'm probably one of the biggest "showroomers" out there. And that's pretty much the only way that a typical person will get to try out everything under the sun. Go to the stores, feign interest, and spend a half an hour trying it out. Have you tried Sony's balanced OIS? Do you know what it is? Have you compared this to Oly's 5-axis IBIS without digital stabilization. I'll bet you that the balanced OIS creates not only more stable video but also much better quality video. Have you personally compared your 100-300 on the E-M5 II at 300mm with digital stabilizer turned off? I'd be interested to see this comparison. And it should also be noted that this was one of Panasonic's earliest tele lenses (which is known to have worse stabilization than their newer lenses) and it's also their inferior mega OIS. For instance, their 45-175 with power OIS, which I have, has substantially better stabilization than the 100-300. And, as soon as I can go to a store to test it out, I'm going to take my 45-175 with me and compare the OIS to IBIS (without digital) at 175mm. I've already been to a local camera store twice BTW to try out the E-M5 II, but they had none to try out. It was too early for them to have store displays, and they weren't willing to open a new one for me to try out. And, again I'll say, IQ is the most important thing in an interchangeable lens camera, not stabilization.

​I didn't say it wasn't made for filmographers. I simply said the vast majority reading it aren't film makers. There is a difference. I think it should be at least recognized that this is the case. And my point was that people in the market for a higher end camera (which any ILC is) are doing so because they want better image quality than a phone or a compact can give them. They're not doing it for stabilization. Great stabilization (as good or better than 5-axis IBIS) has been available in the compact and camcorder market for quite a while. What's been lacking in a big way is GH4-like video quality.

I also wanted to add that I believe the stabilization in third party lenses (such as Canon) does work on MFT. I haven't confirmed this myself but this is what I've been told. So, I believe there's really a whole host of stabilized lenses out there for this system.

​I don't believe this is correct. While I don't own the E-M1 either, I've seen the OOC video that it produces, and it was still way off the mark. But it was a little better than the E-M5 II.

​One thing you should keep in mind is that I'm not a pro. The vast majority of people that read Mr. Reid's blog are not pros. They buy one camera and that's pretty much it. For these people, the E-M5 II is simply not the answer IMO because the average consumer doesn't buy an ILC for stabilization. They buy it for great image quality. Again, if money was no issue and I could have multiple cameras, I'd buy the E-M5 II. For taking videos of the important things in my life and without the resources to buy every camera under the sun, I'm sticking with Panasonic. Plain and simple. Olympus isn't even in the game for me. If stabilization was the deciding factor and I wanted great IQ, as a typical consumer, I'd probably buy a Sony camcorder with balanced OIS. A Panasonic camcorder would also be an excellent choice. I understand that some pros can use this type of camera on certain shots, but I think I speak more for the typical person. And I think it should be recognized that the vast majority of people reading this blog are not filmographers, aren't going to spend a great deal of time in post, and have absolutely no artistic interests. They just want the best camera to record the events in their lives. And, again, that ain't Olympus. My hope is that this blog doesn't become exclusively tailored to pros at the exclusion of the typical person. And regarding stabilization, I'm going to say it again. Panasonic has some very nice stabilized lenses out there. And they're beginning to take the stabilized prime market seriously. Unfortunately, 3 of their 4 stabilized primes are in the 42.5mm to 45mm range, but it's a start. I think they're starting to take it seriously, having just released 2 new ones. And, honestly, in the telephoto focal length range, I'm not sure IBIS (when excluding the DIS) gives you much of an advantage (if any) over OIS. I recognize the advantage when walking and running, but I don't believe this advantage is still there once you extend the zoom and once you exclude Olympus' digital stabilizer. I've always maintained that as the focal length increases, OIS actually becomes better. I'm not sure where that focal length is at though.

​Same old, same old, boss. I wouldn't be happy unless at least a few people hated me.

Something tells me that I would have been tarred and feathered long ago if my position wasn't in agreement with the admin. Oh well, maybe in the next thread I can be in disagreement with the admin AND everyone else, and, then, I can become universally agreed to be the most hated man on the forum.

​Something you may not know about me is that everyone loves me. Those who know me love me and those who don't know me also love me (from afar). Those who I praise love me and those who I insult also love me (while wishing for my praise). Who doesn't love the big Jew on DPReview? I simply meant that if he did return it already, he might consider buying another one, testing it, then returning it again. Just a thought.

Inquisitive, it would be great if you could do a GH2 720p vs E-M5 II 1080p test before you return the E-M5 II. It doesn't have to be as long as the last one. Just one or two high detail areas (less than a minute) would be great. It wasn't close at 1080p, but I think the 720p test might be more interesting.