Let's All Dismiss Olympus

[MrSMW]

11 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Yes, but not the lenses

Yes, very true.

I had the f1.8 trinity of: 17mm, 45mm, 75mm and all were good with the 75mm being excellent, but of very limited use.

As a compact pairing, the 17 & 45 could accomplish most of my photo needs especially being like a full-frame equivalent of a 34 and a 90.

I was very attracted to building a system earlier this year off the f1.7 zoom pairing of the 10-25 and 25-50 which would have given me even more (albeit for some extra bulk) or 20-100mm in a pretty compact package compared with a FF system.

I would have done it had my needs been purely video because for my needs, that would tick every box.

It was just the stills side I could not quite commit to, coming from what would be full-frame 47mp S1R!

The 26mp XH2S and 33mp R7 both in APSC were/are 'kind of' just about acceptable to me and having come from XT3 (and many previous Fujis since the X line was introduced), I could have made a case for.

But the 40mp XH2 sealed the deal really.

Arguably, the bodies and lenses are not much different to many full-frame in terms of size & weight (it's 4/3rds for sure where there is a bigger difference) but enough as an overall package/system to work for me.

Could I have made a 4/3rds system work?

Absolutely and no one would have known any different except for one person. Me.

And that is where/why I drew the line I did...

My clients would 100% not notice any difference if I produced a result 4/3rd based, but part of my own 'creative process' would be lost by doing so and this is far more to me than simply running a business for financial gain.

Where do you draw the line? Some might argue that, "well, why don't you stick with full-frame and not 'downgrade' to APSC?" or, "actually, why not go digital medium format and look at the GFX100s?!"

And I have. I've looked at and made business cases for a GFX100s based system and even the new Hassie X2D, but what it came down to in the end was that 'overall system' and cost and what I could justify.

If I had the money, I would 100% build a stills based system off that new Hassie, but arguably would need a pair and 3 lenses (and I don't have close to the 30k it would require) plus invest in the OM-1 + zoom based system I outlined above for another 8k making a total system cost of pushing 40,000!!

Instead, I'm 'settling' for a Fuji based system of around 10k new cost, less the trade in of all my L Mount which will cover at least 50% of that.

Economics has a large part to play!!

[John Matthews]

5 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Economics has a large part to play!!

Business is business. You face the same fate as all other companies- make money or starve (depending on where you live). You do make an interesting point though: if the name of the game is to make money and 100% of your customers won't see a difference in quality, why not go with the least expensive solution that allows you to keep the most amount of money? For some people, they'll say "time and ease". Do you find you gain time or ease with the Fuji system?

Just as a follow-up to make a few points from what others have said about M43:

1) All camera companies will eventually fail. New ones will always crop up as long as humans have eyes and ears.

2) Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Leica, Arri, Red, Balckmagic, Hasselblad and now OMDS (maybe others) have no plan B- meaning they must deliver on cameras and sales or die. Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Ricoh could pull a Samsung and kill their camera division immediately. With this type of move, Sony E-mount, X-mount or K-mount would die. A Panasonic failure wouldn't kill M43 or L-mount.

3) Any existing great cameras and lenses will obviously continue to make great content as long as there's one working camera left and there's a will to do so.

4) If you buy your gear used (and you're savvy enough), you can probably sell it at little to no loss. Sometimes, you'll make money because sellers don't always know the value of their gear. Look for the bargain.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Do you find you gain time or ease with the Fuji system?

Decreased kit, more flexible, more focused, less fatigued, more creative.

4) Purchased 3/4 cameras used and about 1/2 my lenses. There will be a loss of course, but that’s partially against XX000 turnover. I’m expecting a ‘cost to change’ of around 3k and min 3 years use unchanged of the new system.

[ac6000cw]

On 9/15/2022 at 8:58 PM, John Matthews said:

If you're counting grams, the E-M5 iii is a good choice paired with inexpensive, small, primes. For the enthusiast, it's a camera that you want to take out. In a small bag under 1kg, I can cover 8mm to 300mm- that's really hard to do on FF (maybe impossible).

That's exactly what's kept me in the M43 eco-system. One of my interests is wildlife photography & video, and the Oly 75-300mm is only around 420g and 120mm long. Combine that with the ex-tele sensor crop capability and IBIS on a Pana G9 and you get the FF equivalent of 1000mm+ lens reach in a combo that fits easily in a modest camera bag or small rucksack (and the oversampled( GH5-level) 1080p on that is so good it's quite close to 4k quality). Take along the 210g Pana 12-60mm lens and that's basically 12mm to 300mm covered in two decent-quality zoom lenses that weigh less than 650g in total.

[ac6000cw]

On 9/16/2022 at 8:31 AM, John Matthews said:

2) Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Leica, Arri, Red, Blackmagic, Hasselblad and now OMDS (maybe others) have no plan B- meaning they must deliver on cameras and sales or die. Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Ricoh could pull a Samsung and kill their camera division immediately. With this type of move, Sony E-mount, X-mount or K-mount would die. A Panasonic failure wouldn't kill M43 or L-mount.

Canon, Nikon, Leica and Blackmagic are more than just camera companies - they have other business lines. Of those, Canon and Nikon are probably the most exposed to market changes, due to their historically large presence in the consumer market. Leica, Arri, Red, Blackmagic & Hasselblad are niche players in the overall camera market.

I think OMDS has a difficult transition to make into probably a somewhat smaller and more niche player. They do have the audio recorder side of the business as well, but doubtless some of that market has been lost to mobile phones.

[John Matthews]

On 9/17/2022 at 12:47 PM, ac6000cw said:

Canon, Nikon, Leica and Blackmagic are more than just camera companies - they have other business lines.

Sure, but the lion share is tied to cameras, unlike Panasonic, Sony, Ricoh and Fuji who probably wouldn't even sneeze if they stopped their camera business altogether- that was my point. In capitalism if you're not at least 8% above inflation, you're losing money because you could invest it elsewhere and make more. I think they're all waiting for the other one to jump out first, hoping to save their business in the short-term.

[Phil A]

15 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Sure, but the lion share is tied to cameras, unlike Panasonic, Sony, Ricoh and Fuji who probably wouldn't even sneeze if they stopped their camera business altogether- that was my point. In capitalism if you're not at least 8% above inflation, you're losing money because you could invest it elsewhere and make more. I think they're all waiting for the other one to jump out first, hoping to save their business in the short-term.

Cameras are just 18.6% for Canon (printers are 55.2%).
I think Nikon is the most vulnerable in that group you mentioned.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

I've started seriously with photography and video with m4/3. As the opposite of the majority here, I'm no professional photographer or filmmaker. Probably could be classified as "enthusiast".

I like to make movies and stills on my trips, love to film or photograph live concerts, even made some videos for some friend's bands. m4/3 was perfect for me - VERY small lenses, does not attract any attention from people when using them on trips, always been dismissed by security at concert's doors (only happened one time, with the GH2, that looked like a DSLR...), and could carry all the lenses that I needed in a messenger bag.

In my last trip, before covid, had a GX85 with the 12-32 pancake zoom, the Panasonic 42,5 f/1.7, the Panasonic 45-175 and a Rokinon 12mm f/2. Never got in a situation during the trip that I needed other lenses.

To be kind of invisible on trips and concert, I had a primary rule: never use a body that looked like a "professional" DSLR. For this reason, "rangefinder" bodies are my preferred, most people even mistake them as film cameras. Had the GX7, GX85 and GX9; and midrange Olympus silver bodies for the same reason: E-M10 MK I and III, E-M5 MKII. No more GHs after the GH2, or E-M1s.

Then I sensed the tide - m43 probably would become a niche format. Full video for Panasonic, wildlife and adventure for OM Digital. The horrendous G100, the E-M10 MK IV and E-P7(which was already developed before the spinoff) were the last discreet m4/3 cameras - and I see no signs of them returning. And yes, I think that the future of the format is in danger - OM Digital must sell to keep afloat, and Panasonic could pull a Samsung in any moment.

Lenses, same thing. With the exception of the (amazing, in my opinion) Panasonic 9mm f/1.7, almost only Olympus PROs and the Panasonic f/1.7 duo. Big lenses, APS-C size or bigger when you brings equivalency on the equation (and I, contrary to most people, looks on equivalency most about low light that depth of field).

Coupled with the fact that here in Brazil Panasonic and Olympus never sold their cameras officially, and the prices are very high, I started looking to APS-C. Easy choice: APS-C was already left to dust by Sony (albeit the newer primes are good, the bodies still sucks), Nikon and Canon did not have options at the time (EOS-M was out of question, and the Nikon and Canon APS-Cs mirrorless came after and still have very few lenses), and I gone to Fuji. 

Fuji is much better then m4/3? Compared to my previous kits, kind of. But not always.

First: weight. The retro cult of Fuji lovers despises anything that is plastic, hence the lenses are kind of heavy compared to my previous ones, but not using equivalency. The 18-55 f/2.8-4 is AMAZING compared to the smaller m4/3 zooms; never thought that the m43 zooms that I had were bad, but this one is another league; ok, I could have the Oly 12-40 f/2.8, but it is larger, heavier and pricier. The 55-200 is VERY good too.

The "Nocticrons" are lovely. Tiny, sharp, have the 35 and the 50, probably will get the full set. Are the "Olympus 45mm f/1.8" of the system.

But to make the same equivalent travel set of my last trip will be heavier. Would like to see some "Nocticron zooms", f/4 or even f/4-5.6 - the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is an example, will get one as soon Sigma releases a X version.

Another problem on Fuji is IBIS. I have the only "discreet" body that have it, the X-S10. If the X-E4 had IBIS, would had bought it on pre-order, but...purists won. And would have 2 interfaces, PSAM and retro-dials, have a little bit of preference for PSAM (works better with custom positions), but no problem with retro ones, just wants consistency.

Fuji is better for me now, in comparison, because of two factors:

- PDAF all across the line - for single AF...m4/3 is better, a tiny fraction but a noticiable one. Could be the larger DOF, but in S-AF it was a little faster and confident. But for moving subjects (almost never used C-AF before, but now I have a little daughter...), MUCH better. Good rate for stills, and for movies, more than good enough. Ok, I never had a PDAF m4/3 camera, because only the E-M1s and the E-M5 MK III had it, but this week I filmed my daughter going back and forth on a swing, with very good AF, a thing that was impossible from my previous cameras.

- Possibility to pull in focus DURING recording, withour recording the enlarged image - is a thing that I've always wanted when filming concerts, and in the m43, only was implemented now, on the GH6...now that I have it, could not go back.

Worst problems?
- The IBIS is kind of bad for vídeo. Looks like the same algorythm is used for stills and video, very jumpy on vídeo. Not a deal breaker, but even my GX85 was better. And from the samples that I saw, were not fixed in the both the X-H2 models.
- No tracking on video. And the face detection have a serious problem - works VERY well when you have only one person on the frame, but put two or more people and the system goes crazy, jumping from face to face. You should have an option to lock on a specific face, or have tracking.

Sold a lot of my m4/3 stuff already, kept the GH2 and the E-P1 (for sentimental reasons and low value nowadays), will keep the 12-32 pancake and the 45mm f/1.8. And I have to confess that the OM-5 look like an almost perfect camera for me - good PDAF (juding by the OM-1 performance), small and not "DSLRish" body, good enough video, and that amazing IBIS.

But will not have focus pull assistance during video, no smaller and lighter revised zooms on sight, and the future of the format still a danger.

[MrSMW]

Good read Marcio so thanks for taking the time.

[MrSMW]

11 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

To be kind of invisible on trips and concert, I had a primary rule: never use a body that looked like a "professional" DSLR. For this reason, "rangefinder" bodies are my preferred, most people even mistake them as film cameras.

Yes. I found this to be very much the case when I switched from using big bulky DSLR's with zoom lenses at weddings, to hipster X Pro1's and X100's. 

I didn't become 'invisible', but definitely experienced a much lower visual profile at events to the extent most people did not realise the couple had booked a pro.

These days, I'm less bothered about it and ultimately the priority for me is the right tool for the job over what anyone may or may not perceive.

This is why I was so drawn to the OM-1 when it was announced, bought one, loved it...but ultimately decided I could not use it as one of my principle tools.

Fantastic size, weight and form factor which I would describe as being 'near perfect'.

I have however considerable experience with Fuji and when I then looked at the XH2s and XH2, came to the conclusion that APSC offered more for a still very compact package with the bodies being barely bigger or heavier.

The lenses add a bit more but as above, for me, all factors are important but the overall combo is the most important of all.

It's apparent now that the XH2 I preordered will not now arrive in time for my final gig of the season because it would have to arrive by tomorrow latest and here in France, availability is 'before 31st October' rather than 'end of September' as it is in more advanced countries.

This is both a good thing and a bad thing...

It's a bad thing because despite extensive (9 years stills and 2 years video) experience with Fuji X cameras, it's both 2 years since I used them and it would have been good to test the current gen with my current shooting style.

It's a good thing as it means I can sit on the L Mount fence a while longer...

When the XH2 does finally arrive, I will probably make a final decision then whether to hold out until the end of the year regarding L Mount, or trade the lot and go all in again with Fuji.

I actually don't mind which option becomes reality because as I always say, it's just the right tools for the job and there are pros and cons and compromises in every direction, but the current gen of Fuji and APSC, is probably the sweet spot for my needs right now.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

The XH2s are VERY compact - smaller than the GH6 and pratically the same size of the OM-1. And if you use the Olympus PRO lenses or most of the more professional m43 lenses, the m43 size advantage becomes negligible (and, in some cases, the weight also).

But they are not for me. My perfect Fuji camera would be a X-E5 with IBIS, with the back dial and some buttons back, and a little better EVF. But will not happen. In fact, it will be kind of a problem in the future because I don't need 40mp...

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

The XH2s are VERY compact

Yes indeed. I had forgotten just how compact.

Now I know some will day, "ha, they are not compact!" but actually, compared with an S1 line camera, they are!

Compared with the D3's I used to use, with their built in battery grips, massively so.

When I used to use the XH1, I thought it was the perfect size, weight and ergos. Or close enough.

I just wished it had the guts of the XT3 and had that been the case, pretty sure I'd still be using them today.

Today I simply wish the XH2 had the tilt screen of the XH1 as that is pretty much my only gripe.

But I did that camera size comparison thing and was pleasantly reminded how relatively compact the XH2 is and barely any bigger or heavier than the OM-1 which as I said above, I thought was/is an absolute gem.

It's when you put say the 16-55mm f2.8 on the Fuji compared with the 12-40mm f2.8 on the Oly the gap begins to widen...

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

On 9/28/2022 at 2:02 PM, MrSMW said:

It's when you put say the 16-55mm f2.8 on the Fuji compared with the 12-40mm f2.8 on the Oly the gap begins to widen...

With the same aperture - yes, bigger and heavier.

But if you put the 16-80 f/4 on the X-H2 (I know, it's not a stellar lens, but playing with equivalency and rage), almost the same size, a little bit heavier but far more range...

https://camerasize.com/compact/#887.1042,891.853,ha,t

[MrSMW]

Had/tried that 16-80 f4 Fuji and did not like it. The Oly 14-40 kills it IMO.

I'm not sure how big the Tamron 17-70 arriving today with the XH2 is, but smaller than Fuji's 16-55 I think?

I'll find out next week as I'm away in a few minutes 🤪

[ac6000cw]

On 2/12/2022 at 7:31 PM, Mark Romero 2 said:

There are a few things that drive me mad with my E-M1 MK II, such as the fact that LOG and Flat Profiles are ONLY available in 24fps DCI (not in 23.978fps, nor in UHD 16:9), and you have to do a bit of menu diving to get in to those picture profiles. On the other hand, for non-log, using the Natural profile with reduced contrast, sharpness and saturation is really nice as long as the dynamic range isn't overwhelming.

Having noticed this post again - a correction:

With the recent firmware versions, both the E-M1 II and III support OM-Log400 and Flat profiles in C4K(DCI), UHD and FHD video modes i.e. they are not restricted to just C4K(DCI). Just enable 'Picture Mode' in Menu -> Video Menu -> Specification Settings.

I'd love to know why you can't adjust the sharpness in those profiles though...it's blanked out in the Super Control Panel, along with (understandably) the contrast, saturation and gradation adjustments.