My GX7 Why I Sent It Back & Why I Still Want A M43 Camera

[Turbofrog]

Look at Ming Thein's Shots - can you honestly say you can tell the sensor size?

It obviously depends on the nature of the photo. Where there is plenty of depth of field, limited dynamic range, and at web resolution, there is no realistic way to determine the sensor size, you're correct. And those are often the kinds of photos I like. But there are certainly some shots that can't be taken on M4/3. That's no knock on the system, as I said. There are some shots that can't be taken on FF, too.

 

[50orsohours]

It obviously depends on the nature of the photo. Where there is plenty of depth of field, limited dynamic range, and at web resolution, there is no realistic way to determine the sensor size, you're correct. And those are often the kinds of photos I like. But there are certainly some shots that can't be taken on M4/3. That's no knock on the system, as I said. There are some shots that can't be taken on FF, too.

Exactly!

 

[AlanU]

50orso,

Ming's photo stream demonstrates that he has a very good eye. His street photography captures interesting photos of people, architecture, cars etc. If you make an observation majority of all photos are shooting in very good light. Many of his street photos with people walking around displays motion blur. Appears he's shooting smaller apertures and his iso is not high enough to increase his shutter speed. This plainly indicates he's not shooting high iso's. Another thing to mention is analyzing a camera's capabilities from a websize photo is without a doubt a good "visual". Analyzing and manipulating RAW and final full resolution is the way I'd suggest any photog rate the performance of the camera.

I also have had excellent success shooting my M43 with primes in good light. I've also shot some em-5 with studio lights. Again great photos with great detail in ideal / good light.

Mr. Ashley's work appears to be primarily good light only with fill via reflectors and possibly strobes? This is a very good example of how well M43 works for some photog's workflow. Skin texture keeps intact as you shoot low iso's due to the detail retention. On the same note I do not think he is in the high iso range of 3200 and higher. Shooting human subjects/models at those high iso's would be extremely challenging to say the least for the smaller sensor.

Today my run/gun setup worked well as I used the gh3 as a video rig and stills with my "other" camera

Sometimes I like to shoot higher than Iso 1600 when using flash. This improves the sensitivity to light and uplifts the shadows in low light environments. This way you can get more information from the background instead of the look like your in a cave. With an M43 you can still do fine as long as your supplementing with flash.

I've yet to see Iso 12800 or higher retaining human skin texture with M43. This is where pro wedding photogs seek Nikon d750/d810 and some have preference to Canon. This is where I know a good handful of pro photogs that would never consider M43 after recent discussions. However I know most try real hard to retain iso's in the 6400 range using full frame to try to maximize the best IQ for those brutal situations.

To answer your question about proof. Skin texture to a professional photographer as well as enthusiasts typically try to keep skin texture closer to reality. Fact is M43 cannot match this extremely demanding file at the high upper regions in the iso department. Full frame without a doubt does a much better job for that task.

But

If your shooting style does not require this advantage of high iso this is where M43 may be your ideal camera platform.

 

[T N Args]

Fact is M43 cannot match this extremely demanding file at the high upper regions in the iso department. Full frame without a doubt does a much better job for that task.

I have to ask, if this is the conclusion, why even begin?

 

[AlanU]

I have to ask, if this is the conclusion, why even begin?

If a photographers shooting style does not demand that type of high iso performance then it's not imperative to go full frame.

People can label the words superiority or better etc. I'm merely stating if your shooting style does not require iso 3200 or much higher and you can happily add supplemental light .....the M43 platform is fully loaded with potent gear selection (lens galore).

No judgement call to anyone. If the platform is ideal for your needs that's the purpose for selecting a specific camera system.

My statement that you quoted me on isn't an urban myth or fallacy. I'm stating a very well known accurate fact. Not to be "in your face" I just stated my personal experience and something that i've discovered coming from point/shoot camera's to dslr crop sensors to full frame and owning my secondary camera system of m43 bodies.

 

[kevinparis]

Alan

agree with a lot you say...you obviously have needs and expectations of what you require from your picture making device, but the key phrase is your final sentence. It strikes to the heart of the subject... Understand the photography you want to create first and choose the camera that fits

I looked at your camera case and laughed... I personally can't imagine carrying all that kit for a 'family day out', nor can I see the advantage in terms of image quality you would get from the canon for family style documentation... but thats your choice.. I have no way of seeing what it is that you produce, so can't really form an informed opinion

too often people pontificate on this forum and others on the 'advantages' of one platform or camera model or lens over another, often showing no evidence in practical terms other than what they read somewhere else or the hocus pocus numbers of DXO and their ilk.Almost never do they actually post actual images or actually address the fact that different people have different needs and expectations

This forum attracts a broad church of members, but its my perception that a large majority are newcomers, or casual photographers, who are taking early steps. An understanding of the basics of exposure, composition and what is actually possible to photograph is more important than the camera or lens you buy. Buying a better or latest camera can only enhance those skills not replace them.

I am no beginner in photography, nor is it my living, its just an interest, though a fairly serious interest. I have been doing photography for more than 40 years on and off. Over the last 14 years of shooting digital I have had (and still own!!) less cameras than some folk here seem to go through in a year.

In that time my photography has got better, though fundamentally what I want out of photography hasn't changed. I have been through aps-c, to 4/3, then micro 4/3, then a full frame canon ( which hasn't been shot in at least 2 years) and now an E-M1... on the way I have also had access and shot with a Leica digital M.

Access to better lenses and better sensors has had an impact on some of my images, but deep down I feel that I am the same photographer regardless of the camera.

not really sure where I am going with this... but needed to get it off my chest

night

K

 

[50orsohours]

Alan

Maybe if you can accept that people shoot different stuff and have different needs, then maybe you could just appreciate the differences.

I keep my EM-1 at iso 100 at nearly all times. I may buy a A7s one of these days and shoot everything at 100000 iso.

I am new to photography, how in the hell did photographers photographed stuff in the past? Somehow they survived without very high iso didn't they?

50orso,

Ming's photo stream demonstrates that he has a very good eye. His street photography captures interesting photos of people, architecture, cars etc. If you make an observation majority of all photos are shooting in very good light. Many of his street photos with people walking around displays motion blur. Appears he's shooting smaller apertures and his iso is not high enough to increase his shutter speed. This plainly indicates he's not shooting high iso's. Another thing to mention is analyzing a camera's capabilities from a websize photo is without a doubt a good "visual". Analyzing and manipulating RAW and final full resolution is the way I'd suggest any photog rate the performance of the camera.

I also have had excellent success shooting my M43 with primes in good light. I've also shot some em-5 with studio lights. Again great photos with great detail in ideal / good light.

Mr. Ashley's work appears to be primarily good light only with fill via reflectors and possibly strobes? This is a very good example of how well M43 works for some photog's workflow. Skin texture keeps intact as you shoot low iso's due to the detail retention. On the same note I do not think he is in the high iso range of 3200 and higher. Shooting human subjects/models at those high iso's would be extremely challenging to say the least for the smaller sensor.

Today my run/gun setup worked well as I used the gh3 as a video rig and stills with my "other" camera

Sometimes I like to shoot higher than Iso 1600 when using flash. This improves the sensitivity to light and uplifts the shadows in low light environments. This way you can get more information from the background instead of the look like your in a cave. With an M43 you can still do fine as long as your supplementing with flash.

I've yet to see Iso 12800 or higher retaining human skin texture with M43. This is where pro wedding photogs seek Nikon d750/d810 and some have preference to Canon. This is where I know a good handful of pro photogs that would never consider M43 after recent discussions. However I know most try real hard to retain iso's in the 6400 range using full frame to try to maximize the best IQ for those brutal situations.

To answer your question about proof. Skin texture to a professional photographer as well as enthusiasts typically try to keep skin texture closer to reality. Fact is M43 cannot match this extremely demanding file at the high upper regions in the iso department. Full frame without a doubt does a much better job for that task.

But

If your shooting style does not require this advantage of high iso this is where M43 may be your ideal camera platform.

 

[OzRay]

I have no way of seeing what it is that you produce, so can't really form an informed opinion

It does make things difficult.

 

[c_henry]

Well I bought a GX-7 last week to replace one of my OM-D's (EM-5) that had the shutter fail. I suppose I should've replaced it like-for-like, the cost was about the same. But I really liked the look and handling of the GX-7. The viewfinder isn't as good as the EM-5, but everything else seems to be about right. It's been on my 'desire' list for some time, just waiting for the price to come down.

I got the silver one (all of my Olympus primes are silver) and it doesn't look bad, certainly better than the silver EM-5 and my X100S. There's a lot to like about the GX-7, but I suppose I'm still in the 'honeymoon' period.

One thing I definitely like more than the Olympus is the batteries and chargers. I've a GM-1, LX100 and the GX-7. The LX100 and GX-7 take the same batteries, the GM-1 takes a different battery, but uses the same charger! So when I go away and take all three camera's I only have to take a single charger! I like that...a lot. If you don't have different Panasonic camera's then you probably don't care. But I was in Canada on holiday for three weeks a couple of months ago and took the OM-D charger, except, when I got to Canada I found it was the wrong Olympus charger. Luckily I charged up all the batteries before I went, and took an extra 5, but it did mean that I really had to watch what I was doing.

- Colin

 

[T N Args]

My statement that you quoted me on isn't an urban myth or fallacy.

I agree. It is, in fact, so obvious that the long explanation was not needed. Nor the conclusion! Hence my comment. :smile:

 

[AlanU]

50orso,

back in the day Photographers did what they did with the tools they had on hand. This is exactly what is happening this second with today's photogs. I guess the difference is they have more headroom to play with.

We are spoiled buggers beyond belief. I am a digital era photographer. For the film photographers I have the most incredible respect because IMO they were the hardcore people learning principles of light and many of them relied on the skilled darkroom tech's in dodging/burning and chemical process of transforming film to print.

Many photographs taken today is probably more of a wish than reality if your using the oldschool film gear's limited capabilities.. Some of today's photog's "style" probably would not have been able to be practiced using film due to unacceptable images for print.

Every photog's syle changes or transforms over a period of time. In my case the sony 4mb camera was my snapshot camera with onboard flash. Slowly going from that camera to a plethora of more advanced point/shoots. As time went on a canon xti > canon 5d FF (eye opener for me) > Canon 50d (faster af and more fps) > 5dmk2 > M43 secondary system > 5dmk3 and alot of speedlights/strobes/light modifiers.

As time went on I relied less and less for artificial light. I use bounced flash alot for many events. I also really have taken an interest in learning available light and take the organic more natural look as well. I've had conversations with some photog's over 8yrs ago and I kinda get it what they were talking about light. Back then I was more into bounced light because my canon xti and 50d truly struggled with low light even with primes. I also balance my lighting where outdoors I will meter for the environmental light and use fill flash as well to expose the subjects properly. This allows me to story tell the background without blowing it out to bright highlights while achieving proper exposure in the 2 events that are occurring at the same time (flash and ambient exposure). It all comes down to exactly what you want the photo to look like.

I'm not fixated on skin texture but that's such a hard thing to document when you push high iso's. We all have skin so as clients/family/friends look at photos they see skin texture because they look at themselves in the mirror every day. Shooting good light is very kind to the digital details that do not require alot of noise reduction.

Ming's photos demonstrates he has street skills in displaying his "eye" on digital photos as he performs street photography. His photography gives pleasure in how he can work this M43 and display great imagery.

Today's market is now getting flooded with new gear. M43 is undoubtedly the pioneer in high quality photos in a small package. Thing is everyone is seeing this piece of the pie for the wants/needs of the market. The photography world still deals with the laws/principles of light and physics. Extremely high percentage want to see great imagery without backward engineering "how it was done". Admittedly the best photos in the world have been taken on film. However this does not mean a point/shoot, smaller cmos body, dslr or medium format stop evolving. People demand change so manufacturers do what they do to make gear that is in demand.

Photog's tool box is what produces results for his/her style. Never ever will debate about that we are all different with our needs....

 

[jonbrisbincreative]

I had a GX7 as my first m4/3 camera but I wasn't happy with it. The ergonomics weren't great (the camera is almost too small at times) and the IQ was okay but not exactly what I was looking for. The viewfinder was just flat disappointing.

Ming's photo stream demonstrates that he has a very good eye. His street photography captures interesting photos of people, architecture, cars etc. If you make an observation majority of all photos are shooting in very good light. Many of his street photos with people walking around displays motion blur. Appears he's shooting smaller apertures and his iso is not high enough to increase his shutter speed. This plainly indicates he's not shooting high iso's. Another thing to mention is analyzing a camera's capabilities from a websize photo is without a doubt a good "visual". Analyzing and manipulating RAW and final full resolution is the way I'd suggest any photog rate the performance of the camera.

I know a lot of people have pointed to Ming Thein as a great example of the capabilities of the m4/3 platform (and for good reason). It's great to get that pro perspective and see what an accomplished professional can do with the equipment. I have to admit, however, that I'm personally not really impressed by those images when compared to examples from other platforms. I know there's a lot of subjectivity to that (what one person values in an image another sees as a fault) and it's a matter of endless and pointless debate. I find his street photography in particular to be rather unengaging. For my eyes they are far, far too sharp and "digital" and often lack an emotional core. We all have different needs and demands as photographers based on the kinds of images we're trying to create and while I fully acknowledge the m4/3 platform is extremely capable and my E-M1 is often a joy to use, I have to also soberly admit that as far sheer IQ and sensor performance goes, I find the m4/3 platform to have serious limitations.

The sad fact is that there is no "one" platform. Enthusiasts are free to pick whatever camera fits their needs best and can afford to choose a single platform that makes compromises in one area in order to excel in another. They can buy the best camera they can afford and trade off the weight of larger sensor platforms for the performance of the smaller sensor. Depending on the imagery you're trying to create, that trade-off can pay huge dividends. But it's not the case that that will work for everyone. As a pro with people complaining about skin tones, shadows, and other kinds of imagery artifacts in my m4/3 images that I don't have to deal with in other platforms, I'm more and more hesitant to rely on the E-M1 (previously the GX7) when I can shoot the Fuji instead. As noted by many, high ISO performance is a huge limitation of the smaller sensor that should not be minimized for those that have real demands in this area.

I have found that renting equipment first is the very best way to figure out if a system will meet your needs. It pays off in the long run because it gives you plenty of time to make your decision and you can spend as long as you want evaluating and shooting. You can even rent things multiple times or spend a period of time just renting different systems. You don't want to get too carried away, of course, but spending a couple hundred dollars renting all the various options when you are looking at spending thousands to acquire a decent kit in a given platform is actually a very sensible investment IMO.

 

[drd1135]

I want to immediately distinguish pros from amateurs. The former need to get a photo to pay the rent. The latter have another source of income and do this for fun. The pros spend what they need to spend on equipment and through "natural selection" learn what they need to make it work. The amateurs don't feel anywhere near the level of selective pressure the pros do. If my shots are lousy, I may get depressed or maybe my wife gets mad. I will also adapt my kind of photography to my equipment if I enjoy using a certain lens or camera. I also remember seeing some numbers that the amateurs spend the bulk of the money on new equipment. Combining these two ideas, you have a market where a lot of the money is coming from people who are just not as result-driven as we might think. They want new stuff but it's more based on ergs and feel than on hard results. Most modern cameras are good enough for what amateurs do so the selling points are not really based on results.

 

[jonbrisbincreative]

I want to immediately distinguish pros from amateurs. The former need to get a photo to pay the rent. The latter have another source of income and do this for fun. The pros spend what they need to spend on equipment and through "natural selection" learn what they need to make it work. The amateurs don't feel anywhere near the level of selective pressure the pros do. If my shots are lousy, I may get depressed or maybe my wife gets mad. I will also adapt my kind of photography to my equipment if I enjoy using a certain lens or camera. I also remember seeing some numbers that the amateurs spend the bulk of the money on new equipment. Combining these two ideas, you have a market where a lot of the money is coming from people who are just not as result-driven as we might think. They want new stuff but it's more based on ergs and feel than on hard results. Most modern cameras are good enough for what amateurs do so the selling points are not really based on results.

I think that's accurate to say the mirrorless market is generally driven by consumers rather than pros. That's the only way to get the super low prices of equipment (pro bodies have to sell for >$4k just because there's so little turnover and so little relative demand compared to the consumer/enthusiast market). It's also true that as a pro I have different demands than someone who just does it for a hobby. But I don't think an enthusiast is excluded from results-driven choices like the pros. I think Leica is mostly held afloat by results-driven enthusiasts! People with enough disposable income to afford to pay them for the low volumes and high manufacturing overhead they choose to have. But the results are unmatched!

Whether or not you derive income from photography is IMO less important than what you're trying to get out of it. Enthusiasts can often be the most demanding because they can afford to be. A pro will have to deal with things they don't like sometimes because of economic pressures that an enthusiast doesn't necessarily have. I can't just go get a particular piece of kit because I'm a "pro". I have to justify it by actually using it. An enthusiast usually doesn't have this pressure to make their equipment perform and produce a return on their investment. They're also free to upgrade and turn over equipment at a rate that I can't compete with. In fact I usually don't have any desire to compete with it. I want stuff that works, works well, gets out of my way, and works for YEARS. I hate switching and the expense of acquiring crap I have to carry around and depreciate on my taxes. I want stuff that I don't have to upgrade or replace every year. This doesn't really produce the kind of demand on manufacturers that I can actually benefit from when it comes time for me to really dig in and get some kit or upgrade.

I'm glad enthusiasts are pushing manufacturers to innovate and produce loads of cheap stuff. It's great for me as a pro because it drastically reduces the cost to me of acquiring the stuff I need. But at the same time, the pressure to get the absolute last drop of IQ, usefulness, efficiency, or what have you out of the equipment I do have is maybe a little different compared to a hobbyist. That said, a hobbyist is welcome to demand the same things I want out of a system--and just because they might be amenable to compromises I'm not wiling to make doesn't mean their choice is any less valid than mine. We just make them for different reasons.

 

[T N Args]

Lines in the sand, how quickly they fade

Looks like this thread has been overrun by pros and pro-am assumptions and philosophical discussion.

What amazes me with pros insisting the inadequacy of MFT is the overlooking of the obvious and increasing incidence of pros doing the same type of work, who are successfully adopting MFT and meeting client needs.

If it can do it (pro assignments), then it can do it. Stop saying it can't. Just say it's not right for you personally just yet, but not because it can't.

Nothing can do everything, fine, but I am seeing lines being drawn in this discussion that are made up, and not supported by the results that other users are getting.

And pros should be careful in making equipment judgements, because it tends to reflect on their abilities. One point of pride in the top pros used to be their true mastery of their equipment, as demonstrated in their ability to get results from it that other pros couldn't.

 

[50orsohours]

I know a lot of people have pointed to Ming Thein as a great example of the capabilities of the m4/3 platform (and for good reason). It's great to get that pro perspective and see what an accomplished professional can do with the equipment. I have to admit, however, that I'm personally not really impressed by those images when compared to examples from other platforms..

I was the only one who brought up Ming. But I didn't ask anyone to give their opinion on his photography, I asked if anyone can guess what format he used just by looking at his pictures. He has pictures with D810/D750, APS-C M4/3 etc...

So are you saying that you are able to look at his most recent ones compared to the ones with M4/3 and say what he uses? Because at those sizes and resolution it would be pretty hard, don't you think? As far as his images, I think both you and I wish that we had half his talent as photographers (if you had to be honest)

I have to also soberly admit that as far sheer IQ and sensor performance goes, I find the m4/3 platform to have serious limitations.

How serious is serious? Can you give examples instead of just stating you "facts"? (Btw, I don't think anyone says it is anywhere near perfect) Because many pros laugh at your beloved Fuji.

Thank you.

 

[DHart]

It feels loose on an otherwise solid feeling body. It doesn't affect the photos of course, but it affects ergonomics to me. The door doesn't have a lip around it nor does it recess into the body. This coupled with a rather short hinge pin allows the door to move slightly when touched, or when holding the camera and a finger rests on it. I notice it every time I use the camera. No a deal breaker by any means, but an annoyance nonetheless.

The door presents no annoyance to me, whatsoever. I'm sorry that it presents an issue of such significance to you. Perhaps in a future model, the battery door will be designed in such a way as to not be an annoyance to you.

 

[T N Args]

I never noticed it, not once, but I just checked and there it is. This is a concern? That is surprising.

If I cared, a small pad of rubber on the inside of the door would eliminate it. as if......

 

[pwjp2011]

Well I can see my post has started a discussion that while interesting is a bit different than my intent. I never said the GX7 was a bad camera. I think it takes great pictures but I don't like the way it feels in my hand. Sure I guess I could adjust to it over time. But it just doesn't feel as good in my hand where my fingers end up. The Panasonic G6 is about the same size is and is far more ergonomic. Its basically like a mini-dslr with a grip. And I am paying for it so I should like it.

My own view of cameras is I want the camera to get out of the way. I guess I am spoiled by the DSLR way of doing things as those cameras have evolved over time to what they are.

I was in a big camera shop over the weekend and got to play with all the brands. Fuji, Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Samsung.

I got to to play with the Fuji XT1 and while it was ok but I wasn't awed by it. Yes the EVF is bigger but it still looks like an EVF. I wouldnt say its 200x better than the ones form Olympus and Panasonic. And it doesn't do video as well as Panasonic by any means. The camera fit in my hand nice and it wasn't too big. But all those retro dials on the top, I think its retro for retro's sake. People keep saying how easy it is to use and that you can see all the settings at a glance and there are no menus.

Its nonsense. The dials are completely non-ergonomic. You have to use both hands to change the settings and push buttons to unlock the ISO and shutter speed and than twist them. It felt awkward like a camera from 50 years ago. Its pretending to be this pure photography retro thing. There is some weirdness with the shutter settings and things can be manipulated when looking through the viewfinder like a lot of cameras.

Now if I compare this to any Canon or Nikon I can see ALL the settings in one place either on the back or on the top screen. Pick something you want to change - hit the button and turn the scroll wheel all with one hand. Its done, I don't see how these dials on the Fuji are faster or easier. Yeah it looks like an old DSLR, so what. I have a few antique real mechanical SLR from both Canon and Minolta from back in the day. The XT1 is all about the looks.

The Olympus EM1 is far more ergonomic than the the XT1 and I think its a faster camera. The autofocus on the Fuji is quicker than it was in the past but its still not as fast as m43 or a DSLR. I think the m43 is approaching the speeds of DSLRs in terms of autofocus. As for the pictures that I saw - maybe the Fuji takes better pictures at high ISO but its not like night and day compare to m43 by any means.

The reality is you should buy what you like.

 

[50orsohours]

I think if in this day and age one shoots high ISO so much that it is an issue when considering a new camera, the A7s is God sent. Let's be honest - who are we kidding with Fuji? With the A7s being available, it should not be a consideration at all.

Although I do wonder, who shoots in such low light all the time?