Panasonic GX7 at our sectional Track Meet

I haven't sold my Canon stuff yet but, I did notice a gigantic difference yesterday toting around the GX7, which I had around my neck, and the 7D + grip + Sigma 50-150 + 1.4 extender I was also carrying around. I got some great shots with the GX7, which is to be expected since I've had very good success with this camera for a wide variety of photography. But I started a switch to mu43 recently by starting out with a GX7, the PanaLeica 25/1.4 and the Lumix 14/2.5 with the idea it would replace all my APS-C gear. I gave my 11 year old the GX7 and had her take shots of the 4x200m relay handoff while I used the 7D + telephoto. At 1/8000s, the quality is not what you can get at slower shutter speeds (1/2000-1/4000) but with the 25/1.4 she got this with the GX7:



The GX7's C-AF worked fine in this relatively wide-angle shot and the fps certainly didn't sound like the guy with the whirring 1Dx standing next to me. But with the right timing, even the GX7 could be considered a "sports" camera.

I did notice, however, in editing the APS-C and mu43 images side-by-side that I simply have less latitude with the mu43 images. I can't push them very far in one direction or the other before things start breaking down. But if I get the exposure very nearly correct, it doesn't make that much difference. You only really need a lot of latitude if you shoot sloppily and rely on PP to fix your misses in the field.

I'm seriously considering going on to the next level and getting a GH4 since it seems Panasonic is coming out with a 300mm equivalent later in the year. I really enjoy the compactness of the cameras and especially the lightness of the lenses.

I had thought at the outset of this that it would be an all-or-nothing move. I know there's a lot of talk about people selling all their FF or APS-C and going mu43 full-bore. But if you do any amount of sports, I would caution against that. It seems the mu43 cameras (and more importantly: the images themselves) are more than capable of withstanding demanding conditions in the field but there is still something to be said for a larger sensor and a larger, heavier lens. The trade-off may be acceptable for some but I would hope the discussion about moving to mu43 could be more about "how does this format fit a certain amount of my photography?" I'm not convinced it's a wash between APS-C and mu43. I'll probably end up selling off my APS-C gear at some point but the fact of the matter is: APS-C and FF shouldn't be going anywhere because they still have a lot to contribute to your photography in certain areas.

EDIT: Here's another shot of our State Champion (and soon to be 2-time State Champion) Boys 4x100m relay team, also taken by my 11 year-old daughter with the GX7 + PanaLeica.

 

Actually what I was trying to say was that I was very pleasantly surprised by how capable the GX7 is for sports even though it's not considered a "sports" camera. It certainly has limitations but you can often work around those. I will probably end up getting a GH4 and going that route for most of my photography, which includes other things like weddings and portraits.

What I'm finding is that, rather than this perpetual argument being an all-or-nothing one, which I had mistakenly assumed it was when I was first contemplating switching to m4/3, it should be about its use for its strengths in cooperation with other formats for theirs. It's true that a 5DIII is a fantastic high ISO camera and I haven't seen image samples yet that show the same level of detail in a smaller sensor. While FF sensors are clearly superior in lots of areas they're much more expensive than their APS-C counterparts so it's often not practical to "just go full-frame". I've found that APS-C remains a viable format for that range between the light weight of m4/3 cameras and lenses and, if money was no object, a full frame sensor. It retains more detail than m4/3 and allows me a noticeable amount more latitude when dealing with RAW files. As great as the EVFs are, they're honestly no match for an optical viewfinder--drawbacks with the mirror included.

No one can argue one way or another about the benefit of lighter weight. That's something I've been weighing the merits of myself (literally! . It's a very personal decision. Unfortunately it's just something you're going to have to find out for yourself. I never foresaw the kinds of comparisons I'm able to make shooting both at the same time. Most of the advice one way or another is starting to go out the window.

I suppose the lesson I'm learning here is that I should take every suggestion about the relative merits of this that or the other with a big grain of salt because they're all made for different personal, valid reasons but don't necessarily apply in every situation. As time goes on we'll see how things shake out but I just want to throw my two cents into the mix. I don't have ****** loyalty to any format or brand. I'm literally only interested in what tools work the best for the different kinds of photography I do. I'm finding m4/3 to be a great complement to (and often a reasonable replacement for) many styles of photography. But I can't honestly say that losing an optical viewfinder, support for a wide variety of flash/strobe equipment, and days and days of battery life is a no-brainier as some m4/3 fans try to argue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk