why many pros have not embraced M4/3 yet

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by HappyFish, Jan 5, 2013.

  1. HappyFish

    HappyFish Mu-43 Top Veteran

    983
    Sep 8, 2012
    Chad
    OK this is General and I am more in the wedding industry and coming from why more pros dont use the M4/3 etc.. ?

    well some do myself and Flash are both on that forum along with a small handful on DWF that are shooting the OMD or Fuji even a couple using the NEX
    and sure some here and not on DWF do some weddings for some of us that rely on it for a portion or all of our income or shoot full time their are some drawbacks and some of us are out there on the front line

    then again I remember hearing your 35 mm film cant do this stuff you need a med format back in the 80s :) and it did :) then in the 90s it was all the cool people now use 35 mm then in 2000 the digital battle began some of us got to say what took you so long :) and now in early to mid 2010 I think we are going to see the mirrorles battle take place :)


    these seem to be the main ones that pop up enough to notice :)


    1) the main thing that gets in the way is it cant do %100 of a wedding %100 reliable ? focus being the main thing of course
    meaning yes you can pull it off but why when a FF can do it for sure ! again mainly focus in tough situations some work around it or revert to manual focus in a few spots :) hahahaha funny thats all we used to have !!! OH HORROR how did we do it :)

    2) no dual card slots
    I wish it had those and I am willing to look past that for now :) but its not my %100 camera adn for me not a total reason but would love it !

    3) lack of a pro network support !
    no pro services for loaner gear or expedited repairs etc..
    often a huge thing for full time working pros who cant be down even a few days !

    4) lack of a good flash system ? this is a 50//50 for some folks good on camera is available but often getting proper triggers etc.. is tough etc.. I use canon phottix and they work but no TTL ? not a big deal I do manual but would be nice option at times !

    5) legacy glass and $$ tied up in that
    the other thing of course is expense of switching and what we have now
    I have maybe $15k in my canon glass ? small compared to some but its enough that many of us would have to go back out and buy all new gear including some duplicates and cross overs of things
    often we carry enough stuff if we have something break we can use something else
    a 70-200 breaks we have a 135
    I own 2 70-200 f/2.8 lens cause they are that important to me :)
    that kinda thing
    also a bit tied into what do your friends use in case you need to borrow gear :)



    sure there are some other little things here and there but those seem to be the big ones getting in the way ?

    again many of us dont care look past it or work around it or use them along with are other gear as part of our kit cause we like being on the front lines :)

    hope this was interesting to some from a working togs perspective of why
     
    • Like Like x 5
  2. HappyFish

    HappyFish Mu-43 Top Veteran

    983
    Sep 8, 2012
    Chad
    I do think like digital in 2000 lots of FF folks are like the filmies back then and will realize all the benefits of M4/3 and will start to jump on board but more with the next gen I feel ! cant wait to see what

    back then film was better quality but the advantages of digital outweighed the other stuff and made digital worth it !

    I do think many are to conservative in thinking also :)

    also I know this is nothing new :) was more just sharing some thoughts :)
     
  3. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    The next generation of Fuji's due to be officially announced next week is supposed to have improved auto-focus so it will be interesting to see where they'll be in 2yrs :smile:

    Question is, whether or not there will be a see-saw/back and forth battle with Micro Four Thirds and another format much like the Canon/Nikon see-saw/back and forth competitiveness :smile:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    Nice breakdown overall! For starters, please allow me to copy my response to the other thread:

    https://www.mu-43.com/f42/another-i...-full-frame-some-situations-38843/index4.html

    The above isn't directed to anyone at particular, rather at the notion that :43: "ought to" be at pros hands by now. :wink:

    On your list:

    1) It depends. If the need is for 100% reliability in critical applications (there is no 100% but you get my meaning), as in weddings, photo-reportage, etc, then I can think of about half a dozen cameras that can conceivably pull it out. That's why, e.g. a photo-reporter would spend 3X more money on a 1D instead of a 5D. As for :43: I believe that, as more people use them in situations as weddings, for second shooters, etc, confidence in their performance shall increase. If anything, an OM-D or GH3 can easily replace a APS-C DSLR with same level glass.

    2) Agree. There is a number of pro features like this (e.g. tethered shooting, battery life, etc) that are slowly coming to :43:. I guess in 2013 we'll see some or most of them.

    3) This is huge and I agree 100%, plus, see my quoted post; it's not going to happen in short notice.

    4) The Olympus RC is quite good, in fact, but only optical. I'd very much like to see some of the Chinese companies coming up with a TTL wireless for :43:. For the time being, and since I rarely use TTL anyway, I'm comfortable with manual, but I understand the need for a lot of shooters.

    5) I have seen quite a few people switching to Canon from Nikon and then back again. I personally know a number of them. I also know a couple of photographers that made the switch to Sony recently. :43: needs more pro exposure, I think, and it was not even possible up to now. Let's face it: Olympus wisely placed the OM-D in the "prosumer"/enthusiast segment. That is, similar to cameras like the 7D or the D7000. I guess we all agree that, esp. with the latest lenses, it stands quite well in that market, from an IQ and performance standpoint (exceptions nonwithstanding, of course, see sports) and it offers some advantages over them. The GH3 offers some more features, such as a more familiar body format, better battery life, etc.

    The way I see it, it's not a race to conquer the World of Photography. The OM-D (and, I'm sure. the GH3) are already capable of being considered for a variety of professional applications. I'm alright with them not being capable to cover every application. It's not an arms race. There will always be cases where another camera format will be more capable. This was always the case, that's why we still have other "pro" digital formats apart from 35mm/FF.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    One huge "advantage" that the D7000 photographer can enjoy (not sure how Sony, Pentax, & Canon fare here) is that the D7000 can utilize Full Frame lenses so that if in the future, he or she decides to move to a professional Full Frame sensor body, that photographer doesn't have to invest in any lenses :smile:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. OCULUS

    OCULUS Mu-43 Regular

    36
    Dec 8, 2012
    Albany, NY
    Ray Hull
    First, they need to be open-minded....

    I went on a Horizon Photo Workshop Western Adventure last May with my 2-week old OM-D (no grip yet). Steve Gottlieb, who runs the Horizon operation knows I am an Oly guy, and also we have compared notes on our Leica experiences (he was one of their global contributors for a couple of years), but now, he has settled on Canon.

    I caught him a couple of years ago checking out my E-3 w/grip when it was parked while I was setting up a shot and he admired its structural heft and balance. But when I rolled out the OM-D, he literally grabbed it and started waving it around, exclaiming how great it felt, how compact it was and summed by musing that the "big boys" have to be looking very nervously over their collective shoulder, scared to death of this format and especially this brand and model. He was so excited about it, he was immediately considering purchasing one for his partner who was in need of new equipment.

    Similarly, I have been at events (most recently a civil war reenactment) when a guy couldn't wait for me to finish my technical conversation about iron works and interrupted that he had to look closely at my camera, which I had down at my side on a SunSniper trolly sling. He too started gushing about it, letting his big Nikon D-something fall to his waist as he hefted it, ooh and ahhed, and actually attracted another guy to come look at it. I don't know what level "pro" he was, but he was clearly smitten.

    So, FWiW, I'll say these things "prevent" more Oly penetration in the pro market:
    1. Close mindedness, usually wrapped in HEAVY
    2. Legacy glass investment and system
    3. Unfamiliarity

    But, as usual when they handle and fire one, feel how compact the system is and see other smart people using them, they begin to thaw, or at least, as Steve did, wonder when THEIR brand will catch up?:wink:
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    It's true that both Canon and Nikon propose their APS-C cameras as a stepping ground for FF, for those people that would eventually upgrade. I don't know what the statistics are, so I can only judge from the people I know and what I see. I therefore estimate that perhaps less than 10% of users (read, "consumers in general", i.e. not populations like photography students and the like) initially investing in APS-C, make the leap to FF at some point.

    That said, if we examine the two systems head to head, that is :43: and native lenses vs APS-C DSLRs and lenses specifically made for APS-C, I'm sure you'll agree that current lens selection is vastly in favor of :43:. :43: can also use very high grade FT glass (albeit, with limitations, I'll agree) and any manual/AF lens ever made (except NEX) via adapters. DSLRs are not as efficient in adapting manual lenses, either due to flange distance or focusing issues; mirrorless are better by design in this era.

    Another thing to consider is that, in fact, APS-C vs FF total system cost is actually a marketing scheme. If someone indeed invests in high quality "FF" glass for a Canon or Nikon system, he gains almost nothing in terms of size/weight, by using a crop-sensor DSLR. In terms of cost, the difference between a higher end APS-C and a FF is minute, considering total system cost. For example, right now in Europe, the difference between the 7D (a camera already in discount and at EOL) and the 6D is about 700 euros. This is the cost of just one cheap FF lens for the system. With Nikon it's about the same between the D7000 and the D600 (slightly more).

    Of course both Canon and Nikon have a vastly superior selection of lenses in general (including third party and older ones) than :43:, and, indeed, any other system on the market; same goes for accessories. But that has nothing to do with system format but rather with them being great historic companies and market leaders in photograhic equipment overall.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    I'm pretty sure that mirrorless systems will eventually dominate. I'm not sure whether is will be mu43, however. I suspect we'll have some combination of mu43, APS-C and FF for the pro market but I'm not sure which of the first two will dominate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. CUB

    CUB Mu-43 Veteran

    275
    Apr 19, 2012
    As a working photographer who is semi-retired I would not entertain the idea of using m4/3 for wedding photography.

    I was an early adopter of the Canon EOS 5D as the first affordable full frame DSLR and used two 5D bodies for several years. When Nikon introduced the D700 I switched brand and have used Nikon full frame equipment ever since. Currently I am using the D800 with a D600 back-up. I have the 'holy trinity' of zoom lenses - 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm, all f/2.8 and 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes, all f/1.4.

    Against full frame cameras and these f/2.8 and f/1.4 lenses, even the best of m4/3 cannot hope to compete in several areas:

    1. Sadly, m4/3 offers very little possibility to control DOF; on m4/3 you would need an f/1.4 lens to give the same DOF as an f/2.8 on full frame for the same angle of view. This is an inevitable consequence of the smaller sensor.

    2. The dynamic range offered by the best m4/3 sensors is at least 1.5 stops less than with the best full frame sensors. This is also an inevitable consequence of the smaller sensor.

    3. Noise levels are intrinsically higher with m4/3 than full frame. Once again, this is an inevitable consequence of the smaller sensor.

    4. Currently, m4/3 does not offer a flash system to compare with those offered by Canon and Nikon. This could change if either Olympus or Nikon decided to address the professional market.

    5. Currently, m4/3 does not offer an AF system that even approaches the continuous AF performance of full frame systems from Canon and Nikon. The technology is available to change this, and it may appear on the next OM-D model.

    A working photographer needs a system that will work reliably in a variety of conditions to deliver excellent image quality. For these reasons, m4/3 is not suitable for professional wedding photography.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  10. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    It's coming. The questions are being asked. On the private DWF forum and on Fred Miranda's wedding forum the threads about using mirrorless in a working environment are coming.

    a) Mirrorless systems that are suitable for working photographeras are very new. The EM5 is six months old and the weathersealed fastish zooms are only three months old. Give it time.

    b) Pro network. Olympus could do themselves a big favour if they started a pro system. It give a system a lot od credibility to be seen to be supporting pros. However I've got to say that in Oz the Canon CPS system is a joke and one of the reasons I left Canon in the first place.

    The main thing is that photographers like to use what their peers use so if something fails thay can borrow one. Rental can be useful. But in 20 years of Canon they were never once able to help with a loaner when I had any gear in for repair. At least in Oz I can walk into any camera store and buy an EM5 off the shelf. They're everywhere.

    c) Legacy issues. It takes a lot to give up a brand, financially and emotionally. I sold $24,000.00 of Canon gear when I switched. That's a big investment and a big gamble. Most wouldn't do it that way. But running two systems side by side doesn't do the new system any favours as it feels like the new system is getting in the way and no one just leaves the old stuff in the car like they say they're going to do.

    d) Perception and self esteem. This is the big one. Turn up with a big camera and you must be a "proper" photographer. A pro. That's what some clients think and that's what many photographers feel. "Aren't you worried about what your clients think" is a question I get asked by other pros. And it's a real concern. Client perception keeps us employed. If we aren't seen as having the best tools for the job we don't work. Fortunately as a wedding photographer I don't have to flash my gear but I do make sure clients are aware I'm carrying the right gear even though it's smaller than others so when I turn up on the day I don't get buyers remorse from the client. But this is already changing, especially with the next generation. But it takes time.

    We're also human. And as creatives we have larger than average egos that can be crushed like an aluminium can. It comes from living in poverty and obscurity most of the time. "I thought it would be bigger" is not something we want to hear, even when we have a camera with us.

    5. Suitability. For some pros m4/3 is totally wrong. Just like medium format is wrong for some. 35mm suceeded in part because it was a jack of all trades, master of none. Now as it has developed over the last 100 years it's become the master of some. A 35mm DSLR doesn't have the ultimate image quality or the ultimate portability. But it is better than MF for stealth and somewhat better than smaller formats for image quality. It really took off when it was "good enough" for pros to use in multiple situations. When the flexibility of 35mm to be used in many ways over took the weaknesses of the format compared to MF and large formats. It's only recently that m4/3 has gotten "good enough" to be a working tool for many photographers. Wedding photographers, portrait photographers, underwater photographers, travel photographers, journalists and fusion (stills and video) shooters are seeing real benifits in mirorless that are beginning to outweigh the disadvantages of larger formats.

    Will CDAF ever be good enough for sports pros? Who knows. But the focusing gets better every generation as the sampling rate goes up. We're at 120 htz now. In a year or so we may get to 720 samples per second. That may make PDAF redundant. Maybe not. But sports shooters won't switch until it does. And they won't switch until we have a 400mm 2.0.

    Some shooters need radio triggers in TTL. They use them in Canikon and they're important enough to stick with a bigger camera. Some love their 85 1.2L wide open and can't see shooting without it.

    I don't think mirrorless will ever replace 135 as a format for pros. In time it will take a share of the market though. It'll be that 135 isn't the "only" (I'm deliberately excluding the less than 1% who shoot MF and LF professionally) format available. Pros will slowly find that there's now other choices that can be made that may let them have more flexibility or creativity than before. And I think most pros will eventually have a 135 and a mirrorless format in their aresenal, not just one or the other.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 8
  11. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    Correct.
    But I would debate that the APS-C shooter who invests in high quality Full Frame glass for Canon or Nikon doesn't really care about size or weight. :smile:

    And then when things happen such as the 5D Mk II drastically reduced in price or D600 at 2k for the body, they are poised. :smile:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    very
    Is there a reason that one coudn't shoot a 135 camera with a couple of cherry picked primes and m4/3 with zooms? You could still have a much smaller kit that way. I'm currently mixing m4/3 and a rangefinder and I'm very pleased with the system.

    In addition ultra thin DOF isn't actually a requirement of good wedding photography. It's a style. A choice. There are plenty of top end shooters that only shoot at f4 and deeper. I personally thing ultra thin DOF is over used. I'm not a fan of having one eye out of focus in EVERY shot of the bride. I think f3.5 on 135 (1.8 on m4/3) is pretty much spot on for a head and shoulders portrait of a bride.
    It's better than the original 5D and very very close to the MK2. persoanally I've never had an issue with DR with any camera I've used at a wedding. You just work with what you've got.
    Again the Em5 competes very favourably against the 5D2 and is better in noise performance than the APSC Canons, which many wedding shooters use.
    True. Although it's not that far off the CLS system offered by Nikon. It's only recently that Canon raised the bar so high with the 600 series flashes. I would like to see some TTL PW's or radio poppers for m4/3 though.
    Is this really a requirement for wedding photography? I know shooters who use it and love it. But a requirement? I have never, in 20 years used CAF at a wedding. My Leica doesn't even have AF. An if we again go to the 5D2. It's AF was appaling except for the centre point and it's CAF was not that good on the centre point either. In SAF the EM5 and GH3 (and GH2 for that matter) are significantly better. As fast. No focus calibration required, ever and the same performance anywhere on the sensor. No need to focus and recompose with m4/3. Sure we now have the 5D3 and Nikon shooters have had decent AF for a few years but most Canon wedding shooters are using the 5D2 or worse quite sucessfully.

    I think that's a broad generalisation that just doesn't work for everybody. There are successful wedding photographers using manual focus lenses from Ziess on their DSLRs. There are photographers who shoot 100% no flash. There are photographers shooting with a single camera and lens. I know of one guy incorporating some large format (4x5) film into his weddings. Surely there are photographers out there shooting awesome weddings with m4/3. They're out there shooting awesome weddings with a Rebel and a kit zoom. m4/3 is a huge step up compared to that.

    In all seriousness, I'd love to shoot weddings with just my two Leicas, two lenses and a big LED light panel. Now I shoot about 70% of my weddings with manual focus and 50% with natural light. m4/3 is far more than I need for a bridal processional or guest shots at the reception. I know it could be done. It has been done. Just not by me, yet.

    I agree that the majority of wedding and portrait photographers will probably go with this list. But they're all choices, not requirements. If we all have the same camera and lenses. If we all shoot with CAF and the motor drive switched on. If we all shoot every shot wide open with radio triggers. Where's the variety? Where's the creativity? Where's the craft?

    Different photographers have different needs. Different styles. For some of them they'll need radio triggers to acheive their vision. Some won't. Some will choose Canikonony. Some will choose Fuji ( I know of two already that shoot only with Fuji). Some will choos m4/3. There isn't a right tool for every photographer. There's a righ tool for EACH photographer.
    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 8
  13. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I use mostly Nikon FX bodies at work, but lately I've been niching my E-M5/75mm 1.8 for certain task, mainly as a lightweight alternative to the 70-200. I have to say, the new Sony sensor, matched with Olympus processing and glass makes for some brillant results. If I wasn't so entrenched with Nikon, I might pick up an E-5!

    Though my E-M5 is mainly my personal/family camera, I've already used it for a number of jobs. What's funny is that my E-M5 is currently my fastest camera in terms of FPS! :wink:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Hudsonhites

    Hudsonhites Mu-43 Regular

    82
    Jul 14, 2011
    NYC
    I'm not a professional photographer but I am a professional carpenter with lots of power tools and many multiples of each. I always grab for the ones that provide the best ease of use and which are the least compromised. I own both a D700 & an OMD if I had to pick one to do everything it would be the D700 though I spend more time shooting with the OMD.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. With_Eyes_Unclouded

    With_Eyes_Unclouded Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 17, 2012
    Vassilios
    I'm not debating that. I'm just saying that those users are a small, perhaps single digit minority, of the total APS-C user base. Sure, a Photography student would start with a modest Rebel or D5xxx camera and start building his/her lens collection wisely. OTOH, I know quite a few serious APS-C shooters that choose fast APS-C specific lenses instead of FF lenses (the 17-55mm f/2.8 for example). I have yet to come upon a user converting from crop to FF that wasn't forced to sell a couple of (now useless) lenses in making the transition.

    On :43: users do upgrade and sell lenses too but it is after higher quality, e.g. selling a "kit" telephoto zoom or 17mm pancake for faster glass.

    As I said I see it more like the legacy of a system itself. Canon now has, what? Close to 200 EOS lenses to choose from? (including discontinued/used and third party). But, again, please let's keep things in perspective. The EOS was introduced in 1987. :43: was announced on 2008 and first cameras started appearing the next year! I know, dog years and all that :biggrin:, but seriously...
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, CA
    I don't get why all the mirrorless advocates keep chest-pounding the death of the DSLR. I also don't get why hardcore DSLR users frown on mirrorless cameras as toys. They both have their place and can certainly be advantageous given their particular strengths in different situations.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  17. CUB

    CUB Mu-43 Veteran

    275
    Apr 19, 2012
    That's a classic reply from someone who changed brands, Gordon. It is interesting but it doesn't tell us much about m4/3 as a system for wedding photography.

    You admitted that full frame has superior performance to m4/3 in every respect I listed. One could hardly do otherwise. All you have done is question whether you need that superior performance all the time. I need it some of the time, which is why I continue to invest in full frame.

    There are a great many hacks working in wedding photography. Many have inferior skills, and many have inferior equipment. One could argue that their inferior skills mean that they don't need the best equipment, but it is always reflected in their results.

    Given the wide availability of inexpensive used full frame equipment, I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would actively choose m4/3 for professional wedding photography.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Really? Are you sure it isn't just one area?

    Choose your backgrounds effectively as a wedding photographer and you won't need to worry about this. I'd rather have more DOF with a beautiful background and good composition than simply hide poor composition behind a blurred background--and that what most narrow DOF wedding photography is today: hiding bad composition. And last time I checked, there are two f/.95 lenses for μ43.

    The OM-D has twelve stops at base ISO. That's equal to most Canon cameras across the board. Landscape shooters benefit from that extra bit. But anything above 10-11 stops is perfectly sufficient for wedding shooting. Last time I checked, wedding shooters tend not to need to push their RAW files to the extant that landscape shooters need to.

    This is true. But what does it matter. The OM-D's noise performance is *as good* as the original Canon 5D--check DxO. Did you complain about its noise performance back then? I doubt it. Noise levels are perfectly acceptable and most people rarely print large enough for anyone to even notice the difference anyway. Back when you were shooting the original 5D and did do big prints, did your clients complain? You've created an imaginary problem.

    This is true. But it's easily fixable and has nothing to do with the format itself.

    This is true. Yes. This is the only substantive point in your list so far. I'm hoping PDAF on sensor will help with this at least for speeding up and benefiting from tracking using Olympus four thirds lenses.

    Do μ43 break too often for you? Exactly what does this mean? The only real issue is AF speed and tracking. Other than that, μ43 *DOES* reliably provide excellent IQ in a variety of conditions.

    The fact of the matter is that you're not actually arguing that FF is better than μ43. You're arguing that your D800 and D600 are better than μ43. Μ43 competes well with Canon in many of those respects and even beats at least one FF camera.

    Beyond that, when it comes to your D800 and D600. I'd be willing to put money down that even you don't actually use all that super quality you have.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  19. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 30, 2010
    Essex
    John
    I'm not sure that :43: in it's present stage of development is intended as a professional format, although Olympus have indicated that they soon hope to introduce a pro level OMD and the new Panasonic GH3 certainly has some professional characteristics. Maybe in due course, as the system grows and matures, it will become more readily acknowledged as suitable for professionals.

    But I do wonder why it should matter at this stage whether or not :43: appeals to professionals. I'm a keen amateur who finds the format and available cameras and lenses perfect for my needs. I don't spend my time fretting that pros don't agree with me; what they choose to satisfy their own requirements is their business. And I don't worry that my camera wouldn't be suitable to shoot a wedding because I don't intend to shoot one.

    Of course, the quality of :43: is improving all the time and it's no surprise that it is starting to attract the attention of professionals, even though most of them are still not prepared to accept the inevitable compromises, but that's a matter for the pros themselves to consider, it's not any concern of mine.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Texas
    GH3 might entice some more professional immersion into Micor Four Thirds with it's weatherproofing, beefy build & construction, & video capabilities. :smile:
     
    • Like Like x 1