burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

DUAL IS —

In-body stabilization, plus In-lens stabilization when using Panasonic OIS lenses. In-body works with all lenses.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Here are two lists of Micro 4/3 lenses you should be aware of:

http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html

http://wrotniak.net/photo/m43/lenses.html

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

Thanks so much for that list! It is rather abundant. Are there a few that you have experience with that you could recommend?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I have all Lumix:

GX Vario 12-25mm f/2.8 (new version II replaced it)
GX Vario 35-100mm f/2.8 (new version II replaced it)
G 30mm f/2.8 Macro (updated to work with Dual IS and Dual IS 2)

In general, all the Panasonic Leica lenses are excellent. All of the Olympus Pro lenses are excellent.

There are some standouts in each brand, usually reflected by high prices. Many of the mid-priced primes are very good (Oly 12mm f/2, 75mm f/1.8; Panny 20mm f/1.7 II, 25mm f/1.7, 42.5mm f/1.7), and two of the zooms are very nice — the 14-140mm f/3.5-f/5.6 II, and 100-300mm f/4-f/5.6).

Those are just the ones I have either tried, or read test reports about, or had recommended to me by folks who use them.

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

Si as a walk around zoom you like the GX Vario 12-25mm f/2.8 better that the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8? I see you definitely like the Panasonic line more than tge Olympus. I would've thought with all the years of experience Olympus has that their line would have the edge. What is it about the Panny's you like so much?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You can take amazing pictures with either system.

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

All those seem to have been shot with a Sony DSC-RX10M4? Or Nikon full frame? Any from your m4/3rds?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I wrote a very long article here about that a while back. I'll repost parts of it here:

Why I use Micro 4/3:

On a purely practical level, you should make tests to determine whether any given piece of gear, and/or a given *system*, will meet your needs.

For most of what I do, for instance, Micro 4/3 absolutely suits me best. I record lots of video with important, single-system, onboard audio, and I record lots of stills. The results are most likely to wind up on smartphones, tablets, computer screens, projection screens, TVs, and video monitors. Still photo results may also be viewed as PDF files, or printed to letter-size documents. I rarely print larger than 20x16 inches.

I don't use a full frame or APS-C dSLR, because there are not enough AV options available at a reasonable price. I could use a few other mirrorless cameras. Sony could work well, but it would mean spending twice as much and carrying a much heavier and bulkier kit that would yield an insignificant difference in the work I do. And I HATE Sony’s menus.

But... for LANDSCAPES, a full-frame or even a medium-format system would be much better than m4/3 or APS-C, especially for making large prints (30x20 or 60x40 inches). Even though the *€œstandard*€ viewing distance for any print is 1x to 1.5x its diagonal dimension, more pixels and more details allow closer inspection. Joe Public probably won't notice, or care. But the format nazis at your local camera club probably will!

Panasonic Lumix Micro 4/3 high end:

The G9, the GH4, GH5, and GH5s series, and the GX9 have a great "feel in hand."

The Leica lenses (8-18, 10-25, 12-60, 50-200, 100-400, 12, 15, 25, 42.5, 45 macro, 200 f/2.8…) are spectacular. So are the 12-35mm f/2.8, and 35-100mm f/2.8 weather-sealed Panasonic Pro lenses, and the 30mm f/2.8 macro.

The menu and general working ergonomics are quite likable, especially among those coming from Sony and Olympus models. They are most familiar to Canon users.

That said, it's hard to find a bad camera these days. Six sigma quality is a given. The manufacturers have carefully carved out their individual niches in the market, with varying blends of features catering to different users' needs. Study reviews carefully and compare feature sets with your needs and wants.

The MAJOR advantage of Micro 4/3 is that it is the ONLY camera format (other than Nikon's now-defunct, much smaller, and electronically noisier 1 series) that saves you a lot of weight when you put a complete system together. You can save 2/3 to 3/4 the weight over an equivalent full frame system, and 1/3 to 1/2 the weight over an equivalent pure APS-C or DX system ("pure" means you don't buy full frame lenses for APS-C cameras).

The other MAJOR advantage, for me, is that Panasonic, in particular, has spectacular video. I use a Lumix GH4 for filmmaking.

The Lumix G9 records even better video than my GH4, but because of its lesser audio features, it is aimed at still photographers. The G9 competes nicely with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II. Each has a few goodies the other doesn't have. Check out online reviews (http://www.dpreview.com and YouTube are great places to start). Menus and ergonomics are entirely different.

The GH5 (like the GH3 and GH4 before it) is made specifically to record the best balance of video plus stills. It is a Swiss Army Knife of hybrid photography.

The GH5s is the most filmmaker-centric. It disappointed bloggers, because it does not have IBIS, but leaving out IBIS was intentional, because IBIS won'€™t work in jarring run-and-gun situations (chase scenes, safari video from the back of a Jeep, etc. — situations that require a gimbal or "steady cam"). It disappointed still photographers, too — The GH5s has HALF the MP count of the GH5. But that means it records much less noise in low light video… for performance comparable to full frame bodies. It also has Dual ISO (400 and 2500 are both considered '€œnative'€). It is meant to be a low-light complement to the GH5, primarily for videography.

My GH4 (and most other models I mentioned) can be COMPLETELY silent, when used in electronic shutter mode. I used it in a dark theater one night to make over 300 exposures without disturbing other patrons.

Over 100 native Micro 4/3 lenses are available —€” http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html

On the downside, the best Micro 4/3 cameras (except for the GH5s) have about two f/stops less light-gathering ability than full frame cameras, and about one stop less light gathering ability than APS-C and DX cameras, when you compare cameras of the same age and similar megapixel counts. That's just the laws of physics.

ISO 3200 on Micro 4/3 is about as noisy as ISO 12,800 on an FX (full frame) Nikon, or ISO 6400 on a DX (APS-C) Nikon, which is to say all three are pretty useful up to those points.

For video, ISO 6400 is still usable on Micro 4/3, because motion hides some of the noise in most situations. (You can see this equivalence for yourself by comparing the test charts. Go to this review of a Nikon D5 (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review/6) and Compare raw at ISO 12,800, with raw at ISO 6400 on a Nikon D500, and raw at ISO 3200 on both a Lumix G9 and a Lumix GH5.

If you are an extreme sports and wildlife photographer, I would *rent to try before you buy* (good advice for anyone in any situation, actually). But know that the Micro 4/3 system you build today will still be viable in the future. Each generation of camera body is more and more advanced, and brings with it a wave of new lenses to take advantage of it.

Panasonic is great about updating the computer firmware in its cameras and lenses, not just to fix bugs, but to add new features, improve performance, ensure compatibility, and match some of the features of its other new models. So the camera you buy today will get better over time, provided you download and install the new firmware updates.

There are two fisheyes at 8mm in the Micro 4/3 world. One is by Panasonic, while the other is by Olympus.

Leica engineered an 8-18mm f/2.8-f/4 zoom for Micro 4/3. If you need the rough equivalent of a Canon 16-35mm, that's it. Olympus has a 7-14mm f/2.8 zoom, and Panasonic has a 7-14mm f/4 zoom, too. None of these zooms is a fisheye.

So whether you come to Micro 4/3 from Canon or Nikon full frame gear, you can find an equivalent for most of your lenses. "€œ35mm equivalent field of view" focal lengths exist from 14 to 800mm (7-400mm actual focal lengths on m43). Again... http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html

About Audio:

The one area where dSLRs'€™ and some mirrorless cameras'€™ video features fall far short is AUDIO.

About 60% of what we perceive from most video is in the soundtrack. Yet most of these dSLR/MILC cameras have:

> truly awful microphones that pick up camera handling noises and aim upwards
> microphones that will almost never be close enough to the subject to yield a decent signal-to-noise ratio (i.e.; closer than three feet)
> no headphone jack
> automatic gain (record level) control that can'€™t be defeated
> no manual audio level controls
> no level meters
> no switchable peak limiters
> no line level input
> an unbalanced mic input that limits noise-free cabling to about six feet
> noisy mic preamps

Accordingly, to get around this, use an external digital recorder/mixer at 48KHz sample rate, along with external microphones. Then sync the sound in Final Cut Pro or Premiere (etc.), using (then muting) the reference track from the camera to match the good audio wave forms in the timeline.

What I DO, and how Video fits into it:

I am a training content developer. I use a Lumix GH4 for about equal amounts of still and video photography.

I used to have a Canon EOS 50D and a Canon GL2 SD video camcorder. Using both was sequential, confusing, and slow. Traveling with both was expensive and tiring! Excess baggage charges added up quickly. Security of the gear, and going through airport security, were always worrisome.

Now, everything I need is in one bag that fits under an airplane seat. And if I record 4K, I can extract very nice stills from the video to use in printed and PDF manuals. So now, much of what I do takes half the time.

Since I grew up with SLRs in my hands, I actually PREFER that form factor for video. I had six different video cameras or camcorders from 1982 to 2012. For the work I do, I don'€™t miss the features of any of them.

Maybe if I were making Hollywood movies, an ARRI Alexa, or a Red Epic, or even a Black Magic Cinema camera would make sense, but for simple storytelling, training, documentaries, and film festival entries, my GH4 is fine.

If you don'€™t think professionals can do good work with cheap cameras, look up the film, *Sriracha*, by Griffin Hammond, free on Amazon Prime. It'€™s won several awards. It was filmed with the older Lumix GH3.
 
On my Panasonic Lumix GH4, I tend to use 1/25 or 1/50 second shutter speed for 24 fps cinematic video. Outdoors, I use an ND64 for six f/stops of light reduction. For late in the day or cloudy days, my ND8 (minus three stops) is good.

The slow shutter speed allows some motion blur from frame to frame, which is what makes film action look smooth. The wide aperture allows better isolation of a subject from the background. 1/25 is very dreamy looking; 1/50 is more realistic.

Yes, you can use higher shutter speeds, but the video will look jerky at 23.98 or true 24 fps.

Three formats, six manufacturers:

Canon and Nikon are just now entering the professional and ADVANCED enthusiast full frame mirrorless world. They are about ten years later than pioneers, Panasonic and Olympus. The discontinued Nikon 1 System (1" class sensor) worked fine, but it was aimed at fashion-conscious travelers. The Canon M series (APS-C) got off to a rocky start. The current models are fine.

Fujifilm is known for its medium format (larger than full frame!) and APS-C cameras. If you want spectacular JPEGs from your camera, look at Fujifilm's XT-3 first. Fujifilm lenses are mostly spectacular. The cameras are solid and reliable. Their 50MP medium format sensor is cleaner than Canon's 50MP full frame sensor, so if you need that...

Sony makes APS-C and full frame mirrorless bodies. Their menus can be complex, but they have quickly become a top supplier of cameras, period. Sony makes the sensors in nearly all other cameras except for Canon and Fujifilm. Check out the A9, A7rIII, A7III, a6500...

Olympus is known for excellent lenses and clever engineering. The Pen FT is a rangefinder-like fashion statement that is a joy to use for street photography. The OM-D E-M1 Mark II is jam-packed with cool features that make it extremely useful in a wide variety of situations.

Panasonic is known for excellent lenses, great ergonomics, intelligible menus, and video-centric engineering. I've noted why I use them above.

I do think dSLRs will be with us for years to come. Their market share will fade, but they still have advantages for certain types of photography that, until matched by mirrorless bodies, will make them viable. At the current moment, only Sony makes a model (A9) that challenges the top Canons and Nikons for fast action, low light sports, and wildlife still photography.

I could go on, but that's enough to chew on in this post. Part two follows.

---

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I'll add to my last post that the Oly 12-40 is actually sharper than the Panny 12-35. However, it does not have in-lens stabilization. The 12-35 does, and that's important to me because the GH4 I use is not equipped with IBIS (The GH5 is). That 3 stops or so of stabilizing is important. Also, if you read the introduction pages of the Complete Micro 4/3 Lens List at http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html, you'll get an idea of the subtle differences in functionality that occur when you use Oly lenses on Panny bodies, and vice-versa. It's a VERY good idea to understand them before you buy a lens, so you don't forgo a feature you might need.

Until recently, Olympus didn't use in-lens stabilization, and Panasonic didn't use IBIS. Once Panasonic started adding IBIS (Dual IS and then Dual IS 2), Olympus decided to put stabilizers in their longer lenses. Longer focal lengths benefit the most from in-lens stabilization. Shorter focal lengths benefit the most from IBIS.

Panasonic was the first to introduce Micro 4/3. Olympus joined them almost immediately. Both had a previous hand in developing products for the 4/3 (not Micro 4/3) format.

Of the two, Olympus has historically had better JPEG processing engines in their cameras, but Panasonic changed that with the GH5, and again with the G9 and later cameras. Raw files from Oly and Panny look identical to me, which makes sense, because they use essentially the same sensors made by Sony.

Panasonic has decades of experience in developing professional video products. The GH series cameras take advantage of that. Olympus records decent video, but audio isn't more than an afterthought. With my GH4, I can record very usable sound (for purposes such as dialog or interviews) with just the camera. For music, I'll use a dual system (camera and external recorder).

A HUGE reason I chose the GH4 was its "feel in hand" (ergonomics). It reminds me of my Nikon F3, which is solid as a rock, had controls right where they were expected to be, and operated as an extension of my arm. The OM-D E-M1 I tested felt too small for my hands, even with a battery grip.

A close second to ergonomics was Panasonic's easy to understand menu system (It has built-in scrolling help!). Panasonic menus are most similar to the midrange Canon bodies' menus I used to use.

The OM-D E-M1 menus were not what I would call logically arranged. There is a concept in software design that says, "Design menu structures to be as FLAT as possible, rather than building many branching layers of dialogs." I once was team leader on a database project that the creators had built with as many as 16 branching dialog boxes below one main menu item. Button 1 led to three more buttons. Each of those led to three more button choices... It worked, but how the hell does a user know how to get there again, quickly, without deep diving through options? We rewrote the whole thing!

Every system and camera within it has a unique set of tools and traits. We develop habits and preferences over the years that improve our efficiencies. I simply found the Lumix a better fit for me.

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

I am a nature and landscape shooter. The only video I think I've EVER shot was on my iPhone! I love the images I get out of my Sony A7II and I know what you mean about their menu system, but I've gotten totally accustomed to it. I guess I was having a bit of an attack of GAS, thinking that maybe I can carry some less weight with an Olympus while trading it off with a better all around zoom. I had an Olympus OMD EM5 Mark II awhile back while I had a Sony A7. I did side by sides, printing the same images from both and the difference in dynamic range and just what I refer to as punch, was slightly lacking in the m4/3rds. Close, yes, but I knew the difference. And the DOF when you need to isolate, just is not there with the smaller sensor. So, I've decided to stick with my A7II, get a new prime or two, maybe and old manual Minolta or Nikon, or even try Sony's 50mm and/or 28mm. I'll keep the 28-70mm for travel. It's really not anywhere near as bad as all those reviewers out there say it is. If you know how to use it, it does very well. The menu system on the Olympus is a scary thing too, but it does have that Q menu that gives you access to just about everything you need. Ideally, I wish I could afford both systems but for now, I'll stick with what gives me the best results without wandering how much better a shoot might have come out had I only kept my full frame.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

LensRentals.com and BorrowLenses.com rent cameras and lenses. If you want to try something, one of them probably has it. I've rented a few lenses from them.

Don't blame the sensor for "lack of shallow depth of field." It's all in the focal length and aperture used. With the 2X crop factor, a 25mm used on m43 has the same field of view as a 50mm on FF. BUT, it also has two f/stops deeper depth of field than full frame, due to the shift in magnification.

SO, to get the DOF back, you have to open up two stops and either lower the ISO or speed up the shutter (or some of each) to compensate. If your exposure on full frame with a 50mm lens is ISO 200, 1/125 at f/8, it could be ISO 200, 1/500 at f/4 on Micro 4/3 with a 25mm lens... The effect would be nearly identical.

Here's a video worth watching: https://youtu.be/eMMl_B4et4Y

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

I will watch that but how can you get the same depth of field with say a 50mm f1.8? It's at two stops higher to start with on the m4/3, no?

Bill P

The whole thing about applying the 2X factor to f stops is a scam. F stops are a physical thing with a lens, and the area covered doesn't factor in. Folks think that's what gets the greater dof, but please read burk's post above.

Bill P

Another way to observe this is to take a photo with a 50mm and a 100mm on the same camera. Use everything else the same, f stop , shutterspeed, etc. Print out a full frame from the 100 and make a print of the 50 shot cropped to cover the same area as the 100. Both will appear to have the same dof, and both do.

Same sensor, no change in anything, no "crop factor" and yet the same dof. Must be magic.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Voigtlander f/0.95 primes... On m43 they work well, with no dSLR focus alignment issues.

Any f/1.2 lens on m43 will let you match the DOF of APS-C at f1.8.

There’s also the MetaBones Speed Booster .71x for Canon lenses. It’s a favorite match with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8.

The new 10-25mm f/1.7 Leica m43 lens will be good enough for most of us, if we can afford $1800.

I have found the deeper DOF of shorter focal lengths to be just as much an advantage for some situations as it is a hindrance in others.

I do use several ND filters, especially the ND8 and ND64 (three and six stops light reduction, respectively).