A combination of $ incentives combined with GAS and curiosity. A Panny GX7
arrived via Big Brown Truck yesterday.
I had many questions, hopes and concerns. It will take a while to work through
them all.
I can report a few things.
The electronic shutter works perfectly to avoid shutter shock. It eliminates
the subtle, slightly odd, delay in shutter
action/sound of an Oly set for 1/8 sec. delay. OTOH, it doesn't really speed
overall acquisition of an image by much, as
the 'shutter' takes about 1/10 sec. to record an image. Seems more 'normal',
though.
The IS too seems to work well so far.
The dreaded rolling shutter effect does not appear to be an issue with static
or slow moving subjects. The extreme
examples seen on the web are just that. With ES, IS, 300 mm and a subject a
couple of hundred yards away, there is no
geometric distortion. This is roughly 1/4 of a frame.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/GX7/GX7roll1.htm>
Yes, there are small differences, in focus and light/contrast, as well as
size/shape. I looks to me almost like there is
more increase in size than change in shape. I can't imagine finding one
size/shape preferable to the other.
I haven't tried measuring it, but image write feels slightly slower than the
E-M5, both with Sony Class 10, UHS-1 cards.
Sensor system differences are trickier. The Panny is definitely more usable at
ISO 3200. It's not so much that is has
less noise, but it's different noise, slightly finer grained, and only
requiring lower setting in NeatImage to clean up.
It may, but this is pretty subtle, retain more fine detail in non-test pattern
subjects. More important than either of
those qualities is that it doesn't exhibit the 'wormy' artifacts the Oly does.
Every camera I've used does this thing starting at some ISO level where there
are odd, artificial lines hidden in the
noise. Remove the noise, and they stand out. It could be easy to attribute them
to the NR, but close observation shows
that they are already there, just hard to see, before NR.
This effect doesn't show up with the GX7 until ISO 12800, two stops better than
the E-M5. By then, the noise is quite a
bit worse than either camera at 3200. I think the upshot will be that the
maximum practical, usable ISOs for the GX7
for large prints or crops will be about two stops greater than the E-M5.
Residual noise and slight loss of detail aren't
as obvious as artifacts.
In the field, it may mostly mean better images at ISO 3200. That's as high as
is possible with the ES, and the
conditions where 3200 is needed are also those where shutter shock rears its
head.
Some of you are likely asking yourself "What is he talking about, and who cares
about such high ISOs?" A lot of my
photography is done in the woods, and/or around dusk. A lot of it is of flora,
where I want some DOF. The answer, which
is a big reason I so love the digital revolution, is higher ISOs. I'm having
such a good time getting good quality shots
where I could get nothing with film.
I'm thinking how to post some samples. It's tricky getting everything
comparable. Using the 135/4.5 on Auto Tube, I
thought to eliminate most variables. The tube has a tripod foot, so I could set
up and only change camera bodies. Hmmm
... Critical focus somehow is slightly different, the images are slightly
different sizes, and somehow not quite
identically framed.
Then a lot of you folks don't have the detail vision I do, so I have to find
really clear examples.
Fettle Testing Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|