beneos

The Sony NEX-6 has a viewfinder - it looks like a perfect pocket camera, if it weren't for the offensive price.

I wonder if all the trouble with Nikons' noise problem is simply due to auto ISO being on for most videos. Check out this vid on how to trick your D5100:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9lx7Hj6dzY[/media]

I was watching this, and it occurred to me that the noise might just be the auto ISO, and by limiting it, as this video suggests, you can reduce and eliminate it.

RE: Louvre - in defense of the camera, I saw the soft focus as an operator issue. There are some incredibly sharp clips in there.

According to this video -

[url="http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-us-manager-interview-focus-peaking-may-come-via-fw-update/"]http://www.43rumors....-via-fw-update/[/url]

the Panasonic GH3 guys say "right now I don't believe we have focus peaking in it - it wasn't part of the design".

See 34:40.

Held one today - it's bigger than the D7000 - weighs about the same. Has pro-sumer appointments that pros could point out.

I'm hoping for a Santa Claus discount.

Great short. I was entirely lost in the narrative and couldn't focus on style. Well done!

Maybe explains the sudden price increase for the GH3!

"Genesis" - Shutter lag on the train was pretty pronounced. Nice that they left it in so we could see it rather than fixing it in post.

Note to all you videographers - see how not EVERY shot is wide open? You don't need f/1.8 for all your shots just because you can.

They pulled the video. If it's anywhere near $1500, it will be competing with the Nikon D600, which looks like a great camera.

Is it four times as good as a D3200?

Reading a bit on the origin of MFT and found this quote from the people who invented the format.

"The Micro Four Thirds System is a new standard based on combining Live View shooting with the Four Thirds System, freeing users from the viewfinder and moving closer to an optimum [b][u]balance between picture quality and compact size[/u][/b]."
[url="http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/index.html"]http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/index.html[/url]

And I wish they'd rethink the viewfinder.

Sorry about the mis-posted photo. The Sony and Olympus look so much the same - here's both:

[img]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gy52wkgmsvsjpg/xlarge.jpg[/img]

I still wish they would use some other material than plastic.

Looking forward to seeing the GH3.

I think this sums it up well:

[i]comparatively good resolution at a low price, and [u]old[/u] lenses could be adapted without problems[/i] - Axel

It's a great way to use all those old MF lenses in the closet, and the video is on par if not better than high end DSLRs. From what rumors I've read about the GH3, Panasonic has added some gravitas to the body with more metal and weatherproofing - that will help the feel of the camera, as will using old MF lenses - or those Voigtlanders!

And still there is not a silver bullet camera that does video and stills equally as well as say a separate GH2 and a Nikon D3X... yet.

I'm hoping that the MFT lens prices adjust downward as the format catches on in the US. And yes, when it comes to lenses, I do have a predisposition toward big and heavy; the best lenses in the world even today aren't constructed primarily with plastic. Plastic bodies don't bother me nearly as much as plastic lenses. But it makes sense that, as technology manages to squeeze more and more resolution on smaller and smaller sensors, lenses will get smaller and smaller - and cheaper and cheaper to produce.

Thanks for all the responses - it helped a lot. And I apologize if I bruised anyone's contentment.

[url="http://gizmodo.com/5894623/sony-and-olympus-mirrorless-lens-teardowns-reveal-beautiful-compact-design?tag=microfourthirds"]Just found this article that shows how the MFT lenses are made[/url] - I look at this and wonder - can these possibly be as good as a typical SLR lens? And you know that they maximize profits selling these for $300 a pop.

[img]http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2012/03/Sonycore1-1024x328.jpg[/img]

Thanks for the responses - I'm really considering buying the GH2 based entirely on the stellar reviews here and elsewhere. I have quite a few great old lenses that I could use with it. The GH3 could be interesting if they ship it with a decent prime.

B

I've spent the last week reading as much as I could about micro four thirds cameras, and it looks like many people are trumpeting MFT as the "death of DSLR" or at least a viable option. Since I'm on the prowl for a new SLR, the MFT cameras - GH2 in particular - is making me think twice about going with a Canon/Nikon.

But is MFT really that great? I have some issues/questions:[list]
[*]The cameras appear to be smaller and made of plastic, i.e., cheaper. Yet they don't cost consumers any less.
[*]MFT sensors are about half the size of the new consumer level Nikon D3200 (full frame). How can this NOT be inferior? - at least for stills?
[*]Lens focal length and aperture are double that of 35mm film cameras, so a 45mm f/1.8 is effectively a 90mm f/3.6. To get 2.8 aperture, you need to buy an f/1.4.
[*]Lenses are smaller and plastic and look like toys. The optics are WAY smaller. So they're probably a lot cheaper to manufacture. Yet the price is not cheaper. For example, the Olympus 85mm 1.8 is more than twice the price of a Nikon 85mm 1.8D. Not a fair comparison, you might think - well, there isn't a 42mm 1.4, so the closest I could find is a Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 for $600. Doesn't anyone else have misgivings about laying down $400 for a little plastic prime lens? For just over $100 you can get a killer Nikon 50mm 1.8.
[*]Optical viewfinders are rare on MFTs (and they'd be rangefinders), and electronic viewfinders will always suffer latency - perhaps not an issue for video, but would be for still photography.
[/list]
So the words that sum up the physical characteristics of a MFT system are[list]
[*]Small
[*]Plastic
[*]Toylike
[*]Expensive
[/list]
Smaller lens diameters and smaller sensors would seem to be more susceptible to dust and imperfections. I don't know - just hypothesizing.

I've read that, for video, the GH2 has some magic that makes it on par with high end DSLRs. But still photographs are almost but not quite as good - from what I've read.

Has anyone ditched their DSLR for MFT?

These are the questions and concerns I have about micro four thirds. This isn't a list of gripes - just some things I've read. I haven't even SEEN a GH2 with my own eyes, but I've seen some of the other mirrorless cameras. So all this is just a synopsis of what I've read on the web. I'd like to hear from you people who know more than what the Oracle can provide.

Thanks! - and I hope the above doesn't rile anyone. Just looking for opinions.

B