ac6000cw

3 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Can we say the OM-1 ii is the first OM System camera?

All the other releases seemed very much Olympus developed products. Really, they put a new processor, improved the AF to extend to humans, and added photo ND features. All of those look good, but maybe this camera should have been the OM-1. I'm still not 100% convinced, more like 50%.

I'm definitely not convinced (to upgrade as an OM-1 owner) - I think it's too expensive at the launch price of £2200 in the UK, especially now the £1700 G9 ii is around.

And as for that very large & heavy (for micro43) 150-600mm lens that's only F5 max aperture and costs £2500...what are they thinking - have they forgotten what micro43 is supposed to be about?

As far as I've found out to date, video related improvements are limited to support for vertical-format video and improved AF performance (inherited from the photo side, I assume). It also now directly supports being used as a USB webcam.

I hope they might port the Mk 2 feature of allowing the 'menu' button to be re-assigned the 'trashcan' button in a firmware update for the original OM-1 (so that you can access and operate the menu system entirely with your right hand).

This is a live intro and Q & A session I watched from yesterday, presented by David Smith from OMDS UK (who I've met a few times at open days/exhibitions and seems a very knowledgeable guy), which covered the basic changes and answered some questions (the video-related section starts around 46:23):

29 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Why would you use it? As a way to feed scratch ambience to the camera??

Yes (as the main audio - I'm just using it for amateur outdoor documentary stuff).

It's the 32-bit float that is the attraction, as it makes audio input level adjustment on the recorder something else I don't have to worry about. Same reason I normally use shutter-priority auto exposure for video - it leaves me free to concentrate on framing and holding the camera still (or moving it smoothly).

29 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

You'd prefer this over say a Shure VP83F on camera mic? 

Yes - I want stereo ambient sound but the VP83F is mono super-cardioid (and somewhat larger in size).

I prefer a 90 degree X-Y cardioid stereo configuration, as that gives me the sound-stage width I prefer. I often use a Tascam TM2X stereo on-camera mic (without the extension arm!) as the size versus quality balance of that works for me. I've tried others over the years (both mics and recorders) but that's the one I keep coming back to.

What would be really nice is a mirrorless ILC camera with 32-bit float audio support...

No timecode support, but the new 'H1essential' also looks very interesting - 32-bit float recording for $99, in a package that's small enough to mount on a moderately sized camera. It'll be interesting to see how Tascam responds to this.

I've owned both (and the E-M1 iii, G80 and G9).

1. E-M1 ii is larger & heavier but has (for me) superb ergonomics and build quality. It's just a really nice camera to use.

2. E-M1 ii sound via the internal mics is way better than the GX85. It also has a mic input and headphone jack.

3. E-M1 ii 4k UHD is full sensor width (no crop) whereas the GX85 is cropped.

4. E-M1 ii has great battery life.

5. E-M1 ii IBIS is better than the GX85.

If you are seriously considering the E-M1 ii and video C-AF and IBIS are important to you, think about the E-M1 iii instead if you can afford it - it has better video C-AF and a choice of IBIS settings (the +1 setting is almost tripod-level).

Another cheap (used) alternative to the GX85 worth considering is the G80/G85 - same sensor in a larger body with better IBIS, larger battery and a mic input.

Provided the size is OK for you, the G9 is superb value used, and easily beats any of the above cameras for video quality (it also supports 10-bit video and 4k 60p, which none of the others do). Here in the UK, the E-M1 ii and G9 cost about the same used.

For anyone interested in using the G9 ii for wildlife video, I came across this interesting comparison by an experienced wildlife photographer of the G9 ii and OM-1 (the video comparison starts around 10:30). The video C-AF performance is quite impressive:

18 minutes ago, kye said:

It's also nice to see signs of life from the brand and for the system overall, considering that lots of MFT users would best be described as..... skittish.

I think a small proportion of camera owners are just generally skittish/followers of fashion, whereas most users buy a camera and only consider changing it when it breaks or no longer meets their requirements (which could be for performance/size/weight/fashion reasons among others).

Based on what I've seen at camera store 'open days' and exhibitions, Olympus/OMDS does have good brand loyalty but it's a bit of a niche user base of outdoors types (especially wildlife photographers) and those who like small/light cameras. I've never felt that Lumix has that sort of brand loyalty (other than in the 'more serious' video niche market maybe) - it's the 'high on features at reasonable prices' area that Panasonic has historically appeared to be targeting.

I'm probably about to become primarily an Olympus/OMDS camera user, after being basically a Panasonic 'hybrid' camera user for years (starting with a TZ7/ZS3 compact 15 years ago). It's mostly because I like the ergonomics of the E-M1 iii and OM-1 better than those of the G9 - even though that has better video quality. Not something I'd ever thought might happen a few years ago...

(The difficult decision is - do I keep the GX80? My G80 is already basically redundant. If both go then my only Panasonic camera will be the G9. Also, do I replace both GX80 & G80 with an OM-5 to keep a relatively small/light m43 body?)

On 1/21/2024 at 5:26 PM, John Matthews said:

APS-C on L-Mount is going to compete well against M43 if Panasonic continues with currently sized cameras. What would you you choose? Sure, M43 has more features and better resolution, but the FF offers more possibilities when you're not trying to go small.

In reality - neither, because having played around with an S5 ii, I don't like the ergonomics of that body design, it just feels uncomfortable/awkward to use in my hand.

Ignoring that, probably the G9 ii due to smaller & lighter long telephoto lenses, probably better IBIS, lower rolling shutter and less moire issues (assuming the video performance is comparable to a GH6).

44 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Looks like a firmware upgrade and the final removal of the OLYMPUS brand name.

The latter doesn’t make any real difference, it’s just white lettering at the end of day, but the internal changes are not very impressive.

That was my take on it too (apart from fitting bigger memory chips to increase the internal buffer size). No video changes mentioned yet. All feels a bit lukewarm really.

But as an OM-1 owner I am of course hoping some of the improvements turn up in a future firmware update for it... 😀

2 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

Beyond Compare is what most people where I work use. There's a Mac version available.

+1 for Beyond Compare.

10 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I haven't gone back through all the responses, but is the EM10iii listed?  It's kinda small'ish. I use it and like it.

Good thought.

It's about the same size and weight as the E-M5 iii (and around half the price used). But the older 16MP sensor, and no PDAF, mic input or C4K either.

5 hours ago, kye said:

Plugging it straight in to a dedicated port on my MBP with their supplied cable, it gets about 850MB/s read and write.  The manufacturer claims 2000MB/s.  My internal SSD gets 1700MB/s write and 2300MB/s read, so the computer probably isn't the bottleneck.

Which version of the MBP have you got?

The internal SSD uses a PCIe interface (as is normal for modern internal SSD). The T9 supports 'USB 3.2 Gen 2x2' (20 Gbps) but your MBP might not support that on its expansion ports. The speed you're getting suggests it's running at 'USB 3.2 Gen 2x1' 10 Gbps connection speed.

My experience with non-OEM camera batteries (from a variety of 'brands') versus OEM ones is:

1. Their usable/useful capacity is usually lower (by maybe 10-20%), irrespective of their nominal capacity as stated by the supplier.

2. The battery indicator accuracy (on the camera screen) is lower.

3. They have higher self-discharge rates (i.e. when they're charged but not being used).

4. Their useful life (number of charge/discharge cycles and age) is lower.

5. The capacity versus cost is way better, so you can buy two or three of them for the cost of one OEM battery.

Beyond the OEM battery included with a camera, I've nearly always bought 'mid-price range' non-OEM batteries (and usually I have three batteries per camera) as they are so much cheaper and I'm not using them day in, day out (or earning a living from them). If I was using them hard I'd buy OEM batteries, other than maybe having a couple of non-OEM ones as an emergency backup.

If I wanted good non-OEM batteries at a reasonable price, I'd probably go for suppliers with a decent reputation in the market to protect and that you might get some after-sales support from e.g. Small Rig, Neewer, Wasabi, Hahnel etc.

But the A6400/6500/6600 have very high rolling shutter in 4k (and not-so-good FHD quality), which has always ruled them out for me.

The recent A6700 with its new sensor, half the rolling shutter time, 10-bit and 4k60p support looks a much better video tool, but it's chunkier, heavier and twice the price of the A6400. But if I were to move away from micro4/3, it would definitely be on my 'serious consideration' list.

1 hour ago, Tim Sewell said:

And that leaves the ZV-1. Great AF, mic input (but no headphones), great IBIS, SLog3 (with usual 8 bit caveats), Hypergammas too, so a good B-cam candidate. Super-stealthy.

It's not IBIS - it has OIS in the lens (standard SteadyShot) plus optional electronic stabilization (active SteadyShot, with a crop). It's very good in 'active' mode, but it's not up with the best stabilization from Oly/OMDS/Panasonic.

(duplicate post)

4 hours ago, kye said:

I'm not familiar with the Olympus lineup at all really, but that E-M5iii seems quite interesting actually.

What are the relative advantages & disadvantages compared to the GX85?  I can see it's more expensive, has a slightly smaller screen, and of course it has PDAF.  If I was to upgrade from the GX85 to it what would I gain and lose?

I've not owned/used an E-M5 iii (played with one a few times), but I have owned the very close relative E-M1 ii, so this is based on using that camera and what I know about the E-M5 iii.

Gains:

MIc input (and better sound from the on-board mics). Better IBIS. No-crop 4k at 25 & 30p plus (excellent) C4K at 24fps (only). Good (IPX1 rated) weather-sealing. OLED viewfinder. All-I 200 Mbps compression option for FHD, otherwise it's max 50 Mbps IPB for FHD, 100 Mbps for 4k and 237 Mbps for C4K (all VBR). Simple/quick switching between stills and movie mode via the 'function lever' on the back. More physical buttons and dials, including a front function button. Lots of control programmability. The 'Super Control Panel' (Oly's equivalent of the Quick Menu) is nice/very useful.

Losses:

It's basically a plastic body (to keep the weight down - it's slightly lighter than the GX85), so maybe doesn't have the more premium feel of the GX85. The FHD video is soft. The video compression isn't as good as Panasonic at similar bitrates. Weak tripod mount. Restricted choice of focus areas in video (compared to stills). The Olympus menu system...(but you get used to it eventually). You can't save several custom video setups (only custom stills setups). If you press the video record button in a 'stills' mode it always uses P mode (irrespective of the current stills settings).

Flip-out screen on E-M5 iii versus tilt on GX85 - a personal preference thing.

4 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

Gotta say the ZV-1 is ticking a lot of boxes.

I thought it might...😉

6 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

The obvious answer would be my GX80, but the sound - as we all know - is abysmal and there's no mic input either, so I'd have to record externally. Will I remember to start recording? Did I mention the tipple situation?

I've had a play about with my EOS m and the newish crop_mood Magic Lantern build. It's an excellent build, but I'm still getting the odd bug-out and since my idea for a film includes vox pops, I just don't feel it's reliable enough.

So option one is GX80 and I'll spend GBP170 on a Zoom F2 for the sound, or I trade in the GX80 for around GBP200, then spend <GBP400 on a different small, interchangeable lens camera that will give me a nice image and an audio input. Question is - what?

It's a bit bigger and heavier than a GX80, but the G80/G85 is basically a GX80 with better IBIS and a mic input (same 16MP sensor, so same 4k crop factor). More expensive (used) but closer in size and weight to the GX80 is the Oly E-M5 iii (this is basically a simplified E-M1 ii in a smaller body, so you get PDAF, great IBIS, a mic input and no-crop 4K).

I'd also agree with Mercer re. the ZV-1 (it's really small and has a mic input).

Comparison of GX80, E-M5 iii and G80/G85 (all fitted with the 12-32mm pancake lens) - https://camerasize.com/compact/#673.397,835.397,689.397,ha,t

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Yeah that's annoying too! I liked the XC10 when I had it. I thought it was a lot of fun to shoot with and it felt like a point and shoot cinema camera but I felt that way about the FZ2500 and the RX10ii as well. All of them had really nice lenses, good internal preamps and decent internal codecs. And you're right, any one would probably be good enough for more than half of the people that read/contribute to this forum.

Every couple months I look to see if there are any new prosumer camcorders on the market. 

I've been round the 'should I buy an FZ2500 or RX10' loop several times over the last few years (to partly or wholly replace my micro43 stuff) but I've never bought one.

The main reasons are the size and weight of them relative to G9 or GX85 plus 14-140mm lens - see below (from the left - GX85+14-140, G9+14-140, FZ2500, RX10iv), and the high quality of the video from the G9 (including 4k50/60p and 4k24/25/30p 10-bit 4:2:2). The GX85 (or GX9) plus 14-140mm combo is noticeably smaller and lighter than the FZ2500 or RX10iv. 

Which option would you choose? 🙂

(and yes, I know the FZ2500 and RX10iv have a longer zoom range than the 14-140mm lens plus power zoom, and the RX10iv has PDAF).

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

I've also seen stuff. Usually, great ideas originate from junior or female managers. Almost always, their ideas are poo-pooed by a senior manager, only to be taken up later with a different "wording" by said senior manager. Classic.

That scenario underpinned the storyline of the excellent 1988 film 'Working Girl', directed by Mike Nichols (of 'The Graduate' fame). One of my favourite movies.

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

I find it amusing they'll start on April first 2024.

I thought that too 🙂

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

I'm fairly sure the GH2 was the camera that started all of this. Once hacked, it was getting comparable results to DVX series of cameras. The shit must have hit the fan at that point. I'm fairly sure, starting from the GH4, they had reps from the pro video division having their say about what becomes "consumer" and what doesn't.

I think that was said (unofficially) at the time, or at least hinted at. Certainly later on Panasonic implied there had been exchanges of technology and development between the consumer and professional video divisions in the GH5 era. None of which is very surprising, really.

No experience of recording to them from a camera directly, but I use a 500GB T7 (non-Shield) at home for video files, and we use several T7 Shield drives at work for daily off-site backups. Performance is good (and doesn't slow down noticeably when they being worked hard and get hotter) and so far they've been reliable, They also seem well built.

10 hours ago, kye said:

My close vision has finally lost its battle with decrepitude and I'm now trying to work out how to proceed.

I can't see the LCD screen to save my life, don't want to wear reading glasses on the point of my nose like an octogenarian (vanity is a virtue, right?), and don't want to use the viewfinder because I don't want people to see me holding a camera up to my face (despite the fact that the EVF adjustment compensates for my vision).

Life is full of challenges....

It's not a 'challenge', degraded close vision is just a very common issue as we get older. Just get your eyes tested at a decent opticians, explain what you need to do, sight-wise, and see what they suggest to fix the issue.

I've been short-sighted (degraded distance vision) since I was a teenager, and now 50 years later I have the usual age-related degraded close vision as well. So I became a wearer of varifocal spectacles at least a decade ago and I think they are great (albeit they are most expensive lens type). The best ones have three 'areas' (if you need it) - distance correction in the upper part, reading/close-up correction in the lower part and mid-distance correction in the middle part e.g. for when using a computer monitor or the instruments when driving. Some people don't adapt well to using them though.

(...and I wouldn't want to "wear reading glasses on the point of my nose" either - it's just not necessary these days when there's so many better choices to correct vision problems).

On 1/1/2024 at 10:37 AM, John Matthews said:

I'd just like to clarify my goal: I want the smallest, lightest kit possible to produce either a good enough 1080p (free of fatal flaws like moiré or aliasing) or 4k image. I'm looking for an equivalent of a super 35 f/2.8 image at around 28mm S35 field of view (around 42mm FF equivalent). I'd like to fit it with a variable ND and CPL filters.

I'd agree with the others that you've already found the best ILC solution.

Personally I don't expect any new very compact ILCs to appear (warmed over stuff like the G100D excepted) - I think that market segment is largely catered for now by small RX100/ZV-1 size 1" sensor compacts plus larger sensor phones. I think it's not that camera manufacturers couldn't do it, more about if there would be enough customers willing to pay a high price for something like a G9 ii sensor and processing sqeezed into a sub-GX80/GX9 size body, with the inevitable limitations on recording times and battery life.

Re. IBIS - I've now sold all my older cameras without it, because I much prefer doing most shooting handheld. I don't like an obvious 'handheld' look (overused sometimes in films and TV), so like Kye I rely on IBIS plus stabilisation in post if necessary. It's mostly why I live with video quality limitations in exchange for IBIS performance on the E-M1 iii and OM-1 (the OG G9 IBIS gets close, has worse AF and better video quality - swings and roundabouts...). The ZV-1 in 'active' SteadyShot mode (OIS + EIS) is quite decent but IMHO not up to E-M1 iii/OM-1 standard - but it is pocket sized after all...

3 hours ago, mercer said:

I must admit that I have been very tempted to try out the ZV-1. I guess if you want to go real cheap, the F version is a possibility as well. I've had a couple RX10ii and I really like Sony's 1" sensor cameras.

Note the F and mk ii versions don't have OIS (only EIS and embedded gyro data for stabilisation in post). It was a major reason I bought the original version recently - I've got used to having good stabilisation on micro 4/3 cameras.