World's smallest DSLM that shoots 4k?

[ac6000cw]

5 hours ago, kye said:

Does anyone have all these bits and can give a more definite answer?

I've got the Pana 12-32, 14-42 (non-pancake) and 14-42 PZ lenses, plus the Oly 14-42 EZ (power zoom) lens. No LX10 (or GX800 anymore), but my ZV-1 might be an interesting size comparison.

I'll take some photos of the extended lenses on my GX80 with a ruler alongside.

Note that of the pancake lenses, only the Oly has a focus ring, but it doesn't have any OIS - swings and roundabouts...

[John Matthews]

7 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

Note that of the pancake lenses, only the Oly has a focus ring, but it doesn't have any OIS - swings and roundabouts...

I agree that the only usable MF (focus while filming) is on the Olympus 14-42 EZ, but no OIS as you said. The Panasonic 14-42 PZ is the next best with a silly MF lever. I've had all three lenses though and never thought of trying to manual focus one after the other- could be an interesting comparison.

[ac6000cw]

46 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

I've had all three lenses though and never thought of trying to manual focus one after the other- could be an interesting comparison.

I think Pana versus Oly/OMDS lenses having zoom rings that operate in opposite directions is really annoying...

Anyway, here are pics of the Pana 12-32, 14-42 PZ, 14-42 kit and Oly 14-42 EZ on my GX80 (all with filters on the front), with the zoom set to give maximum lens length (which was max wide on the Pana and max tele on the Oly - minimum lens length was in the mid zoom range). Also the ZV-1 set to maximum lens length, and a GX80+Oly14-42 and ZV-1 side-by-side. Note the 10cm mark on the ruler is approx. aligned to the front of the body, so the all the lens lengths are between 55mm and 60mm i.e. around the same...

(The ZV-1 has a JJC filter adaptor stuck to the front of the lens tube - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07GWQ6CXL )

[kye]

9 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

Anyway, here are pics of the Pana 12-32, 14-42 PZ, 14-42 kit and Oly 14-42 EZ on my GX80 (all with filters on the front), with the zoom set to give maximum lens length (which was max wide on the Pana and max tele on the Oly - minimum lens length was in the mid zoom range). Also the ZV-1 set to maximum lens length, and a GX80+Oly14-42 and ZV-1 side-by-side. Note the 10cm mark on the ruler is approx. aligned to the front of the body, so the all the lens lengths are between 55mm and 60mm i.e. around the same...

Thanks for sharing those pics, that's useful.

Here is a rough estimate for each camera then..  estimating from your pics and from the images I compiled:

• GX85 with pancake lens - 12cm wide x 10-12cm long
• GX850 with pancake lens - 11cm wide x 9-11cm long
• ZV-1 - 11cm wide x 10cm long
• LX10 - 11cm wide x 9cm long

Interesting that the GX85 with 2.6-3x zoom lens is only 2-3cm longer than the LX10, which is the smallest of the bunch, despite the fact that the GX85 has a much larger sensor and has IBIS and an EVF.

Considering that the size while off doesn't matter to me that much and that the stabilisation is so critical, the fact I can get Dual IS on the 12-32mm really makes a difference when doing walking shots, which is a lot of the shots I take.

Even if I add the 12-35mm F2.8 lens, the GX85 only grows to 10cm at the wide end and 14cm at the long end, including the body, so although the lens is hugely fatter, it's not much larger and might even look less like a telephoto to causal bystanders (and might even look older / less modern and therefore less threatening because it's fatter).

I think I'm talking myself out of wanting an LX10 or GX850.  I did really like the auto-everything / no-controls-just-shoot-creatively aspect of my GF3 though, so the GX850 would provide that same experience but with dramatically higher resolution images.  It's a different kind of shooting really, maybe that's how I should look at it.

I watched this yesterday and was absolutely stunned at how great it was - you can tell the guy is a professional cinematographer..  still, many of the images could be captured at 90-95% with a small camera.

The more I see edits like this, the more I am reminded it's about composition and lighting and (in the absence of skill like the above) just shooting more so that you have a greater chance of getting lucky.

I guess that's potentially a theme for this whole thread.  Smaller camera = shooting more = more options and more variety = more options in the edit = better edits.

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, kye said:

Smaller camera = shooting more = more options and more variety = more options in the edit = better edits

Or ANY camera you will just either pick up more or even have with you at all times ie, ‘EDC’.

Which is why something like the Fuji X100 series or Ricoh GR are just so popular, - big quality out of a small package, but perhaps more importantly, fun to have and use.

On that note, the Ricoh GR3x is ticking the most boxes for me right now based on only really interested in stills only, pocket-ability and love the 40mm focal length.

[kye]

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Or ANY camera you will just either pick up more or even have with you at all times ie, ‘EDC’.

Which is why something like the Fuji X100 series or Ricoh GR are just so popular, - big quality out of a small package, but perhaps more importantly, fun to have and use.

On that note, the Ricoh GR3x is ticking the most boxes for me right now based on only really interested in stills only, pocket-ability and love the 40mm focal length.

I took my GF3 around Europe and into the US and shot using only the kit lens and the 14/2.5, mostly on full-auto, and with RAW images I was basically never disappointed.  The only thing that I missed was the look of Canon colour science, so I bought a 700D after that and really liked the images from it, but the additional size would have made me question if I would take it travelling.

The best images I took were enabled almost exclusively because I was shooting fast, thinking creatively, and going mostly un-noticed - which are all direct results of having a small automatic camera.

When I was first learning video I was absolutely stunned by how fragile and, frankly, crap the video from mega-dollar prosumer cameras was in comparison to the RAW still images from an ultra-budget pocket camera.  If I was still shooting stills I would have on from discussing equipment probably a decade ago.

[MrSMW]

I have flip flopped so many times over the last...well, 6-7 years at least, between the best camera I have on me, ie, my phone and any/everything else.

I always feel a little disappointed not so much with the end result, but the quality of the end result using the phone but even more, a little guilty as a full-time pro photographer, I am using such a thing in the first place.

At the same time, our annual photo books have suffered by not having an 'ECD' compact camera.

I was thinking/hoping that my recently acquired Nikon ZF might fulfil this role, but the reality is, it's too big, even with a small lens. It really is a decision to 'take a camera' whereas there is that 'magic' size which if you do not go above, removes the question and you just stick it in your pocket as you walk out the door because it actually does fit in your pocket.

I also appreciate the flexibility of a zoom, but prefer that purity of a fixed lens.

The X100 series are all too big for this IMO. I love them, but not pocketable at all other than a jacket and my definition of pocket is a jeans trouser/pants pocket, so it's out.

Had the Sony ZX1 and RX100v and both great, but just a little too 'fiddly'.

I keep circling back to the GR3x as I have done since it came out as the 'sweet spot' in everything really, ie, 'big' sensor in a tiny body at my most used focal length and one for the purpose I have the requirement for.

But not this year... Just bought the final piece of the puzzle (a lens) for my work needs and it's a pretty tight year financially with an extra large tax bill plus a re-roofing the house job which combined are sucking up every bit of excess cash. And then some.

So maybe next year. Or by then, my iPhone 13 Pro might need replacing and some of the latest, never mind future, multi-lens phones could sway me...

[ac6000cw]

8 hours ago, kye said:

Here is a rough estimate for each camera then..  estimating from your pics and from the images I compiled:

• GX85 with pancake lens - 12cm wide x 10-12cm long
• GX850 with pancake lens - 11cm wide x 9-11cm long
• ZV-1 - 11cm wide x 10cm long
• LX10 - 11cm wide x 9cm long

Interesting that the GX85 with 2.6-3x zoom lens is only 2-3cm longer than the LX10, which is the smallest of the bunch, despite the fact that the GX85 has a much larger sensor and has IBIS and an EVF.

Considering that the size while off doesn't matter to me that much and that the stabilisation is so critical, the fact I can get Dual IS on the 12-32mm really makes a difference when doing walking shots, which is a lot of the shots I take.

Even if I add the 12-35mm F2.8 lens, the GX85 only grows to 10cm at the wide end and 14cm at the long end, including the body, so although the lens is hugely fatter, it's not much larger and might even look less like a telephoto to causal bystanders (and might even look older / less modern and therefore less threatening because it's fatter).

I think I'm talking myself out of wanting an LX10 or GX850.  I did really like the auto-everything / no-controls-just-shoot-creatively aspect of my GF3 though, so the GX850 would provide that same experience but with dramatically higher resolution images.  It's a different kind of shooting really, maybe that's how I should look at it.

If you're not so bothered about the lens length when the camera is off, I'd seriously consider the non-pancake 14-42mm 'Mk ii' kit lens (the H-FS1442A, in the 3rd photo). The change in length over the zoom range is only about 10mm, it's got proper zoom and focus rings, supports dual-IS (with FW 1.1 installed) and is cheap used.

8 hours ago, kye said:

Interesting that the GX85 with 2.6-3x zoom lens is only 2-3cm longer than the LX10, which is the smallest of the bunch, despite the fact that the GX85 has a much larger sensor and has IBIS and an EVF.

Yes it's quite hard to beat the combination of size, performance and flexibility the GX85 (or GX9) offers. Main reason I bought a ZV-1 was to get a compact camera with better audio - versus the GX85 it has much better sound quality from the on-board mics plus a 3.5mm mic input.

But otherwise the GX85 is nicer to use, and paired with say the Pana 14-140mm becomes super-zoom travel cam, which is smaller than 1" sensor cams like the FZ1000/FZ2000/RX10. Which is the main reason I still own one...

[kye]

6 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

If you're not so bothered about the lens length when the camera is off, I'd seriously consider the non-pancake 14-42mm 'Mk ii' kit lens (the H-FS1442A, in the 3rd photo). The change in length over the zoom range is only about 10mm, it's got proper zoom and focus rings, supports dual-IS (with FW 1.1 installed) and is cheap used.

I own the original version of that 14-42mm kit lens, but I also own the 12-35mm f2.8 lens, and it's only larger at full extension by about the thickness of a lens filter and is slightly fatter, but it's also 1-2 stops faster, which matters on these single ISO MFT cameras if you're walking around at night.

In reviewing my footage from previous trips I concluded that in reasonably well lit exteriors (like outdoor shopping malls) my main iPhone 12 camera is fine (it's got similar noise to GX85/GH5 with a F2.8 lens) but the iPhone 12 wide rear camera has the noise performance of the GX85/GH5 with an F8 lens, and the footage was so noisy it was hard for me to use on my home video edit.  So if I'm going to potentially be in less-well-lit interiors or anywhere at night, I'd appreciate the F2.8, and with the GX85 you can always crop in post on a 1080p timeline to get the slight extra reach.

12 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

Yes it's quite hard to beat the combination of size, performance and flexibility the GX85 (or GX9) offers. Main reason I bought a ZV-1 was to get a compact camera with better audio - versus the GX85 it has much better sound quality from the on-board mics plus a 3.5mm mic input.

I haven't really had an issue with the internal audio of the GX85, but I mostly use the camera audio as ambience and have music over the top.  Of course now we have these AI tools in post it's easy enough to clean up a voice if someone says something I want to put in the final edit.  If you haven't seen them, they're absolutely stunning.

A mic input changes everything, of course, including radically altering the camera size and conspicuousness, unless you are running a lav to it, but even then, having even "a touch of the Borg" attracts attention.  The general public are very vigilant against assimilation - oddly even including those that never watched Star Trek. 

13 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

But otherwise the GX85 is nicer to use, and paired with say the Pana 14-140mm becomes super-zoom travel cam, which is smaller than 1" sensor cams like the FZ1000/FZ2000/RX10. Which is the main reason I still own one...

I definitely agree that the 14-140mm would make a great option.  I only do a few trips a year and so think carefully in preparation for them.  

My current thinking is this:

Full tourist mode is the GX85 and OG BM camera setup, and is where I don't care about weight and want the ultimate options:

• GX85 + 14-140mm for walking-around during the day
• GX85 + 12-35mm for walking-around well-lit places at night
• GX85 + primes for less-well-lit places at night
• BM for high-DR situations where I have time to manually expose and shoot (lookouts at sunset, for example..  these are strangely frequent on my holidays 🙂 )
• Equipment:
  • GX85 + 14-140mm
  • P2K or M2K with 12-35mm F2.8
  • Primes: 7.5mm F2, 14mm F2.5, 17mm F1.4, 58mm F2 with SB
• This all fits into a camera insert inside a generic backpack

Stealth tourist mode is the GX85 and is where I want to be stealthy and shoot quickly:

• GX85 + 14-140mm for walking-around during the day
• GX85 + 12-35mm for walking-around well-lit places at night
• This fits into a sling bag, which are now fashionable, how convenient!

Non-tourist mode is the GX85 and 12-32mm zoom (and maybe the 14mm F2.5 if it'll get dark) slipped into a jacket pocket.  If I'm travelling this is what I would take if I was leaving the hotel but didn't want to take a bag.

I don't own the 14-140mm or 12-32mm lenses currently, but assuming my thinking doesn't change in the interim, I'll buy these in preparation for our next trip.

I ended up shooting a lot with the GX85 and 14mm F2.5 in South Korea (almost exactly a year ago) and got a lot of great shots with the combo, and I really liked the size even though I took a backpack almost everywhere due to being in full tourist mode.  I've shared some images from this combo before in other threads but happy to re-post if you haven't seen them.

[kye]

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I have flip flopped so many times over the last...well, 6-7 years at least, between the best camera I have on me, ie, my phone and any/everything else.

I always feel a little disappointed not so much with the end result, but the quality of the end result using the phone but even more, a little guilty as a full-time pro photographer, I am using such a thing in the first place.

At the same time, our annual photo books have suffered by not having an 'ECD' compact camera.

My friend takes stills of his family holidays and has an ancient relic (IIRC it's a Canon 30D?) that he would always take with him.  He is a minimalist and was sick of hauling it around so did his first overseas trip without it and used his iPhone 5 (current at the time).  He took a bunch of photos on the trip, but when I asked him about it his thinking wasn't clear.  On his next trip he took an updated iPhone (maybe an 8?) and took lots of photos again, but still didn't have clear thinking about it.
It was only several years later that he had a good reply, he said "The photos look fine but I realised that I never felt compelled to print and hang any of the photos from it".  He still can't define what it is, but something is missing for him.  I've looked at the prints he's got hanging in his house and the difference isn't obvious - it's not like his prints have shallow DOF or anything, they just have this timeless sort of look about them, and his iPhone pics all look like iPhone pics (unsurprisingly).

Even the RAW stills from my GF3 from 2011 don't look like iPhone pics, even the current ones.  It might be a matter of blurring the iPhone images a bit, and toning down the strong saturation and contrast, who knows, but maybe they'll get over that hurdle soon.  Maybe they already have - I still have an iPhone 12 mini and don't use the stills in my creative work.

TBH it's probably the "everything is awesome!!" processing that Apple do to their images.  Maybe the RAW images off the sensor are fine.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, kye said:

TBH it's probably the "everything is awesome!!" processing that Apple do to their images.  Maybe the RAW images off the sensor are fine.

I think this is about the sum of it, at least from the ‘quality’ side of things.

I think raw only came to iPhone with the 12, but could be wrong and for me as someone who only shoots raw, probably part of my personal ‘disconnect’ from photography using my phone as in I have not been using it’s full potential.

Also, whilst I don’t need to be in ‘full on pro mode’ all the time (when not actually working), I probably need to get out of ‘point & click phone mode’ when using my phone and use it more like a camera. If that makes sense?

Something I probably need to explore…

 

 

[ac6000cw]

22 hours ago, kye said:

Non-tourist mode is the GX85 and 12-32mm zoom (and maybe the 14mm F2.5 if it'll get dark) slipped into a jacket pocket.  If I'm travelling this is what I would take if I was leaving the hotel but didn't want to take a bag.

I don't own the 14-140mm or 12-32mm lenses currently, but assuming my thinking doesn't change in the interim, I'll buy these in preparation for our next trip.

I ended up shooting a lot with the GX85 and 14mm F2.5 in South Korea (almost exactly a year ago) and got a lot of great shots with the combo, and I really liked the size even though I took a backpack almost everywhere due to being in full tourist mode.  I've shared some images from this combo before in other threads but happy to re-post if you haven't seen them.

My combo is usually the 14-140mm plus 25mm F1.8.

On my last 'serious' trip (almost two weeks of railway video/stills photography in Southern California), I took a G9 + 14-140mm + 25mm F1.8 (for low light), used hand-held, with G80 + 12-32mm used as an occasional tripod-mounted 'B' cam. I took the G80 instead of the (smaller) GX80 because it has a mic jack.

If I were doing a similar trip now I think it would be OM-1 (main) and ZV-1 (B-cam), but lens choice for the OM-1 would be harder as I recently bought a used Oly 12-100mm F4 IS Pro. It's much larger and heavier than the 14-140mm Pana, but it supports Sync-IS on Oly/OMDS bodies and the overall stabilisation performance is fantastic.

If you buy a used Pana 14-140mm F3.5-F5.6, be careful about which version you are getting. Panasonic sold the Mk 1 version (H-FS14140) in two different markings - white, gold and red 'HD' lettering (earlier lenses) or all white lettering (later lenses). Then they updated it to the Mk 2 (H-FSA14140) with weather sealing and all white lettering. AFAIK all are optically the same, and support Dual-IS and Dual-IS2. I've come across dealers who've mixed up the white-lettered later Mk 1 and the Mk 2 versions in their used listings...

[John Matthews]

20 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

My combo is usually the 14-140mm plus 25mm F1.8.

On my last 'serious' trip (almost two weeks of railway video/stills photography in Southern California), I took a G9 + 14-140mm + 25mm F1.8 (for low light), used hand-held, with G80 + 12-32mm used as an occasional tripod-mounted 'B' cam. I took the G80 instead of the (smaller) GX80 because it has a mic jack.

If I were doing a similar trip now I think it would be OM-1 (main) and ZV-1 (B-cam), but lens choice for the OM-1 would be harder as I recently bought a used Oly 12-100mm F4 IS Pro. It's much larger and heavier than the 14-140mm Pana, but it supports Sync-IS on Oly/OMDS bodies and the overall stabilisation performance is fantastic.

If you buy a used Pana 14-140mm F3.5-F5.6, be careful about which version you are getting. Panasonic sold the Mk 1 version (H-FS14140) in two different markings - white, gold and red 'HD' lettering (earlier lenses) or all white lettering (later lenses). Then they updated it to the Mk 2 (H-FSA14140) with weather sealing and all white lettering. AFAIK all are optically the same, and support Dual-IS and Dual-IS2. I've come across dealers who've mixed up the white-lettered later Mk 1 and the Mk 2 versions in their used listings...

The 14-140 is definitely on my short list. I think I might go with the 17mm f/1.8 for indoor stuff/low-light.

[ac6000cw]

16 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I think I might go with the 17mm f/1.8 for indoor stuff/low-light.

I'm thinking about replacing my old Pana 20mm F1.7 (with slow and noisy AF) with the Oly 17mm F1.8. I find I commonly use around 18mm as a focal length on zoom lenses, so having a fast (and quiet) prime at that length makes sense for me.

[kye]

57 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

I'm thinking about replacing my old Pana 20mm F1.7 (with slow and noisy AF) with the Oly 17mm F1.8. I find I commonly use around 18mm as a focal length on zoom lenses, so having a fast (and quiet) prime at that length makes sense for me.

When I saw Johns post I did a little searching to see if there were other faster options around the 17mm mark..  just for curiosity here are all the options I could find:

• Sigma 16mm F1.4 (large)
• Oly 17mm F1.2 (large)
• Voigtlander 17.5 F0.95 (MF)
• Panny 15mm F1.7
• TTartisans 17mm F1.4 (MF)
• Mitakon Zhongyi 17mm F0.95 (MF)
• Laowa 17mm f/1.8 (MF)

I'm guessing that if you care about having a small AF lens then there aren't that many options, but lots of people have had a go in that FOV range!

[John Matthews]

3 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

I'm thinking about replacing my old Pana 20mm F1.7 (with slow and noisy AF) with the Oly 17mm F1.8. I find I commonly use around 18mm as a focal length on zoom lenses, so having a fast (and quiet) prime at that length makes sense for me.

If size is the utmost importance, I'd just stick with the 20mm. Yes, the AF is a pain 1-3% of the time, but you can live with it. I got rid of two of them and I regret it today. I love the Olympus 17 f/1.8, but it is just slightly bigger.  Otherwise, I'm fine with the 14mm f/2.5. If size isn't important, I have the 17mm f/1.2 and I find it a true gem...

[kye]

Last night I went around town with the GX85 and 12-35mm F2.8 testing if F2.8 was fast enough for "well lit" places at night.  Turns out it was fine, and most scenes were at ISO 400-1600 with a 360 shutter, but unexpectedly, DR was a challenge.  I posted about it in my other thread, so I didn't dilute this one too much. There's sample pics over there too.

Obviously the low-light performance of the camera makes a difference, and some might not be wanting to be shooting at ISO 3200.  From that perspective, the F1.7-1.8 lenses being mentioned seem like a great aperture - not so much as to make the lens huge but not so little that quality suffers.