Activity - ChrisV

It's a bit surprising you omit the feature of hand held 100Mp still images. It's a very video-centric camera, but that's a unique and salient feature for stills shooters. While some of the Sonys are able to produce larger images, that's only on a tripod and no other manufacture seems to be able to mitigate motion in the resultant combined images nearly so well.

As to the cons. Yes it's a very large and heavy camera for the format. But not if you want those high end [and air cooled] video features and the superb ergonomics. I haven't got this camera, but going on my G9 and prior GH iterations those are among the best and they are very customisable so you can set them up to your own preference to avoid inadvertent selections.

Speaking of the video features, you mention the dual cards as a positive but the cost of the CFexpress cards as a negative. But you couldn't achieve the highest bitrates of the more demanding video formats without the speed of CFExpress. You can't have cake+eat.

You don't however mention the continued use of contrast AF as a con. If you don't use AF in video or shoot sports it perhaps isn't, but if you do it's certainly worth taking into consideration.

The array of features in the GH6 is vast and I realise it would be impossible to be absolutely comprehensive in the scope of an ePhotozine review.

This isn't a perfect camera [there doesn't exist such a thing] - I'm just not sure you've struck the right balance of features versus pitfalls.

Thanks - I see it now, Martin. I think the wide angle has compressed that area in the photo, the impression you get when there is that it's larger.

I was there a few weeks back in brilliant sunshine - I think it's described as the 'only end of the pier theatre'. Not sure about that claim, but it certainly has charm and you've captured that in an altogether different mood.

Congratlulations Martin - a lovely shot. Is that Cromer pier?

It looks a bit different now, with the area in front of the theatre occupied by enclosed seating, or am I completely off?

That's a useful article, Stuart - I'm sure it's a very common problem for home studio photographers. I bought a kit with three non-woven backdrops and it does look like I won't get any use out of any of them - pretty much impossible to get rid of the creases and ironing is either not effective, or as you've observed, melts or shines the material [and still doesn't erase the creases]!

Ordinary linen just won't lie flat for long and the white sheets dirty in no time. I'll look out for the microfibre in your recommendation - I'm trying to find a decent full-figure green-screen.

Iirc Nikon 'gave us' ISO 1.6 million a couple of years or so back with the D500 [and 3.2m with the D5]. I think they talk about 'surveillance use' for the ultra high ISOs. Perhaps someone has heard of someone actually using a several grand camera for surveillance?

In any case it's the sort of image produced where if you examine it forensically you can possibly determine it's a man rather than a dog in the foreground.

If that's the headline feature here, Ricoh/Pentax are in real trouble. At this price it needs to be able to compete at every level [including subject tracking and video, which have always been weaknesses for Pentax] with the very best of APSc rivals.

I owned a Pentax in the dim and distant past and thought it was superb ergonomically, but the marque seems more recently to have competed on value and [at one time] being the only mirrored camera to offer IBIS. I hope there's something more compelling than appears at face value, because I would like them to survive, if only to offer more consumer choice and competition.

Having compared the R6 against tests of other marques at higher ISOs it does appear to be competitive in terms of performance. I don't know what's going on with the images in this review - perhaps noise reduction was set to high - a massive amount of detail seems to be smeared away at ISO25600.

As for the term 'usable' that's a pretty moveable feast isn't it? You could argue the preposterous ISO 3m+ output from the Nikon flagships is usable for certain applications, but they're the sort of 'image' you could arrive at by taking an underexposed image captured at ISO 12800 and banging on the equivalent number of exposure boost in Photoshop. The main aim being to claim bagging rights for maximum sensitivity when it really is of no practical value.

Doing the comparisons it did shock me a little that the size for size output R6 to Panasonic G9 [which has only a quarter of the sensor area] the difference in performance was only a bit over one stop rather than the two you would expect. The full frame S Panasonic possibly opened up slightly more of a gap, but not by much. I'm not sure what to take from that - IBIS in the smaller format seems a tad more effective too which lessens the difference further in the right circumstances. Perhaps there are slightly more gains to be made in the larger format, noise wise? There is of course the advantage of more dynamic range and more effective subject isolation control at the trickier close quarters photography.

Quote:Noise performance is particularly impressive, with the camera retaining detail in images, even as the ISO speed increases.


Really? You describe the images at ISO 25,600 and perhaps even 51,200 as 'usable'. They might be usable for web, or small prints, but in the samples you've published [including the colour charts] detail is as smeary as a not particularly good smartphone image. I think it's a pretty disappointing performance - I'd like to see how it stacks up against other marques. 'Impressive' is not the word that readily springs to mind.

You don’t mention the Tamron 75-180 for mirrorless (Sony) In the alternatives. A surprising omission as you’ve reviewed it relatively recently and it’s there to give a bit of perspective on third party pricing.

This does seem a superb lens (but then again this class of lens has always tended toward outstanding results). It’s a bit frustrating Nikon supplied one of their lower resolution FF bodies when surely a more revealing test of its capabilities would be with paired with a Z7?

It seems strange to publish charts which don’t give an accurate indication of sharpness. It begs the question why present them at all if the data they’re presenting is at best misleading? What’s the point?

You don’t mention it, but I think the IBIS is actually electronic (hence the crop) and doesn’t work at all in stills mode. I’m still tempted by this (once the price comes down a bit) as a replacement for my GM5. The evf looks a real winner and it does have a newer 20mp sensor. Shame about the lack of real IBIS and also the very slow flash sync the electronic curtain necessitates, but that’s the price of such a small body. You mention the G90 as an alternative, but the G9 is now in a similar price bracket and that’s a camera which represents probably the best of Panasonic in MfT - a real bargain at its current price, particularly now it will match the GH5s high bitrate video capture. It’s big of course, (which is the sole reason this camera tempts me as a stealth alternative), but it’s also possibly the most superbly handling camera I’ve ever owned.

I think the R5’s probably the first Canon since the 5DII that looks like it’s ahead of the pack in technology terms after arguably lagging behind for quite a while. Expectedly high price tag, but they’ve been steadily creeping up across the industry. Quite an exciting prospect.

Looks like this is based on the Sony FE design. Would be interesting to compare between the marques - the Sony of course benefitting from IBIS, so there’s and obvious immediate advantage there.

Thanks John. Sounds like a very modest extension. Given that’s acceptable on standard zooms I can’t see why that should be a deal breaker for medium telephoto range.

So am I right in thinking the zoom is not internal?

Having recently acquired a 7rii this is a lens I may consider in future (I’m currently using a mix including adapted EF 70-200 f2.8, which is front-heavy and gives mixed results). It would be useful to know the dimensions including extended.

As most lenses on ePhotozine get a minimum of 4.5/5, I’d equivalence (see what I did there?) a 4 on here as 2 - pretty damning. I’’ve little doubt it’s sharp wide open (most mft lenses are, as noted they suffer more really closed down) and it performs well otherwise. Oly Pro lenses are well constructed, but I’m very wary of the mount. I dropped my 12-40 f2.8 from about 3ft on a hard floor and it sheered off. Not a mark on the camera (a GX80).

But six hundred quid for an f4 lens particularly for this format is absolutely outrageous. Especially at the wide end you’re only going to get subject isolation on very small objects. If you’re not the sort of photographer that worries, OK, but most would expect that facility in a ‘Pro’ lens. There’s also the issue of being able to double the amount of light potential with an f2.8 optic.

My go to standard zoom for the format is now the PanaLumix 12-60. Not a constant aperture, but a stop faster wide and f4 at 60mm - which is usefully a lot longer. I think it’s still too expensive for what it is (at around the same price as this), but apart from the physical size and a tad more weight, it has the Olympus best into a cocked hat. I know Olympus are struggling to make a profit and I’d hate to see them fall, but their pricing strategy means I for one have little interest in their products at rrp.

When you can buy and EM1 mk2 for less, how can this be considered to be good value for money? Similar consideration between the G90/G9 at the time of release of the mid range Panasonic. Just makes little sense.

Quote:If you look at the lens chart, could anyone find fault with such performance? At this level of performance any photograph made would need to be made on a very sturdy tripod and carefully controlled conditions to extract the maximum resolution - hand held even at high shutter speeds wouldn't cut it since the tiniest blur from movement would compromise resolution.

Lenses like this are mainly made to provoke these "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" discussions. No normal photographer has any practical use for them and no normal display media can do them justice. In practise, who needs or wants this level of sharpness?

The surest sign of the failure of a picture is if someone remarks how sharp it is


You have a point (about steadiness). Bizarrely the shot I’m talking about was f16 at 1/50. So I think perhaps a little diffraction and a fair bit of motion blur/ camera shake (although there is IBIS). Which begs the question - why those settings? What was John setting out to demonstrate? Wouldn’t f4/ 1/400 be likely to get a lot more out of the combination?

5/ whether or not to rely on information provided by someone who thinks 4K resolution is the same as 4 megapixels.

Quote:
Quote:I think all the areas I was talking about are at or near infinity - certainly the plate on the side of the hall should be in the target subject area.
Not sure about the level of magnification as I zoomed in - I was viewing on an iPad Pro which is about 4 megapixels. I suppose it is possible I was zooming greater than 100% (there’s no indicator of the zoom ratio)..


When you zoom in on a monitor you change the effective circle of confusion and reduce effective depth of field.


But as I said Len, the plate I was talking about was fixed to the front wall of the hall that was the main subject of the photo, so one would assume at or very near the focus hotspot. That being at or near infinity. It wasn’t wide open either so we’re not talking super shallow DoF. Nothing else looked notably sharper in any case.

I think all the areas I was talking about are at or near infinity - certainly the plate on the side of the hall should be in the target subject area.

Not sue about the level of magnification as I zoomed in - I was viewing on an iPad Pro which is about 4 megapixels. I suppose it is possible I was zooming greater than 100% (there’s no indicator of the zoom ratio). But I wasn’t seeing pixels- just fuzziness. I suppose it would need perfect technique to properly judge the resolving power of the combo from these samples.

Not sure why you’d shoot all the night photos at ISO 1600 - particularly when using unecessarily high shutter speeds. Viewed in high res there’s a lot of noise which seems to defeat the object of such a lens for that type of photography. I’m also not seeing an astonishing amount of detail in the hall shots. I was expecting to be able to read small text on the wall plate and parked van. The larger type was readable, but I was really anticipating being able to discern the smaller writing when magnified. Am I expecting too much from such a combination? £10k would leave me wanting more...

The usual honest, no-nonsense and very practical advice from Lemmy. I've recently bought the 16 f1.4 and it's spent a lot of time on the front of my G9.

It isn't just that it's a good lens that gives opportunity for subject isolation at a moderately wide AoV - it's also the fact that it throws into sharp relief the pricing strategies of the OEMs on their 'premium' ranges.

I'm sure Sigma are making a profit on these optics. The 16 isn't a small lens, but there's little else to complain about. If I didn't own the Leica 25, I'd almost certainly be looking at buying the 30. The 56... it's just a bit long for the format - although I'm sure it would make an extremely good slightly long portrait lens, but again I have that covered too and don't need the ultra-shallow DoF the Sigma would no doubt afford.

4k is also as much a negative as a positive. You're getting a [Canon] APSc crop which means the quality will be no better than the smaller format and will be [very] difficult to shoot even moderately wide. This is however a problem that seems common with Canon 35mm format cameras. It's a shame because by all accounts the dual pixel AF is among the best for video AF.

So I don't think the crop is a deliberate hobbling of the camera. You do expect them to cut corners at the price point, but their habit of deliberately restricting some shooting parameters is frustrating.

This should have been a camera I might consider as I'd be able to get some extra use out of my L lenses. But personally I think at the Sony A7RII, which you can now pick up for around this price point, is vastly superior in almost every way.

Not really a hands on, is it?

I just learned this isn't a zoom lens at all in the commonly understood way. Instead of selecting any angle of view within its range it is limited to increments which equivalence 20, 24, 28, 35 and 50mm in FF format. Talking of equivalence, in terms of total light gathered and depth of field characteristic, it's equivalent to that larger format at a constant maximum aperture of f3.3. Yep, the greatest scope for subject isolation will be like a 50mm prime at f3.3.

It looks like a pretty big chunk of glass to me - and my bet is it will be staggeringly expensive - somewhere between £1500-£2000 at a guess.

To put that in perspective, right now you can buy a Sigma 18-35 f1.8, stick a speed booster on it and wind up with a zoom range lens roughly 25.5-50mm f2.5 equivalent. Buy wisely and you can get that for under a grand. If Sigma + Metabones/Viltrox can achieve that, albeit with considerable weight, why can't Panasonic?

Thanks Josh - it does resemble the G9 a hell of a lot (no bad thing - probably the best of the good Panasonic designs to date). What are your impressions/instincts on the lens speed?

Can you confirm it’s close to a G9 body with a bigger mount? The 24-105 looks reasonably compact. I’m betting a constant f4 or perhaps even something like f3.5-5.6. Any indications? I imagine the rubber surfacing is not the finished article either.

£ for $ pricing (it’s still steep even accounting for VAT). That’s on the predictably high price to start with against the competition. I was awaiting this announcement as I already have some Canon glass, but lack of ibis and the crazy video crop are pretty much deal breakers.

Might well buy a Sony in the near future.

I think DPR is saying face detect, but not eye detect. Which is correct?

It does look like it will be a lot of the things I was hoping for. Prices are higher than those leaked yesterday, but more in line with my expectations - apart from the lenses, which do seem to be on the high side - but that does seem to be the way the industry in general is regrettably, going.

Two surprising disappointments - the single card slot and the woeful battery life. It's a big unit - why is it only in line with the sort of performance mirrorless cameras typically get out of the smaller cells. The bigger batteries are usually rated at over double the life of these.

I wonder if Nikon has work to do on optimising their electronic systems? I would have thought the top plate LCD [with the rear kept off] would help to extend shooting time - it's something I've argued for for a number of years and was pleased to see starting to be implemented.

Just a slight amendment, you say:


Quote:The electronic viewfinder features a high-resolution of 2370K dots and a good magnification size of 0.73x. We found it provided a clear view and good colour reproduction.


But as you quote in the specs it's "EVF, 2760K dot". Except it isn't quite - it's 2760 dot equivalent because it's one of those annoying field-sequential EVFs Panasonic sometimes uses when cutting corners, so that what you get is 920 dots of red green and blue shown in rapid succession. It bothers some more than others, but it's worth knowing and worth checking how well you get on with it.

Another major disappointment is the crop in 4k mode, which unlike the ones for multi-aspect ratio, uses an [even] smaller portion of the sensor which doesn't preserve the AoV of the lens. This is the same for video and 4k stills/sequence shooting, which both knocks out your wide angle and will have a correspondingly deleterious impact on low-light performance.

It's still a great little camera and it's a slight shame Panasonic made these compromises to what is still possibly the best 'compact' camera on the market.

Terrific PF. I'm green.

Lovely portfolio George.

Very impressive portfolio, Ade. I missed the mod you took the time to upload on one of my shots, but I wanted to thank you for that.

It's especially appreciated when it comes from someone who is obviously so good at this game...