GH5 GH6 and the future of M43

FWIW, one of Panasonic's honchos said in the past that, due to the short flange distance, an internal ND filter is a no-go on the GH/MFT line.
 
DLD said:
FWIW, one of Panasonic's honchos said in the past that, due to the short flange distance, an internal ND filter is a no-go on the GH/MFT line.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is in this video:

Ultimately the question is when can we expect an electronic ND filter in the GH line.
 
Cary Knoop said:
Ultimately the question is when can we expect an electronic ND filter in the GH line.
Click to expand...

Does anybody other than Sony have electronic ND technology ?

This might be something equivalent to Canon's patent on their dual-pixel AF, where nobody else has been able to reproduce it.
 
Clearly there's room in the m4/4 optical path for a ND filter as demonstrated by the AF100, but incorporating a full filter wheel would be too bulky on the diminutive GH body.

Electronic Variable Neutral Density is interesting, but AFAIK the system employed on the Sony FS bodies only allows a minimum strength of -2 Stops, so must be moved out of the optical path when not in use, & replaced by clear filter in order to not throw off the backfocus.
 
I love m4/3. I bought the Olympus E1 on launch and have had most of the native 4/3 and m4/3 lenses that have been made.

I currently own pretty much one of all the Olympus m4/3 lenses, a couple of older lumix primes, almost all the SLR magic primes including the 25mm 0.96 for those complaining about slower lenses. I have the Veydra primes and I even have the MFT mounts for the CP2's.

I own and use the Olympus EM1 mark2 and several Blackmagic MFT mount cameras like the pocket and micro. I use DJI drones and he Osmo as well which also uses the same lenses.

I love MFT because they are small. They are digital version of 16mm. I don't mean in terms of sensor size, I mean in terms of utility. I use them regularly precisiely because the small size means I can get them in places larger cameras don't go.

I'm not really one for speed booting and trying to pimp up a camera. These MFT cameras are great naked and small. Native MFT lenses are equally suited and small. That's what makes them great !

It's all good and well to say buy 135 format lenses but they are going to be at least twice the size, you're rarely going to get wider lenses working and because they have such a large exit pupil hey are a lot more prone to strange internal reflection and flares between the rear of the lens and the sensor.

MFT, unlike Sony E mount is open. There are many MFT camera AND lens manufacturers. E mount is closed and proprietors so only Sony can make e mount cameras.

MFT deserves to have a place for all the times you can't use a s35 or 135 camera.

JB
 
this has been an interesting thread.

thank you for the share.

as someone with a g7 and the kit 14-42mm, lumix 25mm/1.7, lumix 42.5/1.7 & oly 40-150/4-5.6, i have a very full lens kit for less than $800.

this has allowed 4k access along with stills, for clients who like my style and like the mobility of a doc shooter.

i am intrigued by the m43.

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions
 
Last edited:
TheDingo said:
Does anybody other than Sony have electronic ND technology?
Click to expand...

I don't know what Sony uses, but their variable ND behaves exactly like a liquid-crystal panel, even how it only gets so clear and you have to move it out of the way to get totally clear. LCDs dim when you apply voltage, and the example I read years and years ago said that it would always block at least one-and-a-half stops. This was also the case for the Tessive filter, which became the Red Motion Mount, and is also an LCD. Jarred Land himself said he first saw something like it for a welding mask (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...MOTION-MOUNT&p=1181163&viewfull=1#post1181163).

So there is lots of prior art, going back years and years. If anyone was granted a patent for it, that's stupid (but what else is new?).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top