I may be speaking to a small audience on this one, but I cannot contain my momentary excitement, er, relief. For those GM1 shooters who’ve been using Lightroom or ACR, DXO or Silkypix, this news will be of little consequence. For those of us who use Apple’s Aperture, today is a good day. FINALLY (seriously Apple, this camera was announced last Fall and has been in shooters hands for almost 5 months!) Apple has decided to properly support the .RW2 RAW files from the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1.
Along with the GM1, below are the cameras that are now supported in Apple’s most recent Digital Camera RAW Update 5.04:
- Fujifilm X-E2
- Fujifilm X-T1
- Nikon D3300
- Nikon 1 AW1
- Panasonic LUMIX DMC-GM1
- Pentax K-3
If you’re a shooter with any of the above cameras, and use Aperture as your Digital Asset Management software, you can download the new version of Digital Camera RAW v5.04 – HERE or just go to your Software Update and it should be sitting there ready to go.
I will be testing the RAW files from the GM1 shortly and will have an article posted in due time. In the mean time, if you’d like to receive that when it is posted, feel free to enter your email at the top right of the page to subscribe or find me on Facebook or Twitter.
I just checked and I’m surprised that it’s even available for Mountain Lion, unlike what I saw somewhere else which mentioned Mavericks only.
Now, I should go out and buy a new camera body. 😀
Slow and steady I guess 😉
And, yes, I absolutely support your proposed purchase 🙂
Thank you! I need someone to support me. 😀
I wish the new Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens was available now. I want to trade the GH3 and 35-100mm f/2.8 (and 45-200mm f/4.0-5.6) at the same time for the GH4 and 40-150mm f/2.8. Then again, the GH4 isn’t exactly sitting on someone’s shelf yet.
The more I’m researching the GH4, the more I think I could replace some of my full framers for more work. Personally, and in a perfect world, I’d just like to see a 14 bit RAW file and have access to a better array of rectilinear ultra wide angle lenses. With the announcement of the new Rokinon/Samyang lenses, I only wish they’d have provided a 7 or 8mm non-fisheye with good rectilinear correction. I could really use a quality 14 or 16mm lens for my interior work and I think I’d be set.
Keep me posted 🙂
Olympus has a 7-14mm f/2.8 scheduled for next year. I don’t expect it to have a 77mm filter size, but I wouldn’t bet against 67mm or 72mm. The current Four-Thirds version is amazing, but I’m not buying another Four-Thirds lens at this point.
The latest videos on the GH4 still don’t give enough detail about still photography–only that it’s improved. For video, with the YAGH interface, supposedly there is nothing under $25,000 to come close. $3298 vs $25,000? Hmm…
You’re right in that they need to support better, more detailed raw files. They claimed that the dynamic range at base ISO (200?) was better by 1/3 stop but they didn’t mention if that occurred naturally or with iDynamic enabled.
I’d be impressed if the 7.2 frames per second with tracking was actually tracking correctly. 12 frames per second with single AF is amazing.
The Camera Store video, which admittedly is video centric, does give a great idea on the AF speed which sounds insanely fast. He did mention that the EVF seems to have the same issue as the GH3 when moving your eye around (corner blur) which for me isn’t a huge issue practically speaking, but seems odd that they wouldn’t address it. With the dynamic range, I’d guess we’ll see some DXO results soonish which will at least help us onlookers compare apples to apples in regards to the other micro 4/3 sensors, but yes, that 4K price point is nuts, nay game changing I’d say, even for those of us that wouldn’t know what to do with it… 🙂
I’m only really concerned about the viewfinder’s blackout when I’m wearing sunglasses. I’ve adapted to shooting blindly because I have the muscle memory from using the dSLRs, and it generally works out but I would rather be able to see. Somewhere, Panasonic mentioned the use of aspherical elements in the viewfinder to counteract problems and the contrast ratio of 10,000:1 and the enhanced eye cup but why couldn’t they just look at Olympus’ E-M1? I suspect that would have made it $1999.99.