meanwhile: Looks impressive.
They had time to incorporate a touch screen, and they should have. Even if it's only function is touch to focus, that would be fine.
benny_wong, The touchscreen also fires the shutter on other cameras with this feature. You don't need three hands or whatever you're trying to say. Touching the screen is the same as releasing the shutter, with the camera focusing where you've chosen. It's a really fast and effective way to focus on your chosen area of the frame, without the camera deciding for you.
M Jesper: I'm the last person to have anything against grain or even grain simulation, but the effect in that last image is absolutely horrible !
Oh man. Shame on you Olympus.
The reason the noise looks artificial is that it is. It's not random noise.
In this graphic, the left side is random, the right is not. Most people think the opposite. https://telescoper.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/points-e1393434072209.jpg
Acrill: Its pretty obvious that Olympus is trying to compete with Fujifilm X by adding these 'film sim' modes. The Chrome Rich simulation even looks strikingly like Fuji's Classic Chrome.
I enjoy Olympus cameras, having used them in the past, but this Pen-F is a non-starter for two reasons:
1. At this expensive price point, the Pen-F should include the amazing autofocus system found in the E-M1 with on-sensor phase detect points. In fact, this should be part of every Olympus camera moving forward. To omit it is a massive marketing failure.
2. The film sim modes (and design, I guess) are all that separates this camera from the E-M5 II on a practical level. There is not enough product differentiation, and that is also a marketing failure.
I have to think that most practically-minded enthusiast photographers would choose any camera from the OM-D line over this Pen-F.
For me (and for many other people I suspect) the point of PDAF on an Olympus body is not so much C-AF as the ability to focus quickly with the excellent legacy lenses from the Olympus 4/3 DSLRS.
Agree with point 1 especially.
Tony Northrup: I must be the only pixel peeper on the planet who has never, ever felt the need to do a lens microadjustment. I work with shallow depth-of-field and I use a constantly changing assortment of sharp, fast lenses and high-megapixel bodies.
Have I just been incredibly lucky, or is this an over-diagnosed problem?
Even with shallow depth of field, you still have depth of field. That doesn't mean that the sharpest possible focus point is where you wanted.
If I were a manufacturer, I might force lenses to front focus very sightly, since there is more depth of field behind the point of focus than in front of it. It would mean that more shots are "in focus".
I've tried this with my E-30 and fast lenses (4/3 sensor, f2.0) 1) focus varied between lenses and was off, 2) I didn't notice it much in real life shooting before the adjustment, but 3) it did make a difference, which I noticed afterwards.
Oh, and 4) mirrorless wins for focus accuracy, both autofocus and manual.
bobbarber: I'd like to see a manufacturer offer a programmable camera, something along the lines of CHDK. Were I offered a choice between something like a Nikon D5500 or my ancient Olympus E-30 at the same price, with the former stock and the latter completely programmable, I'd choose the Olympus, despite a big giveaway in terms of dynamic range, FPS, etc.
My C7070 takes five photos at different exposures using a single remote press. My cheap Canon Sureshot fires on motion detection using CHDK. I have shot with much "better" cameras that won't do either of those things. Why? I should be able to tell MY camera what I want it to do, after I pay for it.
Custom art filters? Custom tone curves for jpegs? Leave your camera pointed at the bird feeder and have it fire on motion detect? A bold manufacturer would make a splash with a camera like that.
An extra half stop of noise at ISO 3200? Put me down in the "meh" column.
Not sure I understand your comment, but you wouldn't have to program such a camera if you didn't want to. It would come with stock options, like any camera today, but you would be able to add custom options into the already existing interface.
The utility of this is shown by all the people asking for firmware updates. You could program your own functionality into the camera. You could set up intervalometers or motion detection to work anyway you chose. You could have the camera process each shot with five different art filters, all of your own design. The possibilities are limitless.
If you haven't tried this, buy a cheap Canon Sureshot that takes CHDK. You will be able to do things with that camera that even the Nikon D5 won't do. It's ridiculous that flexibility like that isn't offered in a better DSLR or MILC. It would certainly be a much more important improvement in today's cameras than another stop of noise or a few extra megapixels.
I'd like to see a manufacturer offer a programmable camera, something along the lines of CHDK. Were I offered a choice between something like a Nikon D5500 or my ancient Olympus E-30 at the same price, with the former stock and the latter completely programmable, I'd choose the Olympus, despite a big giveaway in terms of dynamic range, FPS, etc.
I find that I often like my analog photos more than my digital photos.
With digital, I'm in love with the technology. "Wow! Look at that resolution! And not too much noise!" And I fill a folder with 100 pictures of a brick wall, because I can.
With analog, I'm not thinking about the technology at all. I'm taking pictures of things that are interesting or important to me, and nothing else.
With that said, this camera is not for me. I limit my film use these days to 35mm, and mostly black and white. But I bet some people will take videos with this that they will still be interested in seeing years from now, unlike all of the "test" videos of meaningless subjects that litter youtube and vimeo.
bobbarber: I won't own this camera anytime soon, but I have to admit, it looks nice.
One thing I'm curious about is the focus fine-tune. I have this on my Olympus E-30 (I know, I know, please don't throw things) and I see it as a must-have feature on DSLRs moving forward. Mirrorless are less problematic than DSLRs with focus, I find.
Wish I had a job where somebody would buy me something like this!
Nice, thanks, especially since I'm into wildlife. Those shots were awesome. Autofocus really seems to be a strength of this camera.
I won't own this camera anytime soon, but I have to admit, it looks nice.
wootpile: So that is what you get for a 7500 leica... I guess uh.. lol?
You get a red dot.
FuhTeng: I think it's interesting that this new top DX model isn't keeping up with its cheaper siblings for megapixels. The D7100 and D7200 have 24 MP, this is 20. There's very little effective difference in resolution between them. This new sensor sounds excellent (I'm looking forward to DPR's studio scene at 1.6M ISO!)
I applaud avoiding the megapixel race with this camera.
Good points, but the increased speed will be useful in some instances. I was thinking more of wildlife than sports.
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of resolution, but 8 Mp is enough for many purposes. I suspect that the resolution of old film movies was something like that, and yet we've all seen large posters printed from stills of those movies that look fantastic.
Where do sports photographs go? Mostly, low resolution on the web. A few become posters or full pages in magazines, but a very few. For the garden variety shot that ends up in a local news site, of a high school basketball team or something, it's not at all clear to me that more than 8 Mp, rolling shutter and all, is necessary.
But the better resolution is necessary in some cases, for sure.
Even so, 10 fps not a clear win for this camera.
This camera @ 10 fps = 5568 x 3712 raw, 200 shot buffer4K mirrorless @ 30 fps = 4096 x 2160 jpeg, essentially unlimited buffer
Clint009: Close to the APS-C tiny Sony A6000* at only +/- $650 with kit lens.* 24.3 megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor 11 fps
But... but... the D500 has a MIRROR!
maximme: medium format are COMMERCIAL photography cameras.ie, you make a living using them.
Their target market are those shooting large print commercials.I am sure you have seen the rise of these wall banners, huge bus and trains banners etc.
Whenever I read something like this, I wonder about the printing process. Does it require 100 megapixels of resolution? The only person I ever knew who shot billboards used an 8 megapixel point and shoot. The billboards looked great! I looked more closely at billboards from then on and realized that most of them aren't high resolution. I guess some are. Best.
Jefftan: the first pic ,A great American traditionis very bad even for small sensor,no detail at allwhy? F8 diffraction?
I think it's an awesome pic, and just what this camera is designed to do! I downloaded it, downscaled it to 1800 pixels on the long side, and boosted the contrast. This picture will print very nice at 8x10!
EDIT: 1800 pixels on the long side because that was the max resolution of my KODAK DX3500, first digital camera, which I just reacquired in a Goodwill for a couple of bucks after giving my original away to a family member. I know that my DX3500 printed well at 8x10, so that's my standard. Best!
I wish I had one of these. I had one of the cheaper Olympus tough models years ago and loved it. It was a great beach camera.
Alex Permit: Can I register if I'm on the no fly list?
No, but you can buy a gun.
PeaceKeeper: You have to register to fly an object that weighs up to 55lbs with spinning blades on it and can hover inches over peoples' heads in their own backyard?
My rights are being trampled on.
Next you'll tell me I have to register to steer 2 ton pieces of steel down public streets at 65mph!
I'm kind of with you. There's a lot of posts here along the lines of, "a few idiots ruined it for everybody."
They're all idiots, as far as I'm concerned. Nothing like going hikiing at the end of the day in a quiet spot to find Fred Flintstone or Homer Simpson with a remote control and obnoxious loud machine flying overhead.
rowlandw: Registration required for drones but not for guns? Just sayin'.
Excerpt:"In a PBS News Hour interview in 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the NRA Second Amendment myth as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by any special interest group that I have ever seen in my lifetime.""