Chippy99: @Jeff, Jordan,
I am reliably informed that your comparison table "Compared to E-M10 and E-M5 II" contains an error in that the E-M5 II has an LCD, not an OLED viewfinder.
Your table says the E-M5 II has an OLED EVF. Its does not.
KAllen: Its a turd, what more do you need to know. How can a pro upload many TB to the cloud.Would Apple be responsible if it was hacked and stolen?
Your first three words sum it up perfectly.
amipal: I've been working my way through the GH-series through the years, and currently have a GH3. I've tried the equivalent Olympus cameras, and they just fall down on usability. I can alter settings on the Panasonic cameras without a second's thought, yet Oly bury things under layers of not necessarily obvious menus.
So I don't think it's a simple case of saying "If you're only interested in stills then it's not quite such a compelling proposition" - because I'd rather get 100% of my photos almost there, than a handful.
Can't agree mate. I've never owned an Olympus and yet find the EM-1 a complete doddle to use and entirely intuitive. I've never had such a high keeper rate from any camera I've owned ever, and that includes several Canon DSLR's and the occassional Leica.
I don't know what it is but the current trend seems to be that a landscape can't be any good unless it's completely unrealistic and over processed, with too much saturation, too much vibrancy, HDR thrown in for good measure.
These shots are all better than anything I ever produce, and they are certainly "impressive", but I am not sure I'd want any of them on my wall. What's wrong with a nice picture of how the world *actually* looks? Is the world not beautiful enough without jazzing it up with a purple sky?
quezra: Drama incoming in 3... 2...
(And incidentally i note i said shallow depth of field is advantageous for landscapes and street. Of course i mean the opposite, large DoF is advantageous there. It was a slip of the tongue on my part.)
I didn't rate the article very highly to be honest. The writer's "full frame is best" bias came through despite trying to hide it. Where was the comparison in glass size and weight, and in particular how much you need to spend on a FF telephoto lens of decent speed, compared to the equivalent for a cropped sensor?
Depth of field and bokeh are npt at all relevant for certain types of photography yet its discussed as if its the only thing that matters. Indeed shallow dof is often advantageous for landscapes and sometimes for street shooting. Where is this discussed?