lacikuss: I used to own Olympus in the film era. It was great to have a Japanese manufacturer caring about size and IQ at the same time.
Nowadays, I think of IQ and I ask myself why should we trade camera size for IQ? Why is Olympus is not pushing for FF and smaller size? Is Sony the old Olympus?
By the way, I don't own neither but do use FF.
Why? Because FF is useless for most users, it is heavier, bigger and more expensive.The marginal gain in iq is simply not worth it.
photobeans: I wonder if the Sony organic sensors are coming in 2015. A new line of Olympus cameras with a sensor like that would make them truly amazing. Fuji and Panasonic are said to be releasing a jointly developed organic sensor in 2015. 2015 should be the next revolution in sensors.
I think, Olympus cameras already are truly amazing. How much better can today's image quality get?
nerd2: FF body + 50mm 1.8 lens has better IQ, more control of DOF and is way cheaper overall. Stupid people are stupid.
... don't you think it is a little stupid to confuse 85mm with 50mm.
mpgxsvcd: Can Fuji make an M4/3s version of this lens? I would pay twice that for an M4/3s version that auto focuses and has image stabilization.
@yabokkieSorry for being a bit rude, but your repetitive calculations are pure nonsense. They might work between Nikon and Canon, but not for much else.Just take a look at Panasonic's other prime lenses and you know your totally off. What you call 'reasonable' is simply not an affordable price for most companies. The 42.5 will be higher than 1.000 USD in my opinion.
munro harrap: A friend of mine is quite happy with one of these, but I dont get it, no. The camera is as big as a 35mm full-frame Olympus OM2n and bigger than a D40x Nikon.It is almost as big as my Nikon 7100 and a lot more expensive. With the good f2.8 zoom it costs as much as a new Nikon D800 body, WIERD!!OMD is nowhere near as flexible as the old R1 Sony which was a complete system in itself with a great 24-120mm lens (still the best available-but not on NEX machines).You can then spend another fortune on another set of doubtless excellent lenses, and get Leica quality for less..... but existentially WHY would you do this? Beats me, mate....
Poor munro, you really seem to have problems with this product. ;-)Let me try to help:"It is almost as big as my Nikon 7100 and a lot more expensive."If it is too large for you, take the E-M1 or a PEN.
"With the good f2.8 zoom it costs as much as a new Nikon D800 body"Why not? The D800 has quite different features and is of no use without a lens. Get a comparable lens for it and you spend another 1000€, but beware of rain or dust and prepare for some "weight-lifting".
"OMD is nowhere near as flexible as the old R1"Are you joking? Try to put a pancake lens on the R1...
"You can then spend another fortune..."You can, but do not have to. Excellent Zuikos start from 250€.Very good Sigmas like the 60mm/F2,8 from 160€.
M43 is simply the most versatile system out there regarding sizes, bodies and lenses: No other system offers a pocket-sized GM1 and a fully featured E-M1.
Finally, if you still wonder why so many people like it: Just ask your friend, why he's so happy with it. ;-)
Alpha Whiskey Photography: Love my EM5. Waterfalls, night shots, wildlife. Shot everything with it. Who wants my FX DSLR? ;)
Great pictures, thanks for sharing!You really seem to have lots of fun with your M5.
PenGun: Another idiotic review. If you morons could not get sharp pictures because auto focus was off, find someone who can work a camera.
No one who needs 36 MP cares about the grip, or even what it looks like.
Another puff piece.
Hey, PennyGun, go to your mountains and stay there forever. Maybe you will make some troll friends who will put up with your rudeness.
PhotoKhan: Not as impressive as I thought it would be.
Nothing more to tell?
Excellent IQ - like D800 before. But is the whole concept of this camera just as excellent?
I found this interesting review:http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2013/11/11/tempted-by-the-sony-a7r.html
... I am not a pro shooter, but have to agree to most of his points.
In my opinion, Sony tends too much towards the extremes with some of their products.
SRT3lkt: I don't need 36mp for tiny 35mm sensor.
Almost nobody needs 36MP, but the sensor was left over from the D800 development, so they reused it in the 7r. :-)
Wow. Applause for Panasonic!Since the start of MFT, I was very interested in the system, but found that even Oly's PEN series was too large for my purpose.
With this little wonder I have to think it over again. When combined with the kit lens, it is practically as compact as an XZ-2.
Panasonic's colors seem to have improved, too. I still hope that Oly will find a good answer to it!
basilboy: I've started my digital shooting with a C-5060, then used C-8080, SP320, XZ-1, for my personal work, and enjoyed all of them immensely. Then I made the mistake of purchasing a XZ-2 with its very poor focusing performance. I waited with patience hoping Olympus would come up with a firmware correction / upgrade, but nothing happened. I'm using the LX-7 now, and I'm very happy with it. I don't think I will touch another Olympus compact. In the past I've also used with satisfaction, LX3, Canon G9 and G15. I've still got my C-5060 and LX3. Thought I'd share my thoughts :)
Write this to Olympus' customer service.I'm quite happy with my XZ-2, but yes, under certain circumstances I better use manual focus. LX-7 is great, but I still don't like Panasonic's skin colors.
Great improvement in functionality!I miss the little robot, though. You should have put him in, instead of the Beatles. I also think that there's no replacement for the paper-clips.
Looking forward to the database filling up with older models...
DELETED88781: Good photos but when i compare it to my D7100/Tokina 11-16/Tamron 24-70vc 2.8 i can tell instantly that is a pocket quality.
Quality is subjective, and hard subject to argue but i can assure you that mirrorless is not there yet.
I am not a fan or a boy but Nikon DSLR leave this in the dust as far as pure IQ.
@samboYour D7100 surely is an excellent camera, but I think your view is very limited. Yes, the selection of lenses for m4/3 is smaller than that of APS-C, but the quality is on par. I do not think that you could tell from this shot, that is was made with a "pocket cam":http://www.cscrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Olympus-Zuiko-M-Digital-75mm-F1.8-lens-for-Micro-Four-Thirds-2.jpeg
Personally, I hope that m43 will last, because I will never want to buy a large, heavy and noisy DSLR. It's good to have a choice.
tommy leong: something odd about Olympus, given its success with OMD i would think that the XZ-2 would be a walk in the park for them.
YET somehow they managed to ruin XZ-2 autofocus...Its a great little camera but i wouldn't whole heartedly recommend it...Seems like they didn't finish off the important part of their products.
I would not call it "ruined". It can get tricky when in full zoom and F>3.0, but most of the time there are no problems.
justmeMN: In the USA, Olympus mirrorless is still an obscure product line, with little brand awareness, little advertising, and little retail shelf space. They don't seem to have much of a future here.
Yes, sales in the US have grown, but does Oly make profits there? Prices are quite low in the US compared to Europe.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Mirrorless, as it is done now, is a path that leads to nowhere. Cropped sensors will never equal full frame. The way to go is the one Sony pointed at with the RX1: full frame mirrorless. Price can be a problem, I know, and then there's the lens size issue, but mirrorless cameras like this one are uncapable of the kind of dynamic range a full frame sensor can offer. I use a mirrorless camera alongside a 35mm film one, so I'm not writing this out of bigotry or cynicism. These are my findings after comparing results.And no viewfinder is an issue, too - although there will always be the X-E1 for those who can't do without one.
@Manuel:Thank you for the interesting paper! My conclusions:
1. You are right that on the one hand film has more DR potential than even FF sensors. On the other hand, the practical value of it is very limited (see their conclusion). With digital cameras, exposure is more delicate. This is why most of them come with helpful tools to prevent blown highlights.
2. They also make clear that even a little compact can beat film regarding noise. Larger sensors are way ahead.
3. You say, FF was much better in DR than APS-C. Looking at the DXO numbers this is only true for older sensors. Currently, the best APS-C equal FF in DR with 14 stops.
You may be right that not all sensor developers focus on DR - megapixels and high ISO are still the focus. Maybe, we will see a DR race in the near future.Till then: You better expose for the highlights! ;-)
@Manuel:I don't agree to your judgement. APS-C and 4/3 are the right way to go i.m.o.
1. FF digital is not like FF film, because it is bigger and more expensive.
2. APSC and 4/3 have long surpassed the quality of film. The increase in quality FF offers is totally irrelevant for most people.DR is not an issue anymore.
3. Why was 35mm so successful? It was cheaper, lighter and totally sufficient in quality for most users compared to MF. Same applies to APS today.
Ben O Connor: I wished to own "a mirrorless systme camera" M 4/3 was first interest, then it becoming NEX... but when I check DxO´s ratings, I am confused.
According to them , all these lenses avaliable on mirrorles cam´s are ordinary or trash.
Ben, don't get confused: You cannot directly compare the scores between different sensor formats.
WACONimages: Most Micro Four Thirds standaard lenses are pretty sharp and decent quality given their price! Why it seems so hard for Nikon/Canon to produce fair priced, but still nice quality standard kit-lenses?
I've been since my first compact camera a Canon guy. Just happens so. Compacts, pro-dslr ect. Invest a lot of money in that. Lately I'm more and more surprised by MFT, especially their lenses.
And what is the point! of having lenses with a certain max aperture!, if you have to stop them down by one or two stops to get decent quality????
It seems mirrorless is a somehow better at max aperture. Hear good things also about the Nikon 1 system in this respect.
Right so, Wacon. Don't listen to them and simply rely on your own experience. ;-)