JackM: Only a fool would buy this camera
@JackM:So, judging by your comment, you already ordered one, right?
mrcultureshock: I know esthetics are of little importance vs the performance, but this is an ugly little compact camera. Nikon should copy what Panasonic is doing with styling and 4K capabilities.
I disagree. I think that for the first time Nikon created decent styling for the 1 series.
I don't know any camera that is uglier than the V2.
nicolaiecostel: Having used a friend's J1 and tried out another friend's V1,I must say that the 1 series from Nikon might me the most underrated camera system ever.
I bet most people dismissing the 1 system on this website have never even tried one.
I sold my V1 after half a year. IQ was not the problem, but handling was. Control elements and firmware were purposely dumbed down to a level that I could not stand. The current model is surely better, but Nikon probably lost me forever.
2eyesee: Can someone please explain to me why people find these retro designs appealing? Am I just not 'old school' enough (I got into photography about 15 years ago)?
Because most modern designs look like a bar of soap and lack buttons.
@DPREVIEW:Please stop spreading small bits of information all over the place with these annoying "slide shows". Constant clicking forward and scrolling up and down for reading the subtitles is a huge p.i.t.a!
lacikuss: This lens defeat the very purpose of m43 system. These look like FF lenses. Heavy and bulky.
Lacikuss, these lenses do not in the slightest defeat the purpose of m43 as there already are many small and light-weight lenses for the system.These here simply are specialized for video rigs.I really do not understand your constant objection against m43. If APSC is best for you, so be it. Others prefer m43 for different reasons.
lacikuss: I read at DXO that this camera can only resolve 9 MP with the most expensive olympus zoom and 12 MP with the best oly prime, why is that? BTW those best lenses are very expensive ones.
Lacikuss: Sigma82 did not contradict hte numbers. What he probably meant: Don't only look at numbers, but also at the pics. I agree to this and already posted a link above.Of course you are free to focus your buying decision on resolution numbers, but this does not give you the best results automatically. There are many other aspects that define a good image. For me, anything between 8 and 16mp is enough. More is useless. I am much more interested in colors and handling. And this is probably what most Olympus users like about their products.
AnniM: Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere - can you still use 4/3 glass with this camera? The Olympus website never answers the question - when I click on "lenses" there the link goes to the "accessories" page instead. Can you still use the 4/3 - m4/3 adapter with this camera?
Yes, video may do the trick. Auto focus systems are quite bad at tracking a specific target.If they can put this into phones and specialized consumer video cameras, I see a real marketing chance for them.
Lacikuss, you may be interested in this article:http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/23/mirrorless-battle-micro-43-vs-aps-c-vs-full-frame/
Megapixels are only one part of the equation. To most photographers, other things are more important.
For FF cameras, it is easier to match their sensor's resolution, because their sensor elements are much larger.
Look at APS, e.g. Canon 7d. Even with a Zeiss Otus 1.4, you "only" get 77% of sensor resolution.Keep also in mind that an m43 lens must be much sharper than an FF lens for reaching the same pixel level.I think your expectations are a bit too high. If you really need all those megapixels, you need an FF camera with an expensive lens.For 99% of all other photographers, m43 is still beyond their personal capabilities. ;-)
Mike FL: As far as I can see, lot of people are interested to see the *usability* in the real world by themselves, first hands.
That could be Amazon's *nightmare* b/c 30 days returning window.
Amazon already knows about this problem from other products. I read they throw buyers out who abuse their return policy.
Lacikuss, the reason is simple. Lenses are not perfect and each combination of sensor and lens behaves a little differently. Getting 12mp from a 16mp sensor means 75% reolution and is a very good result. Most lens&sensor combinations will give you only 55%, according to dxo.General rule: the larger the sensor the higher resolution can get.
BamaPanda: I hope Dan finds his way through the complexity of the camera, and learns to appreciate it's abilities better. in reading the article it seems the benefits the camera offered were almost an agravation. I have to wonder how well Sony, Canon ..or Nikon might do packing all the features the EM5 MkII offers into a body, and still give the ability to set the camera up like it would be an extension of your hand in shooting.It just takes a bit of time to master all the advantages of the MkII. I hope Dan can eventually see the the advantage of that, and not the agravation.
It totally agree. I rather put up with a lenghty menu system than do without many features. Besides: Once you've set up everything to your preference you seldom need to return to the menu.
LukeDuciel: "He said that users of sensors with a similar number of pixels to 40 million had to use a tripod all the time to make their images look sharp, but that OM-D users could switch between using a tripod and not, according to the resolution mode set on the camera."
why i cannot see the logic?
Badi, how many of these stabilized lenses can really resolve 40 or 50 mp?I still believe his statements more than yours. :-)
Luke, I think he means that you can achieve 16mp handheld with IBIS, but not 40mp without IBIS.So for 40mp you always need a tripod, no matter what camera you use. But for 16mp you can use a stabilized camera like OMD.I also guess that IBIS for a 40mp sensor is currently not possible, but we'll see what Sony does with the 7R.2.
ProfHankD: "Sensor manufacturers have concentrated mostly on providing high ISO settings that are not often used, he said, and had neglected low settings in their favor, but Olympus hopes this will change very soon."
As QEs go up, it gets harder to have a big enough place to dump all that charge. The problem as I see it is sensors trying to use the same integration time for all pixels. For example, why not have a bright pixel sampled multiple times, and then averaged (digitally), during an exposure long enough to get detail in the dark pixels? I've been doing a better variant of this in my research: http://aggregate.org/DIT/ei20140205.pdf
Sounds interesting, Hank. Are you in contact with sensor manufacturers about this idea?How much better is your result compared to a multiple exposure that is integrated afterwards?
Thanks for this enjoyable interview!You asked the right questions and Mr. Kataoka gave honest sounding and down to earth answers.
Must have been a lot of fun talking to him.
Akpinxit: nicely constructed model , but with same IQ as Canon 7D it no match for a6000
@Akpi: So you always shoot without a lens?
Go ahead and buy the Sony, if it fits you so well.
blink667: Olympus creates beautiful looking camera bodies, but I never understood why they wouldn't get involved with FF on at least one of their models. It's almost as if they're impervious to market trends.
There is no trend to FF, but a trend to smaller and lighter systems.