I don't get why they don't offer the same option of 14bit RAW uncompressed, lossless compressed and Lossy compressed as Nikon do. I can get 800+ 36MP, 14 bit lossless compressed pictures on a 64GB SD card, so space isn't an issue any more. Maybe lossless compressed is a lot more work, but they could at least offer the uncompressed RAWs until they figure it out.
They could even base their marketing material on the buffer size of the 12bit compressed RAW mode. At least give people an option.
Hopefully this article gives Sony the impetus they need to address this issue.
The EOS-m is a great little camera. Sure, the AF is glacial, but it takes great pictures and you can put magic lantern on it and have an amazing timelapse/motion detect camera. It's also cheap enough that you don't have to worry about breaking it as much as you do with a $3000 full frame DSLR. I bought a speedbooster for mine so I can use my full frame nikon lenses and I get pretty incredible results.
I'll probably get the M3 if it drops to $300 and the guys at magic lantern are able to successfully port it to the camera. I'm glad that Canon have finally brought it over to the US.
darngooddesign: Four OMD articles on the front page, you guys are clearly on Olympus' payroll. /s
Oh, OK! I though /s was some kind of bemused face...
Disregard my comment and apply it to the next person who says something about DPR's editorial independence but isn't joking ;)
Where is the dislike button for comments like this?
It's a new, interesting camera that a lot of people are interested in. What else would you have them write about today?
abe4652: I didn't think that folks in England cared that much about politics. I guess their hatred of republicans and conservatism is such that they'll use some photos to show how bad these folks are. As proof, the fact that they had food on tables. The unmitigated gall. How dare leaders in America have food on tables around the time of 9/11.
Please. Even the brains-dead liberals posting here on Dpreview are not stupid enough to be so obvious in their bias.
I am not sure if you are a troll or an idiot. Please google "France in the American revolutionary war"
Since the invention of the internet being ignorant has become a choice - everybody can see which choice you have made.
bakhtyar kurdi: I am really sad about the 3000 victims, they where from all kinds of background (except one).But no one talking about 1,000,000 victims from Iraq, my country, and turning it to most dangerous country on the planet , to the moment.the most stupid thing is to say Saddam was supporting Usama, but the reality was Saddam was hanging anyone who even say a good word about them, Saddam was bad, but his relation with Alqaida is a stupid jock.So why you attacked Iraq? No body knows to my knowledgeWhat was the relation between Afghanistan and Iraq?Now just recently, according to agreements between western countries and Turkey, they started attacking Kurdish troops, the only nation on the planet that really fighting Isis? do you believe that?why?the same old reason, to make Isis live longer, and sell more weapons.Just to add, the real reason about Afghanistan war was the shortage of drugs to America, according to a report from UN just a few days before the attack, Taliban destroyed it 100%.
@Francis CarverNobody in Europe believes that you started WW1. That is your standard Fox News watching, flag waiving rhetoric. Go and buy a book written by an unbiased historian. The European powers were to blame for WW1. I saw a documentary recently that said it was the dreadnaught class battle ships created by Britain that sparked the arms race that eventually led to the war, but Germany was apparently planning for war as early as 1912. You can make an argument for whatever side you choose.
WW2 was caused indirectly by the victors of WW1. The Versailles treaty so emasculated Germany that a nationalist movement was almost inevitable. In that respect, the USA, Britain, France etc. did cause WW2. The fact that a despot like Hitler came to power was unfortunate, but if the WW1 victors hadn't put all of the blame on Germany, the environment probably wouldn't have existed for him to take power and start WW2.
Anyway, don't just make up stuff and claim it is true.
zsedcft: Why is everybody not using wordpress? I understand the appeal of zenfolio etc. because you can just create a site and they will deal with selling your pictures and handling your clients, but simple portfolio sites look much better with a simple wordpress theme.
You can get a good theme for $50, Hosting for about $4 a month (or less) and your domain for about $10 a year. Once you get a little more advanced, you can add a shopping cart using woocommerce and link it to your paypal account for free. The option are pretty much limitless when you get into plugins. Wordpress.com can even host your site if you don't want to get too technical.
IMHO, if you want to be a pro photographer you pretty much need to know how to run a website. It really isn't too difficult once you get the hang of it, either. The sites on photographers.pro look extremely amateur. You can browse live sample wordpress websites at themeforest to see the difference. Just type "photography" into the search bar there.
SEO on WordPress is far superior to any of the smugmug type services. As another guy said, if you link it to a blog you can supercharge your SEO because you get original content and back links. I spend a maximum of 20 mins a month maintaining my site and you can choose a host with versioning or use updraft plus to automatically make backups. You can also host video externally on vimeo if you are worried about speed. Paypal take about 2.7% per transaction and do it in their server so you don't need as much encryption as you described. The only complaint that people could have is that it is hard to learn, but it is actually much easier than it used to be. WordPress is actually OK for security. Don't use ancient plugging and you'll be fine. Every single drupal site in the world was compromised last year so nothing is perfect.
$4 a month is probably not going to get you the best hosting, but it should be good enough for most people. If you get a lot of visits, you can always spend $10 or $25 for better stuff.
I think that most photographers a quite technical people anyway, and most enjoy learning new stuff. There are a lot of hosting services that offer a free domain and have 1 click wordpress installers. There are themes (such as "x" that I use) that have visual drag and drop page builders and customizable sample pages, so the learning curve isn't too steep.
Zenfolio is good for less technical people or people who don't want to handle their own prints. I used them for a while but decided that I would rather just make myself a website. I could never get the zenfolio ones to look as good as I wanted. I heard that they also aren't great for SEO because they try to direct most of the traffic to their site (this may not be true, I didn't look into it in great detail).
Why is everybody not using wordpress? I understand the appeal of zenfolio etc. because you can just create a site and they will deal with selling your pictures and handling your clients, but simple portfolio sites look much better with a simple wordpress theme.
zsedcft: That FLM is almost as expensive and has a similar folded length to the sirui t-025x. It is a lot lighter (sirui weighs 1.5lb), but with the sirui you can get almost as low (half an inch off) and have a usable size tripod for when you don't have a table to hand. I think carrying the extra pound is worth it for the added flexibility.
I have two tripods, the sirui t-025x and a BENRO C2682T. The Benro is seeing less and less use with my D800 because the Sirui can hold just about anything.
I think the Gorillapod is the only one here that really makes sense as a useful product. Maybe other people have different definitions of useful, though.
I doubt 3x the space. The sirui reviewed here looks like it uses the same head so you can guestimate from that. I see what you are saying, but I don't see the point in spending another $200 on a tripod that is extremely limited. You might as well just put the camera directly on the edge of the table and save even more space.
I have a suction cup tripod thing (2 suction cups) that is a much more useful. You can even use it as a mini tripod if you wish.
zsedcft: It's a shame that they have limited it so much. If they gave it an optional external antenna, high bitrate video and a way to limit the quality of the stream to increase range - it would be a great drone camera. You could just strap it to a cheap drone and get pro footage with a life feed. Maybe they could open up the firmware and send one to the guys who hacked the GH1 - that would help them sell a lot more.
The video sample that I have seen from it look no better than a gopro. I might pick one up when they land in the olympus refurbished store for $100ish.
it only weighs 147g, so I think pretty much any DJI could take it. The 14mm f/2.5 wouldn't add much weight.
It's a shame that they have limited it so much. If they gave it an optional external antenna, high bitrate video and a way to limit the quality of the stream to increase range - it would be a great drone camera. You could just strap it to a cheap drone and get pro footage with a life feed. Maybe they could open up the firmware and send one to the guys who hacked the GH1 - that would help them sell a lot more.
That FLM is almost as expensive and has a similar folded length to the sirui t-025x. It is a lot lighter (sirui weighs 1.5lb), but with the sirui you can get almost as low (half an inch off) and have a usable size tripod for when you don't have a table to hand. I think carrying the extra pound is worth it for the added flexibility.
zsedcft: This one isn't for me. I don't think f/2 is fast enough at 35mm so it won't replace primes. 35mm is such a common focal length that you need f/1.4 to differentiate between your "pro" photos and the ones anyone can take with their kit zoom. f/2 is OK, but 35mm f/1.4 is one of my favorites.
Interesting lens, none the less. It will work for a lot of photographers and I'm sure it will sell well.
People on this forum are so unpleasant!
I started the comment off with "this one isn't for ME". I ended it with "it will work for a lot of photographers" yet two people decided to try to belittle my opinion.
Fast primes don't make great photos on their own, but they give you creative options that aren't available to people who settle for zooms (which is the vast majority of people). If you are fine with your 18-200mm, so be it.
That is not really the point of f/1.4 lenses. It is all about depth of field. If you wanted to shoot f/2.8, you could buy much smaller, cheaper lenses.
This one isn't for me. I don't think f/2 is fast enough at 35mm so it won't replace primes. 35mm is such a common focal length that you need f/1.4 to differentiate between your "pro" photos and the ones anyone can take with their kit zoom. f/2 is OK, but 35mm f/1.4 is one of my favorites.
samfan: OVFs and EVFs have each their advantages.
From OVFs, both SLRs and RFs have their advantages.
From EVFs, both large rear LCDs and the small peek EVFs have their advantages.
It's a pity that people start wars over this. It's like arguing whether wide lenses are better than long lenses.
I personally like the immediacy of OVFs but I hope all the current camera formats will survive for a long time. Because what I don't like is taking pics with mobile phones.
I don't understand "fanboy wars". It is just weird people with nothing better to do. I'm glad I don't have to meet them in real life - they would probably start an argument of which is better; salt or pepper?
rsf3127: Even today there are people that use things like Tachihara.So there will be people who buy a SLR instead of a mirrorless camera in the foreseeable future.Freedom of choice is a must. Even if you are free to make mistakes.
We should invent a term for this attitude. The one where mirrorless shooters think they are somehow more enlightened than everyone else. "Messiahorless Complex" maybe?
Lawrencew: The most interesting thing for me about mirrorless is as demonstrated by Sony (and others), the increasing ability to separate lens mount/manufacturer from body manufacturer, and provide all the necessary AF and IS capabilities in the body.
This is potentially by far the bigger game changer as far as the manufacturers are concerned as it disrupts their ability to lock the consumer in to their body.
Canon should be the most worried in my case at least, as they can no longer make the assumption that because I have a large number of Canon EF lenses my next camera purchase is automatically going to be a Canon.
I just read that this minute on sonyalpharumors. Pretty exciting. I think I'll wait to see the performance of the adapters and wait for Sony to get any possible bugs ironed out of the a7rii (not that I know of any, but there usually are with cutting edge technology) before I spend $3200, though.
Canon should be really worried. You can get a similar resolution, 4k shooting, lighter camera with better dynamic range for about the same price as the 5DSR and it will AF Canon lenses.
It is just a bit annoying that I can't get a 7Rii to AF my Nikon Lenses. Although I guess once you add the weight of the metabones adapter+all of the extra batteries you need the weight saving is marginal vs my D800.