RStyga: If Leica is slowly degrading in quality it surely is not in pricing.
Where is it written that high quality, low volume items have to be cheap?Leica prices have always been expensive. When I owned an M-4 in the seventies a new lens was a month's pay. No different today.
The big difference was the absence of the internet where one could hear all the wailing of people who make it their mission to direct their manufactured outrage at a company they are not forced to buy from.
All very nice but will they be wether-sealed and have a red stripe?
Marty4650: For those of you offended by the comparison of this rugged camera to the classic Nikonos, please remember that Dpreiew never made that assertion. They merely posed the question in the headline for this new item. ("Nikonos reborn?")
Most likely the question was asked to draw attention and elicit response, and not to claim that the Ruggedized Nikon 1 is in the same league with the classic underwater SLR.
The comment sure stirred up the trolls though. It is tiresome to see so few comments of value. Rather it seems to be a storm of trolls each trying to out do each other in some new sneering comment about how stupid the camera manufacturers are for not making something making something that conforms to their idea of camera perfection as they understand it (from their recently minted Internet photo education).
Dave Luttmann: And yet Canon can't design a sensor with decent dynamic range.
Actually they do have decent range, its just that others have gotten better. What I feel is overlooked is that the public clamored for better low ISO performance and then when that came along they spin around and scream for better DR.The sort of thing that drives manufacturers crazy.
I have yet to be convinced that the better DR of even MF cameras shows up in final images.
justmeMN: Some mirrorless enthusiasts complain about DSLRs being big, bulky, and heavy.
The EM-1 is 12% wider, 3% taller, and 22% heavier than the Canon SL1 / 100D, according to camerasizecom.
(Yes, they are in different price classes.)
SL-1 will take fine pictures but most people will find little joy in the experience.The real fact is that the vast bulk of enthusiasts do want something that is a pleasure to handle and work with.If they were just looking for a small instrument they would be using their phones.
daqk: 1. Too Expensive!2. No Flash?
Everything is to expensive except the Sony A3000 and so far, everybdy hates it.Stop whining about price, its a stupid hobby.
ThomasSwitzerland: Sensors today are driven by software algorithms, not much room left for market diffentiation to Oly, therefore the design limbo. Olympus now with the EM-1 remind me of a Ford-T car model with a turbo engine built in. I had been a loyal Olympus user from the OM-1 up to the digital “3”.
To me this Olympus now is bad taste in design with la-la-technology for a Leica-like pricing strategy. I still have one Oly 11-22mm lens left which I fit to my Panasonic, that’s it. IQ compares to any other brand like Canon or Nikon, equal or less. Oly do not have a secret and only appeal to a very specific niche market. They are not on the road for major market growth.
So they are all the same but Oly has fancy design. I guess that makes it like all the others. Except the others don't have fancy design?So what you are saying is that Oly feels their fancy design is worth more money. I noticed this worked for Apple.Major market growth may not be necessary, they want to be profitable.Don't take pricing so personally, it makes you sound like you really want the camera except for their greed.
Yay for Olympus for bringing out a fantastic new camera.
Yay for consumers who have a choice of a range of great cameras from many manufacturers.
Yay for trolls who can now be quiet and buy the stuff they say they love and avoid the constellation of inferior gear they are complaining about.
Kim Letkeman: I would truly worry if a phone of any sort appealed to "photography enthusiasts" because -- although it can take an image -- it is not much of a photographic learning tool otherwise. On the other hand, I can see the appeal for "social networking enthusiasts" and press hounds ...
Manual controls are not a necessity to the learning of how to make a great photo. You are confusing technical knowledge with art.The art is the seeing, not calculations and the twirling of knobs.
Joe Mayer: The iphone (note it's not called the icamera) is not of consequence to photographers. Photographers have cameras and not phones.
A photographer uses a camera. An iPhone has a camera ,ergo the user is a photographer. Being arrogant does not improve your photography or protect you from artists using anything they want to make great, good, indifferent, or bad art.
Kudos to Apple for using a warm tone LED flash to balance the color to a warm artificial light ambient scene. They got it.My 4S takes amazing photos and is the perfect travel camera as it really does fit in a pocket.
CortoPA: It's like a Pentax K-5 IIs, But with No Flash, OVF and a smaller sensor.
Costs a bit more to.
And I guess its a tiny bit smaller.
I guess if you are heavily invested in the FourThirds stuff this is a must have.
I guess if you are heavily invested in ANYTHING this may not be for you.
abolit66: 2.8 is not fast enough for 4/3 format. it's 24-80 f 5.6 equivalent on FF
AND that sumbitch wont fit in my pocket!
StevenE: It's micro 4/3, so you can forget about shallow DOF.If that doesn't bother you, then this format could work.Non starter for me, unless it can fit in my pocket.
Yeah, I keep forgetting about all those cameras that go in your pocket and have shallow DOF.
Juck: I thought the whole point of MILC systems was to reduce size? This behemoth is practically the same size as a Canon T5i,,, it's also double the price and has less resolution than the T5i. Heck,,, you could pick up a 70D for less than this thing.
Definitely one for the fanboys.
So the Canon T5i is you lust camera?Also small does not have to mean pocketable.Pockets are for phones.
Henry M. Hertz: FF get´s cheaper and cheaper... m43 more and more expensive... mhm.. yes makes sense. ;)
And FF is "great" because of shallow DOF? My, what a market for a fashionable technique that is useful to almost none of the photography most people do.
Low light performance? Yes, but m43 is no slouch any more. and when it comes to anything other than ultimate pixel peeping, performs on par with others in its price range and is a credible competitor to more expensive cameras.
justmeMN: Hmmm. AF speed not as good as a DSLR. Sensor not as good as a DSLR. Priced higher than many DSLRs...
Maybe you should actually shoot with an Olympus and see what is making all their owners happy.
The experience that allows you to take great photos is far more important than the cold numbers of specification fantasy.
Michael Jardine: Looks great! But my entire reason for adding M43 to my stable is portability. I can't put my D800 into my jacket pocket. I can with my Pen(s), plus a lens or two. So the Pen lives with me, the D800 lives in the backpack. The EM1 would live in the backpack.
Yes, but you would really appreciate the EM-1 over the D800 after a day of shooting a wedding.
whyamihere: Dear Olympus,
Remind me again: Why am I paying $1400 for the image performance of a 3+ year old APS-C camera? ('Portability' isn't really an excuse. Don't forget, you are in a joint venture with Sony, a purveyor of tiny APS-C M-ILC cameras.)
Everyone Confused By Your Price Tag (which should be just about everyone)
You may note the performance of three year old APS-C sensors are exactly that of today and this actually comes from a smaller sensor. In addition, you are getting very high performance handling, control and construction.
Snarky, spec based commentary inspired by your recent web education hardly qualifies as an informed criticism of a very sophisticated photographic instrument.
yabokkie: it says "fast and wide" in the title.
I'd say moderately fast and moderately wide for a 35/2.1 equiv. that's the work it can do, no more, no less.
Boy, It sure is amazing how much misunderstanding there is about aperture. Ever since the discovery of DOF differences between FF, APS, m43 and on, so many would be "experts" make condescending remarks about "effective aperture". Do we ever hear of it in the other direction? The effective aperture of an 80f2.8 on a MF camera? Or maybe a 360mm f5.6 on 8x10? No, I did not think so. That is because you actually do not seem to remember that this phenomenon actually existed since the invention of lenses and that only since the recent obsession with the fashion of shallow DOF that we can adopt, yet again another pose that marks us as "effective cognoscenti".