TOM SKY: For Olympus to get good edge in the market is to release retro styled Full frame body in an uncompromising package of high durability, fast performance and image quality just as Fujifilm or Leica did with M9 gaining great interest Olympus has the full potential to follow with even greater product the question is if Olympus can afford NOT to do it.
I don't have time to delve through camera release history, but Fuji seem to have created the X100, X10 and XPro1 with this mindset.Create the best possible camera they can based on the specs at hand, and try to out do the competition with something bold and fresh. They took a chance and stuck to a traditional design philosophy and were given accolades as a result.Olympus on the other hand meanders about for 4 years rehashing versions of the E-P1 until they get to the EM-5, and then exclaim that it isn't good enough.
ptox: That's what they did with the pen series micro 4/3 system. Started from the bottom and have been clawing their way up right alongside Panasonic.What they should have done was start at the top with a high end model to let people know they meant business and could have faith invested in them.Users have had to sit through 4 years of less than stellar pen cameras (that played second fiddle to models from Panasonic, a company that has no history in stills cameras) just to get to the EM5 (which only just compares to low end FF cameras from ages ago), and now they get told it's not the best with PRO lenses.
KrisPix: Great newsAs E-510 owner with a few lenses I still dream of a non-Pro lower cost body
So you dream of having something that you already have?Makes sense.
Olympus camera division seems to be taking advice from the endoscopy division on how to bend over their end users.How many high end E system users sold off their gear cause Olympus has all but left that system dead in the water and been concentrating on Micro cameras.Now they must be kicking themselves... or not if they have migrated to other PRO systems that majority of the industry shoots with, and has more support and stability than Olympus.Also, EM5 users now being told officially by Olympus that their 'expensive' high end camera is not good enough for pro lenses. They must be feeling pretty sore as well. Like constantly being told the best is around the corner, similar to Nikon and what they say about the 1 System.Olympus is clearly on life support, with this new dose of morphine designed to keep the left over signs of life from kicking and screaming towards it's demise.
Most that are serious about photography will be better off using the OVF anyway, and most that are serious about video recording will manual focus.Does not mean this comparison is invalid, but the features tested here are mainly aimed to the general point and shoot consumer.Just thought I'd get that out at anyone claiming one system is better than the other just by looking at the test above.
fmian: Most here, and myself included seem to prefer the color tone and overall look of the first image at the top, which is from a single frame using ND and pol filter.So I must ask, if you can get it just about right in camera, with the use of filters, what is the point of taking multiple exposures and running it through complex HDR software, if the end result just isn't as pretty?I keep thinking people are using digital manipulation for the wrong reasons, or perhaps just for the hell of it.Please don't take it in offense or anything though Carsten, I like your work, but perhaps you should learn to trust your instinct rather than have to fiddle with things in post so much.Then again, I haven't had photographic books published of my work, so what do I know?
I see, thanks for the reply. And yes, you wrote that in the article, I obviously missed it.Is it possible to see one of the original shots?How does it look when the shadows/highlights have been adjusted.Just curious.Or perhaps you could try layering 2 different exposures, then masking the foreground.
Most here, and myself included seem to prefer the color tone and overall look of the first image at the top, which is from a single frame using ND and pol filter.So I must ask, if you can get it just about right in camera, with the use of filters, what is the point of taking multiple exposures and running it through complex HDR software, if the end result just isn't as pretty?I keep thinking people are using digital manipulation for the wrong reasons, or perhaps just for the hell of it.Please don't take it in offense or anything though Carsten, I like your work, but perhaps you should learn to trust your instinct rather than have to fiddle with things in post so much.Then again, I haven't had photographic books published of my work, so what do I know?
marike6: The J1/V1 are fun to use, no nonsense cameras. Blazing AF, burst mode, and image processing, super responsive menu systems, superb IQ especially at base ISO, and quite decent video with full manual control. The CX 2.7 Xs crop is not great for wide angle fans, but it's fantastic for applications where you need some reach.
People forget that the Nikon 1 system is in it's infancy, but when Nikon finally does get to announcing some fast primes, this is going to be an even more interesting system.
Marike6 wrote: 'The J1/V1 are fun to use, no nonsense cameras.'If by nonsense you are referring to good handling, direct access to the exposure triangle, and exciting lenses, then yeah, I guess these cameras have none of that.
Sergey Borachev: The whole Nikon 1 system looks pretty shaky, with Sony RX100 providing better value, build, and (I think) lens quality and image quality to those buyers wanting a small pocketable camera and M43 providing even more IQ and lots of lenses to those who are willing to spend $1000+ for a small camera.
This is definitely better than the Pentax joke called the Q. There may be a small niche for this camera, and it could sell to those who can spend a lot of money to get a quick camera that shots fairly average quality pics, but it is not looking good. You would think that Nikon would shelf this J2 after seeing the RX100, and rework it to get something more competitive.
Camera Market Shares for first half of 2012 in Japan
In DSLR category:1. Canon @ 59.8%2. Nikon @ 28.8%
In MILC category:1. Olympus @ 30.7%2. Panasonic @ 29.6%
In compact camera category:1. Canon @ 16.2%2. Sony @ 15.4%
So Olympus and Panasonic make up ~60% of MILC sales in Japan, leaving 40% between Sony, Samsung, Nikon, Pentax, Ricoh, and Leica.And Nikon sure as hell ain't selling more 1 cameras than Sony is selling NEX models.
Griffo 155: This comment is for all the negative commentators on this site, with reference to the Nikon 1 cameras... You just don't know what you are missing until you USE these camera's - I have the Nikon 1 V1 with 10-30mm kit lens - It is without doubt the best camera I have ever bought.. Better than the NEX cameras (and yes I've used those as well).. Just stop looking at the specs and the sensor size just get out there and try the cameras...No matter what negative comments that people make Nikon are on to something with this series and you wont know what that is until you use the camera...The whole series is awesome... Hopefully more to come...
I have had plenty of opportunity to handle and use many cameras.As soon as you put either of the Nikon 1 cameras in the hand, it's an instant fail. From the lobsided weight, to the lack of grip, it's as if Nikon WANT their customers to drop the camera, and then buy another one, cause they will blame themselves rather than the cameras poor design.I didn't think they could get any worse than the P7100 layout, with buttons all over the place on a comfortable camera (as long as you don't accidentally press a button while trying to hold the camera) But with the 1 system cameras they have managed to make things minimal, but still screw up the design.Who cares what the images look like, when the camera is such a pain in the ass to use, it takes all the fun out of taking photos in the first place?And the new lens? That's just more mediocrity for Nikon fans to lap up.
You really only have Nikon 1 owners to blame for this. If people stopped buying these cameras, Nikon would stop updating/rehashing them. They are only giving the public more of what they are already being fed.
Has it really taken Nikon this long to fix the slow shutter speed issue?It shouldn't be any more difficult than changing a few digits in a line of code.From the sounds of it most of the purchasers of this system don't even know they've been suckered into buying a substandard, poorly designed product.
Whatever makes you happy I suppose.
Great to see the tech that is being used on Mars.Shows what they have to take into account to make all this work. Where corners can be cut to meet other demands.I especially like the calibration card with the penny on it :) LOL.
In regards to the visible seams in the stitched shots.If I handed in a stitched shot panorama for a photo assignment with tears and seams visible, I'd think that I would fail.Here though, it ends up on the official Olympics website and is acceptable as the work of a paid pro, using super expensive technology.It seems the standards have truly dropped.But at least we have the megapixels.
mpgxsvcd: Looks like he is carrying the unreleased 35-100m F2.8 as well. This is the lens that makes m4/3s a legitimate professional camera system.
Focal Length: 89mm ISO: 160 Aperture: f/2.8 Exposure: 1/3200sec
A 200mm standard tele f/5.6 eqiv DOF lens that isn't available yet doesn't sound as appealing as a full frame system camera with a whole host of 'super' tele lenses to choose from that is easily available.At least the lens you mentioned would alleviate some of the pressure from the photographer to shoot shallow DOF at longer focal lengths.I bet he would be looking around him at all the other photogs with more suitable gear, wishing he could have been paid big bucks to use that stuff.
fmian: The only Panasonic 300mm lens I can see is the 100-300 F4-5.6At DOF equivalents of 200mm F/8 and 600mm/F11 will this be able to easily separate the subject from the background like in so many winning shots of athletes? If not, I can't see it being highly considered in this field of photography.Also, someone correct me if my DOF equivalents are wrong.
I was assuming he would be using Panasonic lenses only....Yes, the article states only Panasonic G lenses.So he is limited to deep focus on super tele shots, unless the background is really far away. ie. Can't separate the winning runner from all the other runners behind him.The longest F/2.8 lens they have has a 70mm equiv focal length.Does not seem like the Panasonic system is designed for sports shooters.
The only Panasonic 300mm lens I can see is the 100-300 F4-5.6At DOF equivalents of 200mm F/8 and 600mm/F11 will this be able to easily separate the subject from the background like in so many winning shots of athletes? If not, I can't see it being highly considered in this field of photography.Also, someone correct me if my DOF equivalents are wrong.
PASM should have been on the dial, and there should have been a front control dial to compliment the one on the back.Would have been lovely to see an amalgamation of the G series control system, or even implement a rotating aperture ring on the lenses like the S100. Instead we get an APS-C version of an IXUS camera with interchangeable lenses.A pro model with a more serious control system better be around the corner, and hopefully more small prime lenses. No one needs a slow 18-55 lens.
Chaitanya S: disappointing little camera, sensor is much smaller than recently launched premium compacts.
cgarrard wrote:'Yeah cuz there isn't anything else to consider except sensor size. Slow down, think it through.'
The bigger the glass the more light passes through. The bigger the sensor the greater the optical definition that can be captured.
If we just look at maximum glass size (relative to widest focal length) between some cameras we find:
XZ1: 6.0 / 1.8 = 3.33mmLX7: 4.7 / 1.4 = 3.35mmX10: 7.1 / 2.0 = 3.55mmG1X: 15.1 / 2.8 = 5.39mmRX100: 10.4 / 1.8 = 5.77mm
Assuming all these lenses are sharp wide open, we then take into account that image quality and ISO performance falls drastically as you reduce sensor size, and we can see that Panasonic have a massive uphill battle in getting this camera to compete (in regards to image performance) with others in it's class.
Please also take into account that sensors are 2 dimensional and surface area is much more important than sensor length, and also that the Fuji sensor is an EXR.
Shhhh... did anyone else hear that?
Sounded like Panasonic shooting themselves in the foot!