Rupert Bottomsworth: Wasn't the main selling point of m43 the small size? After looking at this camera, you might as well buy a DSLR like a Nikon D3200 or Canon 650D.
There are lots of other body styles available too if you think this one is too big, and you also need to consider lens size.
mpgxsvcd: Now we are talking. Just 10 more lenses like that and you will catch up to the competition.
Doh! Sorry, my mistake; I was looking at prices for the 14mm.
The Panasonic 20mm might have a MSRP of $360, but the street price is about $250, or if you're OK with one that someone has split a kit, then $200. The Nikon is likely to sell at MSRP for a while, and it won't have such a 2x price advantage until it drops to around $100-$125.
But in any case, the 20 won't fit on a N1. The real question is still whether Nikon will push the system or not. If they do, I think it's perfectly viable. So far the indications haven't been so good, but this is at least a positive step.
Bob Meyer: Yes, the Panasonic web site doesn't show the same resultions at aspect ratios other than 4:3 that this preview shows. Please clarify. Can you actually confirm the G5 uses the multi-aspect sensor the same was the GH2 does?
Yes, you would think so, but dpreview originally listed the resolutions as wider in 3:2 and 16:9, and still says that the sensor is 18MP (like the GH2's). Dpreview has now corrected the resolution specs, so presumably that confirms it's not multi-aspect.
bg2b: There seems to be some confusion on different sites about the resolution in 3:2 and 16:9 mode. Is the sensor multi-aspect like the GH2's, as the spec here suggests?
Yes, I see dpreview has now corrected their specs, so it's not multi-aspect.
Is the sensor true multi-aspect like the GH2's (as the specs here suggest)? There seems to be some conflict about the resolution in 3:2 and 16:9 modes among different sites.
There seems to be some confusion on different sites about the resolution in 3:2 and 16:9 mode. Is the sensor multi-aspect like the GH2's, as the spec here suggests?
ogl: FA 77/1.8 LimitedMaximum Diameter 64 mmLength 48 mmWeight 270 g
M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.863.5mm diameter x 69.5mm lengthWeight 304 g
why the lens for 4/3 bigger and heavier than for FF?
I didn't say the 77 was a bad lens--I agree it's very nice. However, it's bokeh wide open _does_ exhibit cut off blur circles. If you want a different example, try http://www.flickr.com/photos/sparcher/5286269243/
I was only pointing out why the 75's front element seems a bit large. Olympus has specifically said it's for maintaining round blur circles even wide open.
The 77 has fairly swirly bokeh even on APS-C, e.g., http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickharris1/4567416731/
Olympus says the 75 is specifically designed for round blur circles even at the frame edges.
micksh6: Front element seems to be rather large. 75mm F1.8 lens requires only 42mm front element diameter. This looks close to 50mm probably?
For comparison, Pentax 77mm F1.8 limited lens has 49mm filter thread and its front element is smaller, probably around 43mm.
I wonder why is that. Maybe this lens is a bit faster than F1.8?
From an Olympus spokesman on another forum:
"As you realised, this lens describes very beautiful bokeh, because it has been designed with as less vignetting as possible. If you take night scene with spotlights in background, you can get almost perfect circle of the blurred spotlights as attached file shows. Because of priority of small and light weight recently, manufactures design a lens with acceptable level of vignetting We can compensate the lack of brightness in corners by digital processing, but the perfect circle of blurred spotlight can't be got in this case. As you know, not only this lens but also 45mm F1.8 gives beautiful bokeh. As a camera manufacturer, we are developing these specific lenses with strong policy"
JesperMP: Good review BUT............
How can DPR not have spotted how Oly E-M5 chooses significantly different aperture/speed settings than other cameras.Example from DPRs own comparison widget: E-M5 @ISO3200: f6.3 1/800s.NEX-5N @ISO3200: f8 1/800s.That means E-M5 has 2/3 stops more light to make the same picture.One might go as far as call it "cheating".
By that I do not agree that Oly has closed the gap sensor-wise. Not that it is a bad camera, not all all, but when comparing cameras in such a "scientific" way, the comparisons must be under exactly the same conditions.
The studio light may change. They do basically two tests. One (not the studio test) is with a calibrated light meter. For that test, they use a grey card, and they see whether the output level in JPEG (at the exposure indicated by the light meter) matches the level that "middle grey" is supposed to be, or whether the camera needs a bit more or less exposure to hit that brightness. That gets reported in the ISO accuracy section. Then for the studio scene (where the light may change), they set the lights, ISO, and lens aperture, then vary the shutter speed and look at the JPEGs until the grey card patch in the scene has the right brightness. That shutter speed is the one that gets show in the studio comparison widget.
Your exact objections arose back when they first published the E-M5 studio tests. They pointed out in those threads that they don't hold the conditions constant (and that they had in fact recently changed the lighting so that they could deal with cameras like the 5Diii and D4 at their ginormous ISO settings). See for example, Andy's post here.
The dpreview guys have explicity stated that the lighting is not constant for the studio set-up, so you can't compare the absolute exposure parameters. The info you have to go by is the ISO accuracy section, which says that the E-M5 is off by 1/3 of a stop in metering. So assuming the 5N is perfectly accurate, you'll have to bump the ISO on the E-M5 by 1/3 of a stop to match the scene brightness in JPEG.