Ben O Connor: Cheapest set achieved for landscape photographers (architecture, various engineering, etc.)
EM-5II + 10,5 F O.95 Voightlander+ Dead steady tripod!
Total of 2.500€, worth every dime.
If no m4/3 lens can out resolve the 16MP sensor, then Olympus wouldn't have bother with 40MP high res mode, and we wouldn't see any tests showing 4000lw/ph or comparisons with 36MP D810:
nerd2: So MF 20mm 1.8 equivalent for $1250 and 586gr? Nikon 20mm 1.8g weighs 357gr, has AF, costs $500 less....
Nerd2, it's not hard to understand.
The physical focal length affects the f-number, which affects exposure. What you say keep saying are FoV and DoF which don't affect exposure at all.
If DoF affects exposure, then small sensor cameras (e.g. phones) would require insanely bright lens or extremely high ISO to shoot pretty much any scene without under exposing.
What's your speculation based on?
There are samples/tests out there comparing the high-res mode of the E-M5mkII against the D810 where the Olympus able to match the 36MP FF camera.
Mister Roboto: Ok we get it, you like the crappy iPhone when there are tons of better smartphones( hello Nokia, Panasonic, Samsung) with camera or simply a real and dedicated camera. =D
And haters gonna hate.
Why so many Android users hate iPhone with a passion (see all them comments below)?
I myself haven't own an iPhone since the iPhone4 and have had 3 Android phones since then but I wouldn't mind an iPhone6.
That said, they're just devices and not worth getting worked up on.
Snikt228: This camera seems pretty big for what it is to me. The EM5 II with 12-40 2.8 is very nearly the exact same size and weight as an A7 with 24-70 f4, and that's comparing 2X crop to FF, huge difference.
Comparing those 2 cameras with small primes I think the A7 is actually even shorter or the same size
@sensibill "would be some way to grade the amount of pixel well volume and rate of photons read per site occurring per image capture"
OR... look at the sample photos. Better yet, try the camera your self ;-)
I don't know why f-stop is so hard to understand. F-stop, which is basically light intensity, is the same across format otherwise the number will be meaningless. Obviously, f/2.8 FF lens will collect more photons as it should since it is feeding a bigger sensor, but the light intensity is the same as a f/2.8 APS-C and f/2.8 m4/3. Mount the f/2.8 FF lens on a smaller format (without speedbooster) and it'll still be f/2.8.
Put it another way, paint a wall with a bucket of paint, then paint another wall with twice the surface area with 2 buckets of the same paint. Which wall would have a more vibrant colour? Same even though the bigger wall would have more total paint on it.
Looks nice but I would like to see more effort put into the Wireless Mobile Utility app so that it does more than just trigger the shutter and view images, like adding ability to control exposure, AF and so on.
mpgxsvcd: I am so glad I bought the Olympus E-M5 MK II last weekend. It runs circles around every A-PSC camera that Nikon and Canon make in this price range. The E-M5 MK II has better video capabilities, better features like 5 stop IBIS, Live Time, 63 megapixel mode, Great AFC tracking, and better burst speeds. Not to mention that it is much smaller, lighter, and less expensive.
Nikon and Canon both need to realize that mirrorless will be the future whether they like it or not.
@nerd2: Don't you know that aperture doesn't change across formats? What you refer to is equivalence in Field of View and Depth of field. Also, shallower DoF != better is not always true.
When I've shot FF, I'm normally around f4-5.6 when doing portraits, smaller when doing product/still-life shots because I want more of the subject in focus but that means having to compensate with a slower shutter, higher ISO or strong strobes.
With a smaller format, like m4/3, I can shoot wide open and get decent DoF, while maintaining lower ISO, faster shutter, or less strobes. The lenses are sharp too.
In terms of cost, the m4/3 cams I've mentioned are cheaper than the d7200, especially the gx7 at around $500 right now. As for lenses, the 12-40/2.8 is much cheaper than the Nikon 17-55/2.8 but with better build quality and sharpness for example. FF lenses are more expensive obviously. In addition, Panasonic/Olympus makes more native lenses for m4/3 than Nikon/Canon make DX/EF-S lenses for APS-C.
I still think the DSLR still has its place but I agree with the other stuff you said. You get a lot of bang for your buck with mirrorless like the E-M5mkII and especially older ones like the GX7, which came out in 2013 but already had wifi w/ NFC that we are only seeing now on a D7xxx.
Even then the D7200's screen is still not articulated nor touch capable. No silent mode or IBIS. The 1/250 flash sync is nice but not as good as the 1/320 on the GX7. The face detection is neat but we've seen it for a while now on mirrorless.
That said, it's a good refresh of the D7xxx model and should be appealing for someone who's upgrading from D5xxx (or lower) and want to stick to Nikon.
art99: Where is the 4K in this camera? a new model without the 4K? You gotta be kidding'
The 7D Mark II don't have 4k and neither do the 5DS / 5DS R. Canon must be mad?
The biggest player in the market is not heavily investing in mirrorless system because consumers are still favouring DSLRs because the biggest player in the market is not heavily investing in mirrorless system because ...
At any rate, even though the EOS-M line is basically half-ass attempt, it still works:- good secondary camera to a Canon DSLR user- good starter camera for noob who only needs/buys 1 or 2 lenses
Opticalibrator or just "Cal"
rrccad: excellent idea .. making truely portable ILC's such as the Nikon 1 or this one are really what MILC needs to be, not canon or sony's APS-C or even sony's FF.
balanced lenses and a really really small total system kit, and with IQ good enough unless you are shooting in a bat cave all night.
"balanced lenses and a really really small total system kit, and with IQ good enough"
I agree but instead of the Nixon 1, I'd rather go for M4/3. Better IQ, more lenses, more bodies, more accesories, etc. for similar size and sometimes smaller depending on body/lens combo.
goshigoo: Panasonic is really doing very well recently (except the 42.5 f/1.2, but we can just ignore it since we already have 45 f/1.8)
The recent releases of GM1 / GX7 / GH4 / 15 / 12-32 and the upcoming 35-100 are on the right path of m43; the true spirit of m43in terms of pricing and portability
I hope we will see a 8mm pancake prime or 9-18mm from panasonic soon
Base on your your linear equation using a Canikon 85/1.8 @ $450 as base, then the lenses below should have the following price:
Canon 50/1.8 = 156Canon 50/1.4 = 257Canon 50/1.2 = 350Canon 85/1.2 = 1013Nikon 85/1.4 = 744
Except for the 50/1.8, everything is way off. Further, the Olympus 45/1.8 would have better "cost performance" than the Canon 50/1.2 based on the same logic. That doesn't make sense. In fact, none of this is true.
radissimo: For a second I was thinking about this kit, but why not get Canon G x1 mark II with nice bright zoom lens, bigger sensor and for less?
"I DON'T think that the low light performance will be much different between this Canon GX1 mkII and GM1 with this lens"
Wrong. Current m4/3 sensors have better performance than the one in the G1XmkII and pretty much all Canon APS-C.
So, add a brighter/sharper lens in front of the better sensor, the GM1 or even the cheaper E-PM2 will out perform the Canon any day, or is it any night. Actually, an E-PM2 + 14/2.5 might still be better despite the lens being slightly slower than the G1XmkII and the combo is much cheaper.
FYI, size difference is smaller. The crop factor of the GX1mkII is 1.92x in either 3:2 or 4:3. At 3:2, effective sensor height is 12.5, shorter than m4/3 which is 13mm.
justmeMN: "This could be a cultural difference, of course."
No brand of mirrorless camera sells will in North America and Europe. We don't have a "if it's a little smaller it must be better" mentality.
I don't know what mirrorless you speak off. Anyone I hand my Olympus mirrorless to can easily use it like an SLR or camera phone.
My wife, not camera savvy, does exactly what you say: turn mode dial to green/auto, look through viewfinder and push the shutter just like any SLR.
It even gets easier for people who've only used a phone as a camera before because of the touchscreen: old at arms length and tap on screen. Try doing that on a typical DSLR. How many of them have touch screen and how many can focus in Live View (CDAF) quickly? I've seen so many people who obviously just got a DSLR for the first time because they try to use it like this and just get furstrated.
Hawaii-geek: OFF Camera Flash triggering , on a small camera ... Nice ! you would think that is a NO Brain-er for any small camera. ... RX1/r comes to mind, I am not bitter :)
About time. Even the very cheap E-PL1 can do multi-flash wireless remote control from its built-in flash.
Plastek: " We have done some studies where we presented consumers with a DSLR and a mirrorless camera and ask them if the image quality was the same, which one they would chose, and generally they chose the DSLR." - I would answer in exactly the same way. Simply because DSLRs offer by far wider choice of lenses many of which are superior to mirrorless glass. And then there are whole systems of accessories, flashes, and well: everything else that in the end creates a photograph.
So: Yes, DSLRs DO offer better final image quality, but reasons for that go beyond body itself.
Maybe on FF. On APS-C DSLRs like the majority of users, it's difficult to say that mirrorless is inferior as a general statement.
I mean, I've had Rebels for years and Canon never made an EF-S 'normal' lens (around 28-35mm) and only ever bothered making only ONE EF-S prime. Yes, you could use EF (FF) lenses or lenses from third party, but it's obvious that Canon's main focus is FF. A while ago, Nikon was in a similar boat, but luckily they've put more effort in making DX lenses. Now, compare that to the number of mirrorless lenses released so far in the last few years, particularly in m4/3. Even Fuji released 3 primes right off the bat. Mirrorless lenses, like m4/3, perform just as well as their DSLR equivalent mounted on a APS-C bodies.
As for accessories like flash, m4/3 is using the same flash system as their DSLR. Also, even the cheapest body, like the E-PL1, has multi-flash wireless remote control built-in, where as you'd need a middle tier body or higher to get that on DSLRs.
Jose Sentmanat: This is all good as usual with your reviews, I am still hoping that I can get a lot for all of my formerly expensive SLR cameras and lenses to that I can afford to by one decent DSLR or Mirrorless Digital Camera. Sorry I must wait also for a miracle that prices come within my reach. :(
"Poor cost performance"? Like a T5i, the EM-10 has an articulated touchscreen but at a lower price and you also get better IQ, IBIS, WiFi, larger viewfinder with 100% coverage, more physical controls, metal case, and so on. Stop your BS.
SelfMotivator: A 50mm slow lens f/2.8 for $US1K, damn. Fuji 56mm f/1.2 sounds like a sure winner.
Edited: I did not see MACRO so no comparison. Fuji 60mm f/2.8 macro is only $US650, a much better reached focal length if I shoot macro.
Worthless for me anyway :).
It is a "Zeiss" so it is expected to be expensive but the price is steep for a macro none the less. Makes the Oly 60/2.8 weather proof macro look like a bargain at $400.