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"
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.
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.
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.
Paul Guba: I would have brought the 12-40 18 months ago without hesitation, but with so many more mirrorless options now I really don't feel the compulsion.
Other mirrorless systems still don't have weather sealed and constant f/2.8 zooms.
Gazeomon: Surely a very good camera, but I'll wait for more info on the Pentax K3 which is not much larger than the EM-1 but has a new sensor. I also miss the top panel display on the Olympus to which I got so used to on my DSLR's (all the important info's at a glance). But there is a lot to like on the EM-1.
The EVF has all the info you need and it shows you what the sensor "sees". Plus you get other info like live histogram, grid, level, etc.
Sergey Borachev: I see a lot of reaction from DSLR users.
Especially for all those who keep pointing out the small M43 sensor, I wonder why they bother to read this review at all, and why they then feel the need to post what we all know - that M43 cameras have a smaller sensor, no good, blah blah.
Shouldn't they be happy about what they use, the bigger sensor and cameras etc, and not feel so threatened?
@Henry M. Hertz: last time I checked you can still buy an m43 camera w/ lens for less than $500, like the E-PM2. How much is a 6D/D600 + lens, and how much bigger and heavier is it? As for those EVFs that suck battery, the newest FF bodies (A7/A7r) has 'em.
IZO100: This review before the Canon 70D ? Why ?
What is the market share of this toy again ??
@photo nuts:Family sedans outsells sporty coupés, so what's your point?
Paul JM: no OIS at this price ?no interest sadly. Would love a fast wide prime with OIS to use with the Blackmagic pocket
Only 1 m4/3 prime has OIS that is currently available and this is much wider and brighter than that so it is to be expected. Besides, if you mount it on a GX7 or any Oly body, it'll be stabilized.
MarceloSalup: I would hope most of the people reading this site would have those, for sure. I recently added one more: a bean-bag-mini-tripod. It is a beanbag with a tripod head and great when shooting in locations where the mini-tripo is too clumsy: for example, windowsills, held against a light post... the bean bag conforms to the surface really well.
Haven't seen one of those yet so I'll check them out. Personnally, I like those mini flexible tripods (gorillapod). You can wrap them around tree branches, stand them on rocky/uneven surface, etc.
RDCollins: Sorry, Sony, but I need an electronic or optical view finder! The option you offer is far too expensive and compromises the camera's compact size.
At almost $450, the FDA-EVM1K is definitely expensive. Also, there really are no other options. Compare that to the Olympus VF4, which has the same resolution but cost only $280. On top of that, there even cheaper options: VF2 and VF3.Anyway, the RX100II is nice and all but if one needs an EVF, might as well go for a NEX6 or GX7, which are also wifi capable.
Deardorff: 14 degrees? ABOVE zero???
That is not cold. They are claiming it won't freeze up in the cold so why isn't it good to 30 below which is what our winters generally hit when bad weather comes in.
Sounds nice, but I already use my gear in sub zero temps with good success.
It says -10C or 14F, so definitely subzero.
PK24X36NOW: DPR viewfinder size fiction continues. "Dividing (viewfinder magnification) by the crop factor" is essentially an assumption (in this case) that the MFT sensor is 1/2 the size of a FF sensor, which it is not. It is little more than 1/4 the size.
The correct relative size calculation is as follows:
17.3 * 13 * 100% * 1.48 = 332.852 sq mm
35.9 * 24 * 100% * 0.7 = 603.12 sq mm
So the new Oly's "wonder viewfinder is actually little more than 1/2 as big as a typical FF dSLR viewfinder.
PenGun: Makes no sense to me. The Fuji X cameras will just murder it in almost every way and cost less.
And stabilization, weather sealing, burst rate, lens selection, wifi, etc.
"Quality is what I need.."
Then why you shooting with an APS-C cam? Go FF or MF.
"Makes no sense to me"
You make no sense.
Mirrorless Crusader: Hmm, I could buy a huge heavy 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom from CANIKON for $2500, or a lightweight portable 24-80mm f/2.8 for $1000 from OLYMPUS. Tough decision, there.
"You skipped right over APS-C to make a point, huh?"
Well a Nikon 17-55/2.8 costs $400 more and weighs twice as much.
Timmbits: I was eyeing this... but I just discovered on camerasizecom that this this is a bit larger than the APS NX300 - isn't MFT supposed to be more compact?
also, does anyone know how this compares to the GX1 and the Oly sensor (in the omdem5, epl5/5, ep5) ?
GX7 has built in EVF that tilts and pop-up flash, with more physical buttons and dials. Also, the sensor is stabilized. These things, which the NX300 don't have, add to the size.
brdeveloper: Too many moving parts. Is it shock-resistant?