At that price, I expect something faster. At that speed, I expect lower price. Let's hope it's optically excellent. At least it's bloody tiny.
io_bg: For this price it should've been f/2... And I hope it won't be as soft as the 16mm f/2.8.
@pureaxis: With the same focal length, the Panasonic 20/1.7 is brighter than the Sony because the Pany has a larger aperture diameter and glass elements, not smaller image circle. I'm sure you know that f-stop is a ratio between focal length and aperture diameter.
How come there couldn't be a shared standard for APS-C mirror less too? I mean, there is no technical reason for Fuji and Canon to not use the E-mount, especially that the flange distance and sensor size is pretty much or is the same. Obviously and unfortunately, business/legal reasons (and pride) won't allow it. Still, one could wish.Anyway, as someone who has some m43 gear, I'm excited about this.
naththo: Just Posted: Read my lips: Who use the most mirrorless camera available today to date: Panasonic and Olympus 4/3. Who has the most available lens for the mirrorless: Olympus 4/3. Who has built in IS in mirrorless camera: Olympus 4/3. Nex did not meet all specific requirement in competition to beat others and failed. Nex con is: No built in IS, less lens available, to get more lens available separated adapter must be purchased first and to have IS available lens must be purchased that has built in IS. That will make Nex hobby more expensive than Olympus overall for example. Olympus is still the most affordable mirrorless camera to date. Do you get the picture? Everyone can have entitle to have opinion on brand but remember these above are the reason why. Sony starts mirrorless a lot later than Panasonic and Olympus first made it way back then. And finally now Canon is first time make one mirrorless camera this time but only first time ever. While Pentax started a lot later too.
@Josh152 I don't own an EM5 but planning to buy one after trying it out. Found it to have better IQ than my old T2i. Also, looking at DxO, it has a better score than any Canon APS-C and close to NEX. So, what you say regarding it's IQ is baseless. As for DOF, having more is not an "issue". There are certainly enough fast primes for m4/3, more than Canon EF-S lenses. I use a 45/1.8 on a PEN and it has good bokeh while being really sharp. Even though I have an older PEN (the EPL2), it was good enough to make me sell the T2i and its lenses. The EM5 has much better IQ than the previous PENs, but the current crop of Canon APS-C is no better in IQ than the old T2i.
Monty71: I find it funny that the same people that bash this camera's small sensor and own m43 cameras usually insist that m43 are just as good as cameras with larger sensors.
@Tord S Eriksson
Anepo was referring to a Canon APS-C, not Nikon FF. If you look at DxO, the E-M5 (and by extension E-PM2/E-PL5) have better IQ than any Canon APS-C, such as 600D, 60D, 7D, etc. With a score of 71, the E-M5 is also not that far from NEX-6 (which has a score of 78).
The new V2 has a DxO score of 50, not even close to current m4/3 and APS-C. Coupled with a limited selection of (native) lenses, it's no surprise some bash it while at the same time they praise m4/3. To make matter worse, the Nikon 1 bodies and lenses are not even that small compared to other mirrorless, particularly m4/3.
m4/3 is better than FF if the criteria is size/weight, budget, 5-axis IBIS, touchscreen, etc. I don't think anyone would actually state m4/3 is better than FF in terms of absolute IQ.
Want some cheese with your whine? Lighten up and stop complaining about…
* cheating - can't accuse one group with "ballot stuffing" without accusing all of them. It's not hard to do and there are many fanbois on all camps.
* this popularity contest means nothing - of course it does. The sample size if big enough, and the result is inline with other sites. You don't have to agree with it but there's no need to slam it.
* tired of reading about the E-M5 - a lot of reviewers and most of its owners praise it for being a surprisingly good and well rounded camera that can appeal to a lot of people. It is also somewhat of an underdog, making the users champion it even more. Why not give it a try instead of hating?
* m4/3 users are annoying - many m4/3 are still using or have used other formats and are wiling to share their positive experience compared to other formats. Also, how would you react when others call you "delusional" and your camera a "toy"?
hammerheadfistpunch: Its not that the IQ is bad, its just that the lens system and the proprietary hotshoe are dragging the whole concept down. CX is just too far left of MFT to be taken seriously. MFT i think is the line in the sand between "semi-professional/high end" and "consumer/toy"
I have to agree with he hotshoe issue. Why make a new one? Even Sony started using a 'real' hotshoe on their NEX. Canon, Olympus/Panaonsic, and Fuji use fairly standard hotshoe on their mirrorless. Nikon could've easily used their existing hotshoe and release small flash appropriate for the V1/2 then call it a day.
ybizzle: Bought a new Pentax Q for $250 that has about the same IQ as this at a fraction of the size and price. What a little gem and it gets compliments whenever people see it. :)
Gotta love London Drugs; for a grocery/drug store, they have a huge computer camera dept. It was there that I was able try E-M5, NEX-7/6, X-Pro1, XE1, etc. before any of the electronics/camera store I frequent have them (Bestbuy, Futureshop, Broadway camera, Kerrisdale camera, Lens and Shutter, etc.).
mgblack74: FF & m 4/3's have their place. Just like MF pros of the past used 35mm or 110 film cameras for personal shooting/travel/reportage. Polaroid was the Instagram of it's day. Bigger the image capture media size the better for ultimate IQ. Smaller formats are great for portability and fun, but creative flexibility is still limited.
So, larger sensor (hence, larger body, lenses, bag, etc.), more creativity? LOL.
I couldn't bring my DSLR in certain arenas, clubs, and a bunch of other places. Haven't experienced such restriction w/ m4/3.
I brought my DSLR only once in a backpack while mountain biking and never wanted to do that ever again. I store my m4/3 in a saddle/frame bag on my MTB all the time when I hit the trail.
I can travel with an m4/3 body + 4 lenses without drastically increasing my luggage weight.
The wife never wanted to bring the DSLR so only manage to capture (family) events with a cheap P&S or phone camera.
The underwater housing for the E-M5 is small and affordable; can't say the same for the ones that are for D800 and other DSLR.
The list goes on. It seems that what's limited is your imagination.
James O'Neill: Best anything polls are mostly for fun, and from the comments we can see they generate more heat than light. Interesting that the winner of this one is not from the big two, is not a huge seller, and it carries a price tag close to that of FF models - which simply by the laws of physics will get better dynamic range, better high ISO performance and more recorded detail.
So it seems DPR readers voted for something they respected rather than bought. My own bias is against small sensors, and for true SLRs, but this gives me pause. 2 of the top three were FF - which is getting cheaper. The winner was a small sensor mirrorless which is plenty good enough for many. Is then end in sight for the APS-C sensor true SLR ?
The E-M5 is less than $1k, almost as low as 1/3 the price of the 5DIII and D800. How are they close on price?
matthiasbasler: I had hoped the D5200 would replace my D5000 camera, but alas, it disqualifies itself by the set of resolutions offered.12MP were more than enough for me - I had great 75x50cm prints from them. Why do I need 24 MP? But the real problem is that the "lowest" resolution offered is now 6 MP. Unfortunately I used the D5000 (among others) for photographing house facades in order to texture models - 2MP is all I need for this. Sure, I can downsize the images afterwards, but isn't this ridiculous, having to by a larger SD card and spending extra work just because the camera cannot shoot small images?Plus, the D5200 is still not able to record images in other aspect ratios, such as 16:9 or 4:3, a feature offered by almost every other camera nowadays.Maybe Nikon thinks this would make it hard to switch through the options? Not if the user could choose a few preferred combinations of size, quality and aspect ratio, and just cycle through these. It would require only one button!
Maybe you should try other brands. It is easy to change resolution and aspect ratio on my Panasonic and Olympus m4/3 cameras; I can have 4 presets of resolutions/compression on my PEN and can access them as well as change aspect ratios it with out diving into the menu system. So, take a look at a Panasonic G5 or Olympus E-PL5, either one has a more practical 16MP sensor, articulated and touch sensitive screen, and cheaper/smaller/lighter. If you want "real" multi-apect, take a look at a GH2.
Marvol: A lot of 'glass half empty' people here on the forums, blimey :S.
One point to note, if you include a grip, flipout tilt swivel rotating screen, EVF and OVF and hybrid VF... wouldn't you just end up with a small DSLR without interchangeable lenses? Yes, you would. And would the camera be even more expensive? Of course it would. And then all of you lot would be complaining about that. Get over yourselves.
As it is, Sony (of course) left all these things off to keep the camera as small as possible while still carrying a FF sensor. It is a statement of intent. Judge it as that. It's like looking at the McLaren road car and going "there's no boot" "my kids don't fit in the back" "the suspension is too hard" "for 1M I would expect adjustable seats". Apples, oranges.
What I want is a NEX-9. That is, NEX-7 with a FF sensor and that new hotshoe. It should also have IBIS like the Alpha bodies so the lenses wouldn't have to be bigger to accommodate IS. The NEX-9 shouldn't be a whole lot bigger than the NEX-7 or anywhere near the size of an A99. It should also cost less as it wouldn't have weather sealing, top LCD, translucet mirror, separate PDAF sensor, etc. Actually, Sony should be able to price the NEX-9 as low as or even below the D600/6D.
I can see why the RX1 is that expensive: new FF Zeiss lens (probaly at least 1/2 the camera's price considering how much Zeiss lenses go for), very niche product, and so on.
Then, adapt small Leica lenses and the whole package will be small, just like a Leica but with IBIS, high res EVF, tilting LCD, etc. for less money.
startowa13: I like the direction Sony is going. I have to say that if Sony would made a FF body with m-mount it would kill Leica. Well, maybe not kill it but a lot of photographers would jump in. That FF 24MP sensor is very good, I have A99 and there is nothing I can complain about. I also have extensive m-mount lens collection and if Sony would make that FF m-mount native body for $2000... sales would goo off the roof and I think it would be a good directions to go.
It doesn't even need an m-mount. Sony just need to put that FF sensor in a rangefinder style body with an E-Mount and EVF of course. Then you can get an m-mount adapter and have your Leica "replacement". Sony is not that far away as they already have an FF NEX, the VG900. Sony should also put IS in the NEX bodies like they do in Alpha bodies. It just make sense as they already have the technology, the new (FF) NEX lenses wouldn't need IS, which would have made the lenses bigger than they ought to be, and any lens, native or adapted, is stabilized. Actually, I dont even know why they launched the NEX system w/o IBIS.
Rachotilko: To DPR team:
to reduce the confusion, would you not consider an article about the f-number equivalence ?
The question "does the need to apply f-number equvalence apply to DOF calculation only or to shutter speed calculation as well" has been hotly debated here for quite a long time.
Some basic lesson in photooptics would silence this, I hope.
@Beach Bum:You were wrong too at times, particularly when you wrote that "you have to factor in both the sensor size and the F-number, to know which camera is faster at a given focal length". Sensor size affects angle/field of view and depth of field for a given focal length and f-number but it doesn't change speed, as in shutter. Sensitivity, as in ISO, is somewhat dependent on sensor size, but sensor technology is a bigger factor. That said, ISO/aperture/shutter need not change on caneras with different sensors to properly expose the same scene albeit some may be noisier than others.
fmian: Personally I think these should have been:in no order
Sony rx100Canon G1xFuji X10Olympus Xz2Ricoh GRd4
I wouldn't add the G1X to the list. It is too expensive, too bulky, not bright enough (f/2.8-5.6), and slow operationally.
What is it with m4/3 lens announcements that get people buzzing? Previous 2 lens news (from Sigma, Canon) didn't get as much comments. Don't tell me talk of equivalence, lens color, price, performance assumptions, etc. is more exciting than praising Canon for their ground-breaking center pinch lens cap. Crazy!
Matz03: Wow is it annoying reading about all of the FF lenses and how cheap they are, all of those FF lenses are 10-20 years old and even from film days, of course you can sell it cheap when your tooling for glass has been around for so long. All of canikon glass are dinosaurs compared to the m4/3 stuff. And why would you feel the need to comment when you have no interest in this system and its product releases.
Totally agree. The new 35/2 IS USM is $850. Add to that the cost of a new FF body, which is no less tha $2100, like the 6D. Not to mention, more money on larger bags, tripods, filters, etc. Oh and, you gotta carry all that weight around.
SunnyFlorida: The Nikkor 35mm F/1.8 sells for $180, the 35mm F/2.0d sells for $270 and can be used in 2 formats, Oly is asking $500 for this???
"(Fair= same angle, same DOF, same number of photons captured per time)"
On 4x the area with 25% brightness. Do you care more about counting photons than having proper exposure?
Retzius: I wish Nikon cared about their DX lens lineup as much as Olympus has done to complete m43 as a system. sigh.
I feel the same for Canon EF-S len lineup; it's worse than DX even.
D1N0: 500 for a standard prime... Nikkor 35mm F1.8 Under 200.
The Nikon 35/1.8 is for DX with different FoV. Tell me the price of the Nikon lens if you want this FoV (equivalent to 35mm on FF) and speed (f/1.8) on a DX body. Now tell me if it has full metal construction and internally/silently focusing.