Scottelly: This is stupid. NOBODY prints anymore . . . especially not in a small format. The only prints I have made in the last 5 years are 8x10 or bigger. Why would I want to print smaller than that? EVERYONE has a smart phone.
It seems like EVERYONE wants to do the same things. Lets all be IDENTICAL.
That was a sneaky advert from a big corporation. DPReview.drops in my estimation a bit if they don't make it clear to loyal supporters,
This vote is "pumping". Actively inventing activity on the site by regurgitating info and trying to involve users. It does not add any useful information. You can understand why they do it. But it is still user abuse.
mosc: I don't get it. If you really really must have small, why do you want ILC? Is the lens selection you have to chose from just SO awesome? Is somebody really going to go out and put on the 90% of 4/3rds lenses that outweigh this little thing?
I don't understand the point of an ILC for a tiny camera. If size is the top priority, an internal power zoom just wins. Why would you get a Nikon 1 when there's the RX100? Why would you get the Q7 when there's an S120?
Do people really view ILC as a feature even without carrying multiple lenses? If you buy an ILC camera and keep one lens on it you either have something big enough where ILC doesn't add size/weight (dslr) or something silly.
I get 4/3rds. You want to carry around glass without breaking your back. Cutting the total kit weight makes sense while keeping the flexibility of ILC. But this isn't like that. No sane person would mount a portrait length lens on this thing. Why does it even have an ILC to begin with?
Easy. For someone with m4/3 lenses, it makes a perfect second body. That doubles as a pocket camera, a backup camera for travelling, an unobtrusive street shooter and something to save you changing lenses in a hurry.
(unknown member): nothing says dull, flat and lifeless quite like an M4/3rds camera
The "Oh Wow" comes from the photographer. And the EM5 and EM1 make it very easy to do. It's amazing what people lead themselves to believe.
Patrick Kristiansen: If one needs 40+mp's to crop a pic into something worth watching, one is not taking one's pics right. And 16mp is enough for just about anyone without a very special need. Not many lenses justify a higher resolution either. And not to mention the need for exceedingly high shutterspeed and/or tripods. Nah, super-high resoultion is bonk imo. Can't wait to receive my em1 and 12-40 lens. And can wait even less to try out my OM-lenses on it.
With a bit of experience you will find out that sometimes things don't always sit nicely in front of your lens waiting for you to compose the shot nicely. Sometimes the action happens too far away. 36Mp or more can help make or save a great shot. But for most of my photographs, 16Mp is more than good enough. Eventually sensors will have many more pixels than today. 4/3 will be no different. It does not make sense to refuse a 50Mp sensor. You might need a bigger disk though.
Dougbm_2: I just have to say it. Although the image seem to show this is a capable camera the general quality of photography in this site is quite average. Maybe that's part of it's appeal? It is more of a gear site than a photo site. Still useful but maybe not so inspiring.
Keep an eye on the Challenges. Some of the best photos you will ever see.
Ah! A non-technical, prejudice-only criticism! Born out of a lack of knowledge probably. It must seem strange to them that several new m43 cameras got high ratings this year.
If you don't like the deal they offer, don't take it. Don't get angry. Go somewhere else. Give your money to a rival to help them offer a better product. It's good for everyone. Even Adobe users. As Adobe will have to drop their prices or improve their product. In fact, didn't they just drop their prices? Mass exodus appears to be working.
WhyNot: “By removing the mirror and optical viewfinder, manufacturers are able to make their cameras smaller, without compromising ergonomics, … “ ???? I'd like to suggest that unless you spend all your time on a tripod or using a camera as a computer that by keeping, and sometime increasing, the number of controls found on a DSLR that these smaller cameras do compromise ergonomics.... I own three mFT bodies (which I do like for many reasons) and find that too often when I'm shooting I find myself looking at a menu in the viewfinder or finding that a parameter has been unintentionally changed to my chagrin …. Even you write about the G6 that you don't like the “Tight controls and small buttons “ this is to me what ergonomics is mostly about..... These companies need to rethink the control and operations layout for these cameras or let the body fit the functions it was made for or specify hand size like they do for gloves... Well maybe I go too far....
True. Some mirrorless cameras do compromise on ergonomics. But they don't have to. There are some weak points with the EM5 (bracketing, mysets) but the later EP5 and EM1 show it can be done well.
Jerodequin: Hello DPReview - could you please explain what 'Poor Program Line' means in the cons for the GX7? Thanks!
Program mode is great for people who shoot a variety of types scenes when out. Maybe not interesting for people who 'always use aperture priority'. I use naked program mode for many shots where no specific aperture or shutter speed would help. Program picks a sensible setting. However the range of pictures is expanded when using 'Program Shift'. A roll of the wheel and you've got your chosen setting. No changing modes needed. You are effectively changing the 'program line'. Want to stick with that setting for longer, then switch to aperture priority. I want to react quickly when out rather than try to guess what is around the next corner.
TN Args: So the winning camera has:
- POOR video (just like you rated the E-P5 video)
- DODGY image stability (a percentage of E-M5 owners report the same 'shutter shock' issue that you were so unhappy with in your review of the E-P5)
- NO INBUILT FLASH (!)
- an INADEQUATE GRIP, that necessitates the purchase of tacky third party add-on grips or a large and expensive Vertical Grip that renders the camera NOT SMALL AT ALL
- baby dSLR design that sports an unnecessary, illogical and widely criticized 'prism hump', which makes the camera bigger than it needs to be, and results in a form factor that suits nobody but dSLR wannabees; and....
- antiquated non-connectivity to the owner's online presence (a big issue for pros and semi pros, and even the general modern person).
Given that you could have chosen at least one camera with none of these faults and flaws, I'm speechless.....
'All' the cameras here have a list of weak points. Not just the EM5. They picked it as a winner because they wanted to tell people what a great shooter it is. And the hump is very necessary. But all cameras from all brands with a big usable EVF have a hump, or bulk up the whole body like the Fujifilm. There is no need to pretend it is not there. Personally I'd prefer a body without the hump for size reasons. But that EVF is too good to miss.Nobody criticises DSLRs for having a hump. Get over the hump!
pancromat: these days engineering could be wildly free to put any controls anywhere. no mechanical constraint. so why should a modern camera look like this. olympus, you don't get me with this, tiny, edgy, retro - whatever. your OM 35mm SLRs where legendary, but thats over now. why do i still have to press my greasy nosetip against the screen? IQ might be real good and the technology impressive, but this gear looks ridiculous to me. you let all this behind you when you burried the OM SLRs, only selling "bridge cameras" from there on. your FT DSLRs where plucky. liked them. serious tools. but this. give me a brick like Fuji X or the new panasonic gx-7, or excellent prospective ergonimics, or ....
The NEX is good. But not all cameras should be the same. Now we have a choice. The E-M5 retro look was very popular. Many other brands successfully use retro styling.
JackM: Only 14mp in proper 3:2 aspect ratio. :-/
Every picture needs whatever ratio that suits it best. Who wants an artificial constraint based on 35mm film when you want to be creative.Call one ratio "proper" looks more like wanting to follow rules rather than wanting freedom. "I will never change!" Sad.
Model Mike: Ugghh - that faux pentaprism is so passe! Might make a good perch for a parrot.
I like the look of it. Better than the square box style. The X-Pro1. is also big compared to the Olympus.The GX7 manages to squeeze anEVF in. But it is compromised compared to the Olympus.
Gesture: I hope it's good, being the last one? of this is the pinnacle of Olympus evolution. I would have made the body a bit larger to better handle the 4/3rds lenses that this flagship model was "promised" to handle well. There obviously will not be any more OVF cameras from Olympus.
Actually, I wonder where all this leaves Pentax-with 3 pretty conventional APS-C DSLRs, whilst Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Sony are doing some exciting things-refining micro 4/3rds or really offering variety in APS-C.
if you want a bigger body you can add the battery grip. The E-M1 is easy to hold with it's front grip.
Nobody knows where the various formats are going. We'll have to wait and see. Even Nikons troubled 1 series might make a comeback.
samhain: I wish Olympus would put out aps-c cameras, or better yet FF. they sure know how to build nice cameras & lenses.
The results from m43 sensors are excellent. Better than many aps-c cameras. It is pointless for Olympus and Panasonic to make big bulky cameras as it would for Nikon to make a medium format camera. Pointless to make all the cameras the same.
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.
I don't know about the maths, but my E-M5 has a gorgeous viewfinder. Apparently the E-M1 is even better. Though I dont feel the need to upgrade. The E-M5 has it's faults. But I still love using it.
peevee1: Greed won over Olympus managers this time once again. They somehow decided that people bought E-M5 because it is Olympus and not because it was a better camera at cheaper price 19 months ago. After E-P5 pricing fiasco, now E-M1 pricing fiasco.
The price is always determined by what they think the market will pay. And it will drop over time to keep sales moving. Everyone camera maker does that. It would be foolish not to.
dweberphotography: Maybe someone here can answer this for me:
What is the difference between Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds? Is the sensor size different?
Yes. There are many enthusiasts who put all sorts of lenses on their m43 adapter. There is quite a market for secondhand lenses with all sorts of fittings. I've just dug out my old OM 50mm 1.4 lens which equates to 100mm. Great for portraits.