Jogger: The 12-40 was shown to be all plastic inside with a thin metal casing... pretty sneaky if you ask me. The best built m43 lens so far is the Sigma made 75/1.8.. amazing internals.
My 12-40 makes nices photos, I'm sad yours is not to your satisfaction.
RichRMA: The laws of physics haven't changed, and no one has made a really good zoom lens with a zoom range over over 5x.
Not the physics, but the tools with better glass material.
Juandante: The next format Sony is going to take down. A10 in MF ?
Why should they take down anything? They sell all the sensors to everyone.
nicolaiecostel: Pentax is slowly fading due to the fact that they boxed themselves into a corner they can't escape. Olympus faded on the SLR market but jumped at the right time in the m43 boat, Samsung and Panasonic gave up on their SLR dreams for the better. Not Pentax. They keep selling "hey, look at me, I'm slightly better than that entry level/mid level canon/nikon, for less $$".
At least Sony took a different road to Canon and Nikon when they saw they cannot compete.
The SLR market is shrinking considerably and Pentax is still banging the same old drum, making a better Rebel/D5100 and a slightly worst but cheaper 7D, paired with the ubiquitous 18-55, in all it's itterations. The fact of the matter is, most Pentax users I know still use the kit lenses, and with Pentax glass getting that much more expensive lately, it's really hard to justify adding quality glass to a body that wants to sell itself as a performance bargain in comparrison to C/N. Time for Pentax to step up their game.
"For your information, Pentax is the company that defined the SLR look."
And this is which way relevant to nicolaiecostels comment?
PhotoPoet: Using a Sony RX 100, Nikon D7000 and of course iPhone5. I think I will pass. I am even with all the reading I am doing still confused as to "why" I want to switch. For me the D7000 (any DSLR) is speed. I will have to read a bit more to see if these four thirds cameras perform in such as way as to dump my D7000. Any one that is a user of this equipment, not just a "mine is bigger so its better" shooter, feel free to provide insight
@whyamihere: What would help you most is learning to read forum threads I guess.
Kimchiflower did not compare his G3 to a D7000 but a D90. chris96326 compared a D7100 to his E-M5 in picture quality.
Hope I could help you.
Noogy: Olympus Camedia was my first digital camera ever :) It sucked battery life like there's no tomorrow, would wipe out two Alkaline double As after about 20 shots without flash, but hey - it bought me from film to digital! Also with technology limitations then, I sometimes feel people were actually compelled to take better photos, hence they produced better photographers than the crappy ones who live and die on post-processing today.
My first camera was also a Camedia, an C-800L :-)
webrunner5: Hmm, looks pretty impressive.
@Iceman1973: That's the reason I only buy old bodies and got an new EPL5 for EUR 300 last week. Is the P5/GX7 better? Sure. Is it 700 EUR better? Hmm. Is it better with the kit lens compared to a EPL5/75/1.8 or 45 (if you're into primes)? Surely not.
peevee1: I don;t understand why would you prefer $1100 Nikon A or $800 Ricoh GR over, say, $200 GX1+$170 14/2.5 (you are getting the same IQ plus faster focusing plus touchscreen plus optional EVF plus ability to change lenses when needed plus ability to keep this 14mm for your next body vs just throwing out everything), or E-PL5+14mm (even better IQ, stabilization, tilting screen in addition to what GX1 gets you) or $600 RX100 (zoom, stabilization). Must be some irrational weirdo thing with getting less for more, like with Leicas.
Not sure what everyone has with this GX1, a two generations behind camera.
marike6: GR RAW files are noisier than Coolpix A files, both in the RAW Comparison tool and on DxOMark sensor ratings scores (GR's 972 ISO vs Coolpix A's 1164 ISO), while colors from the DNG files aren't as good by DPR's own admission (see Con #2) and in the sample images. Yet DPR has RAW IQ between the GR and Coolpix A as the same?
It's can't be lens difference as both lenses scored identically on DxOMark Lens Test (see DxOMark front page for GR lens test).
It's seems fairly obvious that the GR has better ergonomics along with the superb GR menu system. But the A has the class leading Sony Exmor sensor, and seems to produce a better looking files / images (See review samples).
Why is everyone always feeding the Marike troll?
I'm sure the Ricoh is an excellent camera.
Some remarks though:
1. As shown by Canon using an old APSC sensor for the 700d, sensor size is relative to the benefit of image quality. The E-M5 has better image quality than the 700d (low and high iso).
2. Not sure where you did get the 2X larger sensor, it's 1.64x for Nikon and 1.46x for Canon. Quite a difference to 2x.
Sergey Borachev: Trying to make it look like a vintage "F"Nikon is a mistake because those early Nikons are well know for being big, solid and heavy, and this 1-series cameras are small cameras. It does not work. The extra large viewfinder/flash block on top of a small camera just makes it look odd, and also awkward/inconvenient when put into a bag or jacket pocket. The Olympus PEN or the OMD look better, at least to those who remember their earlier cameras, because their sizes and silver/metal looks resemble the older cameras much btter.
This stunt only takes away any size and weight advantage that the V2 should have when compared to the APS-C NEX-6 or M43 E-PL5. Have a look at their sizes, side by side here:
I don't think Nikon can compete in miniaturising cameras with Sony or Olympus.
By a strange coincidence, I have an EPM1/14mm right in my jacket pocket.
Everdog: bradleyg5, nice try. The E-M5 runs circles around the old T2i. I can say this since I have used both. Also, the Olympus 75mm clearly performs better than the Canon 85mm lens (one of my favorite Canon lenses). The Canon also suffers from some pretty bad CA wide open, but still a good lens for the price...just not as good as the Olympus it seems.
@DarkShift: You're not discussing things with Marike6 the homepage comment troll, are you?
LOL, for years it was high ISO, then it was DR for some time when it was the only thing that matters for IQ, now that the M5 is equal or better than some APSC, it's only base ISO that determines IQ.
Neodp: I am not impressed with these samples. Most of them look washed-out, slightly. The colors are weird, and the shadows tend to have the digital, ugly noise. I recognize, many things have improved, and are of high quality; but without a sensor, that can do better than the current "best", I see little point. I am all for a better carry package, but not, with these cons. A slightly bigger camera, which can be older, and costs far less, can overall beat this. A trailing quality, 4/3rd sized sensor will never make it. It simply has to lead, in new sensor IQ quality, due to the smaller (for carry, and telephoto) size disadvantages. Now, if these were bargain basement priced, *and* you were then OK, with the "quality" (which I still would not be), then I could understand better, the compromise. A good camera, is not about compromises. It is about balances (lenses first), and needs to get out of your way. This is also not to say, I am for, or against mirror-less.
If m43 is not acceptable in IQ, and trails behind APSC (which I doubt) 2 years, then it seems you started to use digital cameras in 2010, as before IQ levels were unacceptable to you.
wlachan: 4/3 was supposed to be smaller, lighter & less expensive, but looks like Olympus has been sidetracked by their greed again, just what happened to the E system. History is repeating itself again.
"... less expensive ..."
Do you have any quote for this? Who said that?
ntsan: Love how all of sudden people insist on equivalent DOF for every camera out there.. I guess the M43 finally hit some stride with 75mm F1.8 & 12-35mm lens
Next thing is people demanding mid frame equivalent lol
@Jon: So if you crop a 36M FF image to 16M 43 then the lens you took the image changes f-stops? The image gets darker? Exposure changes?
abi170845: Bravo Olympus for churning out lenses, unlike SONY Nex system with non existent ultrawides and fast telephoto. I love it that Olympus is serious about this.
If it is as good as my 135mmf2 L, I think I might dump the dslr for my Dan Ballard Grand TetonTrip.
m43happy: What's with the multiple posts by keyboard warriors regarding the image circle as if it's the only way to judge a lens by?
I like the K-01 look and the really small pencake.
Spectacle99: My second question:
2) Bokeh and shallow depth of field: I am considering getting this camera instead of an enthusiast DSLR, given its small size. But the one thing that concerns me is the sensor size here. I've seen all of the details and examples above, and it is clear that the OM-D does just as well as or better than its mirrorless and APS-C rivals all the way up through high ISOs. But what about depth of field? Amongst many other things, I want to be able to shoot nice flower and insect macros with a very shallow DOF, and a smooth, creamy bokeh background. Same thing, but less extreme, with portraits. How possible is this with this camera? And do you have any lens suggestions?
If you need the best bokeh and the most shallow DOF, you need to get a FF camera with a fast lens.
If you want nice bokeh and shallow DOF, you can use the M5 with the 45/1.8 or the upcoming 75/1.8. For me bokeh is nice and DOF is shallow enough with the 45. YMMV.
(I use the 43 50/2 with an adaptor for macro, not sure how the Panasonic macro lens performs)