pacogwapo: why so ugly?
@T3 - Yeah. I think people quickly forgot about Fuji X100. So many people said it's an ugly camera, the same sort of attack people have here. But it's one of the most innovative products that possibly spores all the current trend of well-built, retro designs. Style is a very personal thing. I hope people could just remember it's a free market. If nobody wants it, it'll die itself. And then someone would just resurrect it as a cult classic.... Kind of like a Holga. LOL!
Lucas_: I understand old-timers Olympus owners liking the retro look, however to me it's quite ugly and "square". It looks a bit better with the optionalgrip. Anyway, I'd rather a G3 ( in the Oly line... )
@Lucas_ I guess round-square thingy is relative. When I first saw it, I thought it was too rounded to be called an OM....
Anyways, I hope you intend to buy it for shooting. I didn't like my E-620 at first (I thought it's too boxy, the irony), but grow fond of it with age. Hopefully you feel the same about OM-D (or your wife, or girlfriend or whatever, because it's flattering to them).
Don051348: There was a time (I'm 63) when I thought the OM line was drop dead gorgeous, almost jewel like, and while I can appreciate the resurrection of this shape (except for that way too high hump), it just doesn't really work for me anymore. I don't understand this current retro styling craze that's going on. In my opinion the Lumix GH2 is a much better looking camera but the in lens stabilization is a negative in my opinion. I'd prefer in body stabilization like the OMD. Why pay extra for In lens stabilization on every Panasonic lens, when you can pay for the stabilization one time on a Olympus body. I would have preferred an resurrected updated E620 style body to this OMD shape. The younger generations probably couldn't care less about this current retro thing.
I guess tastes do change, but it's nice to have a variety for people to choose from isn't it? I remember when I used to think the boxy rangefinder style to be really ugly, but now I am using some boxy rangefinders from 60's and 70's, and they really aren't as ergonomically bad as they look (if designed right! Material used is just as important as the look!).
Anyways, agree about E-620 style, but I am afraid while very functional, younger kids may not find that style exciting. It was the built-like tank feel that sold me the E-620, not the style.... But nowadays I feel it's an almost perfect design for my use. IF Olympus would use the E-520 style grip, it'll be the perfect DSLR design. But I am tempted to upgrade my E-620 to OM-D. And yay to no more mirror lock-up necessary (at the expense of no OVF...).
arhmatic: I think the design is briliant. A great departure from the 'melted soapbar' that everyone is following for no reason. This includes the latest Nikon d800. Curvier than ever. Why not make it a sphere, do it can double as a football?
Only comments on design: bump is too big. Move the AP port to the side and add internal flash built in. Also, it needs a more substantial grip, like it has with the accessory grip. It just has to be built in. This way battery space increases, for better functionality and aesthetics.
I don't think the bump is too big, but more like disproportional. Hopefully the final production model has some fine tuning about it. If it's a little wider, then the bump will look better especially when you consider it has to match the size of the lens mount to look aesthetically pleasing. Many of the Nikon's professional models look pinheaded also, despite of their good specs (actually look is never Nikon's strength..., but they're good cameras).
Moving the AP around is an interesting idea, but external flash is usually sit on direct top of the lens for a reason. Built-in flash with a relative small bump cannot raise high enough and will cause red-eye and cast a "lens shadow." Design a functional camera is a tricky business, isn't it?
Jens_G: Can't believe they actually stole the Nex tilting mechanism for the LCD.
Can't believe NEX 7 stole Olympus's WB preview in LiveView, and the styling is a boxier version of Olympus E-330 (actually many Olympus P&S cameras uses that styling).
Bob Meyer: Why in God's name are you comparing this to the G3? It's natural competitor is the GH2, not the G3, in spite of the fact that they share (probably) the same sensor. The OMD and GH2 are both the top models in their respective lines, they both have lots of external controls (the GH2 ever more than the OMD, it would seem).
It looks like a nice camera, but I have to wonder what's happened to DPR. You guys are looking less and less knowledgeable with every preview and review you publish.
To editors.... I hope this come across as a constructive criticism, but please do check for spelling errors before post the articles. My grammar isn't perfect myself, but I do strive to correct it if I catch it. But thank you for bringing out updated articles. I know it's not a small task.
zapatista: Well, the things that attracted me to switch to the Nex 5Nfrom a G3/E-PM1 are all addressed here, except maybe focus peaking.
-Higher Resolution Screen-Flip Up & Down (This is a really nice suprise)-More manual physical controls (Nex isn't good on this anyway except 7)-IBIS that would be better than E-PM1 would be awesome-Weather proofing is a nice +-Built in EVF is nice, but resolution still not that great.
However after all this, my biggest suprise might be that the MSRP-launch price isn't sky high! I need to read the full preview 1st, but i wonder if there's improved manual focus control.
hmmm, decisions, decisions...
Also much larger lenses....
ispress: Can the people who are claiming the OM-D is "butt ugly" kindly tell us which camera(s) you think are good looking? I don't ask this to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious, because I think the OM-D is drop dead gorgeous. If you don't like this kind of styling, what floats your boat?
I do find Fuji X1 Pro attractive, especially if you consider the lenses line up. But I think you guys are talking about external beauty, not internal one.... :-p
rusticus: against the Fuji Pro X1 is rather ugly, but Weatherproof
Ganondorf: If they had cut away the hump and it had in camera HDR i would buy it.
+1 to Frits.
I was expecting multi-spot metering, but the tonal curve adjustment is definitely better. But like most features Olympus provides, I think it's going to intimidate beginners so they will just hide them, rather than market and educate the users.... This feature will definitely solve a lot of dynamic range problems without needs to post-processing.
cleverinstigator: FASTEST AF in the world.... that is something to take notice.
Not an easy feat considering Olympus has always been behind Canon on this area for decades (though Oly's lenses are far ahead of Canon's in term of sharpness).
I always find it's the younger crowd who prefers retro styling, because people who can vaguely remember when the style first came out would just call them old, not retro.... This is true for all items, clothes (there is no new style of clothes since 1910, current trend is 1950's style, Converse "Chuck Taylors" shoes are from 1917), cars included (VW Beetles, Mustang, Mini). Older folks always imagine the future (whereas younger crowd finds it bleak), and younger crowd romanticizes the old days..., just the way it is. Lawn is always greener....
OneGuy: No built-in flash calls for sub F2 lens for indoor shooting.
The peak is very nice. I think of it as Mt. Olympus.
Is the EVF also OLED? If so, dpr should comment on color fidelity, not just contrast.
+1 about OLED EVF. NEX7's OLED EVF is very tempting to me. Color fidelity (I assume you mean under bright light because Oly's LCDs are always accurate to final JPEG output) is extremely important I agree.
Trivia. Olympus IS named after Mt. Olympus....
powersports: Does anyone know whether this camera uses the "phase contrast detection" system and whether this af system is compatible with Panasonic m43 lenses? Thanks for any input.
I think current PEN lines only have contrast detect AF, not sure about this current one. 4/3 DSLR (E-620) has hybrid AF (use both phase detect and contrast detect in conjunction). Hopefully OM-D uses that system.
Impression about this camera:
-There are other photos on other sites that offers photos of OM-D in people's hands and it's not really that ugly. Though I agree, classic OMs are nicer looking.-Finally they brought the E-PL2 grip to PEN line....-Buttons layout is too similar to E-5, even the nomenclature E-M5. I am suspecting it's to lure pro 4/3 crowd to m4/3 platform. This sounds like 4/3's unofficial eulogy.-Omission of IS button is unacceptable, not even programmable to one of the Fn buttons.... Weird.-Love the mesh textured grip. My OM4Ti is sure in hand even without the pronounced grip.-Weather seal Olympus style, head to toe, flash to grips, not just marketing tokens like competitors'.-The new FL-600R flash is extremely interesting. Hopefully it's weather sealed.-Hopefully the comment about f/6.3 diffraction limit about this sensor is false.... 4/3 lenses are optimal at f/5.6, with diffraction limit at f/11. This is a downgrade if it were true, despite the 16MP.
T3: Whatever Oly produces, you just know that people will complain to high heaven. People will complain that it's not full frame. People will complain that it doesn't have a ginormous optical viewfinder. People will complain that it doesn't use button batteries. People will complain that it doesn't have a classic split-prism focusing screen. People will complain that it doesn't have match needle metering. People will complain that it isn't an all-manual focus camera, while simultaneously complaining that its auto focus isn't fast enough. And on and on it will go. Face it, no matter what they introduce, people will hate it. Oh, the joy of the internet! LOL.
While I have never enlarged my photo 20x30, I have enlarged them to 16x20. I used E-620, btw. The 12MP is rated 11x14 @ 300dpi, so I usually am afraid of going beyond that size. But 16x20 works fine without loss of detail. Yes, the scene is also low light, maybe not pitch dark, but it was in woods shot on a tripod. Currently I turn my dpi rating to 4200dpi, but I believe the said shot was shot at 1200dpi and I see no problem and usually my LR's NR is fixed at 2 for both types of NR for sharpest photos. Remember you must turn AA setting to off or at least low for acceptable IQ.
Yes, 24x36 FF is better under certain circumstance, but same can be said for smaller sensor (morer DoF at 4/3's best aperture @ f/5.6). I do know 4/3's shortcomings so I shoot my photos around them. I can see why wedding photogs should use FF and 4/3 is no competition. I do enlarge usually to squarer formats (8x10 or 11x14) so 4/3 allows me to waste less pixels and easier compo for those formats.
citizenlouie: From what I've read, it'll be m4/3.... It's a shame really. They shouldn't pull the OM card unless they have a FF camera with all the features OM is known for: multi-spot metering, aperture ring, extremely large and bright OVF, legendary lens line-up. They used Pen name for the digital version because original film Pen is half-frame.... OM is FF, so why put the name on a crop sensor? OM is very pro oriented also. Auto everything people won't like it. OM is about "creative automation" not auto everything. It's not a P&S camera, like 4/3..., it's for people who know what they're doing.
4/3 lenses are better than even OM's legendary lenses in their days..., and are built on the knowledge they got from OM's Series 2 lenses (some of the world's sharpest, rent an SHG lens & see). It's shame Olympus abandoned it for an inferior system. My E-620 produces FAR better result than digital Pen cameras despite the sensor is 1-2 generation older. That tells you how important is the lens.
I assume you're a wedding photog, then your use of ISO is legitimate. And ISO can also be used for DoF control. For people who shoot landscape and inanimate subjects, putting a camera on a tripod, turning off IS and turning on mirror lock up will guarantee you the sharpest photo possible, which is not as important to wedding photos, because the capturing the moment is more important.
By turning ISO up (or down) from the sensor's native ISO (please learn your camera's native ISO, it's not always the lowest ISO) can reverse everything you gain from using a remote shutter release (not cable release, as it could create shake), mirror lock up and turn IS off, even by as little as 1/3 of a stop. It all depends on your use. Weigh whether the increased noise is acceptable to you (and your clients) or not. Don't say all pros use high ISO, because it isn't true. But I do admit high ISO performance has improved, and it's always welcome for flexibility reason.
GrahamGalaxy: 99% of all photograhy is not original but inspired by what you see in orher photographers work. I soak up other images, think about them, (make them better) and then produce a image.
No animosity nor I feel it's personal. I think it's good form we don't talk about our own view on the subject matter because it has nothing to do with the British Ruling on originality. If you read my original response to you, you'd realize my view on the two economic platform isn't too far from yours, though yours appears to be slightly more left leaning and mine more right leaning, but I am not patronizing either platform and/or see either of them as perfect. That would only exist in purely ideological world where people are all logical and will not bend rules. If that's the case we neither need regulation nor government.
Oh, I forgot about choice. Communism, IIRC, predetermines what is "best" for the people and most economical. Indigo was the color of communism because that's the cheapest dye for clothes. Do you want to wear indigo colored cloth all the time? OTOH, many consumer behaviors prove people often do choose for inferior products even if given choice.
SamKnopf: As I'm both a photographer and a law student, I found this quite fascinating. I agree that the judgment is a little bit surprising, but if you read the judge's words you will see that there is some logic to them. The issue is not really about the right of anybody to make such a photograph. Indeed, in arguments at the trial, the defendants showed evidence that many other similar images had been taken. However, the judge believed that the defendants only sought out these other images after they had seen Fielder's photo. Their fault lay in the fact that it was Fielder's photo that gave them the idea, which they would not otherwise have come up with. Suppose somebody gets a rough sketch for a house design from an architect, likes it, and then goes to a different architect with it to design the actual house. Shouldn't the first architect be compensated for the idea? They are being asked to pay for stealing an idea, not for copying a photo.
This idea is most fascinating. I have come up quite a bit of ideas myself, but if I found someone who copies the way I dress up, the way quirky way I talk, or use of color the way I do, then if I can prove that, I can sue someone.... It looks like I can be rich just for being myself....
The plaintiff's idea is not even original, but maybe he was the first one to prove such.... Kind of like finders keepers or barbarians occupying another person's land/property and claimed he was there first.
When will laws make sense to common people, so we don't need lawyers and legal clerks to translate what they're actually talking about so we don't violate the law by accident. But then the legal profession will have to downsize quite a bit, positively correlated to the economic condition.
About what considered as professional gear.
Pros uses a tripod, not high ISO. High ISO is for emergency use and some other special use, not the the solution to everything. Obviously you have never shot film. People prefer low ISO films or shoot low ISO on digital for good reasons. Better detail, better grain/less noise, better tone, more saturated color, you name it. Wedding photogs needs high ISO because of their situation.... But everyone knows when possible use the lowest ISO setting.
Pros look for very different things than what an amateur look for. The feature set you mentioned are what marketers tell you, stats.... easy to compare. I shot Olympus for a long time and what I look for? Dust reduction, quick access to mirror lock up, precise meter/WB, button placement, battery life. Basically stuff that makes the camera work, so the photog don't have to think. Non-quantifiable, hard to market stuff. So far only Olympus's LiveView implementation works.