Zigadiboom: The price is very reasonable as I believe paying a premium for a Hasselblad over a Pentax is well worth it... but the lack of wifi is a deal breaker for me as I need ready access to facebook and instagram to upload pictures of my kids and pets running around.
joe6pack: Stop the press! A vendor has just made an add-on to a camera! No one has ever done that before.
Coming up next: A camera bag that fits Panasonic GM1. Imagine that!
Actually I appreciate the post, I bought one for my S90 because I saw it on DPR, didn't know it existed before then. I think DPR should report on more quality accessories.
yabokkie: small sensor doesn't necessarily mean lower quality in low light. 4/3" should be able to compete with 35mm format with f/1.4 zooms (12-35/1.4 and 35-100/1.4) and f/0.7 primes (18/0.7, 25/0.7, and 43/0.7). someone will make them for us, Pana, Oly, Sigma, or Tamron.
but still from these shots we can see the image qualities are not good at base ISO. smaller sensor means lower quality in adequate light (same ISO means shallower wells on smaller sensors, thus more noise, lower quality).
shoot at ISO25 with a 43/0.7 lens on a 4/3" camera, when will we be able to do it?
What's wrong with 16MP? Isn't the D4 16MP? The 1Dx is 18MP. Someone on the Fuji forums just posted a picture taken with a 16MP sensor that was blown up to 18' and put on the side of a building!
nerd2: Even with misleading f1.2 aperture the DOF control (or lack thereof) looks worse than lowly 50mm 1.8 on APS-C camera. If you're after portrait, save your money and go to larger format period.
You know that APS-C is closer in size to m43 than it is to FF right? I keep seeing posts by APS-C users talking about the 'tiny' sensor in m423 cameras and how they'll stick to their "huge" APS-C sensor.
f1.2 on m43 is like f1.4 and a bit on APC-S. Not sure the difference would be noticeable at any focal length.
Neodp: One day perhaps the m43 sensor will be better than the best APS-C sensors today. That day, is not today. I can not abide the water color smeary noise at 1:1, at real world lighting (including shadows in any contrasting light) high IOS's. I'd say the goal is zero noise; at ISO 3200. This camera is way over priced. It's fine lenses are also way overpriced, comparatively (think 35mm Nikkor AF-S). I'm all for better carry sizes(and pocket camera progression); but it's just not worth it, now.
I've not used an APS-C sensor that I can say is definitively better than the newer m43 models. I have an X100s and an E-M5 and don't notice any discernible difference in IQ below ISO 3200 between them.
arbuz: L-Fn button - so Olympus now copies Samsung NX solutions? Well, well, who would have thought...
I don't know who was first or second, but I do know my Oly 12-50 has the same button.
Pity it's more expensive than the OM-D, in the UK at least (£899 vs £839). Can't see someone getting this over the OM-D, unless they *really* need the enhancements.
forpetessake: Can't wait to see the sibling rivalries on the m43 forum. Both E-P5 and E-M5 produce religious following, and true believers always zealously fight the infidels from another camp.
@jadmaister: No they don't.
A really poor interview. For instance the question about the price hike was brushed aside with a comment about Lightroom pricing! How was that relevant to the question? Did you pursue it? Did he refuse to answer?
Dave Knadler: Wish I had waited a bit longer before buying the 20mm f/1.7. Now I suppose eBay will be filling up with the Pannies.
I'm also putting my Panny 20mm up for sale. I bought the 17mm the other day and it's a really good lens, especially the IQ.
Sergey Borachev: What's the point of a shiny metal lens with fancy focus ring and high quality looks (and price) when its performance is just adequate? This lens should have been made cheap in plastic like the 45mm, if at all (since there is another olympus 17mm lens that does not impress already). And there is also a good Panasonic 20mm. So, why bother? Any wonder why this lens is such a disappointment to most? 35mm equiv is the most essential lens, the lens that most would pick is they can only have one single prime. Yet, with all the lenses already in its range, Olympus chose to release another somewhat better 17mm but expensive lens after the failure in the earlier version. You excited by this lens?
Where did it say it was "adequate"? I saw it say it's not as sharp as two of the sharpest lenses available for m43, the 45mm and 75mm.
I've got both the 17mm and the Panasonic 20 and will be selling the 20mm, the 17mm is sharper and the AF much faster.
I've also got the old Oly 17mm and there's no comparison between the old and the new, not "somewhat better".
Ronald A Yorko: Editors choices, not the readers. All fine cameras- but so were many others. Issue for Micro Four Thirds IS the limited lens choices and their prices- as compared to Sony, Pentax, Nikon & Canon. While the OM-D is a cool camera- I can't say the image quality is up to the level of dslrs.
"I can't say the image quality is up to the level of dslrs."Does it have to be? I mean, I know a FF DSLR will outperform it, but how many people actually push a modern camera to the limit where the differences become noticeable? Some do, I admit, but the majority probably wouldn't.
I feel it's a bit like PC's. How many people *really* need the absolute fastest CPU? Do people really notice if MS Word opens 0.02sec faster than the next CPU?
I bought the OM-D as it offered pretty much everything my 5D and 1Ds MKII offered in a significantly smaller package. I know the 1Ds MKII is an 'old' camera, but it still produces results that are very impressive, for me.
I think the most interesting observation to come out of this poll is that a disturbingly large percentage of posters took the poll way too seriously.
forpetessake: Unlike boring predictable Canons and Nikons, Olympus OM-D created a cult following, that's for sure, the poll is yet another evidence.
@Pal2012 - a lot of the comments I've read seem to be saying that people voted for the camera they owned, rather than the 'best' camera. Which would suggest that Olympus sold more OM-D's than Nikon sold D800's.
tkbslc: Some people are a bit too hung up on the term "Best Camera". They seem to think it means the one with the highest resolution or the fastest fps burst. But that's no more true than saying the "best car" has to be the Bugatti Veyron. Sure it's fast, but it's too freaking expensive, sucks for dirt roads and where do the kids sit? Best just means "best for my set of requirements". The fact that the Olympus won means many people consider the best camera to be one that has good enough image quality, good enough portability and a attainable price. Much like how the Motor Trend 2012 car of the year was the VW Passat. I doubt it has the highest specs in any category, but it's a cool, yet practical car many people can afford.
You must be new. Presenting a logical and well thought out argument won't win you any friends here.
Boris F: OMD EM-5 is the King! Look for ISO performance, it is maybe one stop only below full frames.
@Holgs - you forgot to add that at low light the increased DOF is usually a benefit.
Robert Judelson: The Cannon 5D Mark 3 should win the Worst camera award
Really? I don't have the MKIII (I have the 'classic'), but it seems like a pretty good camera to me. I think the real reason is that the forums really built it up and it didn't meet the expectations. But it's still a very, very good camera.
rallyfan: I bet he goes home each night and cries into a suitcase full of money.
Even if he did, and the last sentence of the DPR article says he's donating most of it to charity, so what?
If I was in the same position I'd expect to be compensated. You wouldn't I take it?
Daniel from Bavaria: 500$ and no lens hood, that's ridiculous.
What happend to Olympus?
Well, I paid $450 for my Canon 50mm f1.4, and that didn't come with a lens hood either. Lots of lenses in this price bracket don't either. But it would be nice if they had put one in, wouldn't cost that much.
undergrounddigga: Am I the only one, who is over the moon about this launch?! :)Perhaps, because I am the lucky owner of an OMD, 12mm f/2.0, 45mm f/1.8 and 60mm f/2.8 macro. (no kit lens for me :) I absolutely adore these products. In design, size, quality and most importantly image quality are close to perfection. Just the thought of not owning the 75mm and now, this new lens, makes me go nuts :)This is actually the first Olympus camera I have bought. Have been using Oly (and Nikon) microscopes for 15-20 years, and they always been flawless. I am very delighted to see Olympus doing so well, and being able to release such fantastic products. And I am particularly happy that they attacked the m4/3, as for me size in an important factor. I know, not FF or whatever, but these lenses with the OMD are a dream to use. Can't recommend them enough. Hope the new lens will be sharp as the other ones, as I have heard some concerning reviews about the pre-production model.
Nope, I'm really looking forward to it as well! Hopefully it'll be a good as the 12mm f2.0 or 45mm f1.8. I doubt it will be as good as the 75mm, but we can hope.