cinemascope: I am so happy that we have an excellent middle ground system that doesn't go to extremes for marketing purposes and is very good at what it is...I have nothing against FF but I am so tired of FF evangelists spreading the gospel like it is the best thing since sliced bread.Even if FF was cheaper than m4/3 I'd still happily pay more for m4/3 because this is what I want...Like I prefer compact Asian cars as opposed to American guzzlers, or like I'd rather buy organic food even if it costs twice...I also have been noticing a constant undertone in recent reviews here along the lines of "sure it is not as good as the likes of FF but bla bla" which is getting very tiring... I recall dpreview being a lot more neutral in that regard in the past...
I don't think that is what the OP is staing.
Alejandro Ruiz: A silver award is quite fair for a transition camera, waiting for the next sensor. Silver with some gold inclusion like best camera in the world for legacy lenses thanks to IBIS & EVF features, or for "still photography" thanks to Hi-Res, and maybe even for versatility or low light photo. Nice review, it's interesting to read different authors comments.I just think that the "handling" question is really over-sized. I understand that a complex interface, with lots of parameters and special features, is a a real challenge for reviewers in a week-end or one week "in-hands" experience. But we are not reviewers, we are users, we don't buy a camera for a week!We get done to the interface (SCP!) in a week or two, and then we (i) take months (years for me) to discover full capabilities of the diverse features.So this "handling" question is quite irrelevant to the real world user, reviewers have to keep this in mind, sorry guys it's your problem, not our ;-)
I don't take the silver or gold ratings serious. DPReview is pretty generous handing out these awards. Happily the reviews provide a pretty decent way to consider a camera's qualities and shortcomings.
historianx: Would rather have a Pelican 1510
I do and wouldn't trade it for this stuff.
D Webb: Many people want to snipe at Sony no matter what they do. I feel quite sorry for them. I am interested in only two things about these new lenses; price and performance. I do not mind paying a lot for excellence; I do mind paying lot for mediocre or compromised designs. So, if these test as well as we hope and have the Zeiss characteristics of microcontrast, transmission ad superb build quality, I don't mind investing in them. Five, ten years down the line, most of us will be glad we paid extra to get high quality. How often do you meet someone who wished they hadn't bought an excellent lens?
Actually, I wouldn't feel too sorry for Sony. Check the price of the A7. For less than $1300 you can buy a pretty darn good full frame camera. For $1598, you can get one with a lens. Tough to beat. An alternative path to full frame for those on a budget. No sniping on that point.
If this system competes with others on the basis of how consumers view the trade-offs of image quality, size and price, these lenses seem to suggest that Sony will have to prices these lenses very aggressively in order to make a go at it.
If I want small--micro 43 or APS-C are probably better choices. People have tired of dragging the full frame kit around everywhere. Other than maybe against FF DSLRs, I am not sure if Sony competes well on this front.
In terms of quality, this is a very good system, but maybe not the equal of full frame DSLR at this point but it will get there.
Price is the key. The price of the camera is attractive, but the lenses have to be priced decently. This system is the poor man's Full Frame. Sony needs to put people like me in a full frame system for substantially less than Canikon.
Craig from Nevada: This camera targets a very narrow market segment.
I wonder how deep the market segment is for full-frame astrophotography? How many cameras they need to sell to breakeven and who percentage of the market this represents?
This move makes sense. The DSLR world is changing and this is a niche that might be profitable.
I suppose they do a production run and sell them until they are gone. This camera will probably appeal to professionals and possibly teaching institutions, but outside of that, you are left with the hobbyist with deep pockets who can afford this camera and a regular camera.
Trying to explain to that partner/spouse why you need two or three 810s for your phtotography hobbies will be a challenge of ownership.
This camera targets a very narrow market segment.
Looks like a nice value. An attractive camera, loaded with features at a very nice price is always welcome.
Damn. Yet another set of cables and another battery charger for my kit.
Craig from Nevada: It had a good run. Olympus needs to ditch the retro look and build something that looks like a modern camera.
Sorry dude, keep trying. The e-m5 is ugly. I hope they update the body along with everything else.
You really shouldn't be so insecure about your gear.
In case you didn't know my comments were limited to the e-m5. It is ugly.
I have no intention of retracting a word.
Nice attempt at diversion and nonsense. The topic is the e-m5. I offered my opinion. Your rant about the e-m1 and e-m10 are really not relevant to my comment. Frankly, my opinions about the cameras you list are not expressed, so you no idea about what I think. So don't make stupid assumptions about my what my opinion may or may not be.
The e-m5 is ugly (not attractive). I hope Olympus thinks about a more contemporary design. A good camera should be attractive. Olympus should update the camera inside and out.
The e-m5 is ugly and Olympus should move away from the ridiculous retro thing.
The camera is ugly
It had a good run. Olympus needs to ditch the retro look and build something that looks like a modern camera.
Someone had to take responsibility
Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.
Can they make a buck selling this system?
The camera as we have known it throughout our lives, as a single purpose device used to take pictures is disappearing. With the exception of a narrow market segment, people want integrated devices which can be used for photography, telephony and computing.
This is pretty far reaching right now. I was surprised last spring when I visited Yosemite, the number of people of all ages using phones and tablets to photograph the falls.
I was the old boy dragging around the E-5 with the 14-35mm lens.
One point on the losses--they are large and despite every attempt by management to slow the bleed, they are growing. Projections and goals have been missed by a lot. These do impact the bottom line at Olympus.
This is just my opinion, but there is a general assumption that Olympus has to make develop, manufacture and market cameras to support its medical operations. I think the development part is true but not the manufacturing and marketing part. I think they can find partners or others to do these activities. Yes, the profits on the medical side are large but the imaging is losing a lot.
Marty, well said.
The 35-100mm makes the point. IMHO, that was the best of the 43 bunch, but it weighed a ton. I found that I would leave it a home rather than haul it around. So I sold it.
As for making money, the recent news from Olympus is not good.