This is a nice photo
They had to stop the bleeding. Other makers will follow their example. The definition of camera is very different and point and shoot is just redundant.
Craig from Nevada: The pricing of the E-M5 was really a pleasant surprise. A heck of deal.
The pricing of this camera had the opposite effect. I am disappointed
EM-5 was/is a good value.
The pricing of the E-M5 was really a pleasant surprise. A heck of deal.
Looks to be about the right size for me. No retro EM-5 stuff either. Refreshing.
One less entry in what continues to be a market with too many cameras chasing too few buyers.
yabokkie: I don't think Oly care their own 4/3" mount if it's not for brand value. they know clearly it's a mistake only they cannot afford to admit.
We heard you the first 15 times. Now go away troll.
Catalin Stavaru: So Panasonic realized that purposefully building a large camera for the m43 format is stupid, when the whole purpose of m43 was to make smaller cameras with smaller lenses. On the wrong assumption that people think "larger is better" in the year 2013...
Now they want you to try the camera, to see that it's good. I'm sure it's great but almost any DSLR is good, but this is not what people wanted. They wanted m43 because they wanted smaller cameras.
What they should really do is to quickly build a GH5 that is as small as possible (maybe as small or even smaller than the GH2) while having all the internals, features and quality of the GH3.
This camera might be the right size to use with the 35-100mm lens.
My sense is that the recent announcement about earnings has set off a panic at Olympus. Losses are growing, not narrowing. In response to this news, I think the word is cut, cut and cut.
First, question, what parts of the imaging operation are losing money. I think the whole thing is. Point and shoot for sure. Micro--I think so as the losses have grown since OM-D was introduced.
I bet the meetings with upper management on how to achieve this have been pretty rough. Olympus would be stupid not to discuss all options, including DSLR production. Somehow this discussion got into the media. A leak of some sort, intentional or other wise. The leak got some traction.
All the recent talk of taking care of E-500 users, etc may have been sincere, but I don't think it counts this week. The money that is lost and the interest of the shareholders is what matters.
My point is that I really don't think Olympus knows what it is going to do at this point.
Craig from Nevada: The E-5 (pictured above) has many faults, but it is so well built.
I love mine.
The E-5 (pictured above) has many faults, but it is so well built.
The words from an owner or general manager of a struggling professional sports team in the US that "the coach's job is secure" are the surest sign the coach is going to be fired and soon.
This article gives me the same feeling.
This is an impressive image. Thank for sharing this.
What a waste of time unless of course you are going to particpate in 50 wedding receptions--a toast to the bride and groom times 50 .
OldArrow: The sheer amount of various formats makes one think about why. What really dictates the image formats today? Cinema? Can't be. TV? Which among all the various sizes? Books? Newspapers? Surely not. Almost every paper-reproduced image has to be adapted to any of these formats.So why don't they all agree that the best photo imaging format would be square? It exploits the lens FOV in the best possible way. It gets rid of side-up camera holding. It produces images easily cropped to all ratios or purposes. It allows internal masking to facilitate framing for every photographer's need...No go. We get to buy whatever the analog era left behind, as if it's some stone-hewn universal law.Ditto, mechanical mirrors in digital cameras - obsolete from the first digital camera onward. Ditto, camera shapes; although there is no more film to stretch between the casette and the take-up roll. Ditto, God forbid, an universal lens mount.Funny, but the whole thing is supposed to cater to camera users...
See economic theories of imperfect competition
Is the idea to make the camera as ugly as possible so no one will want to steal it?
I guess, I am a basic black guy.
I prefer basic black to white for my cameras
It is a just a beauty contest---It has nothing to do about the quality of the camera or the competition. Plenty of nice cameras were released in 2012 and this was but one.
It is the photographer that matters.
DP Review has to stop publishing stuff like this. It usually ends up costing me money.
BTW--My transfunctional in blue arrived yesterday.
Craig from Nevada: I have to agree with those who readers who suggest that a comparative review would be more helpful. Camera bags tend to be a tradeoff of sorts--size, price, features,quality of construction, etc. How people order these features is matter of personal taste. The bag is nice So are many others. Why is this bag better than the others?
I like to see how products stack up in comparison.
I agree with you 100%. I have a bunch of bags and the only way I know is by using the bag. Much like a pair of shoes.
I have a Lowepro camera pack. I like a lot of things about it--except the zippers operate with this string things that are knotted and quickly become unknotted on the trail. I have to retie it (tough with nylon cord) or put the cord in the bag and fix it later. It really annoys me.
Next time I get a bag with real zippers. Lowepro is no longer a first choice with me.