sbszine: I think the Sony A7 / A7r should be combined into one entry, as they are basically the same camera. (Not a partisan thing -- I voted for the E-M1 myself).
I agree. Splitting the vote for this camera-in-two-variants seems unfair. Perhaps DPR should also consider the combined vote when tallying.
Also a happy E-M1 owner, BTW. (But I don't vote in these 'popularity contest' things.)
BJN: I notice that we no longer get comprehensive examples of the menu system UI in your reviews. It sounds like Olympus has made no progress simplifying camera configuration. That was the worst aspect of the E-M5, and the UI doesn't get much more friendly with familiarity. Finding and changing infrequently used settings is annoying with the complex and sometimes obtuse Olympus UI. It's also too bad that with a little extra bulk, Olympus didn't include a fully articulating display. Nice cameras.
Well, the solution to highly configurable cameras is to gradually set them up how you want. Then you use the user presets system ("Mysets" in Olympus speak) to store your setup(s).
I also prefer the "Super Control Panel" to the Canon-esque "Live Control" interface, to give you better access to functions.
RichRMA: For those who think the camera costs too much, the E-5, the ancient DSLR this replaces, was $1800 new, for the body.
US$1700, back in 2009. ("Ancient", apparently.)
Langusta: Considering the fact that Oly is preparing something new, I think such news carry some black PR scent.
The fraud was to cover up losses made by previous people. Quite the opposite of making a fortune -- they were, in fact, pretending to be paying enormous sums for worthless stuff while diverting most of the money to secretly fill in the massive money-pit.
This is why the sentencing was so lenient.
Gyrus appears to be a UK based subsidiary that was involved in these transactions, and so the UK SFO has jurisdiction to investigate and potentially prosecute anyone involved in the UK. It seems odd that there has been such a long delay before kicking off the investigation.
Deleted pending purge: 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...
The advantages offered by a square sensor outweigh unused pixels, in my view.
It also makes little difference what shape the rear display is if we are talking about using an EVF. The EVF would also be square, and could be set to put shooting information in the non live image areas. (The rear display will be 'the wrong shape' for many shots, regardless of what aspect ratio is chosen.)
If the raw data captured the entire sensor area then you also have the option of changing your mind about the chosen aspect ratio during processing, and could do things such as shift the used portion of the image around. For example, if you have a 1:1 aspect ratio portrait shot that doesn't look quite right, 'unlock' the crop in the raw and re-compose it.
A circular sensor is not feasible due to how they are fabricated -- sensors must be rectangular -- and the electronics involved -- sensors are read in such a manner that a circular array of pixels would be problematic.
The best compromise is to use a square sensor that covers as much of the image circle as possible -- the more coverage you get, the wider (horizontal) or narrower (vertical) the aspect ratio possibilities become. Panasonic have variable aspect ratio cameras that use this idea in a "horizontal" form only: but have not continued this in the GH3.
I have long maintained that they should adopt an oversize square (1:1 aspect ratio) sensor, then allow the user to select the crop. Provided the sensor adequately covers the projected image circle, you could offer everything from e.g. 3:1 through to 1:1 to the photographer (in either landscape or portrait orientation). EVFs would facilitate this.
The 'unused' areas of the sensor could be re-purposed or simply ignored.
Also, if you store the entire sensor data in raw format you could offer the photographer the option to re-frame later -- or even produce an 'oversize' image using the normally unused sensor area.
There are many interesting possibilities. Due to the conservative instincts of the industry I would expect a cellphone maker to try this first, unfortunately.