shfaya: HII am testing this photo camera at the moment and every thing fine but....The long exposures as mentioned above are really disaster. There is so much noise in dark parts of the photo that 100% of photos I made last evening and night are to be put in a rubbish can. The noise in blacks gets up to 50% of total pixels. I don't understand why actually there is possibility to shoot for up to 60 seconds if this camera with 20 seconds can't cope. Dpreview should review this information and put some test shots. I would save hundreds of euro if anyone would test it first. Unfortunately I am selling the images in galleries and big part of my collection are evening and night photos, so clearly I did loose going to Olympus.Search again if you are going to change your camera.
Are the images normal/low noise once the dark frame substatction is done? If so, thats OK. On my Panasonic GF and GX1's thats how it works and the imges are fine. It's a minor niusance to wait for the dark frame but not the end of the world.
On the fence about getting this cam, the GX7 for its size or replacing my 50d with the new kid on the block.
Blues isn't my type of music so I wouldn't know a living legend from anything else but I can say these are fantastic portraits! Bopp definitely has talent and a good eye. Really, really, nice work.
JimBob0: Is anyone here a real photographer? You know, someone who actually takes good photographs? Or does everyone just argue about minor specification details that no one will ever see or notice in a photograph?
I'm beginning to worry that too many commentators can only take a good photograph if they have the very best camera to do it rather than actually having the skill or talent to take a good photo in the first place.
Too many dull nerds here.
Good point Gesture. Having said that, if a restaurant critic reviews a restaurant and it's 99% overall as good as his/her favourite does that critic slam the restaurant saying how bad it is and all all should stay away?
Another couple of ways of looking at this...
1) I'm middle aged and my physique was doing the middle age thing so I joined a gym a couple of years ago and work out 3-5 times a week. Do I slam the gym because I don't look like a professional bodybuilder? Do I change gyms because my gym uses 'Weight Brand A' when the competition uses 'Weight Brand B' and the latest reviews say 'Weight Brand B' slides on the bar minutely better than what my gym uses?
2) I can't play guitar. Give me the worlds best and a pro some cheap thing from Best Buy. Who do you think will play better? Do I complain about the strings on the worlds best guitar because my non-ability to play well?
Laugh, because this is like the mentality of sooo many of the (most vocal) commenter's here.
True that JimBob0. What I do is if someone here has an especially negative comment (about any piece of equipment) the first thing I do is click on their profile and check out their photo gallery. Tells me everything I need to know. Vast majority of those times there isn't anything in the gallery nor a link their personal work. Wonder why that is?
Seriously folks - if you cannot take an award winning photo with ANY brand camera and lens I'll let you in on a secret - it's not the gear.
Interestingness: Jumped right to page 9 and checked out image quality. Did you all see the 3200 ISO JPEG's? That would make me stop shooting RAW - WOW!
Now change it to RAW and look around - this holds it own against everything except the Canon 5D3 all the way up from there (why no ISO 6400?).
Either this or the GX7 is going to be my next camera. Availability and street price will be the deciding factors. The Olympus has the edge in IQ and in body IS - the GX7 the viewfinder. Decisions, decisions...
I disagree Mark. I went back into page 9 and pulled up the X-PRO1 beside the Olympus, pulled up ISO3200 and RAW and had a look around. XPRO1 is less noisy but it has smudged a lot of detail out. To me, noise with clarity/sharpness is better than less noise/less detail but to each their own.
Pull up the Nikon 7100 and Sony NEX6. You could argue the Nikon and Sony are less noisy but seriously, magnifying in this close to see the differences is getting silly. If you have to pull up a 2% area and lean in to your 23" monitor and squint to see the differences, then in the real world where I live, there is no difference. Real world, real print or viewing sizes, one wouldn't be able to choose between them. In fact, I'd argue take 2 pictures from these 3 cameras, put them in a hat and mix them up and then tell me which picture was taken with which camera, would you get it 100% correct? I couldn't do it. Doubt the vast majority of people on DPReview could either.
maxola67: Am I only to notice bigger dimensions of this device comparing to Olympus OM-D E-M5?130 x 94 x 63 mm against 122 x 89 x 43 mm.I mean it's has a size which is comparable to APS-C DSLR and that's said having 4/3 sensor.What's all about?
Look at is this way;
Find ONE, just one dSLR body from ANY manufacturer in the world past or present in any price bracket that you can choose that is in the same size category that has;
In body IS1/8000 shutter1/320 flash syncFull manual controls10 fps shootingBuilt in Wi-FiMoveable (tiltable, articulating, you pick) rear screenDust and splash resistanceEtc...
Now add in the lenses and you cannot compare the size of the two systems. And we haven't even talked about the weight!
Ever since getting my GX1 with a couple of the better recommended primes I haven't touched my dSLR kit. Whenever I get the urge I just lift the dSLR bag and say 'not today'. Well, that's not true. I shot a friends wedding a couple months ago with both my dSLR and m43 kits and you know what? I enjoyed shooting the m43 kit MUCH more and after showing the pictures my friend gushed more over the pictures taken with the m43 kit.
This new Olympus looks unbeatable right now.
Jumped right to page 9 and checked out image quality. Did you all see the 3200 ISO JPEG's? That would make me stop shooting RAW - WOW!
Thank you, thank you all for the votes! My first 1st here at DPReview.
For anyone interested, I put another angle of this up on my photoblog...
qwertyasdf: I have from a Canon fan become merely a Canon user.Their old lens and bodies are still superb.But, what's up now?! $850 for a 35mm F/2?!
I have the Sigma 30/1.4 (I know, not the same lens) and will be the 1st in line when this Canon comes out. My Sigma doesn't know if it wants to front focus, back focus or nail focus. Not fun taking a half dozen shots of one thing hoping one will turn out close enough. Being a Canon, this lens WILL focus.
IS is a bonus as I do some concert photography in dark dumpy hole in the wall bars (think ISO 2500, 1/60th and f/1.8-2.2) and Canon's IS will at least take my movements out of the equation.
$800+ is definitely not cheap, but if it works it's most likely going to be a gem.
Absolutely stunning image! Congrats on some very nice work.