Tim F 101: It makes sense for this to cost about the same as the OM-D. In a sense it is both an upgrade and a downgrade from that camera.
Advantage OMD: viewfinder, weather sealing, cool optional battery grip.
Wash: sensor, IBIS, two-dial controls, metal body, annoying Olympus menu design. The ISO '100' is a gimmick.
Advantage EP5: smaller, focus peaking (!!) and autofocus improvements, max shutter speed, flash sync speed, wifi, time lapse options, some crap to do with art filters.
I always shoot people with (indirect) flash and run up against my GH2's 1/4000 max speed all the time so those new features are pretty tasty. None of the OMD exclusives are that big a deal to me.
Focus peaking is black or white only for some stupid reason. Not much better than the E-M5 keyline art filter approach.
Not much improvement over the E-M5 especially since focus peaking is black or white only. Actually looks worse than the E-M5 with the giant EV-5 bolted to the top.Cost more just because it is newer? I guess that is why E-M5s are not on a big sale.
Weakest link relative to Oly OM-D E-M5 is the lack if IBIS. Weakest link of the E-M5 relative to the G6 is the video.
Not a big fan of uber-HDR. Looks really fake Photoshop baked. But beautiful scenery.
This is a real disapointment for M43 users. Why not design the adapter to fit Canon EF-S and other APS-C lenses onto M43 camera the same way it is designed to fit full frame lenses onto APS-C? This is dumb to have a full frame lens attached to a M43 camera with a APS-C size image circle half wasted for $600.
So this is what city road crew workers would look like fighting a fire.... cool.
The 100% crop of the globe seem to have a more pronounced finger print or wave type pattern on the shot with the 7100. Is this some sort of pattern on the actual globe itself or something else?
win39: Why is this a mirrorless competitor? The price point is the same as the D3200 and it trades resolution and a lower specced focus system for an inconsequentially smaller body.
You are right, it isn't competition. OMD from a year ago with less pixels and much smaller sensor still has much better image quality, faster AF speed using rear ARTICULATED screen, IS for ALL lenses, more than double the frame rate, and is environmentally sealed amoung other things. And it doesn't look butt ugly.
What would the target buyer be for a camera like this? It isn't really good at anything compared to cameras of equal or lesser cost, it definetly is NOT good looking, and it isn't even small compared to much better performing and cheaper compact system cameras. So I wonder what the reason might be that would make anyone want to buy a camera like this.
Higuel: some $1300 for a lens that does NOT even close the iris as ordered by the camera...from a white brand on top!
This confirms us all that Samyang has forgotten that their first major success, the 85mm f1.4 owns it to the fact that it was INDEED way CHEAPER then the options from the brands! WITH almost the same optical quality.Start increasing the price like Sigma is doing and in no time Samyang is be story like many other brands who propose stuff way too expensive! They still have a looooong way to catch sigma in AF and ANY automation for that matter! Naturally they can try a crazy move like Sigma did with the SD1 sold at absurd prices, well, actually NOT SOLD! And in few months they had to cut the price to less then half!!! That is what Samyang deserves also!
Anyone who buys this lens plans to spend a few minutes adjusting movements per shot. How hard is it to set aperture on the lens instead of the camera. What a dumb comment.
There used to be small screw attachment devices that were very handy. You could screw it into a tree and then attach the camera very securely almost anywhere in the forest without a tripod. I think they disappeared because of the perceived damage to 'nature'. Would be nice to have three small screws for this system as well. Seems like a great system idea.
A Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 35mm f2.0 lens is about $2000 alone. So it is interesting that the lens DXO mark is about the same as the $450 Samyang 35mm f1.4 at f2.0 (to match the Sony). The Samyang is actually a lot brighter in the corners too with less complex distortion. Same goes for the Sigma 35mm f1.4 at $900.
Phase Detect Autofocus -"All SLRs by necessity use this approach, with a dedicated autofocus sensor."
Have you tried the autofocus on the 60D with live-view on the articulated screen??? Compare that to any M43 camera and the 60D snale is virtually unusable indoors.So your comment assumes that DSLR users 'may not' shoot by live view, which is pretty strange assumption these days. It actually means that they just 'can't' because the camera is too slow with live view.
HOLY Karamba! "optional optical viewfinder for $450"!!!, " lens hood adapter $130"!!!. That is INSANE!
Goes to prove that this camera is mostly for people with extra money that don't know what to spend it on.
I found Waldo!!! hey?!, is that my wife with him?
So the 16MP, 7FPS, with 1.3X crop factor would be almost exactly the same crop and resolution as a Micro 4/3 camera, except slower frame rate than the M43 cameras.
Kurt_K: From base ISO up to 1600 (i.e., the range that encompasses pretty much all my shooting), there doesn't appear to be any advantage at all over the 16MP micro four thirds cameras. If anything the m4/3 offerings appear to be resolving more. I can only surmise that the 5200 is employing stronger NR at low ISO settings.
It is amusing that marike6 spends so much time and effort looking for some aspect or potion of the test image in which the D5200 is better than the OMD with it's much smaller and older sensor. Simply the fact that a pro needs to search so hard through only RAW files to justify that it can even come close to the OMD means that it is irrelavent to 99% of users.
What the HECK are you guys talking about the "great IQ?!? You obviosly have NOT actually used the camparison tool and still you blather on in complete ignorance. Do the comparison before speculating how great it is (isn't).
Both the NEX-7 (much older) and the OMD EM5 (much smaller sensor and far fewer pixels) have at least as much detail and far LESS noise than the D5200 at 6400 ISO.
Go ahead, burry your head in the sand. It just makes you look like fools. Either you work for Nikon or you are completely blind.
Perhaps it just looks impresive compared to another Nikon.
Vitruvius: I compared the D5200 to the OMD EM5.
The sensor on the OMD is only 2/3 the size and 2/3 the MP and still far out performs this camera. The OMD has at least as much detail, despite the lower pixel count, and far less noise, especially at high ISO. Turned them both up to 6400 ISO and the D5200 looks terrible compared to the OMD.
So for all those people that need the Nikon badge and the 24MP sticker to impress, knock yourself out.
Pretty sad actually that Nikon can't do better with a much larger sensor and so many more pixels.
Even the 18 month old NEX-7 has far less noise at 6400 ISO.
I compared the D5200 to the OMD EM5.