(unknown member): Lightroom 6???
Lightroom has been their concession to those who insist on the right to own software. They are very likely waiting for us to give up and start renting.
erichK: I no longer have any interest inn Adobe and its products because I am unwilling to enter into ongoing indentured servitude with them.
There will always be some of us who refuse to bow to the dictates of huge, monopolistic corporations. Their strategy of crushing competition has always been essentially the same.They tend to drive real innovation to the margins until they disintegrate from their very failure to respond to technological change because of their obsessive need to control and limit it. Kodak was a prime example.
I no longer have any interest inn Adobe and its products because I am unwilling to enter into ongoing indentured servitude with them.
erichK: Looks like a great carry-around camera, except for one thing: the 24-70 zoom range is just too short at the long end to really be useful.
Each to his or her own. I simply find that a take- along camera is much more useful if it goes to 120mm or especially 135mm (35mm equivalent).
I love the 24-120mm range Nikon seems to have pioneered, as the faster and closer-focussing 12-60 Olympus FT equivaent, and generally find say their mFT 12-40 much less useful as a walkabout lens. and I like walking!
Looks like a great carry-around camera, except for one thing: the 24-70 zoom range is just too short at the long end to really be useful.
The most important factor is Adobe's violation of their assurance that they would not compel Lightroom users to become captives of their "bleed-every-month" subscription system.
A very good reason to look elsewhere that this moster corporation for software. And an opportunbity for *real* innovators.
I looked at the pictures and groaned: mostly a set of competently framed and exposed, often over-processed visual clichés. It is gratifying to note that others here, too, recognized this.
The message seems to be that if you use Sony, then you can take pretty pictures like this, too. And the Chinese professional model is, for me, the kicker! Good for him that he's found a way to enter Moss's profession, though likely at a more modest level of remuneration!
mpgxsvcd: The "PROs" seem to far outweigh the "CONS".
The cons -except for the so-so video- are mostly minor irritants which one finds with almost any camera. I don't like the little plastic flaps over the I/O of the EM-1 or EM-5 or even the bigger one on the E-3/5, for example. The pros, though, are big things that cause me to like - and use - my OM-D's and lenses more every day.
mpgxsvcd: The E-PM2 seems to stack up well against this camera when you consider the price. The E-PM2 can be had for less than $400 with two lenses. The E-M10 has wireless and some other really nice features. However, it is much more expensive as well.
It's likely perfectly possible to use and get good pictures out of the PM-2, which a real bargain, as I found to be the case with the PL-5. BUT as an advanced photographer, you get a lot more convenient and complete control over a really wide set of options with the OM-D series, and also more ergonomic handling with larger lenses.
Steven Wandy: Very interesting - but what is the difference in this patent's abilities and what they implemented in the EM10? Sounds like the same thing.
I think that what you are referring to on the EM-10 is likely the same "Live Time" or "Live Bulb" technology mentioned in the above article. That is, a mechanical and software process of building up the image by stacking a series of shots, that has, in itself long been used in astrophotography BUT with the additional control of being able to view the image after each new exposure has been added, and to stop the process at will.
The big difference is that this still uses a uniform level of sensitivity and reading of all photosites (pixels), while the patent seems to be for a way of actually varying these for different areas of the image, presumably mapped by the intensity of light hitting them, and controllable by the user.
lacikuss: I used to own Olympus in the film era. It was great to have a Japanese manufacturer caring about size and IQ at the same time.
Nowadays, I think of IQ and I ask myself why should we trade camera size for IQ? Why is Olympus is not pushing for FF and smaller size? Is Sony the old Olympus?
By the way, I don't own neither but do use FF.
That is a stuipid and completely misleading remark,as the forty year old OM-1 Istill use demonstrates. The OM-1 was a very well-made camera for its price class, and the later OM3 and OM4Ti still sell for premium prices because they were superb cameras for their significantly higher price category.
erichK: What a boring group of Japanese corporate patriarchs! Even more excruciating than the Sigma, Fujifilm and Sony mughshots of aging male corporate types that have recently appeared here. And we saw a similar bunch of old boys scrambling to cover up the idiocies of their corporate hierarchy at Olympus a couple of years ago. ( A couple even had to give up their corporate sinecures!)
Guess that Japanese corporate leadership is closed to any real innovators, and of course absolutely to women. No wonder their economy remains on the skids: they shut out more than half the people who could really find a way forward!
Mostly agree. And it seems to especially be a problem of Japanese corporations (and society), though I don't know if Korea is any better. Apparently Maitani, the designer of the Olympus Pen, then the OM series, was overjoyed to note women using his Pen. Had not expected it, but included in his design objectives for later cameras. There are some very talented women photographers out there, and they are not looking for pink cameras. There are also talented women in business. As already mentioned, they do bring some special things to companies prepared to enlist and listen to them, (And, at the risk of causing offence all around, I can't resist mentioning that they do tend to look a little better than that Nikon quartet ;-)
erichK: Innovation indeed, when they essentially copy not only the Olympus EM-1, but even the Olympus lens in a lensecap. But then I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
(It is true that Fuji has come up with some really interesting new technologies in very attractive cameras, but the provenance of the design parameters for their new flagship is painfully obvious!)
I should not have said "copy" (apart from the damn lensecap).
But my second paragraph about "design parameters" does state what I meant: the size and shape, the magnesium chassis, weatherproofing, the controls layout, tilt LCD, dials, etc are all very similar, and aimed at exactly the same market segment.
The elite commission (supreme court judges, etc) that investigated wrongdoing Olympus made recommendations that would likely help Nikon, etc too: a flatter corporate structure that allows some real feedback and participation back up the corporate food chain. The larger economic problems of our whole economic system, based on eternal - and unsustainable economic expansion as it is will not be solved by such reorgani- zation but the companies that engage in it will at least be more able to recognize problems and adapt and innovate.
The participation of women and on the BOD is no panacea either, but it has been shown to reduce the kind of reckless gambling on projects and mergers an acquisitions that nearly sank Olympus.
Building cameras that *men* think appeal to women - pretty pink ones and other such idiiotic trash - is not the same as recruiting and effectively inspiring the participation of women engineers and managers and directors
Innovation indeed, when they essentially copy not only the Olympus EM-1, but even the Olympus lens in a lensecap. But then I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
What a boring group of Japanese corporate patriarchs! Even more excruciating than the Sigma, Fujifilm and Sony mughshots of aging male corporate types that have recently appeared here. And we saw a similar bunch of old boys scrambling to cover up the idiocies of their corporate hierarchy at Olympus a couple of years ago. ( A couple even had to give up their corporate sinecures!)
Already owning an OM-D, I somewhat reluctantly decided to buy the EM-1 after getting a chance to try Calgary's The Camera Store review copy with half a dozen Four Thirds lenses when I passed through there a month ago, and finding that it worked much better with them than anticipated.
It was only after they were finally able to send me one that I was really able to really examine and try both cameras side by side, and fully comprehend just how much of a further refinement and improvement the EM-1 represents over the already very capable OM-D. Close examination and exploration of all the (many) features and functions shows that a great deal of thought and careful design engineering has gone into a superbly usable camera. The "feel' of the camera, that is the functional ergonomics are so good that they remind me of the E-1. They have even greatly impressed a "pro" friend who almost sleeps with his Nikon D3 and D4. It is a camera any that serious photographer should have a look at.
Nikon is finally follo, to the crwing the retro lead of Olympus and Fuji, but taking it absurd lengths further, to the chunky, skin-gouging bodies of yesteryear. The backward compatibility for Nikon lenses is nice, but because of the flange distance, can never escape the almost universal adaptability of mirrorless systems like mFT. Along with the recent Nikonos stepchild, it suggests that this,the central dslr-maker, may indeed be seeing approaching trouble for "normal" DSLRs.
Yet another scheme to part the gullible from their money with the illusion of effortless recording of great images of great moments. There was the Brownie box camera, there was 110, and Polaroid and countless cheap plastic cameras. While with concentrated effort a skilled photographer could produce worthwhile images even from these, the main result was hundreds of millions of fading, worthless snapshots. This new toy promises to increase that by an order of magnitude...or two.
The making of images worth a second look almost always requires effort and concentration and disciplined skill. This new toy promises the opposite. But it may well sell.
For me, the obvious big change-in-direction for Panasonic here is that they have finally added in-body-image-stabiliztion. This finally makes it possible to fully use such little gems as the Olympus 12f2, and 17, 45 and 75 f1.8 lenses as well as the Oly 60 f2.3 1:1 macro with a Panasonic body which offers such features as the "silent mode". Better still, one that turns of other distractions like the focus-assist light and audible function signals at the same time.
I often shoot at classical music performances where even the very quiet shutter of the OM-D has to be timed carefully. so the comprehensively quiet would be wonderful. The spoiler is the fact that they did not include a mic input. We do also use a separate Sound Design digital recorder with a pair of good quality Schoepps mics, but in the past synchronizing separate audio with video has proved a real chore. It would be much simpler to simply be able to use the decent little Olympus hot-shoe mics, or use Rhode ones.