I cannot help but laugh at the breathless excitement over doing "serious" photography with an iPhone, with or without any gimmicky filters. Yes, of course, the best camera is the camera you have with you. But imagine for a moment that someone told this or any serious - photographer, 'no, don't take your state-of-the-art cameras with you on assignment; do your work with this crappy 2004 point-and-shoot." The response from anyone not looking for publicity for doing something weird, would be, 'are you out of your mind, mate?' (And well it should be.) Yet today we have serious photographers, including some leading photo journalists, doing assignments with crappy 2004 point-and-shoots called iPhones, making the resulting photos technically even worse by using gimmick filters and post processing add-ons that produce the look of badly processed, fadded, color films from the 1970s.
Camera of choice? Results to be celebrated? For anything other than art(sy fartsy) photography? Not really.
So, let me get this...Fabulous image quality, but nasty vignetting; true f2 35mm dof, but really slow focusing under all circumstances; compact and quite, but no viewfinder other than the LCD screen; great high iso performance, but good luck focusing in low light. And all this for more than twice the price of the Fuji X100s, which reportedly eliminates all the complaints associated with the original X100? And Dpreview gives this a Gold rating? In what world? And by the way, is there anything in Sony's history to indicate that it will respond with firmware improvements as Fuji does? (And keep in mind that the real focusing fix in the X100s has come not as a result of firmware upgrades, but with replacement of the sensor and an entirely new focusing system.) Yes, indeed, this is a digital Lecia. LOL.
Hey, folks, the issue really isn't 4/3, M4/3, or anything else having to do with photography. For longer than most of you have been alive, the photographic side of Olympus has been the tail perceived as wagging the dog. Olympus makes its money from it's non-photographic business - medical and scientific instruments, including, especially, microscopes and various medical scopes. The photography business is what most people know, but it is essentially a drag on the bottom line, not the bottom line.
Yes, Olympus makes some really terrific lenses, but the particularly good ones also are particularly expensive - the 7-14 f 2 4/3 zoom, the 14-35 f2 4/3 zoom, the 35-100 f 2 zoom, the 150 f 2, the 300 2.8. No one - period - makes anything that even tries to compete with Olympus in that all-inclusive 28-200 zoom range. Unfortunately, however, Olympus does not make a modern, competitive body on which to mount the lenses and fully utilize them. And probably never will.
KAMSA: I don't Use this brand , so,....
Actually, HowaboutRAW, it's what most of the internet is about. And how can it be "invasion of privacy" if people knowingly agree to it?
I may be missing something here - But I have never imported files directly into PS or LR for conversion, but rather used the free-standing Adobe DNG converter, which just sits on my desktop til I need it. When I have a new card of images, I open the DNG converter, tell it where to find the proprietary raw files, tell it were to put them, what to call them, and what to number them, and hit start - and I get a folder full of DNGs. At some point I drag that folder into LR, and later move some images into PS. So am I missing something, or does this system not avoid the worrying about what version of PS I am using?
Photo-Wiz: Come to think of it, my old film Medium format 645 pocket camera was a wonderful picture taking tool...when it worked. It is the only camera I ever had to take for repairs...and it needed it three different times even though it wasn't used that much. Either the bellow had a hole, or the shutter speeds would be off, or the aperture wouldn't go quite the full distance...it was always something. Still have it in a closet. Looks beautiful, can take lovely pictures, but a complete headache.
Looks like the Fuji X cameras follow the same mold.
True, zooms were pretty crappy in the 60s, but that 43-86 is in the Crappy Lens Hall of Fame. It wasn't mediocre; it wasn't 'pretty bad; it was a Coke bottle branded as a Nikon lens.
You speak of the 'quirky' autofocus of the 60 2.8. But what about the autofocus performance of the 50 and 28 equivalents? How do those lenses autofocus in low light. The idea of this camera is very exciting, but as an X100 owner I do not want to be 'twice burned.'
The sad reality is Olympus is DOA - and I say that with a bag full of Olympus equipment, including some of the best glass anyone other than Leica has produced in the past couple of decades. The slide began when the company bet on the 4/3 format, rather than APC or full-frame. Though its sensors produce terrific color fidelity, when it comes to resolving power and high iso performance they are no longer in the same league with Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Sony, or Fuji. The "consumer products" division - photo equipment - has long been the tail that has incorrectly been perceived as wagging the Olympus dog, but now if Olympus survives at all as a camera company it will be as a producer of point and shoots.
Now if they'd just issue a real firmware upgrade to take care of the generally lousy autofocus performance, and the flakey metering. As things stand now this has become my love/hate camera. Like the little girl in the nursery rhyme, when it's good it's very very good, and when it's bad it's horrid. The only way I can maintain my sanity while using it is to pretend it's a meterless film camera, use a handheld meter, and play around with manual focus using the AEL button.
Tom Bird: works with Leice special editions, amg special editions, urwerk special editions. will work with sigma as well. you are not the target group, you can't afford it.
The question isn't whether one can afford it, the question is whether one is enough of an A$$h@*%@ to buy it. Like Leica's "collectors' editions," it is intended for those who do not have to count their money, and who have so little taste and judgement they cannot be counted. And, in most cases, for individuals with less than no real photographic ability to are foolish enough to believe that owning an exclusive "edition" camera will make them excellent photographers. Pathetic.
burnymeister: That is truly a horrible, horrible thing. :D
One thing to consider, folks: the entire concept of concentrating on "luxury models" has been what's morphed Leica from a producer of 'must have,' highest quality photographic tools into a laughable producer of grotesquely overpriced neck jewelry. The M9? A must have highest quality photographic tool for serious photographers? With out dust and moisture sealing? With laughable performance at ISOs above 640? Priced like a cheap car? I don't think so. Let's hope Fuji emulates the old Leica, rather than the new Leica.
Was this a photography competition, or a photo illustration competition? Clearly this scene has never been seen in the real world.