Marty4650: The problem for Olympus is the EM5 is almost three years old now, and is still one of the finest MILC cameras you can find. And as each day passes, they have to sell them for less and less.
So the obvious solution is to create a replacement model, with WIFI and a better EVF, with everything else the same, then ratchet the price back up to $999 again, for another three years.
From what I understand the hybrid AF isn't merely for 4/3 lenses but can also help with the C-AF accuracy of m4/3 lenses too, and other systems or even Olympus' own counterpart within the system are all working on closing the gap between MILCs and DSLR when it comes to C-AF...
The Sony A6000 already tracks focus better than any budget DSLR (while selling for $650 body only), so it'd be dumb of Olympus and Panasonic to stick their head in the sand and restrict PDAF+CDAF or DFD (in Pana's case) to their largest top end $1,200+ models.
Those features WILL trickle down, and the last big advantage to DSLR will slowly fade away, it's just a matter of when... Olympus HAS shown in the past that they're not afraid of cannibalizing sales of a higher end body by limiting what they put on a lower end one.
They put the same sensor on all bodies within the current line when Panasonic kept older sensors on some. They brought out the lower end E-M10 with nearly every majorfeature from the E-M5 but for weather sealing, etc etc.
It'd be sad for them to start segregating models more aggressively now, I think a slower refresh cycle while making every model as good as it possibly can be for the price point wins more customers in the end, people buying the E-M5 never cared if it was a year or two old.
Ehh, in all fairness, there's a few other improvements it'll surely pick up from more recent models, like focus peaking, the 0s anti shutter shock mode, etc. IF there's nothing else noteworthy beyond that and it's just an E-M10 with weather sealing it'll be somewhat disappointing...
If it gains the E-M1's hybrid PDAF/CDAF it'll have a nice spot in the lineup, if the rumors of improved video (or even 4K) pan out it could be a big hit for Oly with a whole new market. So there's a few ways this could go, we'll see... If both those things pan out I'd be all over it.
Raist3d: I don't understand why this is big news. Or why so important. Wow, and older camera model going out of production? Really?! Never heard of that before in the market.
And reporting a rumor? (!) Not that it makes a difference true or not true.
I'd tend to agree, it's slightly noteworthy in the the E-M5 has been one of the few mirrorless bodies to withstand a few years on the shelves while holding up reasonably well, but speculating on rumors does seem a bit beneath DPR either way.
PedroMZ: what was very irritating and frankly unhelpful of Olympus is that they did not install the means by which you could AF the older 4/3rd lenses despite the cost of the OM-D-5, yet 6 months later they offered it on the OM-D 1 . Few of us could afford to trade in 6 month old kit, worth half its initial value, for this facility.
Umm, it took way longer than six months for them to release the E-M1 after the E-M5... If the former is nearly three years old and the latter is about a year old it would seem they actually waited about two years in between, year and a half at least, if you bought the E-M5 way later then regretted it that's not exactly their fault mate.
dmartin92: So it's probably a waste to get 4K if you don't have a 4K television ? That's my question.
For basic home movies, maybe, even if you have a 4K TV you'll probably never notice the difference unless you have a 70"+ TV (or projector) and/or you're sitting quite close... As the above commenter notes tho, there are benefits when downsampling to 1080p etc. I wouldn't get a dedicated 4K video camera unless I had videophile aspirations, but I'm excited for 4K in photo cameras, grabbing 8MP stills from 4K video is also pretty interesting.
I wonder how many Italian designers it took to decide "let's paint this RX100 silver and literally screw a block of shaped wood to it"... Can't have been that many, so there's probably not a lot of people to fire, right? One can hope...
Sony's QX concept as it exists today hasn't exactly caught fire with consumers, but I think enthusiasts would be a lot more interested in it if they made slimmer models with prime lenses instead of zooms... 1" sensor + pancake 35mm or 50mm or both, something with RX100 IQ but cheaper and easy to pocket alongside a phone, what's not to like? Stacking a zoom on just makes it unwieldy. Maybe Olympus will pick up the ball here, MFT sensor with something like the Pana 20 or 14 on it, easy to pocket and easy to slap on any phone.
I guess judging by the comments (or lack thereof) not many are interested in the 35-100? I'm very interested for one, it's smaller than I thought it'd be (barely larger than the Oly 45mm?), somewhat pricey at nearly $400 tho, for a slow tele... Miniaturization has it's cost I guess, at $300 I might've preordered it instantly, at $400 I'll wait a bit. Maybe Japan import shops on Ebay will sell it cheaper...
I'll rarely carry any real tele zoom with my GF6, they're all just too large (wouldn't fit mounted on my bag and would take up the space of 2-3 primes otherwise), so paying more for a much smaller but shorter/slower collapsing tele isn't something I'd object to, I'll get much more use out of it... I just don't know about paying 200%+ more for the privilege.
johnarthur42: whats the point in a "selfie" screen if you still need to hold the camera, if it went up at least you could put it on a table or (heaven forbid) one of those funny three legged things that some people use
Yeah, having a downward turning display seems like a very odd design decision... Probably made to keep a certain body style more than anything.
Not a bad update, it's about damn time they moved on from those widescreen displays on the PENs... Seems silly but that was a major turn off for me.
If this had an EVF I'd probably consider upgrading from my lowly GF6 (for IBIS and the sensor), but then it'd probably cost more... I should probably just hold off until stuff like DFD or hybrid PDAF starts trickling down before upgrading anyway.
Price is a little high but that seems par for the course with MFT, introductory price never lasts long anyway. It really ought to come with the pancake zoom tho... Nonetheless, I'm glad Oly remains committed to this style of body, since Panasonic is ignoring the GF line for now.
I know the article states the Cullman model is new, but is it like brand spanking new? I ask because it doesn't seem to be readily available in the US... There's a single 3rd party merchant selling it on Amazon (over MSRP), couldn't find it elsewhere.
Also, when can we expect the other tripod round up review alluded to a few times within this one? Oh and what's up with comment posting from the mobile interface? Seems it's been broken for a couple weeks, at least on my end... Whenever I hit post it'd say "Posting..." and nothing happens.
I logged on and off a few times to no avail, just shrugged and moved on. Just switched to desktop interface and lo and behold it works. Running a stock Nexus 5 & Google Chrome FWIW.
tkbslc: The main problem for this camera is that Panasonic and Olympus overproduced their early models enough that they have 3-4 years of old cameras filling the "low cost" 4/3 market.
Ehh, the $200 E-PM2 sales would seem to indicate even cameras with newer sensors have also ended up gathering dust on the shelf/retail warehouse. See also the G5 etc. I'm not complaining or putting down those cameras, but the MSRP life of low to mid range M43 cameras still seems pretty low.
peevee1: $589? Good luck to Tamron, they are not going to sell anything at this price, Pana HD 14-140 WITH stabilization is $399, the new Pana 14-140 (with even better stabilization) and Oly 14-150 are about $600.
It is probably the kind of price to quickly take half off and call it a sale. In Japan it is 26,000 yen according to 43rumors, about $250.
It's not even any smaller... Why did they bother?
uuronl: As someone who buys each new version of LR, this strikes me as a decent deal, presuming it won't get much more expensive. At about $120 for a year, it's less than the cost of the new license accompanying each major revision.
Your math is off, LR upgrade licenses are only $80 and they only come out about every year ands a half... Not saying this isn't a decent deal, cause you ARE getting PS too, but it's a poor value proposition for those interested only in LR. Now if they offered just a LR sub for like $6-7 a month...
peevee1: $900 for 18-135/3.5-5.6! Fuji is not exactly shy.For comparison Canon's new 18-135 IS STM costs $550 (Canon's old $500), Sony's $500 , Nikon's new 18-140 is also $500, Pentax 18-135WR also $500 - hell, you can buy whole WR k-50 with 18-135 for $900!And it is harder (more expensive) to reach 18mm on a DSLR!
Among mirrorless, more versatile (longer reach) Panasonic HD 14-140 is $400 (new 14-140 $630), Olympus 14-150 $600; Samsung 18-200 (again much longer reach) $700.
Seems the Pentax is probably the only other one with some weather resistance, from reading the comments below anyway... The new Panasonic 14-140 is impressively small tho, it's no larger than a standard DSLR 18-55 and smaller than some even. Obviously a compromise on other ways but still.
How many of those are weather resistant tho? I'm not saying that excuses the very large price premium for a shorter lens (in a super zoom category that's usually about some degree of compromise anyway), but it's something. I'm curious whether the quoted venting and IS are actual advancements of either feature or if it's marketing hype.
DWM: This camera is huge! What exactly is the advantage of a 1" sensor again? I'd rather have a D5300 and a kit zoom. Or a Nikon 1 and 10-100mm if small size was important.
It's probably smaller, might even be smaller than a G5 with the smallest teles (e.g. new 14-140, 45-150)... The FZ1000 body looks chunky but that integrated lens looks pretty small. Haven't compared measurements, hopefully the camerasize site puts it up and saves us the trouble.
HowaboutRAW: I wonder if Samsung included a decent sound card the way HP did with those Beats Android tablets by HP?
I wonder how easily I can pop the case open to replace the battery and flash harddrive? (That's something Lenovo did well with those Yoga Android tablets--not great screens and awful sound though.)
Samsung used to have some pretty decent Wolfson DACs on their phones early on, but they were still using their own SoC back then... They moved away from that at one point, no clue if the same parts mate with the Qualcomm SoC everyone are using these days or what they're using on the tablets though. I haven't found anyone doing even an inkling of decent sound quality evaluation for these kinda products...
Anandtech has been doing some interesting tests, though limited to a handful of phones. Just having X DAC or whatever isn't any kind of guarantee either , particularly if using headphones which will also rely on proper output stages and amplification. I'd dare say that part and the headphones themselves actually matter a whole lot more than the DAC...
Which is why half the time I just sidestep the whole chain and opt for Bluetooth output to a BT receiver that is a known quantity to me (decent DAC / amp), obviously Bluetooth represents it's own set of compromises, but many of these devices these days use a decent enough encoding profile that the compression isn't anywhere near as bad as BT on much older devices.
In a mobile setting the ambient noise or your own headphones are probably the weaker link anyway, unless you're using $600+ custom IEM (as most hifi full size headphones in the range would need better amping to reach anywhere near their potential), and in a non mobile setting I'd rather bypass it all with a Chromecast, Sonos, etc. A decent mobile DAC isn't hard to spec into a product tho, it's just an easy corner to cut or ignore.
Something like a $30 SanDisk Clip Zip could already get you one of the cleanest outputs out there (and it came out years ago)... Obviously it's of no help if the content is on a laptop / tablet but the point is good / clean audio can be had very cheap. Of course when you're trying to race to the bottom with a fully integrated laptop / tablet design, that's another story.
Your tablet, laptop, and a "real" (external?) DAC are all still DACs (or have a DAC)... Not trying to be anal here, it's just that I don't think anyone calls it a sound card outside of the desktop market where we had actual sound cards... Which is just a DAC on a PCI card really (duh), possibly with a headphone amp if you bought a decent one in the last ten years (which still blow away motherboard on-board DAC, but most people could care less in the same way they could care less about dedicated cameras these days). Again, not trying to be pedantic, probably not telling you anything you didn't know either... Just trying to get at some clearer terminology.
If it's just using a decent Wolfson DAC or something similar then it doesn't really have anything to do with Beats, point is they don't make any of it so it's just branding over the top of someone else's engineering. I doubt they even play a major role in evaluating it tbh, the voicing of most Beats headphones is utter crap... Not just bad for their price level, just bad.