Najinsky: It was needed, having the better sensor in the X100S made the Xp/e seem already out of date.
Shame they didn't add a small hump and a centrally mounted finder (seriously!). Side finders become less useful with longer zooms where you need to look up from the camera to locate your subject.
With all the other features and the lens map, it would have been a contender for me. But I'm tired of compromises, what I have (OM-D) is really good, so manufacturers are going to have to work a bit harder to make me switch.
Note, I have no issue with side-finders for up to around 100mm. But beyond 200, I really want it centred over the lens.
Yes, parallax is a problem for rangefinders as the FL increases, but in this instance I'm just referring to the latter. Having your eye to the VF with a long tele, struggling to locate the subject in the frame, so quickly peeking over the top of the finder to eyeball the subject and pointing the lens in the right direction. Having your eye directly over the lens makes the pointing more instinctive and accurate.
Think about how accurate target shooters would be if they had their eye offset from the gun barrel.
Najinsky: Well, I'm (genuinely) happy for you guys who can make use of this but unfortunately my X100 is an ornament.
It's an ornament because it developed Sticky Aperture Blades and I can't get it fixed.
I can't get it fixed because Fuji won't publicly acknowledge the problem and insists it goes via warranty repair.
It can't go via warranty repair because the required warranty card and receipt were in a document wallet that got stolen in Thailand (all it had was receipts so the thief got nothing but deprived me of a fix).
They were being carried in the wallet in the vain hope of finding a repair centre while travelling, who spoke enough English to understand the problem in the absence of any public acknowledgement I could show them.
I know some of you get annoyed with me for beating down on Fuji for this, but you know what a great camera it is and I bet you'd feel the same if YOU lost the ability to use yours because of an unacknowledged manufacturing defect and bureaucracy.
andywhoa - It's very rude and dis-respectful to call me a liar just because your experience differed. You have no basis for making that claim.
Good job you made it from behind your keyboard, if you'd done it in person I'd have knocked you out cold.
Well, I'm (genuinely) happy for you guys who can make use of this but unfortunately my X100 is an ornament.
I made they very same stowage argument against the hump when the OM-D EM-5 was announced. It's one of a number of design issues with the EM-5, at the very least the hot-shoe should have been recessed into the hump, not plonked on top. But after a year of use I can't say the hump has ever caused me any real issues.
But I find the current aesthetics of the XEs to be quite dull, specifically the top half. It looks a bit empty due to the absence of an OVF window for a rangefinder style camera.
I think a small well implement hump for central finder would also improve the looks, while allowing the hot-shoe to be central, and the built-in flash to be offset to the side.
Done well, it would add a bit of character.
I know I'm in a small minority, I check out the Fuji forum and know strong the support is for the rangefinder style and shorter FLs. But you guys already have the X-Pro, XE and X100s, while for those with a preference for central, we have, er, nothing. At least nothing Fuji-X.
@deep7 - Like you say, we are indeed all different. I do get the nose smudge argument, but the worst that happens is you get a smudge on the screen that can be cleaned off. But if you are trying to track a bird in flight, and you have to look up from the camera to find it, the parallax difference can make it harder to point the camera in the right place and you risk losing the shot, so I'd rather take the smudge.
It was needed, having the better sensor in the X100S made the Xp/e seem already out of date.
tanmancs: Attention Olympus, time to grow some balls and give us the Full Frame EM-1. No more excuses.
Why? To all intents and purposes, the A7 is the full frame EM-1.
The design is similar and looks very functional (at last), Olympus already use Sony sensors, and for full frame they would need to design new lenses, losing access to both their own and Panasonic's excellent range of m4/3 glass.
I'm seriously considering delaying my EM-1 purchase and opting for an A7R with 35mm lens (though I'll still be getting the new 12-40/2.8 for my current EM-5).
Olympus are essentially becoming Sony's M4/3 brand!!
georgehudetz: On the surface, I love the concept - a FF camera nearly 400 grams lighter than a D610. Fantastic! But am I the only one that thinks this is a bit of a shell game? With a CIPA battery life of only 340 shots, vs. the Nikon's 900, I'd be investing in a battery grip for the Sony just to keep the battery swapping down. Then you'd still want one or two more batteries on hand in addition to the two in the camera for a full day's shooting. It looks like most of the weight advantage goes away. Same issue applies when comparing a D7100 to a OMD-EM1 (although of course the lenses are a different issue in that comparison).
But I suppose if you didn't mind swapping and went without the grip you'd still have a significant weight advantage. Bravo to Sony for innovating! I love my D7000 but Nikon needs to pay attention here!
My OM-D is CIPA rated around 330 I think, but I regularly get 900 shots from a single charge. It depends on lots of things but I generally find the CIPA ratings ultra pessimistic compare to my use. I do carry a spare for it just in case, but I rarely need it, and when I do it's usually because I forgot to charge the in camera battery after a few days use.
Image roll-over for the crop demo isn't working for me. I see the first image, but if I try to look at either of the APS-C images, the image is replaced with a missing image icon, which remains even if I try to look at the first image again.
When the page first loads the URL for the selected Image 1 is:
But after attempting to select the other images, the URLs become:
Would be cool if Adobe and Sony swapped strategies.
Pay Adobe for the product only when you want to buy it or upgrade.
Pay Sony for a subscription service and get automatic access to all the new system cameras they bring out every few months.
The Photo Ninja: I just posted 29 pics regarding shutter shock here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52273869
This comment section of DPR doesn't create links from the URL.
To open the link, simply use your mouse to highlight the link (drag from the start of the link to the end).
With the link highlighted, right-click it and your browser should give you the option to open the linked page.
Robgo2: Anyone who cannot see the superor output from Photo Ninja is either in denial or needs an eye exam. And this superiority holds for other cameras and sensors as well.
I did extensive testing with Photo Ninja and it became part of my standard toolkit, but it's not top dog, just very good at default conversions which are heavily enhanced. This may suit some but not others.
For example, highlight recovery enhances the colour by guessing. When it guesses right, it does a great job as can be seen in the photos above on the blue skies. But sometimes it guesses wrong and gives false colours so has to be turned off and then it's not so good.
When I put it up against Aperture, it produced nicer initial conversions, but that's because Aperture defaults to a very neutral image and leaves it to you to add the sauce. Once I tune the images to my preferences, I still find Aperture the better tool.
But I see no reason to limit myself to a single tool, after all I use multiple cameras and lenses. So I use Aperture as my main processor but revert to Photo Ninja, DXO or Lightroom for those images which benefit from the strong features of those other tools.
Jinks81: How come Fuji cameras are the only ones with practically no chroma noise in RAW?
Either they changed physics or remove it during processing
CameraLabTester: Shutter shock?
Oh come on!
Get a leaf!
Sergey Borachev: This camera should not have been made, now that a better top camera, the E-M5 has already been on the market. Olympus should just update the E-M5 and forget this E-P5. It is too expensive but lacks an EVF. Once the real E-M5 replacement appears in a few months, with a new sensor, this camera will be left on the shelves, if not already.
(The E-M1 is a different camera for 43 users and those with special needs.) There is simply no room between the E-M5 or its replacement and the E-PL5 to slot in this E-P5.
I disagree Sergey. The PL and PM series have stripped down features to keep the cost and size down. The P series is full featured without going to an SLR style body.
While I personally prefer SLR style, I know a lot of people for whom the P is their ideal choice, and I don't see why they should be left out just because of my preferences.
Celebrate the difference!
Image Shake / Shutter Shock.
I've had the EM-5 for over a year now and it's a fantastic balance between size and performance. Shutter shock was also a widely discussed topic when the EM-5 came out.
The 'fix' on the EM-5 is to engage Anti-Shock from custom menu 'E'. I use the fastest setting of 1/8s (shame there isn't a faster setting of say 1/32s) which essentially introduces a 1/8s delay to the shutter.
I was concerned about this delay but after a year of shooting, it's truly a non issue for me. Where split-second timing is critical, I use continuous drive anyway to capture 3/6 frames per second.
In rare cases where single frame and split-second timing is needed, ISO 400 or 800 give great IQ.
I suspect the reason it's a little more prevalent on the P5 is due to the new ISO 100 setting, leading to lower shutter speeds.
In short, if you wan't the performance/size benefits, don't let shutter-shock put you off. All cameras have compromises, and this issue is an easy work-around.
Well done. I've been calling for a feedback forum on numerous occasions over the past few years, I really think you need it. I think it will sometimes be hard reading for you, but ultimately will lead to significant improvements as you get a better handle on users issues.
Rockaw: It's still a capable tool, but I've given up hope for 4.
Lightroom keeps piling on innovative features and very solid improvements each year. So many, that it's no longer a fair comparison between the two. Didn't used to be the case.
Apple needs to keep the loyalties of the pros and super-enthusiasts.
I think it will probably come around the time of the new iPad, hopefully within a few months.
They are known to be working on a companion iPad App for it (they hired the development job about 18 months ago).
The new 64bit A7 chip in the next iPad along with 64bit iOS 7 will give it the horse power needed for a serious companion App.
It all makes sense.
- Develop the companion App- Update Aperture for the companion (and other features)- Release when the performance is available
Laszlo13: I'm happy with version 3 - except for 1 missing feature: ability to remove lens CA effectively. Currently, I need to use DxO Optics Pro 8 to process images with CA issues, and this is annoying (especially since I can't get the colors that I love in aperture out of Optics Pro).
Why not use the CA adjustment tool to remove CA ?
Aperture is not abandoned. It has had a huge number of updates to release 3, which as 'point' updates means they are free. It seems a small but vocal group want it called '4' so they can pay more money for it. I'm happy with free.
I think I can see (and appreciate) Apple's approach as clear as day. So maybe I'm the smartest person in the world, but there's an abundance of evidence to the contrary on that score, so it's more likely I'm just not as blinkered as some.