Marvol: I feel sorry for some die hard DSLR users.
They troll the Sony NEX forums moaning that the lenses are so big, so why do people bother using NEX instead of DSLRs? So NEX users explain that the overall size is still smaller and especially the bodies are way lighter.
Then the DSLR users come to the MFT forums to troll that the bodies are so big, so why do people bother using MFT? So MFT users have to explain that the overall size is still smaller and especially the lenses are way lighter.
Then said DSLR users move on to complain about crappy EVFs compared to the amazing OVF from entry level Canikons... and the combined NEX and MFT user base just *facepalms*.
One day they will enter the 21st century. One day.
why are people posting here, that obviously dislike this kind of cameras?
>the m43 system is not as big as the canikon system. period.
you are right...i just need a good camera and this one fits my needs very nicely. so i like the E-M1. period.
Interestingness: Jumped right to page 9 and checked out image quality. Did you all see the 3200 ISO JPEG's? That would make me stop shooting RAW - WOW!
Now change it to RAW and look around - this holds it own against everything except the Canon 5D3 all the way up from there (why no ISO 6400?).
Either this or the GX7 is going to be my next camera. Availability and street price will be the deciding factors. The Olympus has the edge in IQ and in body IS - the GX7 the viewfinder. Decisions, decisions...
dosn't bother me. i would use 1.8 or smaller and settle for ISO 1600. which looks amazing when i look at the dp pictures...
Red5TX: Body + lens = $2,399. I'm happy that Olympus has released this ultra-serious, great looking camera, but that's some tall cotton.
lets wait some more days. it might drop eventually
SergeyMS: This camera can have reason only in case of use new sensor. Old one is not good enough.
old one was good enough. for me. new one: even better. you like?
Andy Crowe: There's something slightly strange going on with the studio comparison, it seems to be sharper at ISO800 and higher than at lower ISOs.
there are buttons like AF-L, right? ;)
mpgxsvcd: The one thing that is being overlooked here is that Olympus has just added 42 lenses to the m4/3s catalog with a single press release. Those lenses include at least 5 fast zoom lenses and some of the best primes ever made.
Not only has Olympus passed Canon in sensor sensitivity but now they have similar dual AF and they also have pretty competitive lens lineup with Canon's entire line of lenses.
This new camera is aimed squarely at stealing the Pro photographers away from Canon. With the tremendous size and weight advantages of m4/3s lenses they might actually do just that.
yes, of course he did.
your friends should switch to Medium format. all of them! i don't care! they are making a living? and need to "separate" from people like us, who now are able to afford full frame cameras too?
i am using the m4/3 system FOR FUN, not to make money with it. to remember decisive moments or just try to frame a nice visual impression.
> nikon and canon making a profit olympus cameras not. > no matter how much you like to talk about it.... it´s a factdidn't know that. and i don't care either
Henry M. Hertz: FF get´s cheaper and cheaper... m43 more and more expensive... mhm.. yes makes sense. ;)
because kit m4/3 cameras are (here in germany) available for 250 euros and reach up to current top models (E-M5, GX7, E-M1), it is a huge system...
justmeMN: Hmmm. AF speed not as good as a DSLR. Sensor not as good as a DSLR. Priced higher than many DSLRs...
numbers mean nothing if you don't carry your camera with you. i know a guy who has shooted thousands of photos with his FF Canon 6D of his baby in the first months - INSIDE.so thousands of photos which are not very different! WTF he almost never took the camera with him when his family went outside for a walk, because of size/handling/worth. THAT is - well... i would recommend a EM1 ;)
ozturert: For 1500$ you could get D600 or 6D when there is sales. "Small-light body and lenses" do not count always. 1400$ is way too much. Heck, you have D7100 for 1150$!And I have an EM-5 as my 4th m4/3 body :)
well, that is the problem.
some people here who already have invested thousands of dollars into ther Canikontax - or whatever - systems are not too happy about seeing awesome new bodies with awesome features rise. because others could prosper with new technology.i think, most of these posts here are driven by grudge.
atamola: The fuzzy boundaries between mirrorless and SLR cameras are a good thing for all of us –irrespective of whether you are a professional or keen amateur.Until recently, if you wanted D3X image quality you had to pay almost $6000. Today, you can have that for a fraction of the price and weight.Until recently, the only one offering a relatively “compact” full frame camera was Leica and you had to pay around $7000 for it. Today you have the Sony-Zeiss combo in the RX1 for 40% of that price.OMD, PEN, GX, X-… series did not exist.Pick whatever suits you and carry on –let others pick whatever they want.
true. plus some forum heads are tolls who just get high on specs and "pro" stuff. you know, those people who would pay double for exclusive apple crap... (no offense)
StevenE: It's micro 4/3, so you can forget about shallow DOF.If that doesn't bother you, then this format could work.Non starter for me, unless it can fit in my pocket.
don't know if people, who despise everything except FullFrame here did ever shoot with. or whatever their reasons are.
i like the m4/3 system. back then i even had DOF shallow enough for me with my 18.5 /1.8 nikon 1. most of the time i even struggled with a too shallow DOF (and 18.5 /1.8 with a crop of 2.7x is nothing some people here want to touch ever!)so it all comes down what you want.
shallow DOF and a creamy bokeh (these excact words!) is b̶̶e̶̶t̶̶t̶̶e̶̶r̶ more apparent with FF than m4/3. m4/3 can not reach that level, so i think, people who are biased will use that fact.while others use size/portability.
after all this years of debate i am reading this argument-slapping more with a smile than emotions.
why choose full 4/3 lenses? they are not much smaller than lenses for APS or FF systems.m4/3 is, in my opinion, much lighter and THIS is what i see in m4/3, a system with good (not utterly gorgeous) but light glass.
i found 4/3 DSLRs more funny than anything. bulky and not light, so the smaller senser would not make much sense to me...
marike6: Close to the same size and weight as the GH3 (and the D5200, surprisingly). Not a problem for me, but many think DSLR sized bodies run counter to the m43 philosophy.
This camera also doesn't have the good looks of the EM-5, IMHO, but then neither does the GH3.
I think it's the way the grip looks tacked on that detracts for the design. The three knurled knobs also look a bit odd. The two command dials should probably have been embedded in the grip and thumb rest rather than placed on top.
And since most Olympus lenses are silver, it's odd that the E-M1 is only offered in Black.
+1 for this. while lenses are considerably lighter, big FF lenses have it's own right to exist.
fast lenses like the panasonic 25/1.4: 200 gnikon 24/1.4 G: 620 gcanon 24/1.4 USMII: 650 g
well, just plain numbers. don't even know what that means...
emircruz: Come on oly.. Put this sensor plus the is and wifi tethering on an $600 e-xxx and 43 is truly alive again! Add weather sealing for $999
sure about that? personally, i think, mFT is a very nice compromise between small and "large size" sensors (whatever that means).
it has a chance in this "price level" because1. mFT is significantly smaller than APS or FF2. mFT is cheaper than APS or FF
hate to state it, but because there are point and shoot cameras like the Olympus E-PL3 Kit for 250 euros out there, more people can afford the mFT system, compared to EF or F. we will see how the situation will be in 10 years. i think: amazing!
i don't want to be heretic or something, but shouldn't you compare ISO 3200 +/-2 with ISO 800 +/-0 INSTEAD of ISO 3200 +/-0 ? ISO 800 +/-0would be the same exposure time as ISO 3200 +/-2 and thus be more practical...?
i tried to overexpose my photos with +1.7 in raw mode and found, that most of the time in aperture mode with auto ISO i could instead do +/-0 and don't expose that long with stepped up high ISO settings...
holy ****. that is awesome!