munro harrap: As the OM series was full-frame, remarks about this one surpassing 35mm quality are plain daft. I expect 36x24mm in a body this size at this price £1150 with a kit lens that is f6.3 at 100mm on Micro fourthirds means buying their VERY expensive faster zooms. (They have changed the mount so you cannot even use the 4/3rds ones.
Corruption in the industry seems to extend to fanboy commments about this ridiculous machine. The Panasonic is a third of the price, and has a screen you can at least fold away- not much point being weatherproof and having an exposed screen. Its been thrown together for suckers by a bunch of monkeys.
I still have my OMs and there is NO comparison, and with this sensor size for the same price the kit lens should be f2.8-f3.5 like the old one for 4/3rds (this is NOT a 4/3rds machine) certainly was.
So even the E-1 with that lens will give far better results for under half the money.
To the original poster.
I agree with you on most of your points. Look how you get squashed by fanboys. Fanboys of - as Monty Python put it - machines that do quiiick and ping and pong...
As a photographer's tool, OM series will - let me use a fanboy expression here - "run circles around" E-M5.
I too was skeptical 4 years ago when I was told to check out OM series.Only people that haven't handled OM-2 or OM-1 or are completely ... biased by all this advertising and hype can neglect the old OM series.Good for Olympus. They can no go on and focus on the Tokyo stock exchange. Producing cameras is an art they lost when money became the priority...
luchoh: OM2 has the best viewfinder in 35mm.This was the only object I carried with me on my wedding day. I shortly let go of it when I had to sign the papers. That's how good it is. The viewfinder is comparable to Pentax 6x7!
Olympus has the technology. Unfortunately it seems it is infested (as most of the surviving modern businesses) with sales and marketing people that have the upper hand over ingenuity.
I had given up on Olympus and for a short time regained hope when they pre-announced this camera. Perhaps I didn't read carefully to notice the m4/3 mount. Perhaps I couldn't believe they will so cheaply exploit the legacy...
Have you noticed how most of the old film gear has become twice as expensive during the past year or so (OM gear eve more so)? This is a direct consequence of marketing people trying to sell half-baked products to (as they think) half-baked people. Well, I hope not everybody is half-baked.
Image vs. PhotographI can certainly see your point. As physics major and software engineer, I'm quite intimate with technology.However, this is not the point I was making.I agree that the images that the new camera will produce will be superior to anything produced by OM cameras except perhaps for slides scanned on a drum scanner. Even then, if the behind-the-scanner-device is not vastly experienced, the images will be inferior. Also, such scans will cost $40 and more per image.I agree. Images from the new camera will be superior.How about photographs?I sold my 5D 3 years ago when it became obsolete - I realized l was using old school medium format and then subsequently large format and the 5D didn't get much use. The large viewfinders help you see your future work of art.
My point is: unless one shoots walls and compares pixels, the image quality doesn't matter all that much. What matters is what you see in order to create the photograph.
OM2 has the best viewfinder in 35mm.This was the only object I carried with me on my wedding day. I shortly let go of it when I had to sign the papers. That's how good it is. The viewfinder is comparable to Pentax 6x7!