bdbender4: In 10 years, or maybe only 5, we will look back on the days when cameras did such "poor post-processing" that we insisted on doing it ourselves, using computers and phones, taking huge amounts of time using complex software that was expensive and not very well written. Back in the days when there were "JPEG" photos, seen as inferior since they had "modified the data from the sensor", and there were "RAW" photos, where we modified said data ourselves. Never mind that there were several types of RAW data, all of which were highly artificial constructs that modified the data from the sensor. ;)
Many of us are pretty familiar with what RAW actually means. The thing is, when creating a digital image you're always taking a large amount of data and removing chunks of it to make the final viewable result, which will always involve compromise. This is fine, but an automated compromise (aka in-camera processing) will never know what your intent as a photographer was - it will always be a best guess. It will also always be time constrained - done quickly rather than for maximum processing quality. This latter point could get better over time but determining the user's intent is not a problem to be solved.
So respectfully, I disagree. For those of us who know what we're up to, we'll always want to take as much data as possible to produce the final image that we wanted.
MrTaikitso: It's funny, because after 3 or so months of using the excellent Panasonic GX8, I hardly ever popped the screen out (except for video 'selfies'), using the VF most of the time. Unless it was plain obvious an image was tripe (missed shot etc), I did all my reviewing back at base on a superb Dell 27" 4K monitor, where I can pixel peep properly. Even with the GX8's superb VF, unless you're staring an image in the face at 'full size', it is never the same. Leica may well be onto something here for still photogs.
Surely it's still nice to have, though? I mostly use my camera's rear screen for two things:
1) Periodically checking I've set my exposure correctly2) High/low angle photos
No screen would leave me SOOL on both of those, whereas a fold-in screen gives the best of both worlds.
Wye Photography: I don't use the screen to "chimp" on my Leica M8, I forced myself to pre-visualise instead, to see the final result in my mind. So, I would love this camera. Amazing. A brave move. I would love to afford it. I would love to afford a Ferrari as well.
I just wonder if on car forums Ferrari is slagged off or on watch forums Rolex so slagged.
What is the root of all this hate? Jealousy perhaps, or dissatisfaction with life, or job or wife or perhaps feelings of inadequacy???
My Leica M2 and M8 were not worth the money I paid for them, neither is this camera. Neither is a Ferrari for that matter. That's life. Ain't it a bitch!
Well, It's been entertaining reading the comments, keep it up chaps.
I don't get why people resort to the "jealousy" narrative. It's quite simple. Leica charge way more for their products than they're worth and justify it with nonsensical press briefs - hence the sneering.
It's not changing the world, but it's nice to chuckle of an afternoon.
More power to you if you can afford these baubles, but that's what they are - baubles.
Spunjji: I only wonder what happens when Apple release a phone with a different shape a year from now? It's not tremendously expensive, but it seems like this device will have a shelf life not-much longer than a 2 year phone contract and that seems, to me, to be a sad waste.
Good points there, although on the final one, I would argue that the D5 has a shelf life of much more than 2 years! It will be superseded, but not by something dramatically better for another 4-5 years.
I'm definitely glad for the transition from 2-year contracts too. They're a dismal way to buy phones and encourage rampant waste. The thing is, though, phone companies are still geared up to sell their products in that fashion - they haven't had any incentive to make the devices last very long.
Points above accepted, I still feel weird about products like this... I guess it just doesn't strike my imagination. The way I see it, if you're carrying the grip, you might as well carry the camera. I guess it can apply to people semi-affluent enough to afford a $600 iPhone but without the cash to spare for a decent Point and Shoot camera as well, but that sounds like a small market. I would be more inclined to bet that most of the grips end up doing not-much.
bernardly: A really inexpensive way to experiment with swirly bokeh is the Russian Helios 44-2 or variant legacy manual focus lens. They were made in vast quantities and a copy can be found on eBay for very little dollars. Best used on FF camera.
I'm afraid I don't have any specific tips - in my case I would simply shoot wide-open. These are the best examples I could find without going on a long dig:
In those instances it's admittedly not as dramatic as the lensbaby, but the price difference ought to be borne in mind. This is also on a Micro Four Thirds camera so you miss out the edges of the frame where the effect is strongest.
I only wonder what happens when Apple release a phone with a different shape a year from now? It's not tremendously expensive, but it seems like this device will have a shelf life not-much longer than a 2 year phone contract and that seems, to me, to be a sad waste.
OldYeller: If you shoot Micro 4/3 you can just buy a C-mount 25mm f/1.4 lens for $15, and an adapter plate for $7 (from China). You get that same swirly background blur that you get with this lens for a fraction of the price.
You get a shallower DoF and a neat vignette thrown in too!
You can also use the dramatic field curvature to do cool stuff like having both a foreground (left/right third) and background (centre) element of the image in focus.
JackM: Or you can get an old used Helios 44-2, which is actually 58mm f/2.0. Swirly bokeh.
Seconding JackM. I owned one for years and it swirls just fine, thanks.
Charles Bandes: Why all the hate? This lens looks really exciting to me.
Because you can do the same thing for way cheaper with a number of existing lenses :)
100% in agreement here. I saw the results above and thought "this looks familiar!" - lo and behold, I was doing exactly this with £20 worth of second-hand cold-war era lens about 8 years ago xD
T3: I don't mind the $10/month fee, but I'm worried about what they'll do to the price after your 12 months is up. I just don't trust Adobe anymore. They'll jack up the price, and you'll be jacked in the process.
I'm currently using LR for 0$ a month, having paid £60 a little over 12 months ago. Sure, I'd get PS with this, but I don't actually want it or that clusterfuck that is Bridge.
wootpile: Should be the same sensor as in Nikon p7700 but these samples suck. Not a single crisp image.. Let's hope it is just another a case of Dpreview manhandling. (why post pre-samples taken without sample-value content?)
I like the styling Oly is using - angluar and tight.
If the IQ is better than the sucky samples seen, I can see this one being a very good macro machine for bugs
I genuinely don't understand, a lot of these images are pin sharp, especially the portraits.
I have noticed that my system sometimes shows images as blurred when I expand them (after waiting for them to load) but they then load properly after being closed and re-opened. Maybe people are seeing this? Because this is not a blurry camera.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: They both lack sharpness. I'm sorry for the people who think they'll make great shots with these expensive gadgets, but both of them are short on image quality. Yes, the 808 is better - at least if you can take your mind off the considerable levels of chromatic aberration -, but what's the point? For the price you'll be better off with an enthusiast compact camera like the Sony RX100.
Please, Manuel, tell me more about the "typical smartphone consumer". :D
vesa1tahti: Oly is from the past. Buy APS-C or FF- Nikons, and you are happy. Cheers.
I love how every comment is bookended by trolls talking complete bollocks. Olympus lenses, blurry? Hahaha! Go home.
massimogori: 1) The quality of the camera depends on the area of the sensor (corollary: IQ/surface is a constant for all sensors)
2) Any marketing effort made by anybody other than the maker of my own camera is a nonsense
3) The price of a camera I cannot afford or from another brand than my own camera is too high.
(...lots of experienced photographers, here...)
bok3h, I think you missed the intended sarcasm in massimogori's post. :)
fz750: I do wonder what the real market is for M4/3 and even for similar cameras like the Nex range. I live i a pretty touristy (Switzerland) place, so see people shooting lanscapes and buildings and stuff all the time, have been on various holidays or trips this year (europe, switzerland, austria, germany, uk, france and once in Israel) around, but I have **not once** seen a M4/3 (other than my own) or Nex, just canikon D-SLR basically, 98% APS-C but some D6/800 and Canon 6D (ignoring all the mass of compact cameras obviously)
I have a E-PL2, use it most of the time it seems (in preference to a canon Eos, despite missing a viewfinder..) and really like it, so am interested in smaller format camera like the OM-D but wonder who is buying all these M4/3 & Nex cameras?
I doubt my subjective sample is representative of total sales! perhaps they more prevalent in some markets?
The sad fact is that the people trolling in here about Full Frame are also the sort of people who stridently recommend DSLRs to people who don't need them. "Buy the Canikon with the expensive lens, then you can upgrade to Full Frame later for *list of irrelevant traits*".
So a lot of folks out there don't buy mirrorless because they don't know it exists, or get told by some gearhead with half a brain that they're inferior because *insert daft reason here*
Jogger: Id like to see a continuous series of photos with the 75/1.8 at 1.8 of a runner running towards the camera.. .or maybe the 35-100/2.8 at 2.8 and 100mm. Just spot focus on the bib number and fire away.
The CAF samples so far have not proven anything. Also, what is the point of 9fps without focus.. .when would you ever use that?
You're right, Jogger, you use bracketing mode - which incidentally operates at a 9fps speed without autofocus. Your photos are taken (exposure length permitting) in roughly 1/3 of a second instead of, say, 1 second at 3fps. Great for handheld HDR.
You also completely ignored the skater comment, which is a shame as that sort of speed is useful in any sort of blink-and-you'll-miss-it scenario. It's fairly a cheesy way of getting the shot but in the end it's still about getting the shot, not how you got it.
CortoPA: Its almost as good a camera as a Pentax K-5 IIs
Thanks for the trolling Plastek, but as a former Pentax owner I know from bitter experience that your statement is complete hogswash. M4/3 + 4/3 = >Pentax lens range. That's without getting into how using legacy MF Pentax lenses is easier on M4/3 than on Pentax's own cameras...
JerryKraut: Folks, may be I am getting old and may be some lenses (not the Long Toms I use a lot) have no manual focus ring anymore, but I never understood the fuss about AF. Who needs this feature, really? Press and sports photographers, OK, and blind people, who should not be taking pictures in the first place. All these people who send their lenses back and forth to have them serviced because of perceived front or back focus make me laugh. I remember an article in AP, I think it was, when Heather Angel said she only bought her first AF Nikon body, an F4, because of the superior metering and that she would not swap all her big glass for the new AF versions. I had a Dutchman ridicule me once for taking photos of a pack of timber wolves with an old manual telezoom lens. Pity I could not show him the best pictures I took that day. That would have shut him up.
I'm pleased for you that you can focus so well manually, that's wonderful - what does that have to do with anyone else? My eyes are such that it is impossible for me to ever get an accurately focused image via manual focusing through anything other than luck. But I guess I just shouldn't be taking photographs.
olyflyer: The focus is OK in the first sequence with the slow riders but in the second I would be worried with the AF ability.
In the second sequence the aperture is severely stopped down, everything from the nose of the horse to infinity is in focus. What would make me worried is the fact that nothing in front of the horse is in focus, so the rider is always on the edge of DOF. I think if the camera was set to use larger aperture then the rider would have been out of focus.
I tried to download the second sequence images but it seems that only the first image is downloadable, so my conclusion might be wrong, but it is not likely that it is different in the other images in terms of the used aperture and the very deep DOF.
The AF tuning abilities are really impressive but who else other than a very few diehard Oly fans have the time and knowledge to tune properly? No, in my opinion the AF tuning should be done by the factory, not the user. I would not be happy to have to do that tuning at home.
Thanks for the quick response Andy. Those examples are much more useful!