Everlast66: Ha ha, that was hilarious! Well done, Oly :)
I wonder when DPR will start giving non-DSLR shaped cameras top marks like 87-90%.
When are they going to appreciate camera qualities like compactness, portability, being public friendly and unobtrusive, and realise that many users today prioritise these qualities over 10% better AF hit rate, or being able to pull 2 more leaves from the shadows or balance well with large lenses!
I have the feeling that for DPR every camera that does not have DSLR form factor is automatically falling in a lower category.
One would expect that on a site like this there are many enthusiasts and editors wouldn't be that backwards!
DPR have a weighting system that appears slanted more to IQ/ISO than anything else. No-one would argue top SLRs don't give great IQ, but the best camera is the one you have with you. Maybe 60-70% (min) may deem portability/versatillity a top feature, where High ISO may be critical to 20%, yet DPR seem fixated on high IQ/high ISO. We don't all shoot at ISO 10000 and expect to get a perfect 20x16 print. DPR's reviews are okay but their ratings are absurd and lack relevance.
PHtorino: This is a terribly lame effort from Olympus. I own OMD-EM1 and EM-5 and a few of the Olympus pro lenses. But there is no way, It would ever replace my Nikon FX DSLRs. I think in the mirror-less world, Fujifilm and Sony has a better future ahead than m4/3. So, making crap videos with fake long arm will bring no good.
Man, you sure need to lighten up! Nobody is asking you to ditch your Nikon - though in half a dozen years you may not be able to BUY a camera with a mirror box. You own EM1 already so you have avoided the worst of DLR-Arm - phew!
I was at the UK Photography Show at Birmingham. The Olympus massage sure did me a power of good. I now have an EM1 and EM10 plus 5 lenses, all fit in a tiny bag and weigh less than 2kgs. Thank you, Olympus - I'm cured!!
exapp: With 81 focus points on some of the OMD is it time Olympus considered Eye control auto-focus like some Canon's had 15 years ago.
On a tripod you can use a touchscreen to easily pick a focus point but handheld is a bit trickier and eye control would be a huge bonus.
I had Eye-Control on a Canon late 90s. Great feature, but not developed and scrapped, I felt, because 'macho' photographers were attached to lots of buttons making them feel more in control. Who really needs all that? - Eye Control was good, and missed shots were no worse than without EC: sadly, I doubt very much Canon (their patent) will resurrect it now.
"Better in every significant way", says DPR, yet the tone here is underwhelming: one percentage point hardly reflects that analysis. It's a review full of "Yes but - " moments: how much "better in every significant way"must this model be to please DPR? It already improves on the EM1 in areas. And other than the merest mention (under Video) of a flip-screen, no talk at all of this improvement. The lack of a fully-artic screen was my one regret at changing from Panasonics to EM5/EM1. Stiff single-plane screens are nothing like as versatile, so applause to Olympus for changing. I also agree it's high time DPR changed its scoring system to reflect a tool's useability. Weight, portability, versatility are largely ignored.
Frank_BR: The mirror mechanism is as complicated as the tape transport mechanism of a VCR. It's good that Canon starts thinking seriously about launching a professional mirrorless camera or it will have the same fate of the VCRs.
Quite agree. Just one more thing to go wrong. You have to hand it to Canon for doggedly insisting that their mirror box is still what we all should have! And anyway, isn't it an admission that mirrors still suffer vibration?
JohnHoppy: This review reads like someone deciding what shoes to wear. I love my GM1 too but it can't be all things to all men. I can see the GM5 improves on it in several ways,how can that be a bad thing? How do you give something a "Silver" then say, Ah but those APSC cams do the job better? Crazy! In one sense, they probably do, but their lenses are still way bigger. GM1 is my "go-everywhere" camera, it gets shots others don't because I don't tote all the bigger stuff , that's the point. Split hairs by all means, but 20x16s from this camera are bloody good. If you shoot black cats in coal cellars, sure, get that SLR. Up to ISO 3200 not much wrong with a GM1. And batteries? Don't you carry spares? - they're tiny!
(1) GM1 is my "go-everywhere" but EM1 is my workhorse. (Ref BJN above). Point is, GM1 is good enough. (2) Ref. Richard - good for you if you don't need spares but many of us like insurance and a tiny battery costs little and takes up no space. Like NZ, I get plenty shots from a single battery. So I'm not kidding myself, thanks.
This review reads like someone deciding what shoes to wear. I love my GM1 too but it can't be all things to all men. I can see the GM5 improves on it in several ways,how can that be a bad thing? How do you give something a "Silver" then say, Ah but those APSC cams do the job better? Crazy! In one sense, they probably do, but their lenses are still way bigger. GM1 is my "go-everywhere" camera, it gets shots others don't because I don't tote all the bigger stuff , that's the point. Split hairs by all means, but 20x16s from this camera are bloody good. If you shoot black cats in coal cellars, sure, get that SLR. Up to ISO 3200 not much wrong with a GM1. And batteries? Don't you carry spares? - they're tiny!
I'm constantly surprised how photographers still moan about batteries. I have a GM1 and sure, after a couple of hundred it's running down, but I always have back-up batteries and many compatibles are really good as well as cheap. I got a pack of 2 for the GM1 at around £12 (USD19), no problem with them. Take up space? - Get outta here! I love the EM1 but it's the GM1 that goes everywhere with me.
Whether or not manufacturers should design their cameras better - and they should - is a wasted debatte. Fact is, they don't listen. I have had a couple of Richard's grips, they do transform the camera (and take up no extra space). Delivered to Europe for around 27 bucks was okay for a 50% improvement in handling. He's a nice bloke, too! Get one for your GM1, it will transform the camera.
Sdaniella: Canon Powershot Premium Compact newer "later model" large zoom video (teaser*):
*most have seen a similar (but not exactly same) Powershot G promo video but this has added a bit of Canon 'history promo' covering G1XMkII, G7X, and teaser of new model only shows up at the very end of the video clip (same as screen capture shown elsewhere)
The lens appears to follow pattern of an interchangeable zoom lens, rather than a fixed zoom lens.Sensor size, to keep zoom compact, would have to be smaller, maybe 4/3" sensor.If folks prefer G1X 1.5" sized sensor, then the interchangeable zoom will definitely be a "large zoom" for a Powershot.If the sensor is smaller, like a m43, it will be a model that slots below G1X-series, but above G7X.With an interchangeable "large zoom" compact, with 4/3" (or 2x crop) sensor (18x13.5), it could be an EOS-G mount, and adaptable to EOS-M lenses and EF lenses, too.
@Sdaniella. How the heck did an argument about body size creep into a feature on a Canon marketing exercise? And why the attack on m4/3? Let's kill this - (1) the "king of oversize bodies relative to sensor size" is not m4/3 - you should look at Nikon 1 Series. (2). The Body Mass Index of any Canon SLR and its lens relative to sensor size is gretater than any M4/3 standard combo. Go weigh and size up a few. Then let's dispense with this nonsense because who really cares?
MikeFairbanks: When someone in sales/marketing starts flapping their gums with a bunch of adverbs and adjectives, it's fair for the consumer to say, "Get to the point."
My father used to say, "Stop beating around the bush."
Canon's executives are spending way too much time in meetings (the alternative to work), and this ad campaign shows.
Will it work? I have no idea. I'm no expert, but as a prosumer of gear it's not working on me. I find it annoying, condescending, contrived, and useless. But if it causes the average Joe to get pumped up and buy Canon products, then it will be a success.
Hype is a way to sell to the consumer who doesn't like to think or research. It's a way to assume (probably correctly) that most people are easy to manipulate.
And I agree with Canon (if their assumption is that people are easy to fool with hype). Look at the ebola epidemic. Right now there are people on motorcycles or on flimsy ladders worried that they might catch ebola, all because the TV hyped it.
One might imagine, Mr. G., that you are the Canon Protection Society, your talk of the comptetition "dancing in the streets" is a little dramatic. This was Canon's play and they blew it. Nobody drove them to it. Most respondents here are not Canon-bashing nor even raising the flag for the competition. Canon's 'teaser' raised an expectation in people in the photography community, which it was intended to do. Having that expectation dashed, as we see in these comments, is Canon's responsibility, not theirs. Canon may "see the impossible", it's too bad they can't see the obvious.
I think, Mr. G., you are missing the point. This blog has now run to nearly 1500 hits and most of them are NEGATIVE! If Canon thinks that is good marketing, as a former marketing man myself, I do not. Whether people have mis-read Canon's drift or not, there are a lot of turned-off consumers out there. Not a good result. I don't call their marketing effective, I call it pathetic.
mpgxsvcd: Canon still thinks that they are “Winning”. They think that total market share is the ultimate measure of success. They built up such a dominate market share years ago that they can’t even fathom that it will ever go away.
Just watch over the next year. Some people will buy the 7D MKII and G7X. However, those sales won’t stay strong after Christmas. After that Canon will begin to see their sales slide drastically. Other manufactures will see sales slides as well. However, Canon and Nikon’s will be EPIC or Disastrous depending on your point of view.
Sales will continue to struggle after that. They simply will have saturated the market for DSLRs. Everyone who wants one of their cameras will have it already and everyone else will want some form of mirrorless camera.
Eventually they will decide that mirrorless is the answer. It will be too late. They will fade away just like Kodak. I really wish I could go back to the days of the Canon A5 Zoom, S400, S1-IS, and Canon 5D MK II.
In part, I agree, and it's clear today's fiasco is a major miscalculation. But much as I dislike Canon, they will not go away. Despite their lack of innovation, their arrogance and inability to judge the mood of the market, they have the resources to have mirrorless covered, even as we speak. Mirrorless is where innovation has been several years now, but Canon are not stupid, they must have a team working on a backup plan for when the market calls Time on their stale ideas, tired of Canon's protection of its cash cows. The EOS-M was probably a result of a directive to "not make it too good": they have engineers who can turn out a good CSC if they want to. The only question is, how much ground will they need to recoup? But disappear? - I doubt that.
Another nail in the coffin of credibility. Canon, you have only yourselves to blame. How stupid and naive do you think the market is? I'm glad I went mirrorless years ago, it's where things are happening and Canon's outdated hype is just so much crap.
A breath of fresh air, Mr. Fuji, thank you. Contrast with the Canon and Nikon interviews - "I Am Imagination" indeed! Since when? And Canon have been "serious about it since the beginning"? Would you buy a used car from these characters?
Greynerd: The best way to describe the EPL's is a standard everythingless PEN camera stripped bare of any but absolutely essential components but with the concession of a PASM dial. I just cannot understand why DSLR owners have never taken to mirrorless. A mystery indeed.Edit: Probably they do not bother to show the reverse of the camera as there is so little there worth showing.
It is not true that "DSLR owners have never taken to mirrorless" - around the world they are. This perception appears to be that of North America, where the Marketing machines of the big SLR boys would have you believe the SLR remains the superior tool. The rest if us find the CSC has merits of its own. In Europe and particularly in Asia, mirrorless cameras are widely accepted now as a valuable genre. Like many, I traded my big, heavy SLR glass for m43 and would never go back. Mirrorless is just as valid and a lot more fun.
JohnHoppy: For once, DPR, I agree. Not that this latest V3 is a 'bad' camera - seems to have merit in some measure, but you are right to question where it fits in. But is it designed to "fit in"? Or is it designed to highlight the better sense in buying one of Nikon's SLR offerings instead? If Nikon were serious about a spear-thrust into new technologies, surely they would see what the other mirrorless companies were achieving as they swim against the tide of SLR resistance, and bring out a model that followed that line of success. They haven't. It all seems like a noble effort designed to go nowhere, and I suggest Michael Reichmann's view - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/what_matters.shtml - is not far wide of the mark.
Are you saying Nikon has not followed in the same track as Canon? Nikon are still in a position of strength in the ILC market, this V3 is hardly their best shot in a sector that has gone from Zero in 2008 to 25% of the ILC market in 5 years. DPR are right to take a sceptical view.
For once, DPR, I agree. Not that this latest V3 is a 'bad' camera - seems to have merit in some measure, but you are right to question where it fits in. But is it designed to "fit in"? Or is it designed to highlight the better sense in buying one of Nikon's SLR offerings instead? If Nikon were serious about a spear-thrust into new technologies, surely they would see what the other mirrorless companies were achieving as they swim against the tide of SLR resistance, and bring out a model that followed that line of success. They haven't. It all seems like a noble effort designed to go nowhere, and I suggest Michael Reichmann's view - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/what_matters.shtml - is not far wide of the mark.
Brief word of overdue praise for the author: Jeff Keller and Gordon Laing are the best reviewers in the business. Jeff's clear appraisals are always impartial and illuminating. I hope he is in charge of the full reviews of this and the EM10. One thing is for sure - photography has been a whole lot livelier since mirrorless came on the scene.