PhotoHawk: Wow - that announcement is aimed at the heart of u4/3rds. The A7 and A7r bodies are lighter. I don't know about the lenses. But even if they are 100g heavier as a package the benefits of the FF sensor (noise and resolution as a system) would outweigh the small weight savings.At this point you may say that the EM1 has a few things the Sony can't do (IBIS for one). I would imagine that over time Sony will add the innovations missing. But 4/3rds can't be FF. So Sony can match Olympus and Panasonic on features but they can't match the performance the Sony FF sensor provides.
This doesn't compete against m43. the A7 and A7r bodies are lighter than the e-m1 only because Olympus wanted to make it heavier and larger INTENTIONALLY. There are plenty of light and small m43 bodies.
GabrielZ: Wow! I'm gob-smacked by the difference in size between the Alpha and the 6D - that's really a tiny full-frame camera. Impressive!
A rangefinder styled body will remove that large hump viewfinder. The difference in height will allow you to put it into a smaller sized bag or in the rear compartment of a backpack.
There's room to shrink it even more by making a rangefinder styled body.
I'm hoping Olympus will be next to join the FF mirrorless segment.
Pricy lenses, even for the enthusiast shooter.
ugh..no. Leica feminized. Yuck.
luminis scripti: A camera phone will always remain just that: a camera on a phone. It will never "hold its own" against ANY format camera, digital or film, let alone a medium format traditionally used for fashion photography. Yes, it's nice to have a decent camera on your phone, as a last-resort backup, but no one can expect it to seriously become the "tool if the trade."
Nice try Nokia, nice try. *slow clap*
I wouldn't say that. Technology progresses and camera phones are making leaps. Perhaps in a few years, we could see aps-c sized sensor phones with some breakthroughs in optical imaging.
Poor photo compositions. The pictures are fairly decent, but the photography is poor.
white shadow: I am looking for an excellent APS-C size mirrorless camera which can out perform a micro 4/3 camera in overall usage. The numerous succession of NEX has not been successful due to its poor lens collection and its "unfriendly" photographer user interface / Menu system. The Fuji X series could offer some hopes. However, it too falls short of expectation in many areas, many of which were pointed out in the reviews.
I like the size of the X-M1 but the slow AF speed and many other compromises cause me to hesitate buying this camera despite it getting a gold award.
Some has attributed the other problems to the X-trans sensor which I wouldn't disagree.
I think you are being too anal retentive here. Just buy one and enjoy using it.
thx1138: Hadn't realised the M1 had no EVF or option. I had just assumed that was the A1. Oh well another coulda shoulda woulda camera.
Not really sure what Fuji's thinking is here. One the one hand they think you are sophisticated enough to understands the benefits of a big sensor, and IL, and DoF and manual control, but think you are still so amateurish as to hold a camera at arms length to frame a scene, in bright sunlight where the VF can hardly be seen and the camera is far less stable and more prone to shake.
So is it still a P&S or a serious camera?
There is no "coulda shoulda woulda". THere are TWO.. I repeat TWO higher priced models with viewfinders built in. AND they are not even expensive.
showmeyourpics: I don't see how Olympus could catch up to Nikon and Canon in the larger sensors sector, but they keep doing a heck of a good job creating market differentiation with very portable and feature-rich, reasonably priced cameras supported by a strong array of good lenses. Like the FIAT 500, these cameras also look very cute. I come from military electronic engineering and quality management, and can split a technical hair in 16. I am also up to my neck in fine art photography to satisfy the right side of my brain. When I pick up a camera like this, I can't help being in awe of what they are able to pack into such a small body. I surely can mention some stuff that I would like and is not there, but the thought of the photographic possibilities that they offer is overwhelming. It makes me feel like dropping everything and run out to take the best pictures I can.
They can if they decide to go full frame. Olympus knows how to make great bodies, lenses, and photography systems.They will be a great alternative to Nikon/Canon.
PenGun: Makes no sense to me. The Fuji X cameras will just murder it in almost every way and cost less.
Except in real world usage. Missed focus, slow focus, slow shooting. The OM-D is like a sports car. Quick as hell.
Ferling: With anything goes these days; articulating screens, larger sensors, and better EVF, etc. All those features that give one pause to reconsider dumping their DSLR, (trust me, I'd like to dump mine when I eventually retire). Is it time to consider that the differences between a modern PS and DSLR are mute, and we should start asking for more?
My main concern with the habit of pro use, even though I'm shooting non-pro shots, is what capability and IQ can I get when I switch it to "M"? Whether I'm shooting a DSLR or a PS, the time, motions and efforts of composing and taking good shots are the same. So, at the end of the day, when I'm loading up the images into the LR, will I happy with the end results for those same efforts?
Mine is not an isolated issue for pros. I've met many novices in various amusement parks and on family outings whom relented and bought a DLSR, and their reason is pretty much the same: They want quality results for their efforts.
In daylight shots, there's really no real separation between high quality p&s and DSLR. The only difference is if you like nice buttery bokeh you have to use a DSLR with appropriate lens. Indoors, a different story.
photobeans: A lot of complaints about image quality here. Let's keep this in perspective. First, these are snapshots. Second, the lighting and selection of scenery is poor. Third, it's a 35mm lens. Fourth, taking portraits with a 35mm lens is no better than using a small sensor camera when you don't pixel peep.
I live on Earth like you. I meant to say "Third, using a 35mm lens for portrait is really no better than using a small sensor camera when you don't pixel peep". It's true, look at it on your computer and it doesn't really look much better when not viewing at 100%, as compared to a decent small sensored camera. I can look at this gallery and someone could've told me it was shot with a cannon s100 and I would believe them.
A lot of complaints about image quality here. Let's keep this in perspective. First, these are snapshots. Second, the lighting and selection of scenery is poor. Third, it's a 35mm lens. Fourth, taking portraits with a 35mm lens is no better than using a small sensor camera when you don't pixel peep.
PenGun: Takes ugly pictures. Lots of the new cameras do. The Sony's are particularly bad.
I'm not sure whether it's the photographer, poor eyesight, or just the processing.
Nothing here even threatens my Fuji X-E1, why is that?
Ridiculous. The gallery is just a collection of quick snapshots. A good photographer can take compelling photographs with just about any camera, including cell phone cams.
the bar jpegs look a bit muddy, the RAW will be better.
SulfurousBeast: Close call, All 3, except RX100II (for the sensor size) are good. But there is now no real advantage of APS-C compared to M43. Oly EP5 still looks warmer and slightly sharper of all. But that's down to processing. Anything more, we are just 'nitpicking' here. All these camera's have come a long way even compared to the D200, D300, 40D & 50D (that I still have). Did they not take good Pics? I am not comparing to Full Frame at all.
I'm not sure why you think the e-p5 is sharper. I have good eyes and the GX7 is easily sharper than all the other cameras. THis is likely due to the lack of AA filter on the GX7.
Looking at the RAW, the GX7 sensor compares very well against the nex-6. The images are also sharper than all the other cameras, likely because they removed the AA filter.
km25: When you look at the photo of the women, you can see how their standard of life was so hard on them. I will bet that women is no more then thirty and if you were to see a pictue of here ten years before she would look like a young flower.After you see photographs as these you should realize it is not container, it is the content.
Well, women weren't obsessed with make-up and facial creams back then. My mom who came from a dirt poor Asia looked like 40 something when she was 30 years old when I look at some of our pictures.