I think it's interesting the the photographer used a really shallow DOF, whereas the original photos are all deep DOF.
caver3d: So, maybe Olympus should sue Sony and Nikon for copying the Olympus retro OM-D design/look for their digital cameras. After all, Olympus came up with the first digital camera with the retro "hump".
May be Sony should sue Olympus: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/minoltadimage7/
paulski66: I thought Nano Crystal Coating was a Nikon-specific technology. I find it impossible to believe that they sold the rights to use this to Samyang. I'm confused...
I don't think that nano crystal coating can be trademarked, as it is a generic term that is being used in science routinely.
For me a social cam has to be shirt-pocketable.
NevilN: Can any of these does selfies?
Good point! The truly social cams were the Samsungs with a screen on the front.
KariIceland: Sorry but I have to call BS on this whole article, I am using the E-M5 and even that struggles indoors in low light for a birthday party (I should know I did photograph my fathers bday yesterday) So yea total BS they are only good "social" cameras if you plan to stay OUTDOORS in broad DAYLIGHT
I just wonder what your definition of "struggles" is...
The pot with candles is typical of another Punjabi dance – jaago. It is not clear whether this was one dance gradually changing into another, or one dance as a part of another.
StevenE: It's not small enough to be more convenient than my 5DIII, and if you want any shallow DOF you need at least an f/1.4 lens. Aperture f/2.8 is often sufficient on the FF, which can be beautifully thin at f/1.4.
So what use does this m4/3 serve? I would still have to bring the FF to get shallow DOF and low light performance, and I still don't get compact size. I could see m4/3 IF the package was pocketable, but I'd probably still head to the Sony A7, or one of the Fuji APS-C cameras for that.
Can't see the purpose in this one.
@ Jogger: it is not surprising that the camera is on the larger side. After E-M5 there were many complaints that the buttons felt small and cramped. I suppose Olympus realized that in order to have sufficient amount of hardware control points you need a certain amount of real estate. If you need a smaller camera, there are several progressively smaller bodies with sensors that are competitive with APS-C format.
1. It is MUCH smaller than 5D, especially if you include the lens, an even more so if you have to carry several lenses. The difference in weight is quite dramatic if you have to carry the kit for several hours.
2. While the format does not blur the background into oblivion, it gives perfectly good subject isolation. DOF does not match the 35 mm format, but in terms of creativity it is not really a limiting factor.
3. There are many areas of photography, where shallow DOF is irrelevant altogether, including much of studio photography.
Vizio Virtù: Wake up, folks. They try to sell you this mirrorless / EVF rubbish as innovation for your weightsaving comfort but actually it's only for their cost reducing purposes. Cutting off the OVF is cutting off photographers creativity.
Why don't you use a wire frame viewfinder, and be even more connected to the scene than with OVF?
I guess they did away with the whole symbolism of the flame after it went out in the Kremlin.
A Lensbaby prize for the corner sharpness freaks? Is it a form of shock therapy?
sportyaccordy: You know, on the outset these sound like great lenses, and I'm sure they are. But I think I will pass. The 16 2.0 for example sounds FAST. But on APS-C it's equivalent to 24 3.2 35mm. Meanwhile, I can get a Lens Turbo and an old 24 2.8, which would translate to a 16 1.8, for less money. A lowly 50 1.8 becomes a 33 1.2. Etc. etc. Plus I would be getting 2 lenses in 1 with each lens. Not saying these lenses are worthless or that the speed booster combos would be a match in IQ, but for me right now, ehhh. I mean a 24 2.0 an 50 1.4-1.8 would cover the span of a standard zoom with max apertures reaching 1.0 depending on the combo. Plus it's all MF anyway.
Many of the legacy lenses, especially those that sell for cheap, cannot be used fully open on the smaller formats due to excessive softness and lack of contrast. So you end up stopping them down even more than the "equivalent" aperture of the new lenses.
It's funny how much it reminds the Olympus EP concept from 2008: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/09/22/olympus_micro_four_thirds
Interesting pocketable companion to the bigger µ4/3 cameras. I wonder what sensor they chose for this camera.
sdribetahi: Does just adding two wheels and customization buttons make a camera 'pro'? It still doesn't give you the option of shallow DOF, or AF of FAST moving objects. Anyone can add buttons to a p&s as well. Doesn't make it pro.
Even E-M5 AF does well with birds, planes, cars, speedboats, and running dogs. I expect E-M1 to be even better. People who say µ4/3 can't do even fast moving objects simply never had the gut to try it.
Exciting development! Olympus and Panasonic can be proud of the system they have created. I just wish they both did a better marketing job in the US.
maxola67: Am I only to notice bigger dimensions of this device comparing to Olympus OM-D E-M5?130 x 94 x 63 mm against 122 x 89 x 43 mm.I mean it's has a size which is comparable to APS-C DSLR and that's said having 4/3 sensor.What's all about?
It's about too many users complaining that E-M5 was too small and the buttons were too close together. If E-M1 is going to be used with the larger lenses, such as the f/2.8 zooms, 75 f/1.8, etc., then the larger size makes very good practical sense.
jon404: I have a Sony RX100. Now, I don't know if I'm comparing apples with oranges, but why on earth would someone buy this Leica?
plus extra reach (even considering lower pixel count)
bluevellet: I find it funny Pana & Olympus try to introduce more pricey models (alongside the cheaper ones they've always had).
Fuji does the opposite, starts off with a pricey mirrorless camera then try to strip it more and more down to barebones with each new release.
Panasonic and Olympus are not "trying," they are responding to demand for higher grade hardware. This demand typically comes from advanced DSLR owners who bought into µ4/3 as a second system, but later thought that it could become their only system if the pro- grade features were implemented.