zapatista

zapatista: 25600 ISO in a 20mp camera with a pretty small sensor? Ah the Sony Cybershot love of smeary, over processed Noise Reduction. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Marty4650: You just can't please everyone.

If Olympus had made this a cheap lens... made from plastic, with a maximum aperture of f/2.8, then everyone would be complaining saying "I would gladly pay more for a much better lens."

But instead they decided to build a high quality lens, so now they will complain that "it costs too much."

You simply cannot buy high quality optics at bargain basement prices.
No one has them. Not Canon, not Nikon, nor Pentax or Sony.

Incidentally, Leica will be happy to sell you a 75mm f/2.0 lens for $3800, and it still won't autofocus.

JackM: Seriously what is the point?? If you are willing to spend that kind of money and carry a NOT compact camera/lens combo, why handicap your image quality with a quarter-frame sensor? Go APS-C or FF!

ebosch: Now if only they make a black version of it... and the 12/2 and 45/1.8 too

Ben Raven: So let me get this straight,

Because some people MIGHT video a movie with a STILL camera, the REST OF THE POPULATION OF PLANET EARTH are now considered convicted co-conspirators. And without due process, must be assessed a penalty AND have our right to video ANYTHING for longer than 30 minutes straight revoked.
Oh, and did I mention that this outrage is being imposed by a for-profit industry in conjunction with vulture camera manufacturers opportunistically using this pathetic excuse to attempt to squeeze more $$$$ out of their customers' pockets !!

One more important technical note--A quality HD video camera, unfettered by this limit, is capable of higher quality than the average still camera, and would be the obvious choice for intellectual property rights thieves.

Also, since more and more people are watching Blu-Ray level movies, the call for inferior video and wretched non-surround sound
(with coughs) knockoffs is diminishing.

And we're supposed to be alright with this ?!?

simon65: The proposed price is higher than Sony's NEX-7, which I'm afraid makes no sense at all.

Even Nikon's new D800 is less than double the price of this camera, athough that requires a lens to be attached.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 UK: £1,150 with lens
Sony Alpha NEX-7 UK £1,100 with lens

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-G3 meanwhile which uses the same 16 MP sensor as the Olympus can be bought with lens for under £450.

My guess is Olympus are going to have to cut the price of the OM-D pretty quickly to avoid embarrassment. It looks like a good camera but the price is right up there in cloud cuckoo land, and unless your names Leica people are only prepared to pay so much of a premium for the novelty of a "classic design".

Jeztastic: This is a design classic, and built on properly, could be a game changer for Pentax. I think it looks great.

And - which would you rather have/buy for your partner/recommend to a friend - this or the Nikon 1?

When Pentax release the next version - they can do what they like with it. If it's weatherproof or fullframe, and with a top quality EVF (which will become industry standard in the next few years) it will blow everything else out of the water.

Andrew Booth: Bottom line - these are fashion cameras, that don't offer the photographic control that anyone serious about picture taking would aspire to.

Let's look at depth of field of the lenses compared to full frame:

The Series 1 10mm f2.8 lens is equivalent to a 27mm f8 lens
The series 1 10-30 f3.5-5.6 is equivalent to 27-81mm f10-f14

This is a joke. 81mm f14? Try getting good background separation on your portraits with that!

And even if you use a fast full frame Nikkor via an adapter (say a 50 f1.8), you're still shooting at an equivalent of f5 due to the crop factor.

Michael Klein: Dpreview, I thought Aprils fool wasnt for a few more months...its amazing to me the hate comments posted here...where half of those posting, have never picked up the camera or tried it. To me the camera does everything I hoped for..and the pictures it takes are awesome, or is this just a troll parade. A few have posted awful skin tones...as a matter of fact, I've never gotten better skin tones from some of my DSLR's i've used and P&S camera's...where are these opinions coming from....well at least these comments are making me laugh...I know the truth..you guys need to find out.

magneto shot: nothing new :-) as expected, quality loses to the current 4/3rds . folks, please remember, physical rules = reality. image sensor size = rocks.

nedmunds: In response to those that think the price is out of line, I would love to see a much lower price. However, I believe that Canon has positioned this against cameras with OVF.

Most of the lower priced cameras being mentioned in this forum refer to cameras without OVF. Looking at mirrorless cameras with 4/3 sensor and larger, 12 M pixels and larger, with OVF, the only lower cost option that I can see (in the US) is the Panasonic G3. With kit lens, this runs about $500. Add the 45-300 and this will run a total of $800. This gets you a wider zoom range, but more bulk than the GX1 at about the same price.

The NEX5n with OVF and kit lens will run you over $1000. And it does not have the zoom range of the GX1. (and is bulkier than GX1)

The rest of mirrorless cameras either have much smaller sensors, no OVF or higher price.

So if OVF is important to you (and it is to many of us old farts), then the pricing on the GX1 is as good or better than the alternatives.

Jonathan F/2: Most people who haven't used an E-PM1 don't know it's capabilities. The E-PM1 is the smallest full-fledged micro camera. The Olympus image output is very sharp, colors are rich and contrasty, the AWB is near perfect, built-in image stabilizer and excellent remote flash capabilities. With the use of the Super Control Panel you have all your settings at the touch of a button.