babalu: NOKIA and NIKON should both sue each other for copying their brand names backward AND getting it wrong, to boot.
In fact CANON should sue everyone else that uses 5-character names including the letter pairs "NO" or "ON". And the descendants of Galileo should sue everyone for using lenses made out of glass to focus images.
Oh, to be a lawyer ("attorney")! $$$$$$$$$
WTF? This is a boring box-shaped body with a boring cylinder-shaped lens stuck on the front. Leica should sue Everyone.
Beautiful camera - lousy English ...
"and no FEWER than 1000 prototype parts."
Bye bye Adobe Reader XI - never liked you anyway.
Just hope my Photoshop CS6 has not been compromised by source code hacks.
I agree. 4/3 has (er, had?) lenses which were proud successors to the OM-mound Zuikos. Utterly gorgeous glass in search of the perfect body. Sadly m4/3 was built as a CSC system, with toy-sized bodies and delicate little attachments. There are no m4/3 lenses to compare with the best Pro-spec (full)4/3 ones. And this latest Olympus will fall because of that.
Actually, even though I am devoted to real optical viewfinders, I would ALMOST be tempted by a second version of the new Oly, with a slightly bigger body (and perhaps an info LCD on the top plate) - with a (full)4/3 mount.
Biowizard: As an E-1 user of around 10 years' standing, and having shot many thousands of images on its "mere" 5Mp sensor, I have been waiting patiently for the "right" successor. It wasn't the E-3. Nor the E-5, and I have been very happy hanging onto the E-1. Never had even one single dust speck on an image, so have never needed to clean the sensor. Only ever had one stuck pixel, and the in-camera pixel mapping sorted that out within a few seconds. I love everything about the E-1, though miss the option a higher pixel count, and newer features like wireless flash, WiFi, etc.
Sadly for me, the OM-D E-M1 is NOT the replacement I've been waiting for. I wanted full-size 4/3, with optical viewfinder. Doubtless I will motor on for a while with my beloved E-1, but sorry Olympus, my NEXT camera is going to be Nikon or Canon :-(
[Edited to correct a couple of typos]
Actually to be fair, NO, I do NOT regret it. The Oly E-1 is a MASSIVELY LOVELY camera, which I have totally enjoyed for nearly 10 years, and thanks to Oly's latest change of direction, I hope to keep enjoying for many more years to come!
I agree that the E-1 sucked at "high" ISO - so apart from a couple of indoor theatre shoots, when I had to resort to a tripod, I've always shot at 100. But for a "mere" 5Mpixels, I have to say the overall pictorial quality of my Oly is stunning. And yes, I've produced A2 posters, spectacular processed images and of course endless lovely web pages with this camera. It produces better images than I could previously achieve by scanning Kodachrome 25 trannies, taken on a Contax S2 with a Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.4 lens, on my dedicated Nikon LS-1000 film scanner (effectively, 27Mpixel). And given that at the time I bought my E-1, the nearest alternative was the horrible Canon D-10, I have never regretted my choice. Until today, with Oly's new announcement. :-(
Now a fully-manual focus, Full-Frame DSLR with the original OM mount, would SERIOUSLY get my chequebook out and into action ...
PK24X36NOW: DPR viewfinder size fiction continues. "Dividing (viewfinder magnification) by the crop factor" is essentially an assumption (in this case) that the MFT sensor is 1/2 the size of a FF sensor, which it is not. It is little more than 1/4 the size.
The correct relative size calculation is as follows:
17.3 * 13 * 100% * 1.48 = 332.852 sq mm
35.9 * 24 * 100% * 0.7 = 603.12 sq mm
So the new Oly's "wonder viewfinder is actually little more than 1/2 as big as a typical FF dSLR viewfinder.
That's rubbish: the magnification value is LINEAR, and you are quoting AREA. So you should SQUARE the magnification factor in your calculations:
17.3 * 13 * (1.48^2) = 492.62096
35.9 * 24 * (0.7^2) = 422.184
So DPREVIEW is CORRECT.
Only two were ever intended as flagship models (E-3, E-5). I liked neither as much as my E-1. The other E- cameras were very down-spec in terms of build quality - some even using mirrors rather than a pentaprism, resulting in a very poor viewfinder experience.
As an E-1 user of around 10 years' standing, and having shot many thousands of images on its "mere" 5Mp sensor, I have been waiting patiently for the "right" successor. It wasn't the E-3. Nor the E-5, and I have been very happy hanging onto the E-1. Never had even one single dust speck on an image, so have never needed to clean the sensor. Only ever had one stuck pixel, and the in-camera pixel mapping sorted that out within a few seconds. I love everything about the E-1, though miss the option a higher pixel count, and newer features like wireless flash, WiFi, etc.
_P: Believe or not but I am still holding close to my old "grandpa" camera, E-1. This new OM-D is the one I have been waiting for... Meanwhile I got E-PL5 for my wife and D7000 for myself. D7000 is going on ebay now and the new OM-D body will pair with my 14-54. E-1 will go on display behind glass window as it deserved it well. Can you believe I never got a speck of dust from it for the last 8 years?
Agreed - the E-1 is amazing, and STILL my only DSLR. Like you, not ONE spec of dust in 10 years. And the only hot pixel the sensor had, from the outset, was "lost" with a simple in-camera pixel mapping operation!
I'll stick to using my TG-1 thanks ...
Amazing images! And perfectly suited to high-contrast B&W presentation.
The funny thing is, with today's technology (which of course has come a LONG way since then), this might be doable. Using low-energy WiFi or BlueTooth to connect/control the device while in-camera, for example. And of course, a full frame sensor. I'd love to get some more life out of my OM-1 and Contax S2 and film is such an expensive way to go these days ...
I am STILL waiting patiently (but for how much longer) for an E-7. I just LOVE the original 4/3rds concept and the amazing lenses. Please give me a modern sensor and DSLR body to replace my ageing - but still gorgeous - E-1.
Biowizard: My last 35mm film camera that I kept with me at nearly all times, was a Contax S2 - titanium bodied, 100% mechanical shutter - fitted with a Ziess Planar 50mm f1.4. If I wanted other focal lengths, I'd shoot on my Olympus OM-1 and the assortment of Zuikos I had. Renenber, this Contax was my take-everywhere camera, and I wasn't interested in toting a "system" around day-to-day. The results of shooting Kodachrome 25 through this lens, even wide open, were nothing short of stunning. Even made my prime Zuiko glass look fuzzy by comparison.
Since I went digital about 9 years ago, I've been shooting Olympus with Oly zooms. Good images, nice handling, but nothing to compare to my Zeiss 50/f1.4.
I am about to invest in my next DSLR - and am VERY tempted to forego autofocus and zooms, and instead buy a couple of Zeiss prime lenses. Myt only quibble: Nikon's focusing thread runs back-to-front compared to Olympus & Canon, and I am not sure I could get used to that!
To white shadow: thanks for your encouragement - I definitely want to go full frame, both for depth of field reasons, and to maximise image quality from any new, prime glass I buy.
To Yxa: my current Zeiss Planar is paired with FILM, not a "Jurassic" sensor (unless that's what you call a fine emulsion!). And no, I am not talking about buying a new Zeiss lens for my 9-year-old Olympus E1 - even if they did make the lens with a 4/3rds mount - which they don't!
I am thinking Nikon D800 - possibly the "E" variant.
My last 35mm film camera that I kept with me at nearly all times, was a Contax S2 - titanium bodied, 100% mechanical shutter - fitted with a Ziess Planar 50mm f1.4. If I wanted other focal lengths, I'd shoot on my Olympus OM-1 and the assortment of Zuikos I had. Renenber, this Contax was my take-everywhere camera, and I wasn't interested in toting a "system" around day-to-day. The results of shooting Kodachrome 25 through this lens, even wide open, were nothing short of stunning. Even made my prime Zuiko glass look fuzzy by comparison.
Actually (thanks cknapp61) I *am* an iPhone user. And iPad. But also, decent (if old) DSLR.
Prints? Via Polaroid?! Pur-leeze!!! If I want to print from ANY of my kit, I have some jolly decent inkjets at my disposal - as well as one of the earlier (but still 100% functional) Canon dye-sub jobs.
Why on earth would you want to pay neo-polaroid prices for grotty old-style analogue prints?
designdef: I think it's worth pointing out, Olympus's main product line is in Endoscopy. Cameras are a small, but important part of their business. I've almost been tempted to purchase two or three of their excellent cameras and certainly have been shafted by one or more of their endoscopes;)
PS - just as well the cameras are small, because ... oops, no, better not go there! 8-)