I love the IDEA of an analogue-dial-controlled DSLR. But this looks unbelievably clunky. I bought an OM-1n back in1976, rather than a high-end Canon or Nikon, because it felt streamlined, sophisticated, and took amazing photos with what turned out to be some of the best glass available back then (the wonderful Zuiko primes). Nikon and Canon were making behemoths that weighed half a ton, and even got tennis players angry at Wombledon because of the noise and clatter they made (Olympus famously pushed out a full-spread ad for the OM-1 the day after Ilie Năstase flicked his towel at the photographers, with the slogan, "A camera quiet enough even for Romanian tennis players", or somesuch - but I digress).
The Df reminds me most of the Contax RTS III, which was a very bulky 35mm SLR, largely due to its "vacuum back" designed to suck film flat over the pressure plate. A body this size could reasonably contain a larger sensor than 35mm - medium format, mmm, now that would be tempting!
Haim Hadar: In the 'retro' spirit, Nikon should add a feature that blackens the photos in the camera if you open the back cover by mistake while shooting. I'm sure that the firmware can handle this.
Of course, since you are shooting "reversal" "film" (ie, positive images), opening the back would WHITEN the film! :-)
Oooh Salivating ... a "real" body with a metal-barrelled Zeiss Prime on the front ... at last, a CAMERA rather than a blob of plastimetal!
1singur: For a moment there I thought this was a module to take pictures via usb, and it would've been such a great concept: have a "dock" that houses the sensor, mount a lens on it, and control everything from the provided software!Then I read the article introduction...
Yeh, you can buy that too - it's called a DSLR! 8-)
Biowizard: Can't help wondering if the Merkins built their houses on proper foundations, a sensible distance above sea level, out of bricks rather than wooden planks - whether the likes of Sandy would have been anything like so much of a problem.
Sure - but every few days in early Spring, we watch videos of tiny F1 tordanos destroying houses in Kansaas that would have simply brushed off the twister if built to the standards of any West-Coast UK house. Heck, over the years, I've lost two garden sheds, and several wood-slat fences to the wind. Personally, I have chosen NEVER to live in a house built in the same style.
Can't help wondering if the Merkins built their houses on proper foundations, a sensible distance above sea level, out of bricks rather than wooden planks - whether the likes of Sandy would have been anything like so much of a problem.
FINALLY a possible reason to switch to the OM-D EM-1 ... I would be happy to walk around all day and night with this piece of glass as my "standard" zoom.
Fantastic image of an amazing aircraft! Well done!
This is 100% the fault of the lens manufacturer: the lens design should allow clearance between the front lens element and the base of the filter screw thread. It's a poor design that lets the front element protrude into the same plane as the threads.
I love prime lenses. I love wide apertures. And for nearly 10 years I've been living with a zoom that maxes out at about F3.5. My next DSLR *will* live with prime lenses only. BUT ...
... over $1500 for an F1.4 lens with the same focal length as the Helios F2 that came with my original Zenit E? When I could buy a Zeiss Planar T* F1.4 50mm for my Contax S2 for a mere $500 or so just a few years ago? This is NUTS!
Noct[ilux] suggests F1.0 to me, not the bog-standard F1.4 we all used to enjoy before the Age of Zoom hit us!
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.