jeffharris: Try pushing the envelope with a decent user interface!
The VCR era mess they have now makes Olympus cameras far less appealing than they should be!
The super control panel is definitely better, I have no idea why its off by default. Diving into those pages of scrolling menus is time consuming and frustrating even after you're comfortable with the camera.
PinPoint: I predict Oly will make mirrorless camera with APSC and FF sensor not long from now, when competition gets stiffer...consumer are smarter now, not necessary bigger sensor always better but bigger sensor can bring image quality to the next higher level...
I'm sure no manufacturers actually want to create the impression of "good enough", because that's when people start buying less cameras.
D1N0: I think Sony is better at Pushing the envelope
It's safe to say in general that the camera world "underdogs" like Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji are doing a heck of a lot more to 'push the envelope' than Canon or Nikon these days.
(That said, the G1Xii sounds pretty darn interesting to me...)
I agree totally. It's nice that their camera allow a high level of customization and control, even on their more affordable models, but their menu systems are so outdated it's almost embarrassing.
mrdancer: "As an optics manufacturer, we know that it isn’t as simple as saying 'a bigger sensor always delivers better image quality than a smaller sensor'. It's more complicated than that. It’s a combination of multiple factors including lens resolution, sensor and image processing. "
This is kind of a slap in the face to many of the trolls here!
The sensor size to cost comparison is such an oversimplification. If all that matters was power to cost, everyone would use desktop pcs or drive cameros.
For many people, things like size, handling, features, and so on actually do matter. I know it sounds crazy...
Matthewson: I really don't understand the push for mirrorless cameras. The latest installments from Olympus look like SLR's from the outside, with a "pentaprism" of sorts sitting on top. I'd vote down anything that adds cost, complexity, and battery draw. Peering at a tiny video of your scene serves only to separate the photographer further from his subject. The original OM line had reflex mirrors, and were compact. The only gripe I had back then, in the 80's, was the strap lugs dug into my palms. From the look of it, they're still putting those nasty strap lugs on their cameras.
There are benefits to mirrorless for both the manufacturer and the consumer. For manufacturers they can reduce cost, and reduce the number of moving parts that can fail. For users, they provide much more information than optical viewfinders can- live feedback about exposure, white balance, histograms, etc.
Right now, good electronic viewfinders are expensive, and still don't give the same experience as a good optical viewfinder, but give them time. 5 or 10 years from now, the resolution, refresh rate and quality will be so high that you will not be able to distinguish EVF from OVF. At the same time, they will continue to get cheaper to build.
EVFs aren't quite there yet as a true replacement for OVFs, but they will be, in time.
Matthewson: Would someone please tell Mr. Imano that sensor size is not just about image quality, or the perception of quality - it's about image control. It has less to do with megapixels, and more to do with the ability to control depth of field.
For some uses, like shall DOF full body portraits or wide angles, 35mm gives control that m4/3 just can't. But for me, I agree with Bob, it's a nice compromise. Good for low light shooting when you don't want shallow DOF.
Oly going APS-C or 35MM (full frame is a silly term) would make no sense whatsoever. They want to differentiate themselves by showing that smaller gear can get the job done.
Right now, the best m4/3 sensors are very competitive with APS-C. Sure, larger sensors will generally give better IQ, but at a certain point, the IQ is "good enough". As time goes on, less and less people will need or want the added size, weight and price of 35mm when the smaller format meets their needs.
Remember why 35mm became popular in the first place? Because people got sick of carrying around their big, cumbersome, expensive large and medium format gear when 35mm became "good enough".
The future is BETTER sensors, not bigger ones.
JEROME NOLAS: Good interview. Few times I was thinking about Olympus camera but I need a built in flash!!! Why so many Olympus cameras don't have it?
I think it's interesting how any time someone wishes for an onboard flash, several people respond rationalizing why they don't need it.
Personally, I prefer a built in flash. I definitely liked my E-PL1s built in, tiltable flash better than the separate unit with my e-pm2. I rarely use flash, so I don't want to have an extra piece to carry around for that 5% of the time I actually would need it. Since it often feels like a waste, it gets left at home, and then when I wish I had it, I'm stuck.
I could understand leaving it out in their enthusiast models, but a flash really should be built in on their consumer models. Its one of the many reasons I think the e-m10 looks like a very well rounded and well positioned product.
MrTaikitso: People are spending on small things. I got to play with a Canon EOS 100 (the ultra compact DSLR) and it feels superb in the hand - mine anyway.
However, although the Sony RX100 was revolutionary due to it's sensor size, it's handling is awful (you don't want to use it when you pick it up, unlike say, the Pentax MX-1), so it is not consumer friendly.
What is needed is a groundbreaking development in lens miniaturisation so that someone can produce a pocketable compact camera with both the handling and IQ of a DSLR. A mix of the Pentax MX-1, Samsung EX2f (which I have), RX1 sensor (yup, the 1, not the 100!) and Fuji X series controls, but for under $400.
The Panasonic GM1 comes close from an IQ angle, but it lacks exposure adjustment dials and an articulating display, and is too expensive.
So, who's going to accept the challenge?
I think you and the manufacturers have a different definition of "consumer". For most users, things that matter are zoom, megapixels, touchscreen, wifi, screen size...most aren't concerned with ease of manual controls, since most would rather leave it in auto all the time.
As for your dream camera- yes, it sounds nice to me too! Just not realistic any time soon, sadly. Maybe the closest is a Ricoh GR- great controls, APS-C sensor and lens in a pocketable size, but closer to $650.
I'm pretty interested in the upcoming Canon G1Xii though- large sensor, 24-120 2.0-3.9 lens, and multiple control wheels (including 2 lens dials) in a relatively small body. It might be the closest so far, but will release at $800.
Heaven is for real: Good, Sony is gaining...
I really doubt they're going to sell tons of RX10s, even if it is indeed a nice camera. It's price is prohibitive for most, and many who do spend that much on cameras are devoted to their systems. It's a bit of a niche.
The rx100 was the real homerun.
Sonyshine: It does not help that camera manufacturers can't agree on what to call their mirrorless cameras.
What on earth is a "Compact System Camera" Really?
People understand DSLR and Compact but other categories are just confusing.
Buying a camera is so confusing even if you know what you are looking at....
Or if people keep getting stuck on DSLR, how about DSLM? Since the R is for reflex, swap for the M for mirrorless.
It rolls off the tongue about the same to me, which might make it easier for people to adopt.
Sean Nelson: STILL no 1080p60 video from Canon. Get with the program, guys!
I don't know why they couldn't include the 60p. Is it a technical limitation? Heat issues with the sensor? Fear of stepping on their other models' toes?
Plenty of pocket compacts offer it, so I'm not sure why the G1X doesn't.
Menneisyys: Engadget's preview ( http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/13/canon-powershot-g1-x-mark-ii-hands-on/ ) also confirms the AF speed is very good:
"This G1 X refresh was comfortable to use and very responsive, from the speedy zoom toggle to the super-fast focusing. "
Nevertheless, as usual with Engadget's camera-specific articles (see for example their absolutely we-have-no-clue-what-we-are-writing-about articles on Nokia's imaging headships like the 808), the article is definitely written by someone not really into photography. He recommends the RX100 over the camera without even knowing how the IQ of the two cameras compare... lolz.
Its way too broad of an assumption to say that any Sony mirrorless camera would be better. Better how? Better sensor quality? Probably. Better kit lens? No. The pros/cons list could go on and on.
mzillch: 24mm was a mistake. It will have discernible geometric distortion at this setting and 80% or more of PnS photos are taken at whatever the default value the camera powers up at. Sure, theoretically one could take the time and added effort to zoom in ever so slightly, to say 30mm or so [that precision is easy to accomplish consistently and nearly instantaneously, isn't it?] but for UFO shots [Unexpected Fleeting Opportunity] you'll be screwed having to do this every time.
There's no problem with having a 24mm setting, per se. The problem is that it is the default every time you turn the camera on. I lived with a 24 mm PnS for months and had to abandon it because it made UFO shots impossible.
Don't mind howard, he's got something up his ass.
I don't think it was a mistake at all though, the majority of users want that wider angle available. For those who don't, most will probably be fine with the distortion. For the yet smaller group who aren't, you can always correct it later in post, and you'll still probably end up wider than 28mm equivalent.
cgarrard: See pic 1 of the G1X MK II and pic 5, different grips are shown on the body. Is one a tack on/add on grip?
I just looked, and on Canon's USA website, the accessory grip is included with the camera "in a bundle" for $799.
I'm curious, does anyone know how they attach?
webrunner5: It would seem Canon, Nikon, etc. really need to start building Smartphones or they are going to miss out on a LOT of buyers.
Think down the road 4 or 5 years what Smartphones will do.
If they just crammed something like the Canon S120 onto the back of a phone body, I would have bought it by now. I'm ok with a slightly thicker phone.
WACONimages: Actually I like it very much! At 24mm f2.0 aperture and great low light sensor, thats nice. EVF you can choose that option or not. 24-120mm is a great range as a walk around camera.
Question remain....: Can the pop-up flash trigger other speed-lights? Because if you use the EVF you can't use an external speed-light.
5fps is ok, but nothing special. All recent new mirror-less camera's have 8/10/11/12 fps! I can live with 5fps, but with that great 24mm/f2.0 it could have ben great for low light dynamic action shots as well.
I'd skipped Canon(after 20y) winter 2012 in favor of MFT, but I could see myself buying this one.
24mm 2.0 on a big sensor will be great for indoors shots, especially handheld indoor architecture, etc. This will be a terrific vacation cam.
bobbarber: You can get an LX7 for the price of this viewfinder. Give me a break.
"So A) Canon is overcharging, or B) The technology, materials, and cost of fabrication of this viewfinder are comparable to the same in an LX7? Unless you can justify B), people are going to point out that Canon is trying to bone them. You know, we're funny like that with our money out here in real life. (Waves)"
The cost of a product is based on more than just the cost of building it. I don't understand why people keep going back to this oversimplification. Oh, yeah I do....they're cheap.
TFD: kind of big might just as well by a DSLR
I'd rather NOT have a DSLR. Smaller size, no changing lenses, no lens caps, silent shooting with leaf shutter, flash sync at the high shutter speeds, EVF over OVF, live view shooting, built in ND filter... lots of benefits to me.