Daniel L: Just a reminder to the toddlers here
With or without WIFI/4K/touchscreen. The price point is $1,799, you can't afford it anyway. Go play with your cellphone and call mommy for monthly allowance while you at it.
Strong talk heh? My MONTHLY salary makes this looks like a TOY. How rich are you big mouth?
Edit: still not buying this toy anyway, this thing deserves to be in the TRASH bag together with Daniel L.
Zvonimir Tosic: First the amazing GX7, now LX100. This is brilliant; real thinking outside the box.
Haha, yeah sure. For a product this inferior it's only place is in the pocket. Why hide this Pana beast under any pocket. It should be on my neck all the time.
Feel so amused when you dare to call my whole list a laundry and offer pocket-ability as the only difference when the difference in volume is a mere 22%. My pocket cover that 22% so easy but I don't even feel need to hide my Pana beast. I guess some others do though. Period.
Win by a landslide:+ Aluminum v. Magnesium alloy + More range, bigger sensor, more DOF control+ 25 v. 49 focus point + viewfinder 1.4M v. 2.4M 0.59x v. 1.39x+ ready for this? 1/2000 (pathetic) v. 1/16000+ 10fps v. 11fps+ no touch screen v. touch screen+ HD v. 4K+ Mono speaker v. Stereo speaker
So for being a bit bigger and $100 more, you WIN BIG.
So for being a bit bigger and $100 more, you WIN BIG
Hachu21: The exact same size as the eos M + 22 f/2... Oh my...
@ matty_boy: really? Outdated sensor and the lens is not even as wide. This wins by a land slide.
mujana: This lens looks perfect! Too bad it isn't available for m4/3rds. I guess I have to stick to the 75mm/1.8 and the 45mm/1.8 Zuiko for portraiture...(not a real problem by the way)
The 25 1.4 is really good or you can get the 25 0.95, 25 1.8. In any case, I don't think it makes sense for them to enter that focal length anymore.
MikeStern: I returned my A7r for the oly em1. And I am sooo pleased with this decision.
Some here talking about m4/3 vs. apsc vs. full frame. I would rather concentrate on olympus rather than m4/3 in general. Because 5 axis ibs is out of this world. 3 axis is also very good. And it's not just my opinion, everybody who try it will agree with me.
I have not taking a single blurry picture yet. Including 1/3 of a second exposures.
Yes but that's with lens and it makes everything heavy and cumbersome. On the other hand, Oly is rolling out 40-150 2.8 this year and 300 2.8 next year so I think you should consider again.
Ryan_Valiente: Olympus OM?
Again reading the comment section is the best way to lol. So many "experts" here claim that this is overpriced, yet none has seen the actual performance and comparison with the Fuji. If you look up on the web, there are some samples of the Pana and damn they are so sharp and so good even wide open. That bokeh and characteristics are of course "leica".
I was taken back a bit by the price, but looking through the specs. It is more complicated than the Fuji (14 e in 11 groups vs 11 e in 8 groups). It seems to be heavier because it is fully metal as other Leica lens should be (fuji is only barrel and mount metal). OIS is yeah first of its kind for this. Considering all that and the leica badge (it costs), it seems OK at the moment. If further test proves this a lemon then we will know - not now...
goshigoo: Spec-wise, it is even worse than fuji's one....except OIS
for $1600....it's better to get D610 + 85 f/1.8Gwhich is only ~USD $2000 in HK....
Fuji: 11 elements in 8 groups - 7 blades - metal barrel and mount onlyPana: 14 elements in 11 groups - 9 blades - OIS - all metal
Yeah... it's worse...
audiobomber: The K-3 is a better photographic tool than the EM-1, with higher resolution, lower noise, broader dynamic range, switchable blur filter, -3EV sensitivity, three f2.8 AF points, dual card slots, more capable AF-C and tracking.
The EM-5 beat the D800E in this same poll. That says more about the number of m4/3 fanboys around here than it does about the cameras.
Seriously, why do people need to jump all over a poll that is simply about what the majority of people like most? There are people who view this poll purely through their fanboyism
I smell a loser running away...
Robbie Corrigan: K-3 for me. Olympus is sacrificing the size advantage of the M4/3 system which irc was the main reason for it existing in the first place. DPR staff are big fans of the O-MD, practically raving about it in one of their videos so I will assume it has its merits. I personally think that it will be easier to get a cleaner, bigger print from the K-3, cheaper too.Lens wise, the Sigma Art series are becoming a force to be reckoned with in the optical arena, Kudos! I am however beginning to become disappointed by the size of these uber lenses.. 18-35, 35 f/1.4 from Sigma, 58 f/1.4 from Nikon, 55 f/1.4 from Carl Zeiss are stupidly big in my opinion. It feels like they are throwing glass and bulk as a solution to limitations instead of real optical design.
OMD Em1 is built with the grip to handle 43 lens. It is a camera that bridge between 43 and M43 system so large grip is compulsory for those "big tuna" and "small tuna".
quangzizi: Cheap Leica anyone? They will liquidate soon I guess.
Of course, but we can all acknowledge that technically Leica position is so unique so they can charge a much higher price. Now This sony is the proper "poor man Leica" for better performance.
Anyway, just a joke. I still want that red dot some days for the feels.
Cheap Leica anyone? They will liquidate soon I guess.
mogando668: I've been a solid fan of Nikon (D90 DX then D700 FX). I already have the Sony RX100 (absolutely love it), but this Sony A7 is definitely a game changer.
I don't shoot sports or weddings, so fast speeds and big teles don't mean much to me. But having used the RX100 and another Oly m43, I definitely appreciate the MUCH more compact sizes of them while achieving reasonable image quality and bokeh.
Although still in its infancy in terms of body and lens selection, the Sony FE system might just be the one I'm willing to dump the Nikon FX system for.
@DaveE1: or fear for that matter
MrTritium: Damn, still no mechanical stabilisation , why? A lot of people will propably use the G6 with the non-stabilized 14/2.5, 20/1.7 or 25/1.4.The OMD is one step ahead.
haha why? Cause you enlarge it and give it the same number of pixels. Is that improvement?
But worse use the price of OMD with 12-50 to compare with G6 with 14-42? Haha I heard they are the same.Oh we haven't counted in other stuffs yet hum...
Oh the best part is you get everything wrong haha:OMD with 14 - 42http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Interchangeable-3-0-Inch-Tilting-Touchscreen/dp/B0074WDFOK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366833387&sr=8-1&keywords=EM+5
haha, 1100 ATM and OMD with 12 - 50 is for 1300 AT THE STARTING PRICE. Double? haha yeah totally.
"'G6 does way better video, costs less than half as much"
Lol really? http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-G6-Compact-Digital-14-42mm/dp/B00CFCTDD6/
$749 and not available until June
Lol I lose right here. Way to go keyboard hero!
marike6: For stills, if the GH3 and OMD have the same sensor, with identical DxOMark scores, why does DPR submit that the GH3 only has "good IQ" and with the OMD they were gushing about IQ?
How can two identical sensors produce such dramatically difference output? JPEGs are meaningless with most cameras of this class, and in fact some of the only really good JPEGs are from the XPro1. But most shoot RAW.
Anyway, thanks for the review.
lol of course they can praise OMD because it was out almost a year earlier. At that time it was certainly revolutionary for OMD. GH3 may have done the same but it was too late to the party.
yabokkie: it's not a very good idea to use a lens on a format it was not designed for. but for 4/3" users they don't have other choices at the moment. 4/3" makers have been refusing to make large aperture lenses because they want to cheat with small ones.
1, "4/3" makers have been refusing to make large aperture lenses because they want to cheat with small ones."
Oh yeah sure these are slow:42.5 1.225 0.9517 0.9542 0.9512 2.017 1.820 1.712 -35 2.8What!!! More to come
2, Some people are too crazy about f-stop. How can you demand 1.xxx sth zooms just because MFT is smaller? Do you even know what are you buying into? Where is the size benefit then?
3, "there is no benefit. the 4/3" was designed by misunderstanding (misled by Kodak maybe), or for cheating those without understanding, of basic physics."
What a retarded comment. Period. The system is merely four years old and already made an impact on the camera scene. Who are you to tell those engineers and mangers stupid or cheating? They had a plan and they carried it out well, so well that you felt threatened is it?.
Get lost armchair + keyboard hero