Samuel Gao: people still can make decent prints off of compact cameras. Phones still can't really compare just yet...
Some people actually like prints. It is the ultimate way to assess image quality, but that's not the most important reason for printing: a physical support is forever, images on the Internet will vanish from memory in just about seconds.That said I agree with Samuel, although it takes a more than decent compact camera to get good prints. Large ones aren't within the reach of most compact cameras.
theranman: Is it just me, or does that camera look huge in that guy's hands. I've never handled the prior model, so it's hard to gauge.
Tha guy has small hands, that's what. The camera's puny.
Peiasdf: How do I hold this thing if I don't have model's nimble fingers? I even hurt my hand using a rangefinder-esk EVIL/mirrorless for 2 hours.
Oh, poor thing...
Paul Farace: I won't argue with vox populi on the poll... but as far as the Olympus goes, if Maiatani (sp?) was still on the job, he' have found a way to slip a prism into that ersatz prism head and give us an optical viewfinder!!! And I'd be one of the owners of that camera... but alas... it's not 1980 anymore. Someday, if and when, EVFs become indistinguishable from OVFs I'll spring for the OM-D's successor.
Maitani. Yoshihisa Maitani. And if the camera had an optical viewfinder it would need a mirror, so it wouln't be a MIRRORLESS camera anymore... Anyway, I doubt Maitani would be willing to make a pastiche of his own creation. I'm sure he'd come up with something very different.
lpv: back to the post: Olympus OM-D - nail sized sensor; electronic viewfinder inferior to OLED displays in Sony's NEX-7 and SLTs which are inferior to real viewfinders anyway;not enough highlight range leaving you with washed out highlights with no details
not enough highlight range to handle "digital ring" around the sun and that can be easily seen in second picture made with this Olympus
overall: good camera for taking snaps of your feet, markers, muesli, cereal etc :)
I shouldn't probably even bother to reply such dismissive comment ("nail sized sensor"? Really? Only if you have huge thumbs!), but the only thing the picture on Flickr proves is that the person who took it doesn't know how to handle highlights in post-production.It's possible, however, that he decided to preserve the highlights because they matched his photographic intention. Sometimes this creates great effects, though some other times it's just information lost under a white area.I'm aware, however, that "photographic intention" must be something completely out of the commenter's grasp...
texinwien: Huh. Yet another camera-reviewer names the E-M5 "camera of the year." Quick, someone explain to him the error of his ways!
TOP (The Online Photographer) Camera of the Year 2012http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/01/top-camera-of-the-year-2012.html
Of course, Marike6. You are much more qualified to make a judgement on a camera than Mike Johnston. The difference between you and him is that he's entirely devoid of prejudice and bigotry. (The fact that he also keeps a very popular and entertaining blog doesn't matter because you say so.)Also, if the result of thispoll is so meanigless to you, why do you keep commenting at the rate you do?
Yeah, what does he know...?(For those too stupid to live, this is a sarcasm.)
Two things:1. Most E-M5 users never shot with an upper-grade camera (say, full-frame);2. Most Nikon and Canon DSLR users never shot with a micro 4/3 camera.Yet all of them are exchanging opinions about products they never laid their hands on.How pathetic is that?
c76: Just wondering if Olympus come out a full frame interchangeable lenses, MLC, little bigger than OMD EM-5, what will happen?
G L, Canon did that with APS-H. It didn't work. They reverted to FF.
duartix: I like taking pictures.
So do I. I do it with a camera.
itsastickup: No bokeh, No buy.
In case you've landed on this planet yesterday, you will care to notice micro 4/3 cameras are not point-and-shoots. The picture I've shown was made in manual mode at f/2.0 with a 50mm (100 mm efl) OM prime lens, not in macro mode. It's obvious you've never shot with a micro 4/3 camera with a decent lens on it, hence your preconception. (Which can easily be mistaken for bigotry.) I maintain that you don't have enough knowledge of the micro 4/3 format to support your previous statement.
emircruz: Here's a quick pivot of the Results:
By Brand Top 31. Nikon 4429 Votes - 29.91%2. Olympus 3576 Votes - 24.15%3. Canon 239 Votes - 16.20%
By Sensor Size Top 31. Full Frame 8010 Votes - 54.10%2. Micro Four-Thirds 3864 Votes 26.10%3. APS-C 1837 Votes 12.41%
By Type Top 31. DSLR 7313 Votes - 49.39%2. Mirrorless 4778 Votes - 32.27%3. Fixed Lens 789 Votes - 13.01%
Having a long day, huh...?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Sorry, this pool thing is kind of nonsense. I admit I voted on one camera, but now, after some thinking, I say I'd rather have not done it. How many voters actually tried the cameras they submitted their vote on? What do these results mean? Is the E-M5 even comparable to the Nikon or the 5D? This is just a fanboy-ish thing.And no - I'm not a Nikon fanboy whining bitterly because the D800 didn't make it to 1st place. (That'd be so lame.) Just someone who's starting to get tired of this kind of nonsense. If anything, this pool shows the percentage of DPR viewers who bought, would like to buy, or lust for, these cameras.
Wrong. I actually voted for the Olympus. I did it because I find it more significant than the Nikon D800, which nevertheless is a camera I'd buy in a heartbeat if I had the money (I'd need at least three top-drawer lenses to realize its full potential).
inspiredan: The best camera is the one you have with you.
Yes - if it is a proper camera, not a mobile phone or a point-and-shoot. That cliché is completely inane.
You have no idea of what you're talking about, itsastickup. Just look at this "no bokeh" picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/manuelvilardemacedo/6613108457/in/set-72157629383979281
PatrickP: I'm not trying to be a snob, but if my daughter (or yours) fork out three grand of depreciating-like-no-body dollar for a once-in-a-life-time wedding, and you see the pro photog using a OM-D EM5, what would you think?
The photog might well be super duper skillful, but one would have a hard time wondering how much better the pictures would look if the same shots were made with a Nikon or Canon full frame. 2-3 stops better dynamic range and high iso noise characteristics. Whether it is a D700/D3, D800, D4, 5D2/5D3, 1DX, it doesn't matter. Given the aesthetic qualities are the same, you still cannot beat the law of physics. large sensor takes in more light and pictures do look better.
The m4/3s and NEXs has made themselves into very fine cameras. But would they be up to heavy duty pro use one day?
They all take the same light, no matter if 4/3, 1", APS-C or FF. The cells in a smaller sensor saturate more rapidly because they are smaller - hence the poorer dynamic range. You need a better understanding of how cameras work if you are to get all technical, PatrickP.
Oh God, there's enough stuff in these comments for a clinical psychiatry symposium...
gbvalli: Up to me, it's not possible to judge together cameras with different viewfinder type. OM-D is loved from fans of electronic viewfinder, but not so from those who prefer the optical one . Perhaps it would be better to diversify the match, establishing 2 or 3 categories .
Because everybody chooses a camera according to viewfinder type, right?
lucinio: Bah.. IMHO Micro 4/3 is a nonsense format
Denis, can you swap lenses on those competent compact cameras? Do you get a sensor that is only fractionally smaller than APS-C?I think you're missing the point of micro 4/3.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review