GeorgeZ: While it'S a beautiful camera- a EM5 in the PEN form factor, it's the predecessor all over again. Like the PEN2 and 3 the sensor didn't change compared to the previous model. At least they got cheaper, a lot cheaper when the new model came out.I't seems Olympus goes another direction now if the 5 will remain the only new model, so the current line-up will continue to sell for the same price and this will be a luxury proposition.What justifies the price? 1 more axis OIS like in the EM5? Without weather sealing this price is a joke.
What do yo mean? The previous model to the E-P5 was the E-P3, which had the same sensor as the E-P1. This one has the E-M5's Sony 16 MP sensor! It is clearly an evolution.As for the price, it will drop in a few month's time.
shademaster: Who would choose this over OM-D???
I would. Have you ever seen an OM-D in the flesh? It looks like a plastic toy (even though it isn't, of course).
In my view, the two pictures above don't pose any ethical problems. What was done, in the first one, was to add contrast (both global and local) to good effect; the second picture has received an HDRI (-like) treatment that's aesthetically debatable, but none of the pictures add or subtract anything of what the camera saw. They haven't been forged by adding layers, cloning, or erasing undesired objects, so they're well within the boundaries of ethics. They stay true to reality - which is not a dogma with photography anymore, but remains important in photojournalism. It's a fact of life that pictures don't look all that good straight out of the camera; some degree of retouching is always called for. The way these pictures were edited is nothing outrageous; they are no more than retouched pictures - even if some may find the editing employed somewhat heavy-handed. There's nothing to discuss here. This can't even be called 'manipulation'.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Maybe this whole thing will be a reality check for many photographers. Some should ask themselves whether they really need Photoshop Cs6. For photographic purposes only, Lightroom 4 does such a brilliant job that I can hardly see the need for anything else. The question is - will Lr4 users be forced to subscribe CC at a later date? If so, they'll be right to feel they've been fooled by Adobe Systems Inc. - just like photographers who bought Cs must be feeling now.
Whatever. I want to make photographs, not to account bits and pixels.
ysengrain: Any software is nothing but a tool.Pliers, paintbrush, screwer are tools. A computer, a laptop, an iPhone are tools too.When I bought any of these tools, they became mine for ever.
For what obscure matter, software are not considered so since software is existing. We're given license rights, authorization for using and blabla.
Any company editing software acts in this vile manner: swindle, fraud, cheat
Now you'll be renting your tools. You'll be financing Adobe over a life span. How cunning is that?
"A power user"? Woah! That's powerfully pathetic!
Maybe this whole thing will be a reality check for many photographers. Some should ask themselves whether they really need Photoshop Cs6. For photographic purposes only, Lightroom 4 does such a brilliant job that I can hardly see the need for anything else. The question is - will Lr4 users be forced to subscribe CC at a later date? If so, they'll be right to feel they've been fooled by Adobe Systems Inc. - just like photographers who bought Cs must be feeling now.
Danny: And what about Adobe's horrible spam-emails with these FAKE quotes from people telling they love the CC option SO much. Adobe thinks we are just a bunch of imbeciles..
Some must be. They actually bought Adobe products.
falconeyes: An enforced Adobe CC subscription is immoral, no question.
Over in the Adobe forum, I started a discussion if the immoral may be illegal in some contries, or may become if laws adapt to this current sad trend.
Do I detect traces of conservative a**holeness here? Of course Adobe are in the business for making money, and there's nothing wrong with that. The question is *how* they make money. You know, Enron, Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were in the business to make money, too. So was Bernard Madoff. Then they got greedy... Business with no morals is inconceivable. The same with respecting consumers - which Adobe clearly failed to do with this move.
plasnu: One question, why they do this?
Because they are in a dominating position. Adobe consumers, who bought their products not because they were better but just because everybody was at it, raised them into that status. Now Adobe leave them no choice. If consumers had any awareness, they'd be massively dropping Adobe products, but that ain't gonna happen.
It looks like morals are too easily put aside when it comes to making money at the expense of us consumers. I'm glad I never got into Cs and didn't buy Lr after the 1-month trial.
So I made the right choice when I tried Lightroom 4 alongside DxO Pro 7 last year and opted for the latter. This attitude from Adobe is simply unacceptable. And I've always had suspicions about this whole 'cloud' thing. (I prefer to have my feet on the ground, if you know what I mean...)
So many dismissive comments for the lack of an integrated viewfinder... is it me or, if it had a viewfinder, people would find something else to criticise? Sensor area, perhaps...? Not having phase detection AF?As they say, "haters gonna hate". Want an integrated viewfinder? You have the E-M5. This one is for people who do well without an EVF.
marike6: It looks very similar to the EP-3, but with a tilt LCD. They just wrote "Olympus PEN" in all caps on as a nod to the original PEN.
The country club, polo shoes, cologne theme makes me NOT want to buy it at all. I cannot think of a more square marketing theme than "country club chic".
It's also not nearly as beautiful as the X100s, nor as small and utilitarian as the Ricoh GRD V. So I'm out, but I'm sure it will do well with m43 users.
MichaelKJ, it will sell at least as well as the E-P1, E-P2 and E-P3 did. And yes, you're right - it makes no sense to have both the E-M5 and the E-P5. They're virtually the same camera, the OM-D adding an integrated viewfinder which may some find unnecessary.
108: Would it kill Olympus to add a built-in viewfinder ? Uh ? Nice look though.
Let's not forget the very stylish VF-1 optical viewfinder, which can be used on this camera with both the 17mm lenses - rumour has it that one of the kits will include the new 17mm-f/1.8 - and does a perfectly decent job.
LyonChen1110: Mobile01 is a Taiwanese web site using Mandarin. Hope that can be corrected.If this is an Oly's answer to XE-1, it will definitely fill the niche of M43 to provide all kinds of MILCs. Pity that EVF didn't be combined into this lovely body...
I agree. They should have put more effort on the EVF's design.
gustabod: could it be a chinese knock off (e.g the Olympus brand logo is different to previous products)
It is the original logo of the Olympus Pen series, as featured on the Olympus Pen F in which lines this camera is inspired.
King Penguin: Interesting rumour.....but what about real news, ie, Hassleblad stopping making the 500 series after 50 years or so?.....
We'll always have the lovely Hasselblad Lunar...;)
In my opinion it betters the E-M5 in terms of design, whilst retaining the Pen FT's styling cues. Plus it adds what appears to be the same exposure dials layout as the E-M5. Nice touch. The previous E-Ps had dual controls too, but the lower one was fiddly to reach. I'm not really warming up to the tilting screen, but it should be useful for shooting at certain angles. I could do with an electronic viewfinder in the place of the flash, too, but after two years shooting with an E-P1 I became used to looking at the screen. Most importantly, it will certainly have at least the same picture quality as the E-M5. Rumour has it that AF speed has been further improved, which must put it way above its competitors. All in all, this is the first digital Pen that really made me consider replacing my E-P1. (I could do without the white shoes and the Acqua di Giò, though...)
I don't think anyone expected you to wax lyrical about an Olympus m4/3 camera...