lolz. For $100 more, you can have a Ricoh GRII with wifi if you want a compact wide angle camera.
I'd think about it if it had a manual zoom. Motorized zooms just don't work for me.
morepix: I don't know if it's just a testing fluke or a real camera difference, but the studio comparisons at high ISO (1600, 3200) look a good deal better for the GM5 than for my LX100. I'm seeing my $900 going down the drain. :-(
There are plenty of cases where that's not possible... not to mention the perspective changes as well. A wide angle held close to the subject doesn't look the same as a telephoto lens shot from afar, even with a subject equally filling the frame.
mcshan:Now try to change the focal length on the 15 or 20mm. Not going to happen. It's all a matter of compromise. LX100 offers compact size, plus zoom and better light gathering than GM5+kit zoom, at a reduced IQ over GM5+good prime.
mb65: This camera has amazing specs and it is indeed good value. But it is NOT pocketable. So if you compare it with similar size gear, you may just go for interchangeble lens cameras with similar size sensors (or even APS C). They will be bigger with a zoom, that is true, but similar with a a pancake.If you do not need 4K (and most do not) I think the Sony RX100 III makes more sense. If you go bigger then go for bigger sensors.Just my 2 cents.Mattia
What makes this camera interesting is the first place is the fast zoom in a package the size of a pancake prime. If that's not a selling point for someone, they shouldn't be looking at this class of camera at all.
The RX100 III holds no interest for many of us who prefer manual controls over menu-driven controls.
BadScience: I use the 9-18mm MZuiko lens, a wonder of engineering. Is its slowness an issue? Landscapes are taken at F5.6 or F8, so no. Long exposures benefit from a tripod (or beanbag/rolled-up jumper). Its size/weight is a bonus during a long hike, carrying several kilos of water.
But, there are times when speed is useful. And an extra 2mm is a LOT at the long end.
DOF - I don't understand the criticism. You are not getting depth of field at ultra-wide angle, on FF or M43, or even medium format, unless the composisiton is very contrived (ultra-long separation of subject and background). Most people use an UWA lens for scenes that are rarely so contrived.
plenty of 9-18mm shots of mine here:https://www.flickr.com/photos/weesam/
Conclusion?- Its bigger than the 9-18- extra speed will rarely be used (?)- filters an issue (has a pronounced front element)
+ extra speed (?)+ 'pro' build (robust, weatherproof)+ extra 2mm+ higher resolution?
....buy the best lens for your needs.
Fast UWA zooms are the staple of photojournalists and event photographers shooting in tight spaces with unpredictable lighting and as a way to add a little drama to their images. A group of angry demonstrators, for example, is going to look more dramatic shot close and wide than far away on a telephoto or even a 50mm equiv. You may also be shooting this scene at night with available street lighting. Then there's the crowd shot at the dimly lit concert.. etc.
What a strange creature. And at about the same price, I can't imagine choosing this over the newly released Panasonic GM1 with compact kit zoom.
sfphotoarts: This is a very attractive camera, but aside from looks, why would anyone spend this much when for less than half the money you can get the equally small Canon SL1 or T4i, with a much wider range of lenses, bigger sensor and faster AF, more resolution, better battery life and an optical viewfinder! Doesn't really make any sense for a photographer to pick the Olympus.
S-AF is faster on the E-M1. E-M1 sensor scores much higher than either camera you mention on DXOmark. This is just the tip of the iceberg. But if you want to buy a plastic box with a 5-year-old sensor in it, Canon has a tourist special to fit your budget.
Stealthy Ninja: I live in Hong Kong. People here love phones. iPhone 5s/c is really easy to find, just not as popular as they used to be. I mean maybe the Mainland Chinese will buy them up, but locals don't really buy Apple that much anymore.
The other day at a shop 5 people were all buying a Note 3 at the same time. Samsung is by far the most popular brand here.
Nokia and Sony might have better cameras, but those brands aren't very popular.
Is it an American thing to idolise the iPhone? I mean it gets a lot of attention on this site.
Samsung sells more total phones, helped by the fact it has numerous models at all price ranges. The iPhone has been the most popular single model (though, now two models). There are more iPhone cameras out there than any other camera in existence. I'd say that makes it pretty relevant to a camera web site.