Glen Barrington: When I was 20, I would have killed for a Leica, but now that I'll be turning 65 in a week, I find, oddly, I have absolutely zero interest in owning a Leica. I don't need a beautiful, well built, reasonably competent, digital camera that is obsolete within 2 months of its release.
I feel I can get by with an uglier, less well built, but still reasonably competent camera that is obsolete within 2 months of its release.
Besides, most of my friends who would likely be impressed with my owning a Leica are either dead or confused by my inability to give up the passions of my adolescence. A couple are just confused.
My new E-M10 will likely last until I'm dead. And after that, it won't matter much, will it?
I've never touched a Leica, and perhaps if I hadd I'd feel differently. But it strikes me that if you buy a Leica you're paying a heck of a lot for that red dot. But, I don't get the attraction to really expensive watches either.
2eyesee: From the review: "The 'LX8' turned out to be the LX100, and the 1" sensor was Four-Thirds-sized. The first thing that went through my mind was 'how on earth did they pull that off?'. The answer: major advances in lens design."
No - the reason is that the LX100 only uses a crop of the four thirds sensor. The effective sensor size is 20% smaller.
Why no mention of this in the article? Anyone purchasing this camera on the basis of it having a 4/3 sensor needs to understand they are not getting the full benefit of the sensor size.
My, PURE GUESS, is that they basically had the sensor/processor design from the GH4 that does 4k, and the use of crop allows users to use different aspect ratios and keep the size of the lens smaller.
Marty4650: Should the lack of an accessory port be a negative for the EM10?
Ask yourself why the accessory port exists....
1. To attach a flash2. To attach a Penpal WIFI connector3. To attach a microphone
The EM10 has all three built right in, making the accessory port totally unnecessary. And by removing it, Olympus "toned down" the hump, which was actually makes the EM10 look more like an OM1 than the EM5 does.
You can still use external strobes. There is a hot shoe and the built in flash will work as a trigger to fire off camera strobes in RC mode. To my knowledge, the only flash that even uses the accessory port is the small flash that comes with the E-M1 and E-M5 (and probably with the P-L7).
wallbreaker: rx10 was overpriced from the beginning...thanks panasonic
I thought so too. Seemed like a great concept for a lot of folks who wanted a good non-interchangeable lens camera, but I thought the price was too high for that market.
JJLMD: Canon and Nikon are tomorrow's IBM and Kodak unless they undergo an extreme makeover. I rekindled this hobby in earnest about 2 years ago after decades of disinterest. When I started researching gear, I started researching only Canon and Nikon but it didn't take me very long to realize that Sony, Fujifilm and Olympus were making the most exciting products. Look, there are still people who still see Cadillac as THE prestige brand so it'll take awhile but there's no doubt in my mind that Canon and Nikon are on the same path as IBM and Kodak. These companies were once dominant and during their reign, it was unimaginable they would fall all the way to the bottom.
I generally agree with the trend. Canon and Nikon have generally been very conservative in terms of technology innovation over the past several years. And when they have "innovated" the designes have generally not been well conceived. The Canon mirrorless is a prime example. They have the most comprehensive systems and the systems have been the bread and butter tools of most working professionals. Most working professionals care less about innovation than have stable and reliable systems that meet their needs. But it also stifles innovation. They have well established user bases and name recognition that will carry them for some time. But I do think they are clearly loosing the technology innovation battle right now. Heck, if Sony could get their act together with lenses they'd really have a compelling product. Very innovative bodies but the lens lineup can be a little thin.
Comments on new cameras are always... Well, interesting.
itsastickup: It's a beautiful camera.
Show me the bokeh, show me the bokeh, show me the bokeh!!!
And not at $900, FFS. These clowns won't crack mirroless until they realise that the common man wants everything but his kid's face out of focus. And he gets it from APS-C for less than $200
How much less DOF does APS-C have than m43 at approximately equal effective focal lengths? The difference is a bit less than 1 stop.
nathondetroit: I miss the days when cameras used to suck—I mean REALLY suck. Back when megapixels doubled weekly and ISO 200 was intolerable. Those reviews were exciting.
Now I just think, “Wow, most people will never take interesting pictures with this.”
Don't know that I agree with missing the days when cameras really sucked, but I do agree with your bottom line. We have tons of amazing tools, some better at certain tasks than others, but so many wonderful cameras. But I sense many don't get used in ways that produce very interesting images.
veroman: Save for the very best of the full frames, the M10 images look no better and no worse than the countless thousands of other images that have been posted on dpreview in the course of their most recent (past 2 to 3 years) camera reviews.
Seems to me that camera choices these days have much, much more to do with price point, ergonomics, features and intended uses than image quality or anything having to do with image quality. They're all very good. The OM-D E-M10 is good. A Leica is good. The Fuji X Trans cameras are good. My old Canon 40D is good. Take your pick.
I agree. Tons of great cameras out there. There are certainly differences in jpeg processing. And cameras differ in features and ergonomics. But we are blessed by having access to a lot of cameras that are capable of making great images, if used by the right person.
Jim Salvas: Following the enthusiastic reviews on DPReview and the user reports in the forums i will be buying an EM-1 outfit in January to replace my D300 and its big bag of lenses. The only reason for the delay is that I will receive about $4,000 from an investment in early January, all of which will go toward the new outfit.
For the next month, I expect to go through the tradeoff comparisons, figuring out how best to allocate that money on lenses and other accessories.
One thing I'm afraid to leave behind is the excellent Nikon flash system, as my SB800 and SB600 have been responsible for some of my best images over the last four years. I am a big believer in creating my own light, but I see very little in the Olympus reviews or user reports about the flash system. Will I be disappointed?
You might be disappointed. I've not used the Nikon flash system but by reputation it's the best going. I find rc flash mode with the Oly system generally satisfactory but it sometimes misses badly. I know there are some debates on the forums but many of us find the system tends to underexpose in TTL mode. Seems to really want to protect highlights. Slave and manual flash work as expected. I love the system but I think you'll have some adjustments coming from the Nikon system.
photo nuts: There seems to be a massive push by DPReview to promote mirrorless cameras. Just saying. :)
well there's lots of subjectivity. That's what I see when I really try to compare. But I tire of the "almost as good as APS- C was a decade ago" kind of response. The technical IQ of all these cameras is amazing. Mostly, real image quality is far more limited by operator skills. And I know that's true about my photography.
My old eyes see the IQ of current Nikon APS-C sensors as class leading. But they also see the current sensors used by Olympus as better than any current Cannon APS-C camera. All of these cameras can make stunning images. Current m43 cameras would kill any 2004 APS-C camera, and probably any 2004 FF camera in terms of what folks mean by IQ.
rbarbara139: Question: On 4/3 I'm on the outside looking in but want to switch over. . Thoughts on the the E-M1 vs the E-M5?In light of the cost difference would the extra money be spent on lens?
Hard to say, value is in the pocket book of the buyer. I've not touched an EM1 but have an EM5. My take is the E-M1 has largely fixed most of the niggles of the first generation E-M5 and added some new features. The EVF is reputed to be much better, more controls, 1/8000 second shutter, IBIS is reputedly improved over the already very good IBIS in the M5. I have the grip for the EM5 and find that really improves handling, but it also bridges the cost gap. OTOH, without the grip the EM5 is certainly smaller. I really like the E-M5 and probably won't upgrade (I say knowing I'll get GAS). Unless the money difference really matters I'd probably go for the E-M1. Though investing in good lenses is always a good investment. In the short run, I'd rather have the E-M5 with good glass than the E-M1 with the basic kit lens. Just some thoughts.
thx1138: i had zero interest in the Nikon mirrorless system until today. This is a master stroke and I can't wait to see how it performs. Just in time for our summer.
This interests me too. I do quite a bit of kayaking. None of the water proof P & S cameras currently available offer very good IQ. This I could strap around my neck and leave it out without worry. I'm at least going to give this a more in depth look.
ImagesInstyle: Incredible how all this social media, and blogs commenting has taken photography from an art form, to a worthless political areana!.
you can fight back and forth to your fingers hurt from typing, but photography, no matter what camera you use, will always be aboutcapturing the moment...wether in manual (which how photography began)or auto focus mode...Period..go shoot, and STFU..
Agree completely. Using an analogy, if the comments on new camera releases were pixels, we'd be seeing a whole lot of noise and not much signal.
Laagwater: Like the EM-1 but maybe a little expensive at this price. Just checked the Image quality-tab (page 9) and when i compare Raw quality to every other camera (also Em5) The photo's look way to red imho. You can see that very clear with the face of the man on the right side. (the bold one). Or is it me?
I think if you compare it to high end APS-C bodies it's pretty comparable. It's a magnesium weather sealed body, shoots up to 10 frames / second, has lots of external controls and is highly customizable, etc. It's a pretty high end body.
neo_nights: That seems MUCH better. But..... what about those who didn't own a CS3 (or higher) versions? Should we get stuck with the old, outrageous price?
I'd consider this though I've never owned any version of PS so... And will the contract be limited to the current version of LR and CS or will upgrade's be included.
At least there's consensus.
jakeman: I don't see how anyone would buy this for $3000 instead of getting the X-E1 with the much faster zoom for $1000. The Leica brand has a lot of followers but they're slowly destroying their reputation with way overpriced average cameras...
I don't have a dog in this fight and I don't care what anyone uses for cameras. I know Leica makes terrific lenses and I know the 35mm film cameras were true workhorses that were really reliable tools for photojournalists, but IMO people are paying for the name and the image. It's kind of like a Rolex watch -- most of the appeal is the status the brand confers.
I find the sweeping pre-release evaluations of cameras very interesting. Panasonic has chosen to mate a relatively small sensor with a comparatively long but slow aperture lens in a small format camera. A bigger sensor means a bigger lens (assuming the same equivalent focal length and aperture). A faster lens means also means a larger lens. Even the lens in the LX7 seems considerably larger, by comparison. A 1" sensor with a long throw fast aperture telephoto ain't' going to fit in your pocket. And add a high resolution evf? Camera design requires compromises. There are many cameras with compromises I can't live. But that doesn't make them awful, or horrible, or ... Indeed, they may be great tools for someone else. I shoot m43 and have an LX5 for my pocket camera. The LX5 is really a bit too big for much of what I want a compact camera. I'll wait till we see some reviews but this looks like it might be a very good tool for what I need.