Sirandar: In some ways Oly is a victim of their own overall excellent design mantra.
I have a EM5 and really for most purposes what more could I ask for?
Only Sony has anything tempting for me because they are attempting to give me most of what I have with the EM5 is a smaller package with a single lens. Changing lenses is such a pain (but worth it usually)
They are not there yet and I think my EM5 has at least 5 more good years.
It is very nice having every photo tool I have (except tripod) fit right into a small camera bag (EM5) or a small Peilcan Case .... it would be nicer if it fit into my pocket. We aren't there yet ... but Sony made a good attempt.
SeeRoy: appalling? lol - exaggerate much? The EM5 has its quirks, but it wouldn't be considered a modern classic by so many people if it handled "appallingly".
vesa1tahti: Can't beat the Nikon D7200 (excl. size and weight).
photomedium: outclassed by the D5500 except in size, weight, lens size, lens weight, IBIS, EVF (subjective, but I prefer to OVF), FPS, S-AF acquisition speed...
As usual, there's more to the story than is covered by a simplistic generalization.
Lassoni: Sounds like marketing hype? Is this one of those things that's "too good to be true"? Or is this high-end stuff not accessible for even high-end customers, but for commercial applications only?
Andycaps: why does this have to be marked up as GAY love - why not just LOVE and have it open to all sexual orientations?
Why would you even ask that question?
Wubslin: I see the usual Internet Warriors have assembled with their tired canards about so-called 'rootkits' - how dreadfully predictable.
Let's get this straight once and for all - there never was any 'rootkit' or any other malware on any Sony product, ever. The people making these malicious and untrue claims will no doubt have to defend their lies in court.
Wubslin: lol! You are pompous.
And they're not lies. The evidence is clear and varied. Look it up.
Wubslin: you're coming off as more than a little unhinged here.
Sony hybrid audio discs did include a form of rootkit installation as a copy protection method. That's well known--as is the fact that they backed off on it as soon as it was made public.
It's also ancient history and totally irrelevant to their camera business, so I'm not sure why it's even come up here.
Lil g: How can the earth rotate when its flat?
rockclimber: and the edges of the flat world are where?
rockclimber87: please, please, please be joking.
Bill3R: Sorry, but YAWN.
What are you apologizing for -- your total lack of imagination, or an ego that presumes any of us gives a damn?
ptox: What's the downside to the electronic shutter? -- I assume there is one, or why would they bother with a mechanical shutter as well?
Hmm. Why would an e-shutter that reads out at a given speed be any more prone to a rolling shutter effect than a mechanical shutter that traverses the sensor at the same speed?
What's the downside to the electronic shutter? -- I assume there is one, or why would they bother with a mechanical shutter as well?
K0d: It does have optional WiFi built in.http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/misc/Flucard-Pentax-16GB-O-FC1.htmlUpgradeable, full network compatibility and multiple OS - Just take out the card and its in flight mode.
"optional WiFi built in"? That's marketing doublespeak. :-)
WiFi is commodity stuff... it would cost Ricoh barely anything in parts and R&D to really build it in -- but no, they want to ding you with the (ridiculously named) Flucard instead.
There's no excuse.
CRAPhoto: Nice upgrade for a great camera. Let's see how the sample images look like with this Sensor Shift stuff. BTW, why compare this camera with Oly or Panasonic, we are talking APS-C vs Micro 4/3s. Even if the IBIS of a m4/3 is better, I would not buy into that system. Let's compare it to Canon, or Nikon, which of course have no IBIS. Easy win.
APSC and MFT are generally mentioned together because objective comparisons show that MFT IQ barely lags behind the other format -- and because in every other respect the two are direct competitors.
nerd2: I don't get it. $1099 body + $899 12-40 2.8 + $1499 40-150 2.8 + 45 1.8 = whooping $4K worth of gear, frequent lens changes and only 5fps.
I could use D750 + 28-300 lens combo to take approximately the same outputs, while much less hassle overall (cheaper and lighter, does not require lens change, faster AF, faster fps, comparable DOF, comparable resolution etc)
What I don't get is your motive for engaging in a sophomoric and reductivist campaign against m43.
What do you gain from repeatedly making a fool of yourself with oversimplified comparisons? What makes you think you know which gear this guy should be using better than he does?
Is it possible that a photographer might have good reasons - subjective or not - for using m43? Is it possible that you might have no idea what those reasons are?
Part of growing up is learning that other people know what works for them better than you do. Put down your ego and stop acting otherwise.
AnniM: Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere - can you still use 4/3 glass with this camera? The Olympus website never answers the question - when I click on "lenses" there the link goes to the "accessories" page instead. Can you still use the 4/3 - m4/3 adapter with this camera?
My understanding is that the relevant parts of the specs are so similar that there will never be an m4/3 camera that will not accept adapted 4/3 lenses.
Zvonimir Tosic: All right, some will call me biased, but before you do that, please re-assure me with good answers. I am looking at the gentleman's picture above, and in his hands a camera with thinner profile, yes, but with a gigantic lens on it, no smaller that equivalent DSLR lens.
So what's the point he wants to make with this engineering "feat"? That laws of optics always apply and scaling down camera size is a myth? Or that DSLRs are still better ergonomically designed and made for big lenses .. but he won't admit that?
Or that overall imbalance of his design to comfortable handling .. is the new way to enjoy photography in the 21st century? Perhaps following the same route of thinking that the most simple and dumbest of cameras world has ever seen are also called "smart" (smartphone) in this 21st century?
Is there a problem with this 21st century or something?
"Why they don't choose a body wich sits in a hand like a glove?!"
You are hilarious. The XT1 has far from "crippled ergonomy", and your and the OP's points about DSLRs only stands for large lenses; when smaller primes are used it's the DSLR that looks out of balance.
DSLRs are only "clearly better ergonomicly [sic] designed" for a small number of situations -- handheld with large lenses being the obvious one. And a lot of large-lens photography is performed on a tripod, so what does it matter?
And then maybe people like other things about mirrorless itself -- like EVFs, which offer an enormous number of advantages over OVFs, especially those on non-FF cameras. (IMO the only advantage of OVFs is that they're subjectively more pleasant to look through.)
But whatever... if you haven't figured these things out for yourself already, I doubt I've made much of an impression.
Markol: I just saw this costs 500$ more than the current E-M5.That's crazy.As crazy as the 10 months it took Olympus to "fix" the shutter shock of the E-P5. Without the fix, around 30% of my pictures were unsharp.Olympus has so much going for it (OIS, jpegs) but they also make some huge mistakes.
What's crazy is expecting companies to price their newly R&D'd products relative to the end-of-life prices of their older models.
And the shutter shock was fixed, in the end. You can hardly argue a pattern of "huge mistakes" from one sore point.
ptox: The assertion by some here that even passive depictions of LGBTQ orientations are part of some devious agenda or propaganda is breathakingly disingenuous.
A minority, persecuted everywhere throughout history and still today in far too many societies, represented in this case in a gentle example of a medium whose participation by the viewer is about as optional as it gets - harming nobody, making the least aggressive statement possible - "we exist, here we are" - and yet here subject to scorn, ridicule, base degredation and outright hatred from members of the relatively safe, powerful, enfranchised majority.
How pathetically false are these cries of fear; nothing more noble than veiled hatred of The Other - other humans, trying like each of us to carve out a bit of peace and happiness in in lives that often (and for the subjects of this photo, in that country, far too often) seem to be nothing but anything else.
DaveClark: "Rights" are not just about legal rights -- they include the right not to be discriminated against, which judging by your point about businesses etc is not a settled matter. And then there's the right to marry, of course, which is not yet universal.
Nudism is a behavior. Homosexuality is a genetic imperative. You can disagree -- but most homosexuals wouldn't, which is the only important point.
DaveClark: Nor should there be anything neutral or passive about the promotion of rights for humans of all kinds and creeds; the doctrines of faiths are subordinate to that ethical imperative.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not an aggressive anti-homosexual; even so, your refusal to "accept" a whole class of people gives license to those extremes.
And for what cause? -- only a base, vulgar distaste for a mode of existence that has no bearing on your own life.
The assertion by some here that even passive depictions of LGBTQ orientations are part of some devious agenda or propaganda is breathakingly disingenuous.