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.
Jasko014: If it would be not written, that this is gay couple, I would not recognise it. Left person has a physiology of woman.
I think that says more about you than it does about the people in the photo.
@prossi: I wish I was, but sadly, no. :-)
Re your analogy - well, yes, in terms of IQ MFT cameras lag a bit behind the best APSC, but it's no Clio to APSC's Ferrari - more like a 455 to a 458 :-P
ptox: And as for all the stuck-in-the-past claims of MFT's inferiority to modern APSC cameras -- yes, yes, DXO gives the sensors a score of 7 or 8 below the latest from Nikon, and yes, there's more shadow noise than the very best from Fuji .. but what does that mean in terms of appreciation for the final product, especially when it's from the hands and eyes of a skilled photographer?
Very little at all.
Just consider that MFT today is superior in virtually every IQ respect (and certainly in operational speed and features) to every 35mm pro DSLR from around the time of the 5D Mark 1 and earlier -- ages ago in technological terms, granted, but how many professional photos were taken with that equipment, published across the globe, and enjoyed by millions of viewers?
MFT surpasses the output of those cameras, yet somehow still hasn't reached the special bar required by the more critical in this community?
67gtonr: I have been using my EOS M for over 1 1/2 years without issue, I have been following any posts about the system online and in the EOS M Forum here and have not once come across a post about needing to have an M repaired for something under warranty, no overheating when taking video, no banding, no oil or dust on the sensor, no shutter slap issues, etc. I am confident that this iteration will also have the high quality build of its predecessors.
I can see the tagline now -- "Canon EOS M: Bad cameras, well made."
Lassoni: re high ISO - in absolute terms the best MFT is not as good as the best APSC, but the difference is not all that great:
If you were happy with your D7000 at ISO 6400, you probably would have been happy with MFT - and it's much better than "somewhat good" at ISO 2000.
Sigh. Does this really need explaining?
Smartphones have resolution, yes, but their DR at other than base ISO is not competitive, their (fixed) lenses are not competitive, their high ISO capabilities are not competitive, and then there's the whole "not primarily a camera" thing - they don't have the same breadth of photographic features, performance, ergonomics, or convenience as any camera.
Smartphones take pictures, yes, but as dedicated cameras they're far below most P&S models (except IQ), let alone MFT/APSC (except nothing). So to say there's some sort of "slope" for my argument to "slide down" from MFT to smartphones - to imply that I may as well be saying that people would be just as well-off with a smartphone as a proper camera - is, well, nonsense.
ptox: Hilariously predictable responses to the high res mode.
Instead of taking it as a cool new feature on top of an already excellent camera, commenters are judging Olympus as though it's trying to market this as a 40MP body--we'd probably see fewer criticisms of the MkII if they'd just excluded the feature altogether.
Nevermind that a 40MP full-color-fidelity mode makes this a monster for most product photography, quite a lot of architecture work, and certain landscapes--and that the camera is a pretty worthy upgrade over the original to boot; no, Olympus is just selling us "gimmicks"...
For a bunch of photographers, there's a distinct lack of imagination here.
nerd2: If you're seriously comparing this mode to simple image interpolation, you're even less informed than I thought.
nerd2: Altering my claim by replacing MFT with a different example that does not fulfill the same criteria only demonstrates that you have very little grasp of logic at all. And you call yourself a nerd?
How is 40MP lower than 36MP?
Anyway, you're missing the point. Again. It's almost as if you're reading what you're expecting me to say, rather than what I'm writing...
FujiLiver: At pixel level detail, in certain scenarios, yes. Printed or otherwise shown at viewing resolution? Barely any difference at all. Anyway, my point is about the absolute quality of MFT images - it's better than all but the most recent consumer equipment, and all but the more specialized (<= 35mm) pro equipment of slightly older vintage; i.e. more than good enough for most uses and users.
nerd2: reductio ad absurdum? Is that all you've got?
fmj1974: impressive upgrades ,yes....but for the price of 2 new omd em5?...NO!!
Yeah, I've never understood why manufacturers don't price their brand new products at just above the end-of-life pricing of their existing stock. It's almost as if they need to make money or something...
The point is that not everyone who _wants_ to do this work has or wants to buy a Hasselblad. (And full color fidelity is an improvement over the D800, so...)
Does this feature mean the EM5II is _equal_ to either of those cameras? No, of course not; but at the very least it adds a significant new creative option for people who are already invested in or thinking about MFT... moreso than any number of new art filters or film simulation modes.
Criticizing Olympus for implementing it is silly.
And as for all the stuck-in-the-past claims of MFT's inferiority to modern APSC cameras -- yes, yes, DXO gives the sensors a score of 7 or 8 below the latest from Nikon, and yes, there's more shadow noise than the very best from Fuji .. but what does that mean in terms of appreciation for the final product, especially when it's from the hands and eyes of a skilled photographer?