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?
Hilariously predictable responses to the high res mode.
obsolescence: Marvelous, but who will be left on this ravaged planet to see the pretty pictures, once we have destroyed its habitability? Is this an appropriate use of technology in the face of our planetary emergency? I must conclude that humans are extremely myopic.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but your implied conclusion - that we should not pursue sophisticated and expensive scientific endeavor until we've secured the ecological future of our planet - may not produce the change you're hoping for.
"whilst in pursuit of good local beer and Goonies filming locations"
On the road leading to the cave used for the pirate ship shoot is the most exquisitely handcrafted artisanally-carved canteen/shoppe/gnome-abode in which the seventeenth-generation proprietors vend a delicately scented pomade expunged in a thirty-day process from antique goat-lard.
The goat-lard pomade is best experienced worn while sipping their equally rare and unique possum-skin-hair-tip iced clementine old-tyme beverage, which they serve in goblets forged from the reclaimed tin of 1957 Coca-Cola cans - itself a sentimental homage to the American soft drink zeitgeist.
This being Oregon, there is always a lineup.
zodiacfml: Seems very low power to me.... limited use.
Well yeah - it's limited to freezing superfast motion. That's kind of the point.
Richard Murdey: Within the criteria dpreview uses to judge cameras, they find the LX100 to be excellent.
Your criteria, my criteria ... might well be different, and in my case they are different. The days when digital cameras can be evaluated in an absolute good-better-best sense are long over. dpreview can rank it silver, gold, platinum or chocolate cream with pink sprinkles for all I care ... all that tells anyone is how much they like it, not how much you should like it.
Reading the comments, some people really need to chill. Personal attacks on the authors for liking a camera more than you do is just way out of line. Unacceptable.
Well, what else should people do with their spare time when they've got a roof over the heads, their bellies are full of food, and no militias prowl their streets?
This is why the West must bring its capitalist democracy to the rest of the world: so that they, too can be free to argue about cameras on the internet.
After all, the rest is taken care of for now and eternity...
Morten Rasmussen: Dpreview are Panasonic fanboys. You should consider this when you read their reviews.
What I mean is;
How come a camera that was launched so recently already gets a review and a very good one, when the Sony a5100, which, I may add, probably blows the LX100 out of the water, and is same size or smaller, doesn't get reviewed.
It's always the same when panasonic ships a new camera Dpreview is right there, but not so much with the other brands. One could get the impression that they benefit somehow.
There's that phrase again - "blows it out of the water".
You'd think that, considering the enormous variety of photographic endeavors and the absolute capability of pretty much every modern camera relative to the entire history of the tool, people would stop using such facile and ultimately pointless cliches.
I guess that's the internet for you - particularly the photographic internet - and extra-particularly DPreview, for whatever reason.
(Oh, and bonus "points" for implying that DPreview is paid to review Panasonic products early - very classy.)
limlh: A good compact apsc mirrorless is not much bigger than this and offers better controls, more DR and lower noise.
What is it about comparisons between the LX100 and APSC mirrorless cameras with single focal length lenses attached? What nonsense.