Is it possible that they'll actually use this one for the front camera module instead?
Any chance this review gets updated with the Denim update?
Greg Lovern: This is amazing. I love miniaturization.
If I'm reading correctly, it's smaller than the Pentax Q7 in all dimensions even though the sensor is much larger. And it appears to have the same very good new sensor as the latest Olympus micro 4/3 bodies like the OM-D and EP-5.
If it turns out to be all it looks like it should be, it really spanks Pentax (as a longtime and current Pentax user I believe I'm allowed to say that when warranted).
I'd love to see a side-by-side picture of this GM1 and the Q7.
Also keep in mind that in some few lens+camera combos, the GM1 isn't actually that much bigger than the Q7.
Q7 vs GM1 8.5mm f/1.9 prime vs 20mm f/1.7 and 5-15mm f/2.8-4.5 vs 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS
The GM1 + 20mm combo isn't that much bigger, while the GM1 + 12-32mm combo is smaller although 2/3 of a stop slower than the 5-15mm lens, the bigger sensor of the GM1 will offset the faster aperture advantage of the Q7.
Admittedly, on the telephoto side, the Q7 will be smaller with the 15-45mm f/2.8 lens than the 35-100mm f/2.8 lens but Panasonic is planning to release a 35-100mm that will be presumably smaller and presumably a smaller aperture as well. Although how small, is still a question mark for now.
The Pentax fisheye lens is really small too, so that's another combo for the Pentax where it is actually smaller.
Any chance for you guys to put a 12 MP APS-C/MFT camera in the test scene as reference?
And maybe the Panasonic G3/GH2 and a Nikon 1 camera as well?
"We spent some time shooting with a selection of Four Thirds lenses, including the 14-54mm F3.5-5.6 II and 12-60mm F2.8-4, to get a feel for how well the E-M1 is able to really support Four Thirds users."
I'm pretty sure you meant 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 II and not 14-54mm F3.5-5.6 II.
Richard Murdey: Let's assume it is exactly the same lens assembly as the Olympus camera. dpreview pretty much says as much. Pentax calls it "SMC Pentax Lens", Olympus proudly labels it "i.Zuiko Digital".
Call me old-fashioned, but that seems like false advertising. I know Pentax and, say, Tokina have pooled resources in the past, and Nikon outsources some of its cheaper lenses also, but, dang it, this is too blatant to excuse!
Here is the Olympus patent of the 6-24mm f/1.8-2.5 lens
So we have Fujifilm naming a superzoom X-S1 while Panasonic names an ultrathin compact XS1.
acuberosm: The camera the same lens, the same sensor and the same screen as the Olympus ZX-2. Probably these cameras were made by the same manufacturer.
ZX-2 or XZ-2?
marike6: Keep reading how the OM-D is "revolutionary" but nobody says HOW it is.
* IQ? m43 IQ was improved incrementally with the OM-D which has slightly better IQ than the G3/GX1. It still doesn't equal any of the better APS-C cameras like the NEX-7, D7000, K-5, or X-Pro1.
* Resolution? Panasonic G3 / GX1 increased the resolution of m43 to 16 mp long before the OM-D was released.
* Weather sealing? Pentax and nearly ALL FF DSLRs have been weather sealed for years.
* EVF and tilt LCD? NEX-7 had both way before the OM-D and NEX-7's are higher spec'd to boot.
* Size? OM-D is not the first small camera.
* AF tracking? The OM-D doesn't have PDAF like the Nikon 1 or NEX-5R.
* Video? GH2 and GH3 completely outclass the OM-D in video specs and performance.
"revolutionary" implies something new like the D800's 36 mp or D800 E (no AA filter) or both having uncompressed HDMI outs - All DSLR firsts.
So what is so revolutionary? Or is it you just like your cameras?
I know DXOMark but it isn't the end of it all when it comes to IQ. I also use it for reference but not as an absolute reference.
Anyway, more quotes on the OM-D IQ.
"The camera is DSLR-like in its ability to allow the user to shift shooting settings in short order as circumstances warrant. High ISO noise performance is competitive with the best APS-C sensor cameras at present." digitalcamerareview
"And crucially the E-M5 is actually retaining more fine detail at higher sensitivities even when the NEX-7 image is down-sampled to the same resolution." - cameralabs
"I would judge the OM-D as being quite comparable to the NEX-7 up to and including ISO 3200. Even beyond, the differences are not that significant."
Rocky ID Olympian: Wow, close race between Nikon D800 and Olympus OM-D E-M5
DCWatch had a similar poll, and a similar race between the Nikon and the Olympus
Biniou1907: Full frame is a too heavy solution for a lot of people. So it's not universal enough, even if it gives better photographs. At the same time, OMD EM5 with Zuiko or Panasonic lenses is faster with a better image quality than all others "no full frame" this year. So first place is logical.
Does an X-Pro1, X-E1, NEX-7, K-5 or K-30 have much better IQ that it demolishes the OM-D in terms of IQ? No.
Findings of review sites RE: OM-D IQ.
"The E-M5 can't completely overcome the light capture disadvantage brought by its smaller sensor, compared to APS-C, but it reduces it to the point that it's irrelevant for almost all practical purposes." - DPR
"The noise performance and detail in images is very good even at high ISO settings, comparable to cameras with APS-C sized sensors, despite the Micro Four Thirds sensor being smaller." - ephotozine
"Image quality is where Micro Four Thirds cameras have traditionally lagged behind their APS-C sensor rivals, but the OM-D E-M5 is the first MFT model to equal the results from leading cameras like the Sony NEX-7." - photographyblog
zinedi: OM-D is not bad. I know that it is a poll about popularity, not innovation, but this word was mentioned here, so I tell my opinion, too.OM-D is innovative especially in it's retro-style, in it's re-entry to Oly OM roots. That is commendable. But in other features OM-D is not as rare as the current position in the poll shows. Don't remember that it has only 4/3 sensor.Fujifilm X-Pro1 has the same "re-entry to roots" idea, but has APS-C sensor too - very innovative no-AA filter, no-Bayer sensor - which is very significant and unique innovation for the last several years. The second significant and unique innovation is the hybrid-OVF/EVF viewfinder. So - camera with two exceptional features and exceptional IQ and exceptional set of quality lenses should have a better position (but it is only my point of view).
The 5-axis in-body stabilization of the OM-D is pretty innovative IMO.
Wolffy: I am sure all of these cameras can and will take great quality images but 1 thing I must have is a viewfinder. That leaves only the Canon and the Fuji x10If no viewfinder then an articulated LCD would be nice Nikon and Samsungever tried using one of these LCD screen only cameras out in the sun? your better off with your cell phone
You can buy an EVF for the LX7 and the XZ-2 although that means you get an additional cost for the setup.
Mike99999: It seems that this D5200 might have a new 24mp (Sony) sensor, different from the D3200.
If this is true, this might be the first appearance of the APS-C sized Sony sensor with the same tech as the OM-D sensor. If this is true, the performance of this camera is going to be off the charts.
The OM-D is closer in terms of low-light/noise to the Nikon D3200 according to the DXOmark charts and is 1 stop better than the RX100. In terms of color sensitivity, the OM-D is nearer if not similar to the D3200 than the RX100 from ISO 400 onwards. Same with the DR charts, the OM-D is nearer to the D3200 than the RX100 from ISO 400 onwards.
Seems to me that the OM-D is better than you think it is if the charts show it is closer to the D3200 than the RX100 in terms of performance, especially from ISO 400 onwards. The saving grace of the RX100 overall score is its lower base ISO than the OM-D allowing it to score a similar DR/Color sensitivity score with the OM-D.
qwertyasdf: Does the stylus come with a touch screen?
Elaka Farmor: XZ-2, LX7, S110, P7700. All very similar image quality. Choosing between these is more about personal preference, thats it.
If you want another compact with better IQ and higher resolution than these above, there is camera for that too.....
Based on your formula, if I put the XZ-2 and RX100 @ 28mm f/1.8, the RX100 photo will be 1 1/3 stop brighter with same shutter speed and ISO than the XZ-2?
If I put the XZ-2 @ 112mm f/2.5 and RX100 @ 100mm f/4.9, the XZ-2 photo will only be 1/3 stop brighter than the RX100 with same shutter speed and ISO?
And I've never heard of an Olympus ZX-1 camera before, although I've heard that Olympus created an Olympus XZ-1 before.
Olympus XZ-2 form factor with option for EVF, built-in bounce flash like in the E-PL1 with option for wireless flash, 24-90mm eq. f/2.0-2.8 lens with built-in ND filter, shutter speed of 1/4000, keep the bulb mode, 1" sensor that is at least 1 2/3 stops better than the latest 12mp Sony 1/1.7" sensor, preferably multi-aspect. Priced around the Sony RX100 range.
Is it just me or is the P7700 only 1 stop worse than the Nikon J1/ Sony RX100 in RAW?
Try putting the P7700 in ISO 800 and the J1/RX100 in ISO 1600.