Dale Baskin: Since there have been a lot of questions/comments about this camera relative to cameras like the FZ1000 we've decided to put together a small addendum to add to the article that may clarify the differences between cameras. (Which is why I'm not hanging out here responding to comments.) I'll post a message as soon as it's up.
I don't know any videographer who thinks that DSLR ergonomics is optimal for shooting video. There is a reason why stills cameras and video cameras/camcorders are designed differently.
The XC10 makes an attempt at offering both types of user experience. If it succeeds, I can't say without using it first.
PerL: As a side note...Interesting to see that despite over seven years of development the latest most high tech APS-C sensor still can't match the high ISO/low-light sports shooting capability of a FF Nikon D3, introduced in August 2007. (DxO ISO 2303 vs 1363 on the Samsung).
Sensor size have a larger impact on ISO performance than the sensor technology, especially since both sensors are CMOS. I wouldn't expect an APS-C sensor to achieve the same high ISO performance as the D3 sensor anytime soon.
Donnie G: What makes the Canon XC10 better or more brilliant than the GH4, A7s, NX1, etc.? Well, instead of building a "me too" version of those other cameras, Canon chose to create the 1st. affordable, purpose built, multi-media device for today's up and coming multi-media professionals. Traditional enthusiasts are not the target audience, although many of the ergonomic and other design elements, such as the clip on viewfinder, will surely find their way into products designed for enthusiasts in the near future. Meanwhile, Canon will sell millions of these new multi-media cameras to those who do see the brilliance and bang for the buck in its design. Great job Canon! Great article DPR! :))
A newspaper journalist I know sometimes uses an old Ricoh GRD III with a much smaller sensor, and the photos are perfectly usable for newspaper print or web use, so a 1" sensor will do just fine.
"Those measly "hybrid" cameras which so far provided only the "low-end video capture" definitely can't measure up to this glorious device."
That's your words, not DPR's. No one said that current hybrid cameras aren't capable of high-end video capture. But in terms of ergonomics and body design, they are stills cameras first and foremost, while the XC10 is designed for both stills and video.
JapanAntoine: It doesn't feel like a significant step toward convergence: it's a video camera with stills capacity. I am sure most people will agree that it wasn't really designed with still shooting in mind. Or if it was, then it's quite underwhelming on that side.
Still a very interesting video camera, though :-)Will it win over a GH4, A7s or a 5D? mmm, not sure...
It was designed for people who need to create both photos and video from the same device, and the ergonomics reflects that need.
"XC10 is a camcorder, not a "convergence" device - a title far more suitable for cameras like FZ1000, RX10 or LX100."
Except that those cameras have stills camera ergonomics, while the XC10 has ergonomics suitable for both stills and video, which is what DPR is referring to when they talk about 'convergence'.
And about the lack of raw, that's not really necessary when you need to get photos onto a website or into a newspaper as quickly as possible. Many PJs shoot only JPGs.
zodiacfml: Interesting. Finally, a 1inch sensor without the filter as it doesn't need it. FHD video specs are nice too. Price at launch is sensible, selling at a price of a Sony RX100.
This is nothing new. The earlier Nikon 1 models didn't have AA filters either, and practically all small sensor cameras lack an AA filter, because diffraction makes it unnecessary.
FodgeandDurn: Apologies for putting this here instead of the 'report issues' button wherever that is - the intro says this has a "23mm f/2 lens". This actually got me excited, but unfortunately it is an error. If you've divided 35 x 1.5 to give some 35mm equivalence wouldn't it be 50mm equiv?
If you don't want to get into equivalency, then it's a 23mm lens, and nothing else. That's the physical FL, and it's printed on the lens. A 23mm lens on an APS-C camera will give you the same field of view as a 35mm lens on a FF camera, since the crop factor is 1.5x. The specs for compact cameras usually mention the FF equivalent FL (but not the FF eq. f-number), and that's why the camera is marketed as 35mm.
thx1138: Why not down sample the 64MP RAWs to 40MP rather than post them at 64MP?
While I can many improvements over the original E-M5, IQ has barely budged and this is my main bugbear with the m4/3 sensors, they seem stuck in a time warp. While I love my E-M5 going forward I'm not sure I'll stay in that ecosystem unless there is a genuine breakthrough on the sensor front soon. But I do love the lenses so hard to give those up.
Also disappointing to see the woeful menu system still in place by Olympus and I guess the manual is still as bad as ever.
"there has been no progress in DR, low ISO shadow noise, high ISO noise since the E-M5 came out."
That's because Sony hasn't really made any significant progress with their Exmor sensors (which is what the E-M5 uses).
Eugene232: don't understand all buzz about this camera.I had an EPL5 which has a the same outdated sensor,IQ is a mediocre
The sensor is not outdated. It's a Sony Exmor sensor, and they basically used the same technology three years ago as they do today. The reason why APS-C and FF sensors offer better IQ is simply because they are larger.
PlaKen: Why is dpreview so anti-mirrorless and/or anti-Oly?
Check the following review:http://cameras.reviewed.com/content/olympus-om-d-e-m5-mark-ii-digital-camera-review
In what way is the review anti-Olympus? The camera received a great and fair review, and they praised the image quality, saying that it's on par with the latest Sony APS-C sensors, if you consider the size difference.
There will always be some IQ penalty for using a smaller sensor, purely because of the size difference. A reviewer who tried to hide that fact would be dishonest.
TN Args: Definitely gold.
Plus unique features
Plus best IS in the world, on every lens
Plus selectable best colour resolution in the world
Plus selectable better detail resolution than D810
Plus new advance in hand-holdable video stability for any stills-oriented camera
Plus compact and light body, any smaller would raise issues
Plus a price of $1000-ish
And you want to be respected for your reviews?
The awards are based on subjective opinions, taking into consideration things that can't easily be quantified, and therefore not included in the calculation of the score.
DPR explained that they don't consider the camera to be a clear stand-out product in the market, in the way that its predecessor was, because the market is now much more competitive. So, even though almost everything is better in the Mark II, it's not such a clear top recommendation anymore.
That's their opinion, and nobody said that everyone must share that opinion. I think that the E-M5 II is a fantastic camera, but I'm perfectly fine with DPR's reasoning.
KNich: Hmmmm?? The Sony Alpha A6000 gets a score of 80% and receives a Gold Award. The Olympus EM5 MKII gets a score of 81% and receives a Silver Award. Doesn't make sense to me. I've got the new EM5 MKII with the Olympus 75-300 lens and it's producing as good if not better nature photos than my Nikon D7100 with the 80-400 ED VR lens. And I've been hand holding the EM5 MKII, while with my Nikon set up I either use a monopod or tripod. The EM5 MKII is awesome. You need to change your score to 'Gold' on this camera.
There is no intrinsic connection between the score and the award, they are the result of two different kinds of assessment.
The score is basically a weighted sum of many different metrics, whereas the award is a more subjective opinion, that takes into account things that aren't easily quantified.
"But they don't make their own sensors. And that is where they are now falling behind their peers."
The sensor is as good as it can be with the current Sony Exmor technology. As DPR points out, the sensor is on par with the latest Sony APS-C sensors, if you take the smaller size into account.
As they say in the review, IQ is on par with cameras like the D5500, if you take the sensor size into account. Any breakthrough on the sensor front will benefit larger sensors too, so there will always be a slight gap in IQ between the different sensor formats, if only because of the different sizes.
fatdeeman: Oh dear, the shadows in the processed ISO 200 shot are awful, I've been spoilt by my NEX 5n. The low noise floor in modern Sony sensors really does make the files very robust when it comes to recovering shadows.
Could this technology not be incorporated into a 4/3 sensor?
The sensor used in Olympus E-M5/M10/P5/PL7/PM2 is made by Sony, of the same generation as the NEX-7 sensor, I believe.
The Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic's GH4/GX7/GM5/GM1/GF7 all use a Panasonic sensor.
I don't know if there's a difference in the ability to recover shadows between the two 4/3" sensors.
0mega: I just don't see how this can compete with Sony mirror-less.
The information about the lens used, as well as FL, aperture, shutter speed and ISO is right there below every image.
Mike FL: The super zoom seems getting better after these years as the HIGHER ISO images starting to worth a look.
It would be nice if DPR can run a Lab Studio Comparison test for these $300+ USD pocket super zoom such as but not limited to:- This one- Sony DSC-HX50V - Canon SX710 HS- Nikon S9900- Olympus...
I know it is lot of work, but should be very helpful for us.
Sony's latest offering is HX60V, which for some reason isn't to be found in the DPR database.
Edit: It seems the HX60V isn't available in the US. The main difference seems to be the inclusion of NFC and the Bionz X processor.
mpgxsvcd: I have to commend Dpreview on this interview. Most interviewers wouldn’t dare ask the questions that were asked here. Most companies would just answer no comment or give a very generic response like “We are working on that but I can’t talk about future products”.
This guy gives his own personal opinion several times. He should know that some people won’t care that he said it is his own opinion. He is there representing Canon so some people are going to attribute his opinions to Canon.
His comments are just too off the wall to be a translation issue. Simply put. He thinks Canon is doing everything correctly. Only time will tell if his customers think the same thing.
"He thinks Canon is doing everything correctly."
Well, he did admit that he thinks Canon is moving too slowly when it comes to innovation, and he implied that he thinks Canon USA might have made the wrong decision in not selling the M3 in North America.
ThePhilips: "But to be honest when we’re looking at mirrorless cameras, and entry-level DSLR cameras, and high-end compact cameras, we don’t know which of those will become mainstream."
That's quite telling that Canon itself, after so many years, doesn't consider entry-level DSLRs to be mainstream.
Even more revealing is the dismissal of the mirrorless by throwing them together with the compacts and entry-level DSLRs.
"Even more revealing is the dismissal of the mirrorless by throwing them together with the compacts and entry-level DSLRs."
This shows that Canon doesn't (yet) see mirrorless ILCs as DSLR replacements, but rather as a stepping stone between compacts and high-end DSLRs, or maybe as a cheaper companion to a DSLR.