alec lewis: what a seriously ugly camera...
why do camera companies put giant grips on these mirrorless cameras? it makes it so big and clunky, defeating the purpose of the camera being mirrorless in the first place...
do they seriously not think there is a market for a pocket(ish) sized mirrorless high quality/full frame interchangeable lens camera that looks good and comes in different colours?
someone save me
My opinion is that the grip should be the same size as the smallest lens for the camera. If the 14mm f2.5 pancake can slip into something, a grip that sticks out the same distance will not affect my being able to slip the camera into said thing, but will give me the ability to hold the camera. I don't quite understand the lack of grips on these cameras. I like having the buttons that come on a larger grip. I didn't even consider the EM5 because it looked like it sacrificed too much in terms of ergonomics for the sake of a retro design that appeals to an older generation. To me, the EM1 is about as good looking as it gets, and I'm thrilled with the grip. I don't like the hump, but if I get a fantastic viewfinder out of it, I won't complain too much.I am going to purchase an EM1/12-40 bundle as soon as it is offered.
What happened to the ability to compare noise reduction levels? I'm really hoping that Olympus will go back to allowing control over the amount of noise reduction. Excepting for the high ISO shadow noise, I loved my EPL2 with noise suppression turned off. The grain had a lovely characteristic. My EPL5 took a big step backward. It smears fine detail no matter how low the noise suppression is set. I was hoping Oly would restore some of this control (and hopefully do a better job with shadow noise) in the new camera, but I don't see the noise comparison tool in this review.
Am I missing it?
I think I may have found my backup camera for my EPL2.
Jeff Seltzer: Wait! I thought "the best camera is the one you have with you!" This is such a dumb "poll" that it really puts into question the value and credibility of DPreview. Are you weighting results by ownership? How are you defining "best?" What do we conclude about the winner? Totally silly.
Maybe this is just supposed to be fun?
I find it sad that Optical Zoom became the next megapixel race. I had the FZ20, and it was a great learner camera: 12x optical zoom, 5 MP, constant F2.8 aperture, and Image stabilization. Then came the FZ30 with a little more zoom and an aperture that darkened on the long end. Wrong way, I thought.
I drop out for a while and when I look up again, all these superzooms are coming with 26x, 30x, 36x optical zooms! I thought, just like the MP wars, this is targeted for people who don't know anything except more "X" is better (X = MP, optical zoom, etc.). 12x vs. 30x? 30x is better. 5mp vs 12mp? 12mp wins.
Give me 8-10 megapixels, 12x optical zoom, constant fast aperture, and clean ISO 80-800 (perfect at 80, good at 800) and I'd say you had a killer superzoom.
Of course these cameras have lens issues. Too much optical zoom. My mother in law bought one (26x Nikon) and took it to Ireland. Every zoomed pic she took looked like crap and she never could figure out why.
I wasn't aware Leicas were in the real world.
skytripper: As fas as I'm concerned, adding that big honking grip completely negates the Nikon 1's main benefit, which was its compact form factor.
A grip should be the size of the smallest lens that goes on the camera. Otherwise, the "big honking" lens is what completely negates the form factor, which is the problem with most of these small systems. If you can't slip the camera + lens into your pocket/purse, the grip doesn't even matter, except for ergonomics.
I think the chronic lack of grips in these small cameras is a psychological issue. People see large grip and think large camera. Small grip = small camera. The lens can be taken off so it doesn't even factor into a lot of people's reasoning.
But, unless you plan to carry it around with the lens off, the lens is going to ruin the form factor, not a decent sized grip.
Hey DP Review, when you do side by side comparisons of camera models, you should make sure they are the same color (black and black or white and white). Otherwise, it makes it really hard to see the difference in size or shape (larger ladies often wear black for the slimming effect).
Eric Glam: Though the photos submitted here were OoC JPEGs, I think I can draw a few conclusions.
1. It doesn't match the Nikon D4 and Canon 1D-X at high ISOs.
2. The lens, though supposedly good, is a limiting factor. I always need zoom!! There are many situations where you simply can't get close, and a zoom must be used. I wish the lens was 35-70mm f/2.0, for x2 zoom. This is really the bare minimum to justify buying a camera with a non-removable lens.
3. I wish it had an articulating LCD, like in the A77 and A99.
4. USB3.0 would have been more adequate in this day and age.
5. The price is a problem. Well, the price is always a problem, but for the RX1, Sony should have aimed for a lower target price.
The megapixel race is a good example. Back in the day, people were constantly wanting more (and then complaining when the counts got "too high"). But the technology is almost mature, and an equilibrium is nearly achieved. MP count is no longer THE factor in a camera. Consumers and manufacturers have moved on to the next area for improvement: High ISO. In a few years, they'll move on to something else (battery life? touchscreen interfaces? Wi-fi?). All with the goal of making the camera the most natural extension of our eyes and minds as possible.
I find it interesting that so many people say that they grew up on ISO 25, etc so we should be happy with ISO 400. In the early days of photography, people had to sit for 30 second exposures in broad daylight. I suppose those early photographers chided the younger ones for not being satisfied with their five second "miracle" exposures.
Camera tech has come a long way in the last few years, but it seems to me that the ultimate goal would be to have a camera capable of capturing the image you see without the need of bulky accessories. Having to use a tripod is like having a laptop that needs to be plugged in to operate. It's been so in the past, but it isn't the ideal.
Most household lighting is low enough to require ISO 800 (with a fast lens). When cameras can capture clean images at lighting levels people like to hang around in, then ISO will no longer be such a debated factor. With that goal just around the corner, people are expecting each camera to deliver on the promise.
Ugo78: Nice pic, but:- blue sky? mmh, the reflection in the window is still a very marginal element, not a protagonist as the title of the contest asked for...;- red bricks?! Not at all. A brick is "a block, or a single unit of a CERAMIC material" (Wikipedia). These are blocks of painted (?) sandstone... Sorry, but in my opinion your photo had to be disqualified...
The challenge is "Blue sky, red bricks". There is blue sky. It says nothing about how front and center it's got to be. And there are red blocks of building material. I'd have thought they were bricks. They're laid in a very brick-like way. They look like bricks.
Seems to me that these challenges are vague in a way that's meant to inspire creativity. If you're looking up definitions on Wikipedia, you're probably missing the spirit of the challenge, just a bit.
Michael Doleman: A year ago I would've been fairly excited about this camera. With the arrival of the Sony RX100, however, it just seems to me that every other offering in this particular niche is suddenly well behind the curve. Particularly considering that the RX100 is one of the most compact, and offers a much bigger sensor than any of its direct competitors. Neither this, nor Samsung's latest compact-enthusiast offering will sway me from my plans to replace my Oly XZ-1 with the Sony RX100.
If Sony had made the RX100 12 MP and f2.8 on the long end, I'd agree with you, but 20MP and f4.9 on the long end takes it down several notches in my book. Different priorities, I guess. It would've been nice if the sensor size on the Panasonic was a little bigger, but if it can pull off ISO 1600 pretty cleanly, or at least without color blotching, I might look to pick one of these up.
40mm pancake is only cool if it's on a relatively inexpensive, small, full frame mirrorless. Otherwise, it's too long and slow to be that exciting for me on a 350d unless the IQ is stellar. I may still buy it though...cause it's just so pancake-y.
sethmarshall: How is this considered "first constant-aperture standard zoom for a mirrorless system"? It isn't at all.
You have nearly the same focal range with an additional stop of light and constant-aperture with the Olympus 14-35!?
One was designed FOR a mirrorless system, the other wasn't.Faster autofocus, probably.
spoorthy: the K-01 has just released and im already looking forward to the k-02. My wishlist for the K-02:1) BETTER DESIGN!!!!!!!2) Better autofocus
Then this becomes a perfect camera :D
Which would you choose: Autofocus, or BETTER autofocus?
Lots of potential, but the MP count is too high for me. My computer struggles with the 18MP files I already process. That's one of the things I like about the Olympus.
Also, there are no great pancake lenses for this one. If my Canon had a pancake lens, it'd be almost as portable.
And the price is too high for me.
Ep3 is still the frontrunner in my book, but I'm really happy to see Sony making a camera like this.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review