exapixel: I've said it before, but mirrorless, schmirrorless. I just want the highest possible image quality. If that comes without a mirror, fine. If it comes with a mirror, fine. Somehow, this is a controversial position to take here on DPR.
My point is that the basic difference between DSLR and mirrorless is the viewfinder. The image path, from lens to sensor to processor to storage, is not inherently different, though there are some typical implementation differences. One of those typical differences is sensor size, because mirrorless cameras are typically designed to be compact so they typically (but not always) have smaller sensors.
Your choice is wide open, then, because the technological difference between mirrorless and DSLR has nothing to do with image quality.
mpgxsvcd: In order to believe this article you have to accept that shot noise is a significant factor in short exposure photography. That fact is stated in the article. However, it really isn’t demonstrated. I think that is where some people are getting hung up. They can’t accept that fact without seeing it.
It would be really cool if you showed how much noise is contributed from shot noise vs. read noise in each review. You could stack out the read noise with Dark Frames leaving only the shot noise from a very dark scene.
@mike703, why is shot noise equal to the square root of the number of photons? Do you mean it is proportionate to the square root?
I'm impressed and a bit surprised by the innovative features in this camera. It's good to add diversity to the Micro Four Thirds gene pool.
Some of the sample photos seemed to be balanced to the warm side. Yellowish greens are a pet peeve of mine, but maybe that's how the leaves looked that day. I'd be interested in an Imaging Resource kind of analysis of the camera's color accuracy.
A lot of the sculpture's detail is lost here. The lighting is not ideal, but I wonder if processing the raw file could sharpen the detail.
The photos are charming, and their compositions show the artistry of the photographer.
What am I looking at?
Let's see some photos. If "the most glaring miscue is that there's no infrared proximity sensor to switch between the LCD and EVF," then the camera might not be bad. A lot of great photography has been done without infrared proximity sensors.
I love these. The color adds immediacy and modernizes the images. Looking at Lincoln is like seeing him in the present. The effect is bracing.
Forget my medical expenses! I WANT A FREE PHONE!
I don't like photos of photos! Okay, I guess you're trying to show skin tones, but the test is limited by the reproduction of the original photo. Please concentrate on real objects. Your old test scene was good, and I liked imaging-resource's scene, with crayons and bottles and thread, even better. You need more color in this scene, and not just a particular shade of green.
mcshan: Lower the price of the EP5 by $200 or $250 and I might get one.
Exactly. Olympus will first get premium prices from customers who will pay more to have the camera now. Prices will certainly drop later as Olympus reaches for the broader market.
Pete is an amazing photographer. Occasionally the Washington Post publishes a set of his photos, and they show great taste and a keen eye for the emotion in a scene.
DPR, could you please implement a cheapskate filter on this forum? I'm tired of wading through the it-costs-too-much whining.
Ideally, the cheapskate filter should also catch comments wanting new camera features (focus peaking, faster shutter, coffee brewing) through a free firmware upgrade.
veroman: I find this to be a very odd camera release. Same sensor. Nearly the same body ... though improved. But the real issue for me is that, with the oversized EVF (an absolute necessity; I find ALL LCD-as-viewfinder based cameras to be inferior to optical viewfinder cameras) and a lens, these micros ain't so micro anymore. Weight and size are up. Cost is up, too.
$1,400 for body, 17mm lens and big EVF? Wow. I can think of any number of smallish DLSRs that will give me a lot more camera, lens and quality for the same or even less money.
So I don't really understand this release. I guess beauty and value are in the eyes of the beholder. This beholder would opt for something like the weather-sealed Pentax K-30 over this new Oly. (No, I have no relationship whatsoever with Pentax or any other camera/lens maker.)
Veroman, you may think this camera is odd, and not understand it, but that's because you think a peephole is an "absolute necessity" and Olympus PEN digital cameras DO NOT HAVE PEEPHOLES. Please, go look at cameras that meet your requirements.
Darn, I'm anxious to get the 60mm so I can get rid of my legacy nifty fifties, which just don't seem as sharp as they used to seem.
David Rossberg: "the world’s most impressive lines of lenses, cameras and flashes,"
I'm very very impressed with Sigma overall, but for them to proclaim that their flashes is among the worlds most impressive they must've been exposed to a little too much radiation lately.
Really, you had to go there?
This photo is fine, technically. But O-M-G the subject is awful!
When I first saw the thumbnail I just saw abstract monochrome bands and I thought the image was posted to this challenge by mistake. But the larger views show the subjects quite clearly, and their relative tininess shows the scale of the rocks and churning sea. It's a beautiful composition and a moving depiction of this human-canine relationship.