Jogger: I still shoot my D700 from late 2007.. the problem for Nikon is that i dont need to buy a new DSLR every year the way people do with mirrorless cameras. That is what is driving that market and why companies are trying to get in.
Consumers in the mirorrless segment of the market will buy lackluster cameras only to upgrade then annually (just read the m43 forum)... whereas a DSLR will last you a decade or more. Nothing glamourous here, nothing to show-off.. just a rock solid DSLR that does its job and lasts.
I agree with HFLM. I am a strong proponent for mirrorless (I own one, along with my DSLR), but it must be recognized that mirrorless cameras have been playing catch-up these last few years. Only now (perhaps since the release of the Olympus OM-D EM-5) are mirrorless at a level where they can replace DSLR's for many users (not every user, understand).
atakomba: Come on Canon, what a bad joke is this miniaturised dslr. Who on earth will buy this, people who are looking for small camera + lens combination will run away from this to m43, nikon1 etc. Shame, this was the last desperate shot from Canon, a missed one
Why will those interested in a small ILC run away from this? I very much like m4/3, but there are times when an APS-C sensor will do better, all other things about the camera being equal. I can certainly see this new Canon encroaching on m4/3 sales.
The real question for me is whether this product can compete with mirrorless models that also are APS-C, not m4/3. Can this camera go toe-to-toe with Fuji's XE-1 or Sony's NEX series?
I might not go with Canon's offering, but it's great to have so many choices.
Timmbits: I was a little upset when they discontinues igoogle.com ...it brought everything together into the best homepage we had ever seen.
Google used to be a one stop shop for a diversity of tidbits - tools here and there - that made it compelling to use google.
But as google sheds parts and components because of money problems and internal cost-cutting, it is becoming less and less attractive.
The whole was worth far more than the sum of it's parts... and now that they are breaking everything off, the ship is sinking for me.
Time to jump ship - Google has rendered itself useless to me.
Bing. Out of protest.
Kinematic Digit: Some improvements from what I've seen so far on one of my toughest reference images I use to compare. The Watercolour effect (colour smearing) is much improved. Details is still lower than competing products like Capture One and SilkyPix. More testing to do and will publish my own results against the rest.
@Kinematic DigitThank you, Mr. Lam, for your report. It provides clarity on some questions I had about this update.
jbagg: The absence of any mention of Apple Camera RAW in the article is quite striking. Apple Camera RAW is used by both Aperture and iPhoto. Despite the fact that Apple Camera RAW works on only one platform, I would not be surprised to find out that there are more Apple Camera RAW users out there an CaptureOne and DxO combined, if not more than Adobe Camera RAW as well. Lightroom has a larger market share than Aperture, but Aperture and its sibling iPhoto together represent a very large market.
Agreed. I would have liked to see Aperture included because so many of us use it.
Mouser: What about Apple Aperture??
The introduction to the article specifically mentioned that one of the criteria for being included in this review was that the program run on both Windows and Mac. Since Aperture is a Mac-only program, it was excluded. As an Aperture user, I too would have liked to see it go head to head with the others.
This seems quite exciting. Offerings like this are making m4/3's too hard to ignore.
Thanks for this!
Vince876: Well. Now Panasonic or Olympus can make a copy of a m4/3 camera without the color array. It should not be expensive and puts a good idea at an earthly level.
Even further, without the IR-UV cut filter.
Not the hi-end cameras, something like the GF2. They could be not expensive and maybe cheap. With very good lenses ten times better than the Leica ones in terms of rendition/cost.
Hear, hear. My thoughts exactly.
The Silver Fox: Ideas on what flash to pair with this bad boy? I know it's all the rage nowadays to shoot without flash, but it *does* have its uses!
Thank you all for your thoughtful replies — Very helpful!
The Silver Fox: I'm sold on the OM-D and will buy one next month. While I plan to invest in several of the primes, I will also get an Oly zoom lens for general purpose shooting. But I'm unsure which kit lens to go with. Any suggestions?
I understand that the 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 is weather-sealed, which is a great thing to have for travel. However, both the 14-150mm 1:4-5.6 and the 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R are equally compact, with 3 times the zoom capability. Coming from SLR's, I'm new to m4/3, so I'm free to invest as needed. Though I've been taking pictures since a wee lad, I'm a relative newcomer to serious photography, and an out-and-out newcomer when it comes to m4/3. So, any help would be appreciated.
Ideas on what flash to pair with this bad boy? I know it's all the rage nowadays to shoot without flash, but it *does* have its uses!
Thanks for the reply. Did you mean the 12-50mm or the 14-150mm?
I'm sold on the OM-D and will buy one next month. While I plan to invest in several of the primes, I will also get an Oly zoom lens for general purpose shooting. But I'm unsure which kit lens to go with. Any suggestions?
ybizzle: Great effort but with less expensive models like the Sony NEX-5N, Samsung NX-20, and Pentax K-01, it will harder to justify this more expensive model from Oly. Not to mention that all these have a 50% larger sensor to boot and great image quality.
As has been said numerous times, the main attraction of the OM-D is the good IQ in a smaller body. So, while you get an APS-C sensor in the Pentax K-01, for example, the design decision to employ a conventional K-mount in order to use Pentax's current DSLR lenses makes it a rather sizable brick compared to the Oly. (In fairness, it's still smaller than the K-5, which is already a rather compact DSLR).
The APS-C-based ILC's clearly have their strengths and their place, and the OM-D isn't meant to surpass them. Rather, it presents an alternative, offering nearly equal IQ, smaller size than most, a very good range of lenses (which is set to improve in the near future), and a host of features not found in many of the others (e.g., weather-sealed body).
kadardr: G1X was designed to get a large sensor compact camera with a usable zoom range. The form factor is intentionally to be the smallest possible (or smallish). There are consequences of this form factor: The collapsible lens' distortion is high and thus image must be corrected during processing. Further, this processing slows possibly down the fps rate.This lens design (be unobtrusive and collapsible) cannot cope well with close range photography, therefore the continuous switch back and forth to macro. Also the AF is sluggish (large sensor, narrow DOF, much AF work). So what you guys damn about this camera is coming from its being too small. I mean too small for the sensor size and for it was intended to be flat and bricklike. All in all the final achievement by Canon is outstanding considering the predefined selfconstraints. Here comes the multimillion dollar question: Who set the objectives right: Canon with G1X or Nikon with the ONE system? Sales figures will tell.
In answer to your "multimillion dollar question," we start by admitting that both Nikon and Canon had to make substantial compromises in order to achieve the small form factor. There seem to be all too many complaints about the G1 X that don't properly take the design constraints into account. Those compromises will make both Nikon's ONE system and the Canon G1 X unacceptable to a large number of enthusiasts. That said, I believe that Canon has the better of the two in its approach.
Mtsuoka: it's m43 but not really pocketable.. and looks like some cheapo 70's film SLR on ebay...and expensive
what is the point of this??
The appeal of m4/3 is that its bodies and lenses are both smaller and lighter than DSLR's. There has never been a promise that they be pocketable (though quite a few are when coupled w/ an appropriate lens). As for expensive, well, given the feature set of the E-M5, the cost is entirely reasonable. You can always step down in terms of features and abilities to any number of other offerings in the m4/3 line.
electro123: Hy! I'd like to asking, if i want to update my Fujifilm x100 to 1.20 firmware (actualy I have 1.11) can i update all of the latest firmware on it since 1.11 (1.12, 1.13), or I just do the update and enjoy?Only I am afraid, lest something shifted.
Electro123, all the changes made in previous firmware updates for the X100 are also rolled into the new update. So, you can update directly to 1.20 without having to update previous updates.
T3: I would so love to have that 45/1.8 in black. It would look so much better on the black body. Come on, Oly!
Aardvark7, they're talking about using the currently-available Olympus 45mm/1.8 portrait lens on other mirrorless cameras they already own. They're not talking about using the EM-5.