Woodlink: The logo is to small.
The special model with bigger logo is not out until early 2016. It will be a 1300$ more, but well worth it imho. I think I'll get this first and upgrade later, if the red dot will be big enough.
Schwermetall: I'm a owner of the RX100 and very satisfied but I think 12MP @ 1" can be very good. We will see it in the near future @ DPR :-)
@francis: isn't it weird, people are still paying 50 000 and more for 2/3" cameras these days... Maybe they just do not know what they are doing and should ask you first?
Coyote_Cody: But honestly I was MORE impressed with a recent Sony prototype leak about a 4mp or 8mp large sensor with 15,000fps capability and had 22 steps of DR and that would be great at night time video with any fps you want.
Something to truly challenge the Red or ARRI sensors at video !!!
OR even Canon's announcement about 1yr ago of a large sensor with very high sensitivity down to 1 lum or something - very excellent for low light video !!
Karl, Isn't it great, that there are different cameras for different needs? If maker A is making the best high iso sensors wouldn't it be great that B is making something else?
There will never be a single camera that would be best for everything.
lacikuss: Why he doesn't donate the camera to a Russian History Museum? Why so greedy. I bet he doesn't need the money.
Yep, he doesn't need the money. He died in 1997.
BennoFG: It seems the argument here is the big camera crowd saying:"this is why FF/35mm is better" and the m43 crowd saying "but this is why I bought m43 and didn't buy FF/35mm"
I'll join in. I am so stoked with m43. I do freelance travel photography. I moved from Nikon to m4/3 two years ago. So The big cameras were near on perfect until I had a comparison. I notice the EM-5 with a panny 20mm 1.7 gives a beautiful shallow portrait, but doesn't take away the natural smile on people facing a guy with a camera. The EM-1 gets pulled out in stiking jungle humidity with a 2.8 zoom that's also safely weatherproofed.
Those cameras are no longer insured. The price vs features required makes it affordable to risk having to replace a camera. I am saving money.
The size and weight benefits are appreciated no-end and the difference in image quality non-existant. really, the last 7 of 8 projects have been for digital end-use. I have not had to adjust to anything more than the button latout.
personally, m43 was godsend.Great interview! Keep pumping those high end bodies and lenses out Olympus, I'll keep buying them.
Plasnu, I have both Canon pro gear with zooms (and some primes) and Oly m43 with primes. There are so many good and bad things in both, that it is absolutely impossible to compare.
I have been shooting FF since 1DsII and bought the Oly E-P1 as soon as it was available. With that experience, I can assure you that there are situations where m43 easily beats FF. And vice versa.
Hooman Khosravi: Horrible Pixel Quality , I prefer the pixel quality of HTC 1 , although its just 4 megapixel , its much cleaner and more pleasant.
And the pixel quality is more important than the picture quality?
BHPhotog: This is a joke, right? This article's featured photograph shows a four-year-old (?) with a DSLR. You really want to turn a camera over to a child who is as likely to use it as a hammer, or trade it to a friend for a candy bar, or drop it in the toilet to see if it floats?
If you really want a child to learn about the visual world and the wonders of photography, show him/her how to build a pinhole camera or camera obscura, Explain, show, share and teach. Spend some time, not some money.
This is nonsense.
Well, my now-4-years-old has taken some quite nice shots of me and my wife with my m43. She can use all my gear she can lift:)
I bought her a cheap point-and-shoot when she was three, and she has took some really interesting shots of our life, even about some moments I have missed. Mostly she shoots nice colours and her favourite tv shows - and all those shots are precious memories for the future. That little camera has propably been the best spend money I have ever invested for the gear. And it is still working.
Sensor inside Olympus E-PM2 beats most of those I have used professionally on past years, the one inside Sony's RX1 even more so. But still I like to use a big heavy bodies in so many situations (and small light ones in others).
Yes, I think that compact sensor module with different sized control grips, displays etc. could be very realistic vision for tomorrows camera.
Olympus OM-D with two grips is step to that direction. If you could add something like those and a hi-quality viewfinder to minuscule E-PM3, it would be very nice set to begin with. And why not a PDAF-module for bigger 4/3 lenses and have all the cameras you need around one sensor.
This 17/1.8 is a lovely little lens and a perfect pair for OM-D. I'm totally in love with the combo. And it's a bargain too, if I count price per images I'm going to take with it. I'm as happy as I was when I got Panny 20mm to E-P1 after kit lens. Micro 4/3 system gets better and better.
For yabokkie and his friends: I also have FF-Canon and bag full of L-lenses, including i.e. 50/1.2 or 24/1.4 for shallow DOF and nice bokeh. I cary those when I'm paid to, but there is less and less reasons to pick those up. And from time to time there also are things I miss from OM-D, like deeper DOF or IBIS, when using FF systems.
RStyga: It costs an arm and a leg, and then some, and SONY decided to implement a sluggish AF system that cannot even keep up with a bright prime?? Is this a common fallacy with very expensive cameras (see Leica X1 / X2)??
@RStyga: Ah, then, Leica must be even more unacceptable by a wide margin? For you, or for all of us?
Rachotilko: I still don't get how so many people can't get that capability to shoot in low light can be achieved by any of these:a, high ISO,b, fast lensc, efficient image stabilization.
In case you have b) or c), you don't need a).
Well, I'd say it's good to have all three for versatility:
If your subject is moving, you'll need a) and b), or if you need more DOF you would like to have a) and c)...
Only thing I don't get, is how anyone can say that I should not need a), b), c), d) or e).
Don Kiyoti: What is the point of these interstitial pages? I have long wondered why, when one clicks on the link on the home page, it doesn't go directly to the review/preview.
I think these extra pages are a mandatory.
First of all, I wouldn’t be that surprised, if platform they use is only able to show news items in front page’s news feed. So direct jump wouldn’t even be possible.
Plus it wouldn’t be that good thing from the UX perspective to suddenly throw you out of the news section anyway – more so if you navigate to this page directly from next/previous news article.
But what they could do, would be to publish more info from the pre/review articles in these pages, so it would be easier to decide, are we interested to open the articles or not. (Unless it would affect too much their advertisement income).