Langusta: I have to admit that Oly resolved the problem of legacy/DSLR lens backward-compatibility in somewhat better fasion than Pentax did with his K-01. Ergonomics are included this time.
Kind of, unfortunately it looks like it doesn't track as well as an E-5 with ZD lenses, which pretty much killed the reasons to want to use the 4/3 glass and left 4/3 users up a creek. Maybe it will improve with firmware updates.
kimnk: Unfortunately its so ugly!
It appears way too big with the built in grip. I went M43 because i wanted something smaller than my FF... with proportions like this it is approaching APS-C size (and smaller FF sizes).
Why couldn't they keep the original OM-D E-M5's form factor?
it is far smaller than your FF body, yet I bet it handles much better than an EM5. It is pretty much the same size an EM5 if it didn't have the grip
JackM: Only 14mp in proper 3:2 aspect ratio. :-/
4x6, 8x12, 12x18, 16x24, 20x30, 24x36" are all 3:2 and pretty standard print sizes at any lab.
Model Mike: Ugghh - that faux pentaprism is so passe! Might make a good perch for a parrot.
You think they could have housed the massive VF any other way?
MrTritium: My god, this is so THICK and HEAVY when compared with the Nex6/7 !!!http://camerasize.com/compare/#33,482
Yet it's so much smaller than a DSLR of comparable build quality.
You left out the Dimage EX 1500!
RobertPaul1956: The photo snobs here are laffable, none have bothered to actually investigate the new technology in the 1020 or know that it has what the 808 didnt,a better operating system and PRO IMAGING SOFTWARE!Bravo Zeiss,you have truly out done them all and nothing is even in the same league or will for at least 5-10 years, no its not the be all end all in cameras, but a competent photographer can certainly out shoot the other cell phones and pocket cameras with it!
Pro Imaging software? I didn't know it could run Photoshop.
I didn't know it was near as fast as an RX100 or could use a real flash like a Fuji X10/20, or Canon G1X. I also didn't know that it could produce a file that wasn't watercolor mush, that was also capable of making a decent 16x20" print.
It may be good for a phone, but it is still a toy in the realm of photography.
That stuff isn't old, except for the polaroid goo and the disc/110/flash cube stuff. Practically every high school and university teaches film in their photography programs.
What about the Minolta/Sony 500/8 AF mirror or the recently released rokinon and tokina mirrors? donut bokeh is as alive as ever!
Rooru S: Why the a900??? You should be using a recent model like the a99
Both cams are 24mp, so aside from slight differences from the AA filter, they should be pretty comparable.
ncsakany: Hard G. End of story.
Those of us who have been using GIF files since the early days have always pronounced it as "jif".
Joe Huckleberry: You gotta figure they make most of their money from corporate, medium and small sized business. I would imagine that most of them can adapt to this change. I am also a software developer and can understand their desire to not support multiple code bases. But I am also a photographer/hobbyist, and this sucks big time. I use CS5 for most of the interesting post processing I do. The alternatives I have looked at just don't compete, so, I guess I upgrade to CS6 and hang on until there is a good alternative. Someone/company will make an great alternative.
Or even better, and something I have not seen a lot of in the forums, people will begin to point out good alternatives that cover the basics of what you can do with masks and layering in Photoshop. But things like PaintShopPro, PhotoPlus, etc... were just horrible (my experience).
My problem with Gimp is that it doesn't have near the keyboard shortcuts like Photoshop does. Being able to adjust my brush size, zoom in and out and more with the keys makes a huge difference. Also you cannot create a soft light layer with 50% neutral gray which is something I use a lot.
Mssimo: Classic Question Dodge:
How do you justify the price increase to photographers?
Last year we actually cut the price of Lightroom in half in order to open it up to a broader market of photographers.
Yeah like that price reduction matters anyway. Many more advanced methods of PP and retouching isn't even possible in LR. For me LR would just be a raw processor, and an annoying one because I don't want it's catalog feature as I use a completely different method + pixfiler that works better for my use. Since I will open every image in Photoshop anyway, ACR+Bridge is a much better workflow for me when processing my raw files.
joe6pack: such a shame from a manufacturer that brought us ground breaking cameras like the RX100.
SHood, in many ways they are. The camera is just one aspect of a phone, and one of the smaller aspects. It's primary use is as a phone, and it does good at that. The basic waterproofing is nice since it can take a light drop in the water. I know many people who have killed their iPhone due to an accidental dunk in the river or lake. As an over all package, it's a great phone and the camera works well for what it is intended to be used for. If you need anything more IQ wise, there is no substitute for a real camera. I think some people are expecting too much from a phone when it comes to the performance of the camera. That's why cameras like RX100, x10, Coolpix A, Sigma DP's, smaller m4/3's, Nikon 1 etc.. Are taking off because of the ultra portability (compared to a DSLR) along with the performance compared to a phone. The phone has replaced cheap P&S cams for those who don't require great IQ. But most enthusiasts still use a real stand alone camera and will until the phone catches up.
Well it is just a camera phone, what do you expect? Downsized to your typical 800px web resolution or a 4x6" print, the images look pretty good for a phone. Many of the issues such as sharpening etc.. that it is knocked for at a pixel level work in it's favor for small prints, the web, and a phone's intended use. Acutance is more important than texture at these small sizes. Considering what most phone cameras are used for, it's more than adequate. I had an Xperia X10 and it's 8mp camera wasn't very good, but worked ok for the above said uses and this one is better.
When phones catch up to the basic IQ level of things like a Fuji x10 or Sony RX100 (about the lowest quality for anything serious), then these tests are splitting hairs. We have at least 5 years until a phone will make a quality small enlargement (8x10). The 5mp camera on my Motorola is unusable for even the web, so I'd say the Sony did quite well for it's intended use. Others may be better, but not good enough to matter.
valkyrite: I am just waiting (and saving) for Panasonic 150mm f2.8.
It would be a damn good lens for using at dimly lit concerts and events.
I just want it to be sharp and under $1K.
I'm excited about that lens too.... But it's a bit short for me. I'd be happy with that if they made a really good matching 2x TC for it, but the combination would have to be a bit better than the 100-300 panny zoom for it to be worth while.
Sure wish someone would make a faster long tele for m4/3. A 300/4 would be great.
I wonder what sensor sizes the m4/3, F and K mount adapters will have... Still 1" ?
Airless: The advantages of DSLRs to compact and mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras:
Umm...they make you look like a rich pro? Surely nothing to do with actual photography.
joejack951, you mean like the 12/1.6, 17.5/0.95, 25/0.95, 50/0.95 ?
Some people say it's too big, but maybe it will balance better with the FT1 attached and an F mount lens... Problem is, I bet it still doesn't have C-AF with FT1 adapter. V2+70-300VR would be a killer combo, if it can perform C-AF.
Shamael: I think that this deal is not new. When it became evident that OM-D uses a Sony sensor, not a Pana, it was as evident that something was in the air, something of this kind. Anyway, the Sony sensor does a great job in the OM-D, it is just a cropped NEX-7 chip in some way.
@Vibrio, wrong. They've used them for years. here's a list of them that were involved in the ccd recall a few years ago.