KariIceland: My opinion on the last years "winner of the year" the OM-D as an OM-D owner myself and having purchased it AFTER seeing that article:I have owned this camera for almost a year now and in NO way did it deserve camera of the YEAR, neither does this camera, the X100s or X-pro 1Deserved last years win in my opinion & this year?Who knows who deserves the win but NOT this that is for certain.
well I purchased the same camera in question as soon as it was announced and ready to ship and it's sitting at my desk staring back at me as I type this knowing it's my darling and it's the best camera I've ever had and having it now for a year and a half I don't want to trade it for another.
So, tell me, why is your opinion any more informative than mine?
highwave: for all those criticizing Dpreview's way of categorizing cameras
Please blow off
They seem to be very very logical categories to me and this constant line of "comparing apples to oranges" claimed time and time again by so many monkeys on these forums is getting so tiring. I'm pretty sure if you were to compare the Canon 650D to the Canon 700D, one of these monkeys will quickly jump parroting "apples to oranges"
The Dpreview categorizations are fine and very informative and I sure can forward to those asking me about cameras.
Go get a life. Or at least go get some real "apples" and "oranges" and give me a break.
I sort of put that "rude" word hoping you would catch on to it and use it against my comment. Now in my comment I used the exact same words you used in your comment to Dpreview Staff "arbitrary, subjective, pointless" yet I used those words to reply to a post you spent probably about 5 minutes writing while you used those exact same words to comment on Dpreview Staff's work who I'm sure spent a considerable amount of time working on. So if you thought those words were rude to your quick post, how rude do you think they were to Dpreview Staff?
I'm not here to put anyone down, but I really do appreciate hard work and I think others should too.
sixtiesphotographer: These categories are so overlapping, arbitrary, and subjective as to be pointless.
I appreciate DPR's hard work, but I think this comparison/review is meaningless.
How many would prefer for DPR to spend their efforts elsewhere, such as for cameras long-overdue for review?
Don't mean to be rude, but the only thing I read so far on this link that's "arbitrary, subjective, and pointless" is your post.
Dpreview's work is fine and much appreciated at least by me and for the people I will forward the link to when they ask me "what camera should I buy". Saves me a lot of time explaining things to them.
for all those criticizing Dpreview's way of categorizing cameras
popcorn... soda ...
*pop* may the equivalency wars BEGIN!
nofumble: Supersize your sensor please
the APS-C market is already crowded with makers (Sony, Fuji, Canon, Samsung) all with excellent choices.
Leave the m43 system for those of us who want a smaller system due to smaller lenses with minimal compromise.
highwave: Dear Dpreview Staff,
could you please please Pooolllleaaaaaasse, comment on the Fuji X overstating ISO on JPEGS? I didn't see any mention of it in your review (sorry if I missed it)
There are numerous claims by very credible photographers on Dpreview forums that Fuji is overstating JPEG ISOs on their Xtrans sensors (i.e. the camera tells you it's ISO6400 where it's really more like ISO4000 on other cameras for instance)
Unfortunately no credible reviewers (such as yourself) ever comment on this as far as I know.
Sure would help a bunch to hear from you about it.
Thanks in advance.
I don't know how I missed that.
Think I should stop reading reviews at 1 AM in the morning :)
Dear Dpreview Staff,
I figured it out!
This is the greatest marketing scheme in the history of camera.The Leica marketing department is Genius!
This camera was just created to hypermarket the Leica M!
Think about it; it must have cost them next to nothing in development cost (it's practically a repainted Leica X2 with a glued on Tamron Lens and they won't lose much money supporting all 3 people who will buy it) yet it's getting near 500 replies on its debut day!
And the replies are basically "Why didn't Leica stick to the M system" That's the cheapest hyper-advertisement I can ever think of.
Not even the D800 and OM-D of last year garnered this much attention.
RichRMA: $1000 and you can't change the lens. Why would anyone considering spending that kind of money (or less even) give up that ability? Don't say "pocketability" because an Olympus E-PM2 (has OM-D sensor) with a Panasonic 14mm pancake will kick the c--- out of this Nikon and be able to change lenses, for FAR less money.
I'm totally with you on the E-PM2+14mm making more sense (it's even a bit faster at f2.5 negating any sensor size advantage if even there)
But to be fair, the Nikon A still lays much flatter than the E-PM2+14mm. Just check it out here:
and this is even without accounting for the lens cap which further makes the E-PM2 even fatter.
Integrated lens allows for such tight designs that interchangable lens cameras just don't seem to compete with now.
This camera is growing on me more and more every time I look at it.
Darn you Olympus, did you have to go and make such a pretty Camera? don't you understand a lot of us need to save money? Even the white version glitters like it's made out of pearls or something. And I'm a guy!
Thank God, they omitted the EVF, else my bank account would be taking a blow.
Yet who knows. Maybe if it drops a lot in the next few months, and my used OM-D doesn't suffer so bad on the used market, I might even go for it. I like the EVF but I think I can live without it.
ybizzle: Buy a Fuji X100s for less and call it a day. I did. ;)
And then duct tape the long range zoom lens you need you'll be set.
I've been going over how Oly could have integrated the EVF and flash in the E-P5 and made it into a direct competitor of the NEX7 (at least form wise) and I think other than losing the mode dial, there just isn't enough space to include EVF and flash. It also seems that the aspect ratio of the APS-C sensor for the NEX7 played to its advantage where both the LCD and EVF are a bit flatter.
You can check out what I'm talking about here: (yes these guys already put up the E-P5)
Also check out how ridiculously huge the GH3 is in comparison.
Surprising, the more I think of what the NEX7 achieved way back then in terms of design, the more I realize how revolutionary it was. And this is coming from someone who owns an OM-D and would never buy an NEX due to the lens lineup failing to impress.
Having said all this, wow I love that E-P5. That 2X2 dial setup is exactly what I want. And the form and design is just amazing.
As of this post this cinema camera generated 60 posts while it's more expensive 4K sibling with rolling shutter generated 5 posts
That's 12X more posts for this little thing.
I wish I wasn't such a newb on cinema cameras so to figure out why it generates such interest.
Aleo Veuliah: I use Micro 4/3 with Panasonic Lumix, but I liked all the Fuji's cameras I had.
I am glad to see they are improving. Maybe someday I will buy one like a second option, but I will go for one with interchangeable lenses, maybe a X-Pro1S.
I like the Fuji sensor technology. Hope someday Fuji launch a Micro 4/3 system.
Well done Fuji.
+ it would be ripped apart from the current m43 players anyway. I mean just look at how well Olympus and Panasonic compete against these APS-C supposedly superior mirrorless cameras. You can only imagine how even more embarrassing their performance would be if they used a similarly small sensor.
Neodp: I think Nikon is getting their rear kicked; because the m4/3 cams (OMD, EPL5,EPM2,GH3) are getting about the same IQ, with 1600+ ISO. NEX-6 too; but Sony is evil.
I suggest you go to the m43 forum and do a search on false ISO OM-D and get your "facts" straightened. This topic has been beat to death and is now boring to debate.
And you don't need to read anything a out Olympus JPEGs they're there in front of you in the comparison tool where it clearly beats the Nikon.
Maybe you should stop reading so much and focus more on comparing things by yourself. It doesn't seem many are seeing the"details" you're seeing.
I think Neodp was talking about RAW. If he was talking about JPEGS he would've said the new m43 (Olympus) were trouncing the D7100 because Olympus generally has an amazing JPEG engine that beats competitors with better sensors.
And he's right about the RAW comparison. He said "about the same" IQ. Which it is. The chroma noise is there you're right, but out of the running? It's hard to see the difference to begin with. And that Olympus false ISO card has been played so many times it's boring by this stage. Your scaling argument doesn't hold either. APS-C is 3/2 and m43 is 4/3. The pixel pitch is very close to each other considering most of those extra pixels go to the aspect ratio difference. This is evident just by looking at the images.
And please, don't start with the K-5 IIs RAW NR. Just keep in mind this argument can go both ways.
marike6: The D7100 RAWs look similar in terms of noise to the D5200. And since the D5200 is class leading for high ISO on DxOMark, we can assume that the D7100 will be somewhere in the D5200's ballpark.
For detail, none of the other cameras are equaling the D7100 through the complete ISO range, but the D5200 is getting the closest.
D5200 DxO class leading high ISO sure. But by what margin? is that difference even visible? According to DxO themselves it's less than 1/10 of a stop over the D7000 and you can hardly see 1/3 a stop difference let alone 1/10.
Now I admit the D5200 has breathtaking dynamic range advantage at high ISO over competitors. But that's not what you stated.
And are we looking at the same images when you state non equal D7100 detail through ISO? Now you could have said the kit lens Dpreview used was crappy and holding the D7100 back, but really? non equal? Pentax K-5 IIs? NEX-5R? The list can go on but I think it's up to you by this point.
Really, if anything it's just a surprise how lowly the D7100 is performing considering the DxO score backings. Not that the DxO scores suggested any real world visible margin to begin with. You did.
I think I love my OM-D E-M5 even more now
I think this picture bellow tells the whole story that needs to be told:
Basically it's not all about the height/width of these small cameras that matters the most. It's the depth. And as clearly seen in the picture above, this is just another fat SLR camera regardless of its height/width.
I mean, just look at the current Fujis. Those are chunky mirrorless cameras no smaller than a typical SLR in height/width. But with a prime they are still considered small laying flat saving space.
When you get something like a typical micro four thirds and slap on the magnificent 20mm f1.7, you can easily through it in your slingbag and it totally disappears. Even the relatively largish OM-D E-M5 can be slipped into cargo pants.
Now go and try doing stuff like that with this so called mirrorless competitor SLR.
No cake Canon. I was hoping for some spectacular creativity. This camera is just downright lame.