 |
highwave
Joined on
Aug 26, 2011
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
ogl: 24-70/f5.6 - 35 mm equivalent
you mean depth of field equivalence?
I think your statement is true in the case of depth of field equivalence but in terms of expose it's still a 24-70/f2.8 - 35mm equivalent.
And not everyone is a fan of shallow depth of field. For those seeking shallow depth of field they would be better served with the 45mm f1.8 or the upcoming 75mm f1.8.
I really don't think full frame users would pick up a 24-70/f2.8 for its shallow depth of field capabilities either.
It looks so good on the black OM-D
Both looks and spec wise, it's more fittingly the kit lens for the OM-D than the 12-50mm ever will be
I'm just amazed at how well Panasonic kept the release date so secret
Most speculated it would be released months from now
This is pretty much out of the blue
highwave: So much for the claimed extra sharp images due to lack of an AA filter. Images don't look any sharper than other 16 MP comparable cameras.
ISO performance is stunning on the other hand. But there is something fishy about how the images look. It's as though noise reduction is being applied to RAW regardless of settings. If not than that is really FF rivaling performance on the ISO front.
I don't disagree with either of you PG Thomas & harold1968
I'm just saying, there are clear indications of processed RAWs
Both sharpness and noise performance are not what's expected
So much for the claimed extra sharp images due to lack of an AA filter. Images don't look any sharper than other 16 MP comparable cameras.
ISO performance is stunning on the other hand. But there is something fishy about how the images look. It's as though noise reduction is being applied to RAW regardless of settings. If not than that is really FF rivaling performance on the ISO front.
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.
The OM-D is meant to compete against the NEX-7 which is ,body for body, 200$ more expensive than the OM-D. Both cameras are magnesium alloy with built in EVF. OM-D is weather sealed and has IBIS to boot. No built in flash though.
Soon, Olympus will likely release an update to its E-PL3 which will be a closer competitor to the NEX-5N again being cheaper.
Hey DPR team or anyone.
what do you mean by the following statement in your review?
"The noise and dynamic range levels are a fraction behind the very latest APS-C sensors, if you analyze the images at a 1:1 level"
while the noise is behind the very latest APS-C (insert SONY sensors here), I don't understand how the OM-D lags in dynamic range. From what I understood in your dynamic range test, it had a wider dynamic range than any modern APS-C sensor. Am I missing something here?
Thanks all in advance.
highwave: Raw files from Nikon D3200 and Sony NEX-7 look pretty much identical to my eyes. D3200 just slightly less exposed but same everything else. (IMHP)
Marginally,
More to do with different image processors than different sensors.
My point is that they're using the same sensor.
highwave: Raw files from Nikon D3200 and Sony NEX-7 look pretty much identical to my eyes. D3200 just slightly less exposed but same everything else. (IMHP)
I disagree,
sharpness might be due to different AA filter or different lens. AA filter is usually not a part of the sensor. Color signature is no indication of sensor. More due to image processor or raw converter characteristics.
The noise characteristics and level are the same except for a slightly lower exposure.
I really believe this is the same sensor as the NEX-7.
Raw files from Nikon D3200 and Sony NEX-7 look pretty much identical to my eyes. D3200 just slightly less exposed but same everything else. (IMHP)
smallcams: And no review.
I don't care, but I know some do.
Bravo Dpreview Team,
Now you got us all hooked. OM-D, D800, 5D III, and X-Pro 1.
Can't wait to read your reviews and I'm so happy you're prioritizing the reviews of these specific cameras everyone lusts for.
highwave: what's that lens attached to it in the preview picture? It makes the whole camera look small.
No wonder I was puzzled by it. It looked like the 35mm f/1.8 but then I think the D800 would look too small if that was the case.
I have to say, with that particular lens, the D800 looks very proportionate and beautiful.
what's that lens attached to it in the preview picture? It makes the whole camera look small.
ZecaMuzzio: I have also downloaded the files from Canon EOS Mark VI to compare.
Guess what? Olympus OM-D beat it! all the way from ISO 3200 up to ISO 25600!
Amazing!
LOL
This dialog should be published.
I guess I'm a fan of canon eos-missing #-VI too
Robert Morris: That wouldn't be Phil with the Red Dot camera would it. In town for a little visit?
PS. Nice article thanks.
Don't mean to butt in but I think he meant DSC_4753 in the gallery
nice price point (999.99$ for body)
This should compete nicely with NEX-7 and Fuji
M1963: Now this is a surprise!
First things first: the possibility of mounting existing K-mount lenses will be this camera's main attribute. And obviously there's the APS-C sensor: it will make it competitive in a market where buyers were brainwashed to believe sensor size is everything.
Although this is not the most important in a camera, there's no escape that this camera is FUGLY. It's plasticky, garish (even in black), looks like a toy - and a cheap one at that - and it resembles a low-end bridge camera. I can see Ricoh's influence here: its design is as braindead as the GXR's. Put it alongside the Fuji X-Pro1 or the forthcoming Olympus E-M5 (or any other, Sonys and Panasonics included) and you'll easily find out that this is the ugliest mirrorless camera ever. It has to go a long way in terms of image quality to make up for that ugliness. Fortunately it is mirrorless: if it faced a mirror, it would want to kill itself for being so ugly and clumsy.
FAIL!
"Fortunately it is mirrorless: if it faced a mirror, it would want to kill itself for being so ugly and clumsy.
FAIL!"
LOL!
lolopasstrail: Informative. We are learning that:
Auto-ISO is one of the most important features of a digital camera, enough to be emphasized at least four times during the review, and to be the number 1 listed drawback of this camera. (Ignoring of course, that some photographers prefer the Nikon approach, a deliberate design diametrically opposed say to the Fuji X10's, which raises ISO quickly prior to dropping shutter speed).
Secondly, that a camera must be judged by a format it is not. For example, in film days, a typical review of say a 35mm camera would repeatedly harp that it was not in fact a 2-1/4, but only a silly 135. Wait.
A challenge with many reviews of digital cameras is that final result (outside studio shots of wine bottle labels and doll eyes) are not what is judged, so much as operational features and functions, which are then disproportionately overemphasized. More, these are selected arbitrarily as to importance, and inconsistently compared across camera reviews.
considering the targeted audience, emphasizing the terrible auto ISO was definitely the correct thing to do.
This goes double for the fact that you can't access the ISO settings easily. Which makes using this camera hassle.