EinsteinsGhost: "Our concern is that while it was designed to appeal to those who want the perception of professional quality offered by the SLRs of other manufacturers, despite its appearance the A3000 fails in two key ways: it neither feels like an SLR nor does it function like an SLR"
Ahem. Pathetic review. Please do not make a habit out of it. Unless you can really prove that professional quality for images cannot be taken with this camera but can be with competing DSLRs. Seriously? Looks? Feel? Or, perhaps I'm trailing recent advancements in photography reviews where color of lipstick takes a higher priority.
I guess how it functions in your hands are quality for them to.
Can't I just get a camera which fill the following criteria:1) No mirror box.2) Built in image stabilization.3) APS-C or bigger sensor.4) Decent range of lenses / good lenses the few that exist.
Do 2 and 3 exist in any camera? Why not? Because they want to build them small? If they want to build up look and make it look like a DSLR then ..
Olympus make cameras I would really like if they wasn't four-thirds.
xarcex: I just wish WP8 wasn't that bad, otherwise I'd buy this in a blink.
Nothing wrong = "going to be addressed"? :D
As far as applications goes I guess the right answer is "all the good ones!"
Karl Persson: Too bad Nokia didn´t continue with MeeGo, best OS yet. N9 was/is great.Google and Android is not to be trusted, I think Google is very invasive (and I have an Xperia Z also). And MS is no better in that regard.
There will be Jolla Sailfish phones. From ex-Nokia employees who has even moved into the old Maemo/Meego space @ (previously?) Nokia building it seems.
watty1964: My contract's just ending and I was struggling to find a phone to replace my trusty Nokia N8 and now it seems I have found that phone :) I've even been looking at buying an 808 as I love Symbian. I have a Google Nexus 7 tablet and it sucks compared to my phone. The only problem is that Symbian will lose support soon which is a shame. I can live with a W8 phone, can't be worse than Android.
Other alternatives would be Jolla Sailfish, Ubuntu touch, Firefox OS.
Combatmedic870: Windows 8 really....is not all that great. I prefer android and OIS over windows anyday.
Alupang:lol @ commenting Samsung stock price when discussing Nokia phones.. Go compare stock performance a little maybe?
Went and check it for Samsung electronics. Yeah it's fallen, a few percent. Nokia meanwhile was more or less wiped.
scrup: This will appeal to the enthusiast market. IQ probably has to be improved further but this is a good step.
Watch out Sony, Samsung took market share away from your TV's and might with Cameras as well.
Wlad says Samsung destroyed HTC and Nokia.
Some would argue both Nokia and HTC destroyed themselves.
Nokia by focusing on stupid services when not being a service provider and their own OS / buying up the OS.. And the map service. I guess it's easy to be doing things like that when you have money and want to grow. OS and map service is acceptable I guess though by now Google maps would of course be ok to. But their services?
They could probably had been number one on Android but obviously skipped that wanting to be alone in providing everything and do their own thing. Kinda like Sony sometimes do with hardware.
I don't really know the story about HTC but it was liked because it was most easily modified (and had decent products which they still do) but then they messed that up. Sony has been getting better reputation and more sales (?) now when they have started to get that part.
Even if the consumer isn't a nerd nerds recommend things ..
HowaboutRAW: Lots of lens development and there are already excellent lenses for the Olympus, Samsung and Fuji mirrorless system.
Problem for me though is:
Olympus: Great that they have in camera image stabilization, why doesn't everyone? Also cool designs.. But damn four-thirds :/
Samsung: Possibly the best alternative? Would had been great with in camera image stabilization rather than paying for it over and over again. No problem if the camera was bigger because of that.
Fuji: Possibly somewhat more expensive? But more importantly they so far haven't cared about video and I don't want a camera who can only do half of the tasks. There's no excuse. Haters gonna hate.
A cheap (/reasonably priced) one.
Since they show focal length that was pretty useless.
Is it one of those "firesource on a rope" or is it somehow related to scratching the ground to?
Charles Laigo: Not that it really went away (only died down a bit), but is the megapixel race now back with a vengeance?
But anyone who understand anything understand that it's the bigger sensor which is more important, not the number of pixels.
teeoh717: It definitely is intriguing, but my original three-year-old Moto Droid (that I still haven't gotten the opportunity of ditching just yet) has a higher 854x480 resolution display (@ 265ppi), even at an inch smaller...
180ppi (320x640) on a phone with a 41 megapixel camera?? What exactly was Nokia thinking? Utter deal breaker in my opinion.
There's a reason most new DSLR screens carry 270+ ppi density. Going "back" to anything lower is a noticeable step backwards. What a shame.
At least it had the best contrast in sun light GSM arena had measured.
Albert Ang: How much the film cost?
$15/£10 / 30 pictures.
zos xavius: I gotta admit it. Maybe a sony fanboy can clue me in. Why pick slt over dslr? Most of us want an ovf. I've used evfs and even when the refresh rate keeps up they feel slow. Also most evfs only give you what was shot during burst, making leading a moving target almost impossible. With a mirror it at least gives you a glimpse of the next frame. Then there is the 20% light loss. That's huge. Also there is the fact that fine details are lost at roughly 5-10%. This combined with an aa filter an bayer array doesn't really help image quality does it? Also does dust just collect on the mirror? At least my camera shakes dust from the sensor. I still have to clean every few months, but it helps a lot. I mean I change lenses all the time in outside conditions. Usually I have little choice. If there was just a mirror there it would be a mess. My mirror is a mess as it is and my focusing screen looks pretty awful, but my sensor is pretty clean. That says a lot. Mirror boxes get filthy. I saw shots with the mirror pulled and they were clearly sharper, and the article was written by a sony fan, so it doesn't seem like he wanted to fake it to smear sony. It just has so many drawbacks. The only thing it gains for all the compromises is phase detection. Surely you could implement phase detection a bit more gracefully. What gets me is that it still uses a mirror but has no ovf. That just seems kind of...well...odd.... Someone tell me what I'm missing. It seems like slt is the future for sony in the dslr space. I would much rather see them do more cameras like the a900. I'm no sony fan, I'm just trying to get why they would bet so much on a design that offers few advantages over a traditional dslr. Are they that convinced that evf is superior or that's what they think the market wants? I shoot pentax and the k-01 as odd as it is, makes more sense than slt. Isn't that funny? A k-01 with an evf would be superior to this except that it wouldn't have phase detection, but contrast detection is catching up fast. Look at the olympus om-d or the panny g3. They are just poor at panning with moving objects. To me that's a software problem. Cdaf will certainly pass pdaf by in the long run. So if you ask me in 5 years this whole system will seem kind of pointless. Am I wrong? I'm not trolling or anything. I've read a lot about slt to try to understand why anyone would find it superior. Maybe I'm just too much of a traditionalist. I like innovation, but only when it comes with real benefits.
You get to see how the final picture will look?
kushal raj patnaik: hell! this model is so close to the sony slt a57!! gosh!i was going to buy the a57, but here comes a37 which has again confused me to which model ii should buy!
evn the cost difference is a 100 bucks and the difference between their features is not worth the price change!
really!! sony, the a57 was a drastic change...but, yet another model!
In what ways?
Bob Coulter: Ya butt does it squirt water?
It's got an app for that.
latifron: Dpreview, this is too generous rating this om-d for 80%. This camera does not perform well not even comparable to nex 5n and others Frankly, Om-d has good design, speed and built is nice but picutre quality is not GOOD!!.. There is no way for SMALL sensor can beat larger sensor( nex5n, K1, Fuji xpro1, nex7).
I tested this camera, and what i find is bad high iso( usable until iso 800), bad color rendition and iQ; even epl1 has better color rendition.
thewhitehawk:> "I've been hearing the "small-sensor" excuse for years, and early on when the first Digital Photography cameras came along, a bigger sensor did make a significant difference in the quality of images, but the same can't be said for modern equipment.
Not all cellphones take horrible photos anymore, and that wasn't true a few years ago. Not all small-engine cars perform significantly worse than large ones, and the same can be said for large car's fuel economy."
wow, car analogy ;)
Anyway, the Nokia 808 got a 1/1.2" sensor size so close to the Nikon 1 so it's not that weird their image quality isn't much worse... Depending on what you compare to :)
Technology improves so of course there's ways. Over time / at the same technology generation I would expect a bigger sensor to perform better than a smaller one though.
My biggest issue with four thirds is the DOF not the image quality though.
guyfawkes: Up until now the main advantage of 4/3rds and micro 4/3rds cameras has been their smaller physical size, let down by sensors that weren't performing along with the best. This dpreview has shown that Olympus has finally arrived at a product that one can safely consider along with the likes of APS-C, and on its own merits and not feel one has to make excuses for it.
Were I at the point of buying my next camera, I feel this would figure very highly on my short list at this price point. Is it perfect? No, but then that camera has yet to come about. Could I criticise aspects of it? Possibly, but what is the point of being an armchair critic as I am not on the cusp of purchase, and before being critical surely one has to use it for a while?
Personally, as an ex-Olympus user, WA8080 and E-500, I am pleased that they can now compete on equal terms as regards imaging qualities. The satisfaction I gained from this review was that it didn't wipe the floor with my 5N!
But that advantage doesn't exist any more with APS-C cameras being as small.