My dad shot over 100,000 slides of butterflies and wildlife through his career at UT, it's how I got into photography. The idea of part of his life's work becoming available makes me very proud and happy indeed. The work of publicly funded scientists should be public property.
I don't think this will ruin any careers for professionals who do macro for a living. There are far too many organisms out there, and the resolution of what UT offers will not likely match anything that's now possible.
Thomas Karlmann: VERY poor! I liked the ability to compare cameras on those graphs -- now that appears to be gone. Along with that, a poor review with bias towards systems that have no lenses -- DPR has lost it. Their focus is now on cell phones only.
Barney is right, it's untrue. They focus on anything Amazon can sell that is related to photography. Maybe someday Amazon will make a profit instead of acting like a vampire that's trying to suck the life out of the whole retail industry.
showmeyourpics: I feel that somehow this review misses the point even if it does mention the overall value of the M4/3 system. With the large choice of diminutive and good-to-excellent lenses, the E-M5 II offers a very well built, weatherized, as small as feasible body with great ergonomics; a sensor that in most conditions would let me print 24x36" fine art quality prints; a very good EVF and fully articulated LCD; the best image stabilization on the market; fast auto-focus and continuous shooting; a breakthrough high resolution mode; and a wealth of features well above its category for around $1,000. There are other cameras that can do some things better but none that can offer the same versatile value for the money. I work in tough environments with two E-M10 bodies, one with the Panasonic 12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 and the other with the 35-100mm f/4-5.6. I believe that today no other system can match their combination of IQ, portability, versatility and cost. The E-M5 II is all that and much more.
@2eyesee: the RX10 is a piece of junk compared to EM-10's, I'm sorry to say. The zoom actuates very slow. The AF is very slow. The rapid fire with AF is very slow. There is bad fringing. The buffer is very limited. The lens is slow. The EVF not very good. And you can't put a prime on it. Am I forgetting anything?
John Banister: It's interesting to me comparing the "Value" scores between this ~$1100 Olympus E-M5 II and the ~$1700 Panasonic DMC-GH4. I have to conclude that DP Review finds high resolution video capability extraordinarily valuable to have in a small ILC/DSLR.
Considering the complaints about the menu system, I think Olympus could make good use of the wireless connectivity by having an "Open Camera Platform" menu mode where a linked smartphone would provide the menu via 3rd party software built with an Olympus SDK. It could be that running the data radio so much would burn through battery too quickly, though.
The noise in relation to sensor size discussion was interesting also. If the Olympus is competing in the same category with cameras having larger sensors, then I have to wonder if those get graded off on requiring bigger, heavier fast primes even as the Olympus gets graded off on noise.
This seems like the kind of thing Oly could address in a firmware update. Besides, the real question is, how does the video compared to other Oly cameras?
This is their first camera with 24P and 60P options, or high bit-rate. I have been holding out for a pro video Olympus and they're getting closer, maybe next year, when their single firmware programmer guy gets around to it.
PlaKen: Why is dpreview so anti-mirrorless and/or anti-Oly?
Check the following review:http://cameras.reviewed.com/content/olympus-om-d-e-m5-mark-ii-digital-camera-review
They're probably anti-Oly because Sony is paying them off. They don't want to give people the impression that a 4/3" sensor is capable of producing just as high quality results as a 135-format sensor. Even though clearly, it is.
Idiots think megapixels is everything. It's not.
thx1138: Why not down sample the 64MP RAWs to 40MP rather than post them at 64MP?
While I can many improvements over the original E-M5, IQ has barely budged and this is my main bugbear with the m4/3 sensors, they seem stuck in a time warp. While I love my E-M5 going forward I'm not sure I'll stay in that ecosystem unless there is a genuine breakthrough on the sensor front soon. But I do love the lenses so hard to give those up.
Also disappointing to see the woeful menu system still in place by Olympus and I guess the manual is still as bad as ever.
People whine and moan about image quality, but they lack IQ, as in intelligence, because what are you doing with your images that requires more than 16 megapixels of resolution? I have a permanent installation shot on the 10-megapixel E-3 that measures 133"x144" in size, and the client loves it. People always comment on and complement it. So you need more than 16 MP? No you don't.
I'd like to see photos from you that prove you need more than 16 MP.
km25: OIS used with a wide angle lens is a bit of over kill. The rule of suite speeds is to use your FL say 18mm as 1/18 of a second or faster. If you shoot a 1/4 of a second, hope your subjects a dead or still life, OIS does not make up for subject motion. In tele I can see the advantage . But a well trained photographer can get away with 1/30 to 1/60 in low light. I did with my Nikkor 105 F2.5. OIS in wide and normal range is for the trained. The other two lens Fuji offers look fine, the 16-55mm F2.8 is a choice for someone who knows want they want and how get out it what they need. I will bet'cha this lens is going to have great reviews! But one should also have deep pocks, this not a lens to just 'get' and leave in your camera case.
you love reading yourself post.
dwill23: I LOVED the EOS M. The size, weight, and image quality were truly awesome. People put too much emphasis on the AF, sadly because review sites like this had a pre-hung-jury before it could get into consumer's hands.
It was a great camera. Period. It took excellent photos. Period.
But, AF and Video performance on other cameras eclipsed the EOS M.
I can only assume the EOS M did so poorly in the US, that's why Canon didn't bring the EOS M2 or M3 to the US.
Well Canon, you fixed the video and the focus, so I'll take one!
This hurts Canon so much in the mirrosless segment that there must be another reason. Maybe they know people in the US can shell out the money for a small compact and an SLR and don't want one that comes close to doing both.
This slew of cameras is not enough to save troubled Canon. This is good news; they'll have to do better soon.
I'm hanging on to a few lenses and a 70D... but maybe not for long. (I used to have EOS 1s and all L's).
Time will tell.
The firmware update to the original M fixed the AF speed issues that it had. Really. Majorly faster after firmware fix.
Not sure why people haven't made a bigger deal about that.
I love you Olympus but seriously, 24P video on the EM-5 Mk II but not the EM-1 firmware? They have the same exact TruePic VII image processor, why can't the EM-1 get 24P video? I can't afford to buy a fourth body just to get that one video feature.
Impulses: Uhh, no MFT cameras? I'm guessing they were left out because no new entry level bodies were released this year... Could've swore I remember MFT (GF6 or a PEN) being included in a similar roundup last year. At the same time tho, the A3000 and others here were also 2013 releases, and you can get a mid to high end GX7 or E-M10 for the price of the X-M1...
Mike there are plenty of mirror less cameras with eyepiece-type viewfinders. I use the electronic screen inside the eyepiece on my Olympus E-M1 all the time in sunlight and it works perfectly.
Excellent. Time to upgrade, losers
Nindy5: I really don't understand why nikon hasnt released a video focused Dslr, canon want to protect their cinema line and so won't budge on giving consumer level anything except moosh. But nikon have no such cinema line to protect, it couldn't be more obvious the opportunity in front of them, they have better quality video on their consumer Dslrs but it's so poorly implemented. This d5500 release is another nail in their coffin.
The Nikons have had decent video features for a couple generations now, with uncompressed HDMI output on even the D3300 for example.
So I'm not sure what you're complaining about really.
halfwaythere: Its pretty sad that even dpr has succumbed to the " low ISO dynamic range matters above all" theory.
I think most enthusiast FF users are using these bodies for their low light, high ISO, superiority. I don't get how is the A7 recommended above the 6D since the latter has access to the most comprehensive system while the former is, basically, a cheap mirrorless camera that happens to have a FF sensor.
Just don't call it "full frame" because the fact that the lens and sensor are the same frame size is an irrelevant detail of the category. If you want to concentrate on 24x36mm sensors then just say so. Referencing the 'fullness' of the frame size is deceiving to consumers who would otherwise not know any better.
Putting Nikon 1 vs. A7 would be stupid, BTW, since Nikon 1 is a whole line of cameras and lenses, whereas A7 is an already out-of-date camera model. Just saying.
Also don't call someone a "noob" who joined DPreview eight years before you.
Ramjager: The 5Dmk3 AF system is "behind the times"!Talk about garbage hyperbole writing.41 cross sensors? Seriously.Maybe rather than writing hyperbole the author should spend some time taking photos that require AF rather than making up utter garbage on a keyboard.The 1DX focus module is still THE BEST action AF system period and the 5Dmk3 uses that very system.Typical of DPR these days authors with little if any knowledge of the subjects they discuss is a normWakey wakey DPR stop writing hyperbole based off zero experience.Given how dated the Canon AF module is 90% of the worlds sports photogs should be upgrading from there 1Dx's that dominate sidelines because it's AF is behind the times!Yea right.
I usually post negative things here.
But this time DPReview deserves massive credit for calling it like it is.
The D750 is truly the best camera Nikon's ever put out, hands down. The second I took a picture and looked at how it came out, I just kind of knew that it's worth every penny.
Good job, Nikon. More like this!
Olympus digital cameras are all full-frame.
They are full-frame relative to Four Thirds. All of the lenses are made specifically for the Four Thirds sensor size. Therefore they are full-frame when used on that body.
Your terminology, like everyone else on this backwards site, is stuck in 2007. Life, and this industry, have moved on.
We are now in an era with many full-frame formats. You can get a whole line of lenses that's full-frame relative to 1", APS-C, Four Thirds, Leica's weird S-series crap (if you're Bruce Wayne), even Pentax's strange "Q" series.
Olympus made the right decision and makes fantastic, professional quality gear. It is you who are delusional. I would put a lot of money on the fact you're not a good enough photographer to where the sensor size is the limiting factor in your photography.
In fact Jay Dickman, a Pulitzer-prize-winning, National Geographic photographer uses Micro Four Thirds. If sensor size was the limiting factor why would he use it?
I'm not implying a conspiracy, but I would expect a conflict of interest to some degree.
That being said I guess only you would know if I'm wrong or not.
I've got my own beefs with Amazon for various crap they've pulled like blocking third-party sellers from their listings of the Sony A77 Mk II combos on Black Friday. They constantly break their own rules. That was really crappy.
I think you've got a tough call to make in a sense, I mean, we both know the A3000 is basically a piece of garbage compared to the X-M1 and E-PL7, but it's also a lot cheaper. I don't even put them in the same category, but they're the entry-level mirror-less cameras from Fuji and Oly. Sony just happens to be a much bigger operation and is cranking out fairly low-end stuff and undercutting everyone. The real question is whether it's even worth buying the junk the brands are putting out under $500. I mean with inflation, $700 is equivalent to $500 of 2008. I hate to recommend beginners to get crap.
They left out MFT because Amazon isn't paying them to promote brands that Amazon isn't paying them to promote. This site still says "dpreview" at the top and some of the staff has the same names, but it's not dpreview anymore. This is no longer an objective site (if it ever was) it's a brand shill site now and always will be. It's owned by Amazon and has no integrity whatsoever.
Wow where's Olympus??? Really, DPREVIEW?