Chaitanya S: I am still wondering why Olympus didnt use a built in flash onto the Em5 mk II when Em10 series of camera get it. Its far more convinient than having that separate unit. Also its nice to see olympus sell the grip units which helps a lot in improving the ergonomics of these fairly small Om-d series of camera.
Horses for courses. For me, my EM5-II is better a better camera for not having a built in flash. I hardly ever use flash, so I wouldn't want to pay the size penalty of making the camera big enough to accommodate one. I appreciate others may have different priorities!
Karroly: From your review :"if you need one (an EVF...), then the LF1 is the camera for you but, if it's just a feature you'd quite like to have, the decision is less clear-cut "
I would have concluded exactly the opposite. If you NEED a viewfinder then you need a large, clear, sharp, easy to use one, so look for another camera. If you just use it occasionally (in bright sun, or to reduce camera shake when required), then this one is OK...
Yeah... I looked longingly at the G15 at the time (the G16 hadn't been announced), but decided it was a bit too big for my purposes.
What did you end up with instead? The RX100-III didn't exist when I bought my LF1, but even if it had been available I /think/ I'd have concluded that 70mm equiv. wasn't enough reach and gone for the LF1 anyway. It's not so much that I love the LF1, but that everything else is worse (for my own set of requirements, of course).
I have an LF1, and use the EVF nearly all the time. It could certainly be improved, but I find it adequate. There are only two choices if you want a camera with a VF which is also pocketable: the LF1 or the RX100-III. The Sony costs much more, and has a much more limited zoom range, but a much better EVF and probably better IQ. You pays your money and you takes your choice!
Finally! A genuinely pocket sized camera with a viewfinder and a halfway-reasonable sized sensor. The lens is also decently fast at the wide-angle end, which is where most of my low-light pictures are taken. Definitely interested and eagerly awaiting reviews and/or the chance to look at one.
Charrick: I think that people who think of themselves as "real photographers" are fanatic about optical viewfinders.
Look at the paragraph and picture above. Here's one quote:
"It's lost that camera's flip-out screen but has lost bulk in the process and has retained that rarest of things - an optical viewfinder."
OK guys...be honest. What good is that? Can some "real photographers" tell me? It's a tiny viewfinder with a parallax error and has no shooting information on it (all problems the LCD lacks). Now look at the photo. A guy is inside a relatively dark room (not outside at noon on a clear day at the beach with lots of glare) and he's still using the tiny optical viewfinder with a parallax error instead of the back screen.
Seems a bit silly, don't you think? Alas, I can never be a "real photographer", because I often use LCD screens on cameras, and I think that flip-out screens are more important to have than optical viewfinders. I know. I'm such a noob.
Let me guess, you're not long-sighted?
I fully appreciate that many people have no need for an eye-level viewfinder; but I use the one on my A1200 nearly all the time, even though it's pretty crappy. I don't want to have to put my glasses on every time I take a picture, and my eyes can't get close to focusing on the LCD without them.