I noted one little thing that I find a bit peculiar:The Tamron 90 macro & the Panasonic/Leica 100-400 did seem to have almost glossy surfaces on the insides of the "tubes". Would that not result in unnecessary reflections?
DRogers: Overpriced. No 4k video. Give me a break.
Here, I give you a break. It's free since I give it to you! ;-)
CptRoger: I have been OLY user for a long while and I really like all the new PRO lenses. Not cheap, but the price is well deserved for the quality of life they deliver. But somehow I wonder: is this really worth it? I mean, I know on Nikon/Canon the equivalent reach has absurd sizes and prices (I use Nikon too)... but when you need to get the job done, you get what you need. And usually bodies that go with those mammoths (D4, D3s, EOS D1X...) are not even comparable to m4/3 in terms of quality. Are m4/3 birdwatchers and sport addicts profiting economically so much from their images? Or are they just so wealthy that giving out that money just for hobbies is ok? This lens gives me a bit the feeling of being like the former 35-100mm F2 or the 300mm F2.8 for the old 4/3 system: fantastic exercises in technology of quite modest diffusion... for both price and limits of the sensor behind them. Dunnow... just my instinctive thoughts.
The "sensor behind them" (defined as "today's sensor IQ/resolution level") isn't THE factor of all factors, since that factor is not "fixed and will never be improved". Any high grade lens will most probably live through many generations of camera bodies, thus must be (if possible) better than what today's state of the art sensors demand. The same thinking seem to have been Oly's +10 years ago. When they designed the "Top Pro" lenses they clearly did not make them equal to that time's sensor quality level. They made the lenses quite notably better, so that only when the 16 Mp sensors arrived we (well, those who had/have those lenses) could begin to see their real inherent quality. They may even live well into an era with sensors well past 20 Mp...at least that´s what I do believe. Then the same must be valid for a lens of high level when designed and launched today!
tlinn: I've seen a number of slideshows from this media tour. Yours, Barney, has been the most interesting. The bit about using cement cured with UV light to secure the lens elements in place was particularly noteworthy. I hadn't read that elsewhere.
The image of the lens engraved with "X 5th Anniversary" is one I've seen before. Is that a one-off or special edition of the 18-55?
I came to note this UV-curing process info with some interest:It resembles what my dentist use to do at the last stage of fixing a tooth. Like there were some kind of materieal in the lens glue that also is a part of the material used to "seal" a tooth repair.
PeaceKeeper: 2 things, the first has been stated repeatedly. Weather sealing. At this price point I think it should be there, and would mark this clearly as more than just a camera-as-fashion accessory.
Secondly, the power switch. As cool as you think it looks, the positioning neccesitates using 2 hands to turn it on, or leaving it on all the time. You can make a camera look good, add extra bits and bobs, but please don't sacrifice basic functionality like this.
I can understand, if I had one of those cameras having the on/off around the shutter button, ok. But most are designed without that design of the on/off. So that it's not that easy to hold the camera and at the same time, (one handed) turn it on/off. I can only refer to myself, almost 99% when using the camera I hold it by two hands, only when carrying it around like when walking down a street I sometimes hold it one handed. I could say I'd like all cameras did have the "around the shutter button" switch design, of course. But apparently we will not see that happen. Regarding the PEN-F I think dthey did it well considering the "look" they wanted to give it. A sleep mode that woke it up quickly just by the touch of the shutter button would do it, maybe the PEN-F has it that way(?)
webrunner5: The damned thing doesn't even have a handgrip! Maybe they could stick another knob on the front to make up for it. God knows it needs about 6 more knobs and dials.
What where they thinking??
Available for those who actually want/need it. Read the Oly sales promo material...and that info can be found other places too.
Who do, IRL, set his/her camera on/off by one hand supposedly having the camera lying on a surface, in a bag or wherever???Ok, when on a tripod possibly, but else? Really...?
The weather sealing thing is another issue, I'm more with you there. Would only have been even better for byers (and for Oly?) the PEN-F having it. But now Oly may react, if too many vs their predictions withhold their cash, by offering a "Mark II" having the seals, in due time.
Jason L. Myers: Love the styling, but price is ridiculous. I just last week tried to convince my sister-in-law to buy a M43 camera, but she went instead for a Canon T5 bundle with 18-55 and 75-300 for $499. I had to admit to her that was hard to beat.
I sold all my Nikon equipment to invest in Olympus and Panasonic M43 almost 3 years ago and have been very happy with image quality and especially with reduced weight and volume when traveling. But M43 still doesn't sell very well in the US, and I think it's due to price. US consumers are buying $500 APS-C DSLRs, but that customer will not step up to a $1200 body-only camera.
I am mystified why Olympus and Panasonic cannot bring out a $500 (or $700) two-lens bundle to compete with low-end DSLRs. I suppose you can justify some premium for small size, but $1200 bodies are just not going to bring the masses into M43.
Then she could have got another, cheaper, m4/3 camera, which is more in level with the cheap APS-C dslr's you mention. Maybe not THAT cheap, but also much smaller/lighter and with cheap SHARP and SMALL lenses to boot in the system to choose between.
The PEN-F isn't supposed to compete with those, quite clearly. It's an enthisiast camera for people well into photography, and wanting something more refined. At a cost, obviously...
DPR says the on/off is somewhat too large, considering its "only one function" status. I say what where you thinking???It's a pretty important function and is VERY WELL large sized, and very well placed too. By that ne can easily and quickly(!) put the camera ON when needed...
Compared to the silly, diminutive, and very badly placed (almost invisible already during light darkness and so small one can hardly feel it) on/off on the E-M5 mk1, this one on the new PEN-F really sems to be just it!!!
I recently aquired the E-M1 and also on that model the on/off is both prominent, well visible and easily maneuvred. Good, Olympus!
M1963: A digital PEN with an integrated viewfinder. It only took Olympus seven years to realize what their consumers wanted. That's fast by Olympus standards.Hopefully within the next ten years they'll realize the 4/3 sensor is impeding their cameras.
The 4/3 sensor is why they do still exist, and why they also can make good use of being in their own niche (ok, together w Panasonic)
RStyga: The only ergonomic issue I can see so far is the way the LCD tilt mechanism has been implemented: it forces you to place the LCD to the side of the body and then rotate it in order to tilt the LCD upwards or downwards. Thus, when you want - for example - to take a waist-level shot the camera becomes twice in length and the balance as well as the steady grip goes out the window. In my opinion, P5 has the right implementation, but, alas, they had to please the selfie bunch...
"Everybody" talks about the flip screen like it was something new and also bad...when in fact Olympus had it on several cameras before. Then most people using those cameras with flip screen seemed to like it, now soo many complains. Why??I think Olympus even did premiere it, by the way (?)
wetracy: It is NOT a "gun."
"Flashgun" is what it normally was referred to as, not only in the sixties, but as far as I know most of the time since then. Was it really a new word for some people, or just that it maybe haven't been used in the US?
noflashplease: This is very expensive indeed compared to equivalent lenses from Canon, Nikon and even Pentax. I would imagine that an upcoming Pentax full frame body and 300mm F4 would end up being cheaper than combining this Olympus lens with an E-M1.
Xenol: Who are the 45 people that chose the 'I had it' option for this xD
That refers to the Leica SL, not to the Epson unit. But I would also be hesitant to believe 45 people already have sold off their Leica SL... (maybe it´s not even for sale as new yet(?))
Timur Born: Now the really interesting question is which cameras do not use line skipping (on sensor) during Live View? When the source image is lower resolution than the EVF then all the extra EVF resolution is only useful for playback (which is based on a full resolution image).
For example, the E-M1 does not make much use of its 2.3M EVF during Live View. In practice during Live View you cannot make out any difference to the 1.44M EVF of the E-M5 (MK1) when it comes to recognizing fine details of a scene.
A. All reviews I´ve read have included a few words on the EVF; about it being notably more detailed on the M-1 than on the M-5. OK, some reviewers are not always very reliable, or not very thorough, that´s true. But why do 'all' reviews include at least a reference to the M-1 finder being better? If that would refer to its quality/resolution only at playback it would be absolutely mandatory to state so. None has, of at least 20 reviews I´ve happened to read.
B. IF the sensor, like in these cameras, have 16 mp and the finder have around, or less than, 2 megapixels, then the "line skipping" (which may be there, I don´t know actually) would have to be rather coarse to make the EVF´s resolution (at liveview) higher than the sensor´s resolution. Which is what you imply when you´re saying the EVF´s hi res on M-1 is wasted in liveview...
Did I get your rant totally wrong, or do I misunderstand the whole thech shebang in this matter?
Osa25: So exiting the two largest markets in Europe...but not its "not official" that they are winding down the biz? Hmmm
Obviously Samsung will remain in the smartphone camera business, but clearly this is the wrong time to be ENTERING the DSLR market. Should have been obvious to them.
Osa25:DSLR shaped or not, it´s the tech (features & IQ) folks are buying.If it looks like a DSLR it´s only because that shape is what works best for most uses, at least in the "advanced amateur/semi pro" market, and of course some pros would perfectly well get by with a NX1, too.
A good image in itself (composition and such) but the HDR which is severly overdone destroys it, in my view. Congrats anyway! ;-)
Edgar_in_Indy: Gotta love how they measure sensors using a combination of fractions and decimals. Who came up with that idea?
Yes, that´s the reason those numbers are used.
THE silly thing is why on earth at all refer to inches, when the whole world (well, US and a few others persist using inches) use the metric system, including camera manufacturers all over the world...Must be strange to think in metrics as far as lenses are discussed but then think in inches when sensors are the subject ;-)
And...as soon as that was written I came to realize even here in metric land we use inches for example when talking wheel/tyre sizes on cars/bikes etc...or the size of tv/computer/mobile phone screens..inches there too
Seems it´s just a matter of what you´re gotten used to refer to from "tradition", things decided upon before you were born or so..
RandallDunphy: I do believe that with the newly announced firmware 4.0, there should be an updated review based on what is a new camera. Any thoughts?
That would be nice, but the new firmware (4.0) will not be available in quite a while. Somewhere in November they said. (they = Olympus)
tektrader: Its ENORMOUS, How is that micro 4/3rds ???
For a camera that size and lenses that big it may as well be full frame..
@tektrader:Are you totally ignorant, blind or what??? Or worse, just trolling around..?