ikfoto: Fine looking camera, but the 1972 switch is a 'style mismatch'.
Well, no! It´s a thousand times better than the switch of the E-M5 which I happen to possess since three years time in a month or two. Adding to its functionality it´s simply very good looking too! The E-M5 switch is simply soo badly designed it´s almost incomprehensible. VERY small & very badly placed. The "OM-1/OM-2" switch design was good, and still is.But of course it´s nothing but a matter of taste in the first place....
QuarryCat: first series of mft-lenses are all bad, beside 5.6/9-18 mm - all much worse then the lenses from Panasonicand now the PRO-lenses are good concepts but it's more illusion than reality... and very expensive too.
Olympus mFT is only a shadow from Olympus FT...
so they get more profits.
Don't get me wrong - Olympus has done a lot for digital photography - even more then most other photo-compagnies... they still deliver fantastic colors (even in JPEG), a real good IBIS (but only in E-M5II) and dust proof
but new mFT cameras and lenses are made for 1-3 years and just for beginners and amateurs as bad as Sony does with NEX
A heavy price for profit... and we have to pay for the criminal faults of management!
QuarryCat: "than" not "then"..
Sorry, couldn´t help myself having read your rants.
Though I must acknowledge you have your Oly camera experience and that´s it. I sincerely hope you will fare better in the future.
KonstantinosK: But, but... Does it offer a cure for DSL-Arm lengthening? Will my arm get short back to normal after I switch to Olympus? If not, this all is a fraud.
Haha, that was a nice angle... ;-)
msowsun: "half the the size of a DSLR, but with all the power"
How can it have all the power with a sensor that is almost 4 times SMALLER?
All the power of a DSLR *camera*, not neccesarily a "full" format one, and not literally meant as "the full power of a 'full' format *sensor*"!!
Of course I didn´t read the minds of Oly's copywriters, but...well if you get what I mean you do...perhaps you just don´t... Anyway, "full power of..." leaves some leeway of how to interpret it...and some for a bit of...dare I say it: humour!
falconeyes: The Pro line of Olympus lenses are a good example that large mm aperture-diameter lenses for smaller sensors are expensive to make.
The 7-14mm is probably meant to match the Nikon, but in equivalent terms, it is 14-28/5.6 for Olympus vs. 14-28/2.8 for Nikon. I wonder if Olympus couldn't have made it F2.0 to match F4 lenses at least. OTH, the Olympus already at that aperture isn't much cheaper than the Nikon (which is expensive indeed).
The 16mm F3.6 equivalent prime is nice but expensive too.
Technically correct, what you are saying, all of it, (at the time of writing this). But that is a characteristic of the m4/3 system as a whole. Those into it KNOW this, thus do not necessarily care that much. Equivalency rants are now all over the place, since a number of years, and I feel it´s time to let go for all of you who bother sooo very much about it. The system is here, it has some advantages and a few disadvantages, but it is FOR THOSE who need the merits of it that it exists. And WE don´t need the equiv rants anymore. As if we ever did... ;-) Not out to take your right to complain away from you of course, I just couldn´t help myself...
Astrotripper: Weird, surprisingly sensible price. It is significantly cheaper than Canon and Nikon full-frame wides (although those have a benefit of extra shallow DOF, which is probably not a big deal for most users), and only $150 more expensive than the new Sigma. So that looks like a pretty good deal, assuming it performs well.
It even looks better considering that APS-C DSLR users' only option is manual Samyang 16/2. And I don't think any other mirrorless system has a 24mm equivalent that is so fast.
So, good for Fuji users, their system is shaping up nicely.
@Just a Photographer:
(deep) DOF is exactly what many wide angle shooters are looking for!SHALLOW DOF is not, though. So simple, so few words needed to describe that. ;-)
Terry Breedlove: Not worth the money if comparing to a FF lens. Nikon sells the 20 f1.8 cheaper and is rumored to have a 24 mm f 1.8 on the way which should be even cheaper yet and have better depth of field control.
@Terry Breedlove (regarding your main post):
This lens fits a Fuji camera, which is THE point when evaluating if this lens is something to get or not, of course.
For those living in FF-world the launch of this lens would normally be of ZERO interest. Well, if not to get a reason to spread some more "this is worse than FF"-bull.
I wouldn´t bother to comment, or bash, a new Canon handgrip for one of their cameras, since it would not fit my OMD anyway...
And I wouldn´t dive into a MTB bicycle thread to spread the "important info" that a roadracer is better IF you want to race roads...
It´s "selfies" not "selphies". ;-)
Got cha; now, it seems you are as good at spelling as you possess knowledge for real about what Nikon 1´s are capable of.
My sister has a V1 to her and her family´s great satisfaction. It focuses faster than my OM-D E-M5 does with native m43 glass...and images are GREAT seen on a computer screen or on a large hi rez TV!! Period.
Of course noise at hi iso or at dark shooting conditions is worse than from the M-5 but they are different kinds of cameras/systems, so for those who need/want the speed and size advantage the 1-series is absolutely not "sh*t" like you seem to believe. "Believe", not know!
(I may have spelled something wrong, but English isn´t my first language)
End of rant, just had to...
brownie314: No selfie mode - me not buy. Oh wait - it has it - check.
It´s "selfies" not "selphies".
My sister has a V1 to her and her family´s great stisfaction. It focuses faster than my OM-D E-M5 does with native m43 glass...and images are GREAT seen on a computer screen or on a large hi rez TV!! Period.
stanislaff: I have and still use two Olympus DSLR and one Pro lens - 14-54 II. I was waiting for E-M1 to be sure that I would use my 14-54 while having an up-to-date sensor. Regarding the huge price of E-M1 and the absence of cheaper alternatives able to use fully my main lens I realize, that I will never switch to u4/3, cause price-wise and IQ-wise there are a lot of better solutions, then invest into pro lenses and bodies from Olympus. Size and weight is not an issue for me, moreover I already have Samsung NX1000 as a travel camera, so I decide to buy a FF DSLR in the near future. The prices of E-M1, pro 7-14, 12-40 and 40-150 are just prohibitively high.
Well put, Marty4650!! And they (the new PRO m4/3 lenses) are generally cheaper than their FF "counterparts" too. And of course also much much lighter and more compact than them ;-)
M DeNero: Fantastic! Now if Olympus would just learn to produce a midrange 12-60ish zoom that isn't junk like the ones they offer now.
You mean the Zuiko 12-40/2,8 is junk???
Oh my...strange, since that´s one of the better medium range zooms there is, overall.
If used w a newer m4/3 camera it offers high enough resolution/sharpness that you can (almost) compensate the lack of those last 20mm in the tele end by cropping the image, if you need "60mm". Related to using the old 12-60 on the best of the 4/3 cameras, which had 12 Mpix, vs the new lens on the newer m4/3 camera´s 16 Mpix.
Or did you mean to diss the 12-50/3,5-6,3? Ok, it´s not as good as the old 12-60 or the 12-40, of course...but it´s not that bad either.
M DeNero: Are those cameras really large? Or is Mr. Imano really small?
The image was probably shot with a smartphone = @wideangle, making the foreground large relative to the background.
Greg VdB: I think this is a very fair review, well done DPR! I just wished that all "interesting" cameras were reviewed as quickly... (the K-3 definitely deserved the same level of priority, if not more so because it is potentially a very important camera for a much wider audience!)
From only a price perspective, the K-3 would be a much much more potential "christmas present" than would ever the DF.
Seriously, du you really consider christmas to be a factor for decisions on which cameras to review first, really??
And, I may add that DPR´s influence is most probably valid for the more hobbyist kind of readers than for the average public. But, among the hobbyist segment of readers/buyers, many base their interest from what they have read in reviews (and previews) thus I might say that to publish a K-3 review may have been more interesting, generally, for DPR readers, than would a DF review. And, frankly, I don´t think most of either of those 2 models mainly were sold as christmas presents at all.
Teru Kage: What's the X-sync? I've seen it reported as 1/180 and 1/200 for external flash (1/250 for built-in).
Oly´s press release (upwards in this DPR page...) says X-synk is at "1/200", and says nothing about a difference in x-synk speed betw built in or extended flash.
thx1138: Is this replacing the E-M5 or will we see a successor to that camera as well at some point?
@thx1138:"at some point" is the keyword. Of course the E-M5 will be followed, but not yet.
ybizzle: You can buy used EM-5 bodies for around $500 these days so why bother with this? That's what I paid for mine at a local camera shop. Why pay more and get less?
@ybizzle:If the used price of any camera (or other commodity) would be the benchmark for manufactturers when they try to price position their new products, how would ANY market work, in your book???
Studpid statement, really. And I am a nice person, in spite of writing this...
PhotoHawk: Truly disappointing - nothing new here. It is the same Olympus strategy we've seen before. The same box, slightly different dials, same IQ, same sensor, the same performance. Do you want fries with this or do you want home fries.
Think back to the EP1, EP2, EP3, EPL1, EPL1s, EPL2, EPL3, EPM1, E600, E620,E5. All use the same sensor and pretty much have the same IQ. Different form factors but we don't even have that really in three models of OMD.
If someone can slam Canon for reusing the 18 MP sensor in many bodies then we should be critical of Olympus as well.
Now Fuji - thats exciting! They are moving the bar forward fast. And say what you want about Sony but clearly they are moving quicker as well.
@PhotoHawk: WELL...ever thought about such a minute thing as PRICE??? In swedish kronor, I paid about 12000+ sek for my E-M5 w 12-50 kit lens, just over a year ago. Now this new E-M10 will set one back at 7400 sek w the new miniature kit lens. Quite a quick and nice development, price wise, since they both offer (near) the same IQ (talking about the body, the new kit lens is unknown yet as regards its IQ)
Olympus said when E-M5 was presented that there would follow both higher and lower level cameras in the OMD-guise! It´s ok they have very similar IQ of course, but lets you choose from their equipment/features/shapes etc. Really good in my book!
munro harrap: Is it still a half-frame sensor? that IS the question
(M)4/3 is a fourth of the area of a FF (24x36mm), not half of it!
Hmmm...IF Fuji will lauch this camera in a few days, we can be SURE that DPR already knows a lot about it in this very moment I´m writing these words ;-)
They simply have to say "we´re not sure whether Fuji will have anything new to announce..." even though they most certainly DO know what this camera will be like.
It´s ok, just couldn´t help to note...
The new images of it indicates a real beauty is in the pipeline...niiice!
marike6: Locking exposure dials a la the Nikon Df? Any amount of money that DPR loves this camera and the dials from day one. :-)
Part of what makes the X cameras at least interesting is the rangefinder design, the whole poor man's Leica thing.
What is the point copying a DSLR body styling? It's has no bright Pentaprism so why the pseudo pentaprism housing?
This is a head scratcher move from Fujifilm that is for sure. No FF, just an X camera dressed up as a DSLR. Has anybody asked why?
The main thing with the absence of a mirror isn´t the taking away of the "hump"!
It´s the quiite notable reduction of the depth of the camera body, which makes it easier to make it compact. A "hump" also will make it possible to make the body´s width a bit less, and its height except for the hump itself can be a bit less too.
Many have already stated much of this, but I found noone mentioned the depth reduction as a reason for the basic mirrorless design.