Hey Nikon-Dumb, ugly and expensive. What were you thinking? These are going to sink like stones.
I hope this camera is really good at higher ISO's, 400 and up. With glass this slow you will be shooting with small apertures, higher ISO's and slow shutter speeds a lot. It just appears that SMALL is THEE most important goal with these designs. I don't know maybe I'm wrong but I thought image quality was THEE most important goal of any camera. I want to see the prints with this lens and the m4/3 Panny's & Oly's at ISO 400 and up. If the camera does well at higher ISO's then Panny has itself a real winner. I get the feeling that m4/3 manufacturers are painting themselves into a corner trying to go smaller and smaller. You've got smallish sensors which struggle somewhat at higher ISO's and they're trying to put small, slow lenses on them that require exceptional performance from the sensor. I vaguely remember, way back when, small rangefinder cameras with full frame 35mm film in them. Hey maybe digital manufacturers could do that too. I must be genius coming up that one.
Yes printing is the only way to really judge a camera's ability. Of course most people didn't comprehend what I was saying and came up with ridiculous statements about how no one prints any more. I'm not saying you have to print every photo you take. Also the person who said photo labs are disappearing and that shows no one prints any more. Really? Seems like there a lot of printers in homes these days. Maybe that is why photo labs disappeared. Hmmm? Gee never thought of that. What I'm saying is that when you print after you've maximized your camera settings and dialed in your post processing, then and only then can you judge a camera's ability. Look at prints sized 8X10 and even larger 11X14. The great majority of people never print larger than that. Also the vast majority of people will think prints coming directly from this camera, with no post processing, will look fabulous at those sizes.Judging by blowing up crops and looking at them on the internet is just for nerds.
Here's what's going to happen. People are going to zoom this thing out and say,"Gosh the pictures are so soft." Anything with a long zoom is going to need to be used on a tripod. No type of IS system will stop movement when a lens is zoomed out that far. Bank on those comments and reactions.
I would never get either too excited or too discouraged by anything I see from default raw shots. When you do the real post processing you can get the quality you want from any of these cameras. A question was asked, " How much do you use ISO 12,800? " Answer:never. If you basing a buying decision on that then you are wasting your time. Learn all you can about how to use the camera you buy, how to post process the images properly or in Oly's case you can use many of the jpegs right out of the camera, they look really good. You do realize don't that you will almost never seen the blown up detail you see on examining these images on this site unless you are printing VERY large prints? Almost no one prints THAT large. And the real post processing on these images isn't even done. So no one should be concerned by these images. Find out what you'd like in a camera that fits your budget and get it. All of these cameras will produce great real world images.
Just like a regular mirror less camera only with a red button on it and costing five to ten times as much. Ho hum.
I tried to read the review but the translation is, shall we say, different. Couldn't really understand it but I got the impression he liked it and it worked well.
Ho hum. So? It's still images on a computer screen. The ONLY way to determine the quality of a cameras' imaging ability is to print them with settings that the photography finds appropriate for his or her usage. You really can't tell much of anything about a cameras' imaging ability by looking at jpegs on a computer. As much dpreview wants to show something with these changes it really doesn't mean anything. I'm sure this camera, based on Oly's history, can make images that will suit almost everyone at print sizes large enough to please 99% of the people. I'm sure you'd be able to print images from this camera that you could display in a gallery and no one would know if they came from a 20k medium format or this camera. Maybe up close, at prints larger than the vast majority of people would ever print, you could tell a difference. But for $800 you can make images that would please almost everyone. No need to spend more unless you are a pro and print very large. Are you a pro? Right!
sensibill: That is some seriously detail-destroying NR... Hope the RAWs are better.
I don't know maybe it's me and I'm not squinting hard enough but the samples shown make me believe that the new Oly can compete with any of these other cameras. All the Oly samples appear to be AT LEAST as good as if not better than the other cameras shown; at least from 1600 down. Even at 1600 with a fast 2.0 lens that should suffice for the majority of people. Looks like a winner to me. There can be so much done with camera settings and post processing that you can get just about whatever look you want so going by simple default settings to judge a camera seems a little silly IMO. As I said, even with default settings the Oly samples look very competitive and in some cases superior. A serious judgment would be done viewing, with the camera set up optimally for any given user and looking at the printed samples.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review