Plastek: Well, at least it doesn't look like a complete, dedicated hipster camera. Good start. Though I still don't get why they can't build equivalent to Sony NEX 6 - it takes full advantage of being mirrorless - truly small size. Why Oly can't do that and need to pretend that they build a DSLR instead?
@Jeffrey. I'd make the lineups a little different.HIgh end - E-P5, E-M5, E-M1Mid range - E-PM2, E-PL5, E-M10.I don't think Oly has a low end. Last year models I guess.
Base it on batteries. It makes the upgrades look more oblivious, or the move down for a more compact body. I just there was a E-PM-like model that took the E-M1 battery.
I really enjoy these articles on the staff's personal choices. I'm sorry to see you have to take some heat for you choice, but I hope you continue these in the future.
u43: I don't understand why dpreview complains of a "lack of detail resolution" in the E-M1's video footage. I can read street signs and car license plates just fine in dpreviews own E-M1 video sample: https://vimeo.com/76649713 And I see no glaring moire or artifacts and just a hint of focus hunting. So I don't understand why reviewers are continually knocking the E-M1's video output.
I agree with both of you. For serious people the E-M1 may lack some features they require, but for the rest of us the video quality is quite good. I love IBIS more than any special frame rate options or higher bit rates.
steven_k: I would have stuck with Olympus, but even with the new EM-1 at base ISO do a comparison RAW ISO 200 to the Fuji X-Pro then hover the blue square on the color checker chart. Olympus has very visible noise where as the Fuji has none.Even at ISO 100 which basically giving the Oly one more stop of light there is still noise. What's up with that?
Don't get me wrong the Olyqmpus is an amazing over all camera, but for me a base ISO shooter, like to shot landscapes at F8, the Fuji produces a noise free image.
How do you compare image quality? I look at my final prints and there isn't a difference between the E-M1/5 or a Fuji body. Maybe at a specific size barrier or specific ISO one might have a noticeable difference, but it's just getting used to your camera. Often I have to add noise to my prints to get them to look more natural as it is. The ultra clean Fuji files aren't exactly an advantage for me.
This isn't a buyer's guide. It's more like a product guide or category guide. Useful, but I expect anything with 'buyers' guide' in the name to give suggestions, especially when the year and season is included on the front page.
Jim in Hudson: I am so clueless about this AF fine adjustment. Why would any on-sensor AF system, whether CDAF or PDAF, need any adjustment at all? If the system is in focus and the system is on the sensor, what is there left to adjust?
Also, what about low light AF sensitivity limit that never gets mentioned? That is where CDAF has always been behind PDAF and so has this new on-sensor PDAF closed the gap at all?
PDAF basically takes a measurement, then tells the lens where to focus. Any little deviation results in the focus being off. Variation in the PDAF sensors themselves (although probably less common when they are in sensor). Variation in the lenses. In older lenses the accuracy of the measurements on how far the focus moved often weren't accurate enough. Canon for example has improved this in their most recent bodies and lens (but you need both to see the benefit). There are a number points where PDAF can be inaccurate and those will vary from body to body and lens to lens.
CDAF looks at the actually light creating the image and works to get the maximum contrast. Although flaws may come in from picking a strong contrast point which isn't where the photographer wants it, or software flaws, it doesn't have the inherent accuracy issues that PDAF does. Better software/algorithms and faster processors improve CDAF. (Well, and fast sensor readouts and proper motors & communication with lens)
ginsbu: Hope I'm wrong, but it still looks as if Oly won't allow exposure comp when using Auto-ISO in M mode.
Overall, though, nice improvements and a very handsome camera. It bodes well for the next OM-D.
I'm not exactly sure how it works on Pentax, but the camera doesn't seem to have enough dials to control exposure compensation in addition to aperture and shutter speed.
On the other hand, with the dual mode dials, you could just click to the second mode and adjust ISO. I suppose it's not auto in that case which might be a pain if the light in changing a lot, but closer than we've gotten in the past.
jacketpotato: There was sufficient body girth (looking at handgrip) to put F2.Maybe even F1.8 with a litte extra portrusion that the phtographers this is aimed at would been fine with .. what a camera that woud have been.
Sorry Plastek, gotta disagree with you. I had the GRD2 and the UI was the best of any compact camera I've ever used and beat some of the larger cameras too. I'm not sure about their compacts. It's definitely should be near the top and probably at the top for most people.
ecm: I didn't get through all 1200+ comments but I'd like to say, it's like DPR set out to troll with this article - brought a lot of fanboys out to play, that's for sure. What fun!
I ended voting for a camera that I thought was the game-changer this year, the Oly EM-5 - even though I would never buy one, it wouldn't suit me at all and it's way out of my price range. I love seeing this kind of fresh thinking - it'll definitely prod the big three and inspire some great things in the future; competition is a wonderful thing.
If the question was, 'Money no object, which one of these would you like to own", I'd never say no if some nice person were to gift me a D800 or 5D MkIII.... anyone?
As far as the money is no object, I'd still pick an E-M5. I can't think of another camera out there I'd pick if I had to give the E-M5 up. I've never been so satisfied with a camera as I am with this one, even after 9 months.
If it was in addition to it, I wouldn't go for a D800 or anything. Give me a technical camera with an IQ180 back and a sturdy tripod.
zinedi: OM-D is not bad. I know that it is a poll about popularity, not innovation, but this word was mentioned here, so I tell my opinion, too.OM-D is innovative especially in it's retro-style, in it's re-entry to Oly OM roots. That is commendable. But in other features OM-D is not as rare as the current position in the poll shows. Don't remember that it has only 4/3 sensor.Fujifilm X-Pro1 has the same "re-entry to roots" idea, but has APS-C sensor too - very innovative no-AA filter, no-Bayer sensor - which is very significant and unique innovation for the last several years. The second significant and unique innovation is the hybrid-OVF/EVF viewfinder. So - camera with two exceptional features and exceptional IQ and exceptional set of quality lenses should have a better position (but it is only my point of view).
The OM-D IBIS is really innovative. How about the live bulb feature which no one else has? The two part grip system? (ok, not the first, but not seen in a long time) How about showing clipping in real time in the finder and LCD? I'm sure there are others I'm missing. The great lens line with the m43s certainly helps too. Even Fuji really doesn't match up yet.
I'd argue the X-Pro1 sensor is a step backwards. If/when a RAW converter is updated to really handle the new sensor then it might come into it's own. The hybrid finder is interesting, but I'm not sure how useful it is as the lens line expands.
Klipsen: I wonder how Olympus fail to sell any significant number of SLRs, when the EM-5 is apparently the best camera of 2012.
I shot Oly SLRs. They were good, but not like what Nikon and Canon put out. The OM-D is a huge step above even their top of the line E-5 SLR.
peevee1: "Apple execs said that LTE is 'potentially faster than a wi-fi connection,' which may be true, depending on your provider. "
Which is generally BS, given that iPhone 5 supports 150Mbps 802.11n, and LTE only goes to 100Mbps (if you are right there on the cell tower).
'depending on your provider' clearly means they are looking at the real speeds you get off the internet, not the hypothetical max you get from your WiFi. With the sorry state of broadband in the US Apple is probably right.
Nate21: The different companies that join a open format means a great selection of products.
From what I understand one difference between 4/3s and m4/3s is the requirements of the companies that join. In the former anyone could join, but they wouldn't have to do anything with the standard. in m4/3s manufacters who join must support the standard (release products). We may see fewer companies in m4/3s, but we will see products from them.