DStudio: Why create a 50MP sensor and then "pre-blur" the image with an AA filter? The applications for the non-R model seem rather limited.
> "Fake Detail" sound like something a Canon loyalist would come up with
It is something used by people who actually understand intricacies and inherit problems of the demosacing algorithms, required to make an image off a sensor with layout, Bayer or X-Trans.
Mssimo: I think this will be a very successful camera. Sony/Nikon/Pentax/Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic photographers have been spoiled with crazy dynamic range but canon shooters know how to optimise the exposure to get the best image possible with 6 year old sensor technology. The big issue with this camera is the price in six months. Nikon and Sony will have 50MP+ super sensors out this year. Those cameras will retail for much less than $3700 US. Canon has great lenses and great body (other than sendor) quality but its time they give in and let someone else create the sensors. The best way I can put this is: Canon is a beautiful, long haired, tan, big eyes, long legged, charming girl with brittish austin powers teeth.
> canon shooters know how to optimise the exposure
"Optimize" means that you sacrifice abundance of something to compensate for the lack of something else. And more fiddling with the settings. Compared to the competition, sensor doesn't give much leeway to sacrifice something.
In the end, Canon shooters may know how. But I doubt many take any pleasure in that.
ThePhilips: Oh. The top LCD.
Another thing I stopped craving, after I went with a mirrorless.
I'm not sure why NX1 has it. Probably because Samsung could do it, and some DSLR users are are simply hanged on the fact that the top LCD is a mark of a premium DSLRs.
Simple truth is that a mirrorless camera doesn't need top LCD. More information is, of course, better and extra display doesn't harm. But all the information is already readily available on LCD and EVF.
The top LCD is a crutch for DSLR where it is still often impossible to have customizable info overlay on LCD and EVF.
bosco1955: Why not going the other way on the ISO....25,50, ?
"Why not going the other way on the ISO....25,50, ?"
Sensors have limited sensitivity range. Last time I heard - 4-5 EV stops. That range is then stretched by electronical and software tweaks to cover the needed range if ISO numbers.
To improve the high ISO performance, low ISOs gets sacrificed.
High ISOs are hard to compensate for, while the low ISOs can still be compensated for by (unwieldy) ND filters.
Timmerdude: After more then 40 years of use Canon products I moved to the Panasonic GH4 because of video.Canon is not listening to it's customers.They will be losing more and more customers!
> but rather wait for a higher model from Canon?
Wait for how long?
Oh. The top LCD.
Miles Lye: If Sony can get IBIS and exceptional high iso performance in the A7RII, then what's the point in upgrading or considering this camera or a Nikon alternative? Why pay more for less? The A7 cameras aren't perfect at all but Sony is making amazing progression in a short amount of time and they listen. After using an A7 and seeing the progression with the A7s and A7II, I don't doubt Sony will make this camera look dated when the A7RII is announced.
"PLUS, the Zeiss lenses for Sony mounts (A/E/FE) are all AUTOFOCUS."
STOP SPREADING THE LIES!
Zeiss Loxia, from the product page: "Revel in the exceptional feel of precise manual focus [...]"
Whole bunch of Zeiss lenses are MANUAL FOCUS only.
But I do not blame you for the confusion. At the price, nobody actually owns them to see what they really are.
Esign: Quotation from the Swedish yacht designer Peter Norlin (1941-2012): “When someone shop for a sailing boat, they look for a very slender and graceful exterior, an extremely roomy interior with full standing height everywhere, and they want it for free”.
And your point is?
The most popular opinion expressed here is that the lines are not so slender, and there is nothing graceful about it.
And it costs more than the one in the neighbor shipyard of competitor.
nicolaiecostel: I hear this again and again and it really bugs me. Pretty please, explain why a wedding photograper need 50 MP ? I shoot weddings since 2008 and I'm perfectly happy printing 25x50 cm album spreads from the 12 Mp D700 or 70x100 cm wall prints. Why on earth would I buy a camera with huuuge file sizes, not that fast, not good in low light and with bad DR, instead of a camera like the D3s/D4?D750/5Dmk3 ?
@nerd2, LOL. Weird choice of language. Do you satisfy your clients with a camera? What lens do you mount for the occasions? :)
Anyway, most displays are 2MP and only now barely reaching 4MP resolution-wise. So, a good 5MP shot would indeed look good to the customer. Because 5MP is still more than 4MP.
4K (8MP) displays are still very very rare among pros and virtually non-existent among customers. But even then, the displays either very huge or have very small pixel. 5MP would still look OK on 8MP because of either viewing distance or the inability to see every individual pixel.
qwertyasdf: If it's really aimed at landscape / studio work, why they don't add a swivel screen?
I can even do a selfie, 50 mega pixels of myself!!!
@Seth, many Olympus cameras (span over decade now) both are weather-sealed and have swivel/fully articulated LCD.
The things are not mutually exclusive. And it was done before many time.
It's just Canon decided not to do it.
kadardr: This announcement surely brought out a legion of trolls getting high on megapixels.
Yes, all the ex-Canon, ex-Canon and ex-Canon users out to hate.
CameraLabTester: Cover all bases.
Let nothing escape.
Take no prisoners.
... but forget to clock the front door...
I thought they would be at least smart to include 4K to go along with their new video-optimized AF system. I was wrong.
Sirandar: Comparing the standard res Mark II images to the original OMD E5, they just don't look as sharp or crisp with the II. Am I missing something? Look at the green feathers...
Also, the addition of a articulating display is very welcome, but can you turn the display to face inwards when not using it? Since even with a screen protector the display tends to rub against stuff and take damage, turning it in would make shooting a much more carefree experience.
My old Pana FZ30 had this feature and I took advantage of it a lot as I tend to use the viewfinder.
@Richard. How can I know why? This is not the first time complaint about blurry shots with the Oly 45mm is raised. And this is not the first time you simply brush it off.
I understand that the studio scene is a lot of work. Which is even more reasons to use the best lens available. And yet.
brycesteiner: The studio shots on the new E-M5 Mk2 appear to be very out of focus for the standard. Was it shot poorly or has Olympus added no sharpening...?
"Given there are only two 45mm primes for Micro Four Thirds and the Olympus one out-scores the Panasonic/Leica Macro in DxO's test [...]"
Oh not this again. DxO numbers for m43 are at best inconsistent. Just compare the GX7 results with the GM1. The two have same sensor and thus should have the same results - and the same lens resolution.
DxO lens/camera scores for m43 are inconsistent at best and should be simply ignored.
"I'd question the 'poorest 45mm' statement, too."
This is pretty much unanimous conclusion of pretty much all users who handled more than one of the lenses, which was reported in many different posts and blog articles, esp recently after the release of the 42.5mm. The rating of the lenses, from best to just good: (1st) PL 1.2/42.5mm, (2nd) PL 2.8/45mm, (3rd) Oly 1.8/45mm. The Oly 2.0/50mm resolution-wise is up there with the 42.5mm.
Thus, yes, Oly 45mm is a "bad" lens, when compared to its near perfect peers.
"Comparing the standard res Mark II images to the original OMD E5, they just don't look as sharp or crisp with the II."
E-M5mk1 studio scene was shot with the Olympus 2.0/50mm lens. (The highest rated lens reviewed by DPR.)
E-M5mk2 studio scene was shot with the Olympus 1.8/45mm lens.
Former costs $650 - later $250. Feel the difference between a premium HG lens for FourThirds - and a plastic one for MicroFourThirds.
All in all, I think DPR simply decided to sabotage the m43 by using the blurry studio shots. There are premium 85mm eq lenses for the m43 - yet review after review they use the cheapest one. Despite all the complains and comments about the blurriness.
Everybody jumped on the comparison with the D810, but IMO comparison with the benchmark Phase One is more revealing. Spoiler: not yet.
I'm pretty sure this year we will see something similar from Sony. They have started toying with the IBIS too after all. And, after all, they are Sony: they will not leave a competitive threat unattended.
Panasonic also has IBIS (at least in one camera) and theoretically can do it. Something like this in GX8 might have been very interesting. Ideally - a firmware update for GX7. After all, the high res mode is mostly a firmware feature.
I do not think it is out of focus. I think it is again their copy of the Oly 1.8/45mm lens playing up. E-M5mk2 wouldn't be the first m43 with the blurry studio scene. Why on earth DPR uses the cheapest and poorest 45mm m43 lens is anybody's guess. In shooting experience they mention the PL Nocticron 42.5mm lens - meaning that they have access to it. But nope, studio scene is still shot with the plastic fantastic Oly 45mm.
VENTURE-STAR: This just seems to be another compact digital SLR with a hint of styling borrowed from the OM-1 film camera of the 70s. Can't say I'm blown away by the OM-D. It's certainly too expensive at the current suggested price.
@Venture: "It's certainly too expensive at the current suggested price."
It's not. Even with original E-M5, Olympus was careful to include enough unique and distinguishing features to justify the price for those who are interested.
The Mk2 doesn't change much, but improves on what what delivered back then.
The E-M5mk2 is again the only compact camera featuring all of these: weather-sealing, freeze-proofing, fully-articulated LCD, large EVF and mind boggling image stabilization. Take away any single feature - and you have competition. But all together... Three years after mk1 - and there are still no alternatives, if you want all that in the package that small.
AllOtherNamesTaken: These cameras would be so much more appealing with PDAF pixels (like Nikon 1-series).
Pretty much no excuse not to have PDAF built in as well these days, especially at $1000+.
@AllOtherNamesTaken, "It's nowhere close yet."
I do not deny the fact that AF-C is lacking. But IMO the current fashion to lump everything into the "action" category is also wrong. For wedding, you simply do NOT need AF-C. AF-S on m43 is very fast. Somebody walking toward you is NOT action.
If it goes on like that, landscape shooters soon would be demanding AF-C to track the tree leaves and grass blades, disturbed by wind. And architecture shooters - for building which might per chance stand up and walk away.