Olympus is doing just fine, targeting serious photographers rather than brainless consumers.
From all the full frame and APS-C cameras I've used and owned, the OM-D and PEN E-P5 are absolutely stunning little cameras. They have done an incredible job there.
The problem is that quality (e.g. metal body) is expensive, and consumers tend to opt for cheap DSLRs instead. M43 has always been held back by the fact that the system is more expensive than a Nikon DX or Canon Rebel. And many tourists just want the biggest camera out there and opt for a 6D or 5D3 right away.
Olympus builds premium products that are usually at the end of the GAS pipeline: cheap Rebel (too limited) --> full frame DSLR (too clumsy) --> Olympus OM-D.
The problem with that is a limited market. The Rebel line is where the money is.
Mikhail Tal: Note to Simon Joinson: The Panasonic GX7 preview still has 40% more comments than the Canon 70D preview, even though the 70D preview has been up longer and been updated with sample images while the GX7 hasn't yet. Time to reevaluate your decision to skip reviewing many m4/3 cameras.
@yabokkie: on a similar note McDonalds continues to serve millions upon millions of crappy hamburgers and people buy them.
Enjoy your garbage Rebel with 18-xxx f/3.5-5.6 kit lens anchored around your neck like all the other tourists
RichRMA: You know what is interesting at high ISO? Not only is the Canon not much less (marginally) noisy than the noisy Nikon D7100, but Pentax's KIIs and K-01 have FAR less noise at (for example) 3200 ISO and (it appears) no more noise than the Canon 6D which is FF!!
Intriguing since those Pentax cameras have the exact same Sony sensor as the Nikon D7000.
Ladisai: If you don't use APS-C cameras and are devoted to stay away from it, please just carry on. Don't flood this with useless comments. It's a waste of time for you and other people. A lot of people are still interested in APS-C cameras and actually read comments here.
@grumpycat: the Fuji X-E1 and X-M1 are just the equivalents of Canon Rebels wrapped in a nice-looking but awfully low quality plastic shell.
Why you would invest in that plastic garbage over a Canon or Nikon is beyond me, and the size advantage is not there either.
MichaelAperture: Another 3.5 to 5.6 lens? I'm afraid if this is the level of ingenuity that Nikon now has, it might be time to sell off what I have and head to Canon or Sony before it's too late.
Canon is even worse at this game than Nikon. Not a single EF-S prime, and just a bunch of terrible 3.5-5.6 zooms.
This is roughly the same range as the RX-100 lens and at a similar equivalent speed. Why all those dumb people keep dragging their D90/D7x00 around with these slow zooms is beyond me. An RX-100 slips into the smallest of pockets and takes the same pictures, if not better.
The DX system needs f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms, if not it's a pointless system.
@goshigoo: "Also, IQ wise, 6D + 85 f/1.8 @ f/2.4 could be better than this lens.35mm FF still has it's value when shallow Dof is needed"
No. A Leica full frame camera is king, yes, but by no means good value. Canon and Nikon FF cameras are for dorks. What's the point of all this shallow DoF when your ridiculous camera gets in the way all the time. A full frame DSLR is to photography as a cargo truck is to driving cars.
A cargo truck is what professional truck drivers use to get a load from A to B, sure, but in my spare time I'd much rather enjoy driving a fine German or Italian automobile.
And in this realm, a Leica M9 or Sony RX1 really wins. But the system Panasonic and Olympus have built up is a very fair alternative, with great lenses.
Rod McD: I understand why some people might want one, but it's not for me. Nor do I want the faster XF55-200, as good as it is. Or the 56/f1.2. I'm with those who think Fuji need to offer a small (ie modest speed) telephoto prime around say 85/90mm f2 or 100mm/2.8. That would provide an AF lens with some reach, a step up from the 18-55mm zoom, and still capitalize on the mirror-less advantage of small size. If I want a case full of big zooms, I may as well stay with a DSLR.
@samhain: I think the 50mm and 85mm equivalent focal lengths are pushed by ancient lens design restrictions and not by actual function. I find 40mm equivalent far more useful for walkaround and 100-150mm equivalent far better for portraiture.
Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is a good example.
If you're shooting video on a GH2/GH3/type of camera, this is great news.
For photo, this is a pointless gadget though. $450 will buy you a D3100 which is not much bigger than an OM-D, will get you images as good as any M43 camera + autofocus.
Tower: How many people to spend that money to get this sort of cameras?
People would spend this money just on the lens, if it were good enough.
birdbrain: Forgetting the size aspect for the moment, the sort of money this camera is going for I would get a Canon 5D3. Having used the 5D3 for a while now and seen what the real world results that one can get, then I can live with its size and with carrying it around.
This really needs to be a whole lot cheaper, or are Sony the new Leica? :)
People always forget the lens, or use a turd of a lens.
Canon 5D3: $2800Canon 35L: $1400
Keep in mind that the Sony is significantly more portable, and Zeiss lenses >>> Canon L.
I like how the Fuji X system is expanding. From my personal experience I prefer the new Olympus lenses to the Fuji lenses though. The Olympus primes (12mm, 45mm, 75mm) seem several times sharper and produce stunning images.
Another problem with Fuji is the size of the lenses. The pancakes are there, which is a good thing, but it seems that compact tele lenses are completely out of the question. So if you are traveling with a kit, your bag won't be much smaller than with Nikkor glass. If lenses are as big as Nikon DX/FX lenses, why not just go with a Nikon?
The Fuji 35mm f/1.4 performs *very* similar to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and the Fuji 18-55 f/2.8-4 performs eerily similar to the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8-4.5, which is respectable, but just not nearly as good as similar Olympus or Nikon glass.
Which leads me to my final point, that Fuji is producing cameras that on paper are a dream come true, but in real-life use turn out to be nothing more than a stylized EOS Rebel minus the L glass.
Juck: A slow, manual focus 300mm mirror lens? That on anyone's shopping list?
the da* 16-50 is ridiculously soft at 16mm.
Olympus, Sony, Fuji, Nikon: this is your cue to launch a full frame mirrorless Leica killer!
Mike99999: Rather than this lens I'd have DX 18mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 brothers for the 30mm f/1.4.
I guess in a way this lens is a lot like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: very narrow range but replaces a number of non-existant primes. I wonder if the price will be similar to the 11-16 as well.
The 20mm f/1.8 from Sigma is too soft, too dark, and too big for APS-C. What I'm talking about is f/1.4 primes for APS-C, just like the 30mm f/1.4, just wider.
Besides, for those who have tried it: the difference in bokeh between the excellent Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 on DX, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 on FX, is very very faint.
At the wide end there is a slight difference in amount of OOF blur, while at the long end the difference is negligible (due to the DX lens being slightly longer at 85mm equivalent).
Rather than this lens I'd have DX 18mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 brothers for the 30mm f/1.4.
RichRMA: $1000 and you can't change the lens. Why would anyone considering spending that kind of money (or less even) give up that ability? Don't say "pocketability" because an Olympus E-PM2 (has OM-D sensor) with a Panasonic 14mm pancake will kick the c--- out of this Nikon and be able to change lenses, for FAR less money.
The OM-D sensor is equal to the D7000 sensor.
A smart man chooses the micro four thirds with 20mm f/1.7. Even if you never want to change lenses, you will have the ability to upgrade the body in the future without paying for a new lens.
007peter: * WOW * color me impressed. I admit that I make fun of EOS-M, but this lens, alone is making me reconsider my opinions about EOS-M
1. AF Speed isn't critical when it shoot WIDE ANGLE landscape. Unlike telephoto, your subject will be stationary buildings instead of a moving person. 11-22mm STM strengthen the argument for EOS-M.
2. Massive Price drop from $799 to around $400 + 22mm STM kit makes it hard to resist.
I can buy a single Panasonic 20mm/1.7 lens for my M43, but it would cost me around $350. Yet, for just $75 ~ $100 more, I can pickup an EOS-M + 22mm STM lens.
When I had my Canon DSLR, I refuse to buy the 10-22mm because it doesn't have an IS. Now that canon has one with IS....and in such a tiny package..... I'm really excited about this lens.
EOS-M + 11-22mm STM would make a great single traveling lens. It may be the only lens I need for traveling.
If you are ok with f/5.6 zooms, you should just pick up a Sony RX-100.