Hubertus Bigend: A camera with a 600mm (eq.) super telephoto lens but no viewfinder (and no connector to attach one of the existing external viewfinders) is like a gun without a sighting device. With none of them you'll manage to even aim at what you want to shoot.
This type of camera is aimed at the kind of people that don't care about that.
burnin: Actually, it reveals Olympus as being dickheads for leaving out 5-axis image stabilization in the OM-D E-M10.
That's just marketing. I wouldn't care to much about it. There's probably almost no difference between the 3-axis of the E-M10 and the 5-axis of the E-M5. They just need to differentiate the products...
GodSpeaks: Ohhhh, a 12mm f2 Samyang in MFT mount. And a 10mm f2.8.
@yabookie the troll: if you need a 24/1.4 then you are looking at the wrong system with m43. A lens of that size is just ridiculous on a compact system.
But until Sony releases a small 24mm for their A7/R (similar to their 35mm), the Olympus 12/2 is the best compact 24mm eq. out there.
Why anyone would buy the Samyang for m43 is beyond me. It is an APS-C lens. It's large and probably nowhere near as good as the Olympus.
Rmel26: This has just made me consider getting the Panasonic 35-100 F2.8 lens for micro 4 3. Since I already have the micro 4 3 bodies, all I really need is a fast zoom in one body and my 20mm in another. I see the 35-100 now selling below 1000 in EBAY. I think this is a better approach for those with micro 4 3 system
The dirt-cheap (yet excellent) Olympus 40-150mm is equivalent to a f/2.8-4 on a 1" sensor like the RX10.
Nevertheless the RX10 is a really cool camera, and puts the entire Nikon 1 line to shame.
@yabookie: the m43 policy has been to make compact lenses. My favorites are the 12/2 and 75/1.8, which are 24/4 and 150/3.6 equivalent. You can't find anything that compact yet that sharp on full frame, let alone APS-C.
itsastickup: No bokeh no buy.
You have to pay a bomb to get anywhere near the bokeh of an APS-C 35/1.8.
m4/3 is fine for many purposes, but without affordable bokeh it's off many of our radars.
That 25/1.2 should be a maximum $200.
Who are they kidding. Grow up, Olympus. Get some cojones and do what you know you have to do.
If you are referring to the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G, that lens has the worst bokeh of all the lenses I've ever used.
itsastickup: It's a beautiful camera.
Show me the bokeh, show me the bokeh, show me the bokeh!!!
And not at $900, FFS. These clowns won't crack mirroless until they realise that the common man wants everything but his kid's face out of focus. And he gets it from APS-C for less than $200
More whining from people who don't know what they are talking about.
The cheap Olympus 45/1.8 provides the same amount of background blur as a Canikon 50/1.8 but the bokeh is far, far better. And I don't know a single APS-C lens that has bokeh as beautiful as the Olympus primes.
BBking83: So... 10 years ago when the first 4/3 camera came out, no one complained about the lack of bokeh. The Olympus E-1.
I can guarantee that all the "no bokeh, no buy" spokes people never knew this and will refuse to recognise or accept that it's the SAME SIZE (regarding sensor) as this.
And every other m4/3 camera.
My Leica 25/1.4, Olympus 45/1.8, Olympus 75/1.8 and Olympus 40-150mm all provide plenty of bokeh.
The 75/1.8 is competitive with full frame. It's like carrying a 150/3.6 IS. And it's tiny. It's awesome.
People are a bunch of whiners...
Everyone wants cheap cameras that deliver miracles, and then whine and whine about oil spots, shutter shock and light leaks... acting like little kids.
*** If you want professional performance, don't buy an entry-level camera ***
My D7000 had oil spots all the time. I just wiped them off with a simple lens cleaner kit. It takes 2 seconds. The D7000 is still regarded as one of the best APS-C DSLRs of all time.
And with all the effort in the world I cannot reproduce the E-P5 shutter shock nor the A7 light leak problems that everyone is whining about. Instead, I'm shocked by the level of technology I can purchase at such low prices.
I bet those engineers at Nikon had the most ambitious of hopes with the Nikon 1 system. Then I imagine some meetings where annoying Nikon executives kept pushing down the sensor size for it not to cannibalize DSLR sales.
I imagine those people arguing that even 4/3 sensors are too close to DSLRs, the sensor must be made smaller!
What a shame.
DonSantos: Well I'm about so sell my "gold" award x-e2 with the awesome fuji 35mm 1.4 and upgrade the the "silver" sony a7 + zeiss 55mm 1.8.
Am I crazy?
Smart move. The Fuji 35/1.4 is nice, but the Zeiss 55/1.8 is another league.
I don't understand the light leak issue. The instructions to test for it instruct you to tape over all the gaps on the lens and lens cap, and then shoot a long exposure at ISO 25600. When I take pictures, I usually take off the lens cap. Wouldn't infinitely more light enter through the lens than through the 'light leak'?
bzanchet: Canon g1xII, fuji xm1 or olympus em10? Hard to decide! I have a sony rx100 and I am considering to replace it.
Why do people use this mindset?
Chose which lens(es) you need, then get the matching camera. If you will be using kit lenses I don't think there's a need to replace your rx100.
If the output of this camera at ISO 200 is "not good", "unacceptable", "noisy", blah, blah, blah, as so many posters claim, and there are two stops difference between m43 and FF, does that mean that the output of Nikon FF cameras at ISO 800 is "not good", "unacceptable", and "noisy"?
No, it means that the Olympus camera is missing native ISO 25, 50 and 100 in order to compete with ISO 100, 200 and 400 on full frame cameras.
I still fail to understand why these ISO modes are not available on micro four thirds...
cantsin: All currently available Micro Four Thirds cameras suffer from too many/too small pixels on their sensors, resulting in worse signal-nosie-ratios and limited high ISO/dynamic range compared to its APS-C competitors. In these days, there's not even a size or cost advantage of Olympus OM-D series over Sony's, Fuji's and Samsung's mirrorless offerings.
MFT could be much more competitive if Megapixels were cut. An MFT camera with a 9 Megapixel sensor could be as good in color, dynamic range and high ISO as a Nikon D800 with its 36 Megapixels (if one considers that MFT has 25% of full frame's sensor surface).
@Marty4650: my Sony FE 35/2.8 is about the same size and weight as my Olympus 17/1.8 (35/3.6 equivalent). Guess which lens renders nicer images?
Matthewson: I really don't understand the push for mirrorless cameras. The latest installments from Olympus look like SLR's from the outside, with a "pentaprism" of sorts sitting on top. I'd vote down anything that adds cost, complexity, and battery draw. Peering at a tiny video of your scene serves only to separate the photographer further from his subject. The original OM line had reflex mirrors, and were compact. The only gripe I had back then, in the 80's, was the strap lugs dug into my palms. From the look of it, they're still putting those nasty strap lugs on their cameras.
I also don't understand the push for LCD screens. CRTs do just fine.
mrdancer: "As an optics manufacturer, we know that it isn’t as simple as saying 'a bigger sensor always delivers better image quality than a smaller sensor'. It's more complicated than that. It’s a combination of multiple factors including lens resolution, sensor and image processing. "
This is kind of a slap in the face to many of the trolls here!
@Lab D. If you go on DxOMark and compare the E-M1 to the A7 (roughly the same price) you'll see that the A7 is 2 stops better at noise performance at all ISOs. If you compare the base ISOs of both cameras the difference is even more dramatic.
The biggest flaw of these Olympus cameras is that they lack ISO 25, 50 and 100 (which would be the equivalent of ISO 100, 200 and 400 on full frame). Shooting an Olympus camera is like having a camera that can't go lower than ISO 800.
Don't get me wrong, I love my E-P5, but sensor performance is not the strong point.
Daniel from Bavaria: Maybe its a bit slow for the one other thing, but therefore it is quite small and lightweight and it seems that optically it is very, very good. Therefore I do not really understand all the bashing here.
I am a Canon and Fuji X user and think that Sony is doing great for the whole camera industry - they are playing the pioneer in many areas. Only Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are also in that ballpark, but FF only comes from Sony. Canon and Nikon are still waiting with their thumbs up in their - you know what - . If you like the handling of the Sony cameras or not is just a matter of preference, but technically they are doing really well. Very interesting times for all of us!
@Dave Oddie: "Sony seems to be shying away from fast lenses for this series of camera."
What are you talking about? The Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 is coming out next month...
Akusai: Admittedly, it seems to be a very nice lens. But still - it looks a bit oversized on the a7r. And concerning the price - if I compare it to the only lens in this weight-class I could find - the Olympus M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 (nearly same field of view) - I have to admit, it seems like quite a bargain. Especially considering the Sony is for a much larger lensmount. Now, if someone (Sigma, Tamron) could provide something like the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 for Sony FE mount - that really would make my mouth water.
@Runi. I own the Olympus 17/1.8 and the Sony 35/2.8, I shoot them side by side. The Olympus is by no means a superior system. It gets the job done, but the IQ coming out of the Sony is simply two leagues higher.
For everyone who is comparing this tiny lens (the size and weight of an Olympus 17/1.8) to the Sigma 35/1.4... the Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 is coming next month.
Heaven is for real: People who are complaining about the price of this awesome premium lens should find a new hobby, passion or business...
What are you guys talking about? Premium? I guess the USA is getting a bad deal here. The Sony 35/2.8 costs $550 in Japan, which is around the same price as an Olympus 17/1.8 and far less than a Fuji 24/1.4. This lens is well priced for what it delivers.
And how is it similar to the Canon 40/2.8? That Canon lens is soft and a far easier focal length to design for.
yabokkie: these new Sony lenses are quite standard performers among similar lenses, with typical characteristics that we expect from similar designs.
why the readings are higher is because a different ruler with different measurement unit was used (Roger Cicala 2013/12/15 "Sony A7R: A Rising Tide Lifts All the Boats?" and FE35/2.8 is just one boat among many).
I'd appreciate if the reviewer had stressed it in the review, that every camera is a unique measure with unique units of its own, to avoid (honest or intentional) misreadings and keep DPReview a better place.
Troll. According to the DP Review measurements, the Sony lens seems to be an incredible amount sharper than the Canon 40/2.8 and significantly sharper than the Canon 35/2 IS. Both are recent releases.
Every normal person will use a Canon lens on a Canon body and a Sony lens on a Sony body. The Sony-combo is obviously wiping the floor with the mediocre Canon setups.