These results are quite astounding.
A clear indicator that cameras with mirrors and off-sensor AF units are on the way out.
Can't wait for the Sony announcement!
With the FF NEX around the corner, even if the D600 drops to $1000 I would not touch it.
Buying a FF Nikon or Canon is like buying a giant CRT screen. It's ancient technology. The D600 and 6D are a desperate last fart from Canon and Nikon to push their remaining stock as the world switches to mirrorless.
dbt1983: I get it that you are all upset from Nikon's trick, but is it an option to choose when you want to switch to FX?
I own D7000 and I have really hard time deciding if to switch to D610 or to switch over to Canon... What would you do?
Moving to FX will force me to buy new lenses (yes, I know I can still use my DX lenses, but let's assume I want to have the right gear, meaning FX lenses), so for me switching to FX or Canon is the same thing. I really don't know what to do.
I hate Canon shutter noise, but besides that they are great.
I own a D7000 and a Canon 6D. I can tell you this: don't switch to Canon.
At this point in time, I'd wait to see how the FF NEX pans out.
fPrime: OMG... Did Dpreview actually admit here that the D600 has a sensor oil/dust issue? And all it took was a incremental model number change by Nikon! Imagine if Nikon had released a D810 as well... Dpreview might have also had the guts to finally acknowledge the Left AF focusing defect instead of hiding their heads in the sand for a year.
Indeed. I can't believe it that DPR finally admitted that Nikon blundered.
mpgxsvcd: I think it is funny how most Pro’s scoff at m4/3s for its not fast enough AF and its overpriced lenses. I will put the 25mm F1.4 Leica lens on the GH3 up against this any day. That combo is about $1400 now. With the extra money left over I could probably get the 35-100mm F2.8, 42.5mm F1.2, and the 12mm F2.0.
This lens is simply for people who want to have something that no one else wants to buy.
@Jogger. Nothing wrong with a damned good and tack-sharp 50mm f/2.8 equivalent lens such as the Panasonic Leica. $500 is not a bad deal if the optics are excellent. I'd rather pay $500 for a great lens like this, than $200 for a mediocre lenses like the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
@mpgxsvcd. Those comparisons make no sense. Apples and oranges.
Stupidco: Your report states 'mounting a camera on a tripod significantly counteracts shake'. It would follow that nothing within the camera causes shake. The shake must result from the interaction between the operator and the user. It might arise from the use of the camera without a viewfinder: holding the camera at arms length in tourist fashion. It might arise from personal bodily tremors beyond parameters recognized by the camera. It might arise from attempts to defeat the stabilization function. It might arise from inappropriate camera settings. Maybe the technology is underdeveloped. Maybe camera manufacturers are trying too hard, or promising too much. Or maybe some camera users don't really like photography.
The problem is that DPR is funded by Nikon and Canon (why else do you think Canon and Nikon reviews appear mere days after the cameras come out).
Now that Olympus has a camera that beats the IQ of everything but the most expensive Canon and Nikon models, DPR switches to sabotage mode.
This kind of review which highlights some obscure malfunction on every page of the review is extremely unprofessional.
RichRMA: Unless you bought this thing solely to mount a pancake lens and pocket it, it serves no purpose not done far better by the E-M5 or the M1. No EVF in a camera with its cost and sophistication is ridiculous. By that I mean buying it is ridiculous.
Bogus. I use my PEN cameras in combination with a 40-150mm because this fits in my jacket breast pocket when in the mountains. An OM-D with the same lens does not fit, because of the added bulk.
The beauty of this combination is that I can have the EVF in another pocket ready for when I need it. The key is that I don't need to take off my backpack.
And yes, when shooting in the street I can use the 20mm pancake and slip the camera in an even smaller pocket.
This is why I prefer the PEN over any other camera. It adapts perfectly to my small camera needs.
cadet stimpy: Since 2010 I've taken a guestimated 50,000+ shots on various E-P1, E-PM2, EM-5 and EP-5 and never noticed shutter shock, though I only use primes and never pixel peep. I find the IBIS excellent for handheld slow exposures. I have gripes about the e-p5 but shutter shock isn't one of them...
I've noticed it when I attach a non-Olympus lens to the camera and forget to enter the correct focal length.
When the lens is configured correctly I've never ever seen this issue on any of my PENs.
Laszlo13: Could the blurring be due to the new Auto IS? Andy stated they're well aware of shutter shock, and this isn't it (i.e. putting the camera on a tripod greatly reduced the negative effect). I was wondering if it was tested with both Auto IS - and normal IS? Could it be that the camera is picking up the up / down motion of actuating the shutter as vertical panning?
I get this kind of double-blurring when I attach a non-Olympus lens and configure the wrong focal length for the IS.
Never seen it using an Olympus or even Panasonic lens though. I took hundreds of pics on a recent trip to Italy with my EP-5, not one of my images has this double blur.
Based on the sample images this lens is incredibly soft between 100 and 200mm. This really doesn't look any better than a cheap Nikkon 55-200mm.
JEROME NOLAS: Yes, great camera, great lens. Costs more than D600+24-85mm combo....
E-M1 doesn't suffer from oil all over the sensor, doesn't have lousy AF.
mr_landscape: It`s a pity that Fuji having such excellent lenses, use relatively small sensors in their cameras ..
Relative to what? Only Leica offers a mirrorless system with a larger sensor than the Fuji.
@yabokkie: "no matter who makes the lens how much does it worth if it can have similar resolution and aberrations as say Canon 135/2L?"
These arguments are garbage. If the Oly 75mm f/1.8 and Canon 135 f/2 are equally sharp with similar distortion on bodies with a similar MP count, then they are worth the same money. On DxOmark it seems that their sharpness is similar.
The light gathering / DOF argument is garbage. Usually you either want to maximize or minimize the DOF. In one case the FF sensor wins, in the other case the m43 sensor wins. If smaller sensors were to cost more than big ones, you'd probably be arguing the opposite argument.
The light gathering of a sensor is directly defined by how much of the surface gathers light and how much goes to waste to wiring. You can project the exact same light on a FF and a m43 sensor. 10 years ago, FF might have been much more efficient because so much sensor was wasted, but nowadays the difference in efficiency is minute.
yabokkie: it looks that there were two competing teams and one team won.
it's interesting that DPReview call Sony "big brand." I call them third class: 1c, need no words, Canon and Nikon, 2c, make products proudly in own brand, Pentax, Oly, 3c, make products in someone else's brand (not OEM), Sony, Pana, no confidence in their own products.
meh to your list.
1) Leica, Zeiss2) Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony, Fuji, etc.. etc..3) Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc.. etc..
Silver and black? I sense a retro body coming soon.
peevee1: So, they have no lens designers left and have to reuse old designs to issue "new" lenses. :(
The 16-50 f/2.8 is a terrible lens, and for some reason Tokina's best lens the 11-16mm f/2.8 is missing from the lineup. The 50-135mm is stellar though.
NancyP: I have the 60D, and am waiting for the 7D2. I shoot birds and the pixel density of the APS-C cameras is a real plus for me, as is the ability to get a good optical view of the BIF, given the restriction of a 400mm f/5.6 lens. I am hoping that the 70D is not the end of the line for Canon APS-C.
Canon's business model is to sell crippled Rebel cameras that look good on paper but once you use them you want to upgrade.
All of their recent line-up (Rebel, 70D, 6D) are intentionally crippled so that their buyers will find their way to the magical flagship 5D3. This is generally why I avoid Canon.
RichRMA: Could have been another nail in the mirrored DSLR coffin. Should have been. Canon went to the end of the high-dive board, took a look, and walked back.
It's been a while since Canon has made a decent 'photo' camera, but for video they have been doing great and this camera looks to have some of the best video AF on the market.
Still it doesn't look better than an Olympus or Panasonic with plain contrast AF.
BeaniePic: I commented on the day they realised this product, and it seems my insight was correct. (Not blowing my own whistle or anything)....
@yabokkie: most pro photographers seems perfectly happy with a full frame body with f/2.8 zoom. This gives them the flexibility of not needing to swap lenses.
The slew of micro four thirds lenses (12mm f/2, 17mm f/1.8, 20mm f/1.7, 25mm f/1.4, 45mm f/1.8, 75mm f/1.8) provide the same equivalent DoF and light gathering characteristics as those full frame zooms, while being sharper and with less distortion. You trade the zoom for compactness, which is very sensible in many situations.
As a whole, it makes sense.
Nikon 1, from the start, has been a system designed to make mirrorless look bad.
Craig from Nevada: At this point in time, there are too many cameras chasing too few buyers. Very simply a situation of overproduction. The technological/social changes are moving people to nontraditional cameras--the I-phone. All of this has been discussed a length on multiple threads and forums on this site.
Look at the list of forums on this site--some of the names may disappear in the not too distant future, much like the some airlines--remember TWA or American West, Continental. Until supply and demand get into alignment, it is going to be a bonanza for consumers. Your money will go pretty far---hang around the price of the EP-5 will drop a few hundred by Christmas.
Olympus has a problem in terms of having moved from DSLR to mirrorless. The adoption of this approach has been slow in the US and Europe compared to Asia. The Oly forecasts just can't seem to catch up with this lag. Regardless, why pay $700 or $1,000 for a camera when you can get a DSLR kit for far less? Oly has a problem.
"why pay $700 or $1,000 for a camera when you can get a DSLR kit for far less?"
Apart from looking like a dork (because people walking around with DSLRs look like dorks)... a cheap DSLR with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit will not take better pictures than a good compact (RX100) that slips in your pocket. You will only get DSLR-quality if you change the kit lens with something better and that's where the fun starts.
There are no lens options on Nikon DX and Canon EF-S.
There are incredible lens options on micro four thirds.