chupacabra1: Comfortable to hold? Really? All other reviews said that the art dial location made it very uncomfortable to hold and that the grip is a must buy to enjoy this camera. I think Olympus really messed up on this design. I think there would be many returns.
All the reviews I've seen on youtube make no mention of the art dial location being uncomfortable. Everyone seems to really enjoy handling and holding the camera. I can't see how the art dial would get in the way of holding the camera unless you have massively large hands and are holding the camera in an odd way. Regarding holding this camera without the grip, I don't think it needs a ham-fisted vice-grip to hold it. I'm a long-time user of a grip-less Olympus E-PM1 Pen that I've added a faux leatherette sticker-covering to (bought from http://aki-asahi.com/store/), and I find that's all I need to enjoy the camera. So I think the leatherette covering on the camera will be fine for most people. Plus, I think most users of this camera will stick to the smaller, lighter, more compact m4/3 lenses in the system.
Dccps: Love the look, but can't even figure out why it is not weather-sealed. Street photography could definitely benefit from weather sealing too. Olympus, what were you thinking? Go to all that trouble to design a really awesome camera with a fatal flaw> I don't get it.
How many street photographers really shoot in rain that is heavy enough to really soak a camera? I don't see a lot of "in the rain" street photography. Is that really a big thing now? I don't think so. But if I were on the street hunting for photos, I'd probably have an umbrella as I walked around looking for shots. Then if I see a shot, I just lift the camera to your eye-- one-handed-- frame my shot, and press the shutter. We're not talking about sports or wildlife photographers with big lenses who may be out in the rain for extended periods time. We're talking about a compact camera that can slip in and out of a bag, or large jacket pocket, at a moments notice to snap a street scene.
rwol1970: I'm still waiting for a real, affordable retro camera:
- Only manual operation- Simple light meter- No monitor (wait until you're home; if you know what you're doing you don;t need a monitor) so you have full attention for real photography
None of these things-- other than the lack of an LCD-- would really lower its cost. But the lack of an LCD would ensure that it would have very limited appeal in the market. As a result, it would be a niche camera with low sales volume, ensuring that it would not be any less expensive than better-equipped cameras. In fact, it'd probably end up being more expensive.
MPA1: Do people still shoot jpegs?
Actually, far more people shoot JPEGs than RAW these days, if you count the bazillions of people shooting images on smartphones. These days, I think a lot of people like the immediacy of JPEGs. I find myself shooting a lot more JPEG today than ever. It allows me to shoot more, and process less, which I prefer. If I were shooting a wedding, I'd shoot RAW, definitely. But in that case, I'm being paid to spend hours in front of a computer processing images.
Theofix: For street photography nothing can match an optical viewfinder with a bright frame and a view outside the frame. Only three cameras are in my opinion ideal for this purpose : Fujifilm X100T, Fujifilm XPro2 and Leica M.
@Theofix - your whole "virtual" vs "reality" rant is just a bunch of silly airy-fairy psycho-babble. It's all in your head. And it's a dated mode of thinking, too. I remember people like you having a similar rant regarding film vs digital images. They said a film image was something "real", that was tangible and organic, while a digital image was artificial, "virtual", and therefore inferior. Blah, blah, blah. In the end, it really doesn't mean anything of consequence. It's just people trying to justify their own preferences by talking non-sense.
Chris Noble: OK, some people like retro-looking cameras, with all their ergonomic compromises. But titling an article "Pride and joy" on a website that claims to offer factual reviews? Why not change your name to "Old-camera-lookalike afficionados"? Or better yet, focus more on timely, factual camera reviews and comparisons?
Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. Relax. Believe it or not, photography and cameras can be an enjoyable pastime for people that goes beyond mere "factual" scientific lab tests and comparisons.
Peiasdf: Another camera without a grip. Anyone know where hipsters keep their fingers when using Leica, Fujifilm and Olympus? No space in their women's jeans.
Yeah, Henri Cartier-Bresson was a "hipster" because his Leica didn't have a grip.
Roland Karlsson: Rangefinder style? The original pen-f was SLR. And this thing has no range finder. Why rangefinder style? It does not even look like a camera with a range finder. This looks like a modern, somewhat more chunky, version of the original pen-f. It is actually beautiful. But, range finder?
In today's parlance, "rangefinder-style" does not literally mean that a camera has a rangefinder mechanism. These days, "rangefinder-style" basically refers to any ILC camera that is flat across the top with an offset viewfinder (ie. no central viewfinder hump). In other words, "rangefinder-style" refers more to its aesthetic design than it's actual mechanical design (ie, the rangefinder mechanics). That's the difference between saying that a camera is a "rangefinder" versus saying it is "rangefinder-style". The former means it literally is a rangefinder, while the latter simply means that it is styled to look like a rangefinder.
Raist3d: dpreview staff - "fashion conscious" and "serious candid (street photog)" are contradictions. Most street photography- or at least a big chunk of it- is candid/stealth and the last thing uou want is to call attention.
This camera seems pretty inconspicuous to me. And it can easily be mistaken for a classic old film camera, which I think seems a bit less threatening than a fancy digital camera.
ekaton: It`s soap box design is only 8mm narrower and 5 mm shorter than the GX8. With the necessary grip added the size will be about the same as will be the weight. So only brand loyalty or design would speak for choosing the Pen, everything else (rational) favors the Panasonic. Time for dpreview to compare these two direct contenders.
"...only 8mm narrower and 5 mm shorter" is actually quite a lot when you compare them side-by-side.
In real life, the GX8 is definitely going to look and feel larger. I really don't see these two cameras as "direct contenders". I think each of these cameras will attract, and appeal to, two different kinds of buyers.
Gesture: I don't think the OEMs understand what the readers of a site like this want:Better camera at less costDurability and weather sealingGreat customer service and warranty service
Your "wants" are costly. The camera industry is shrinking. Constantly getting more and more for less and less money is not sustainable in today's smaller market. Camera companies need to squeeze as much money as they can from every camera model. Selling certain models as "trophy" variants is a good way to do that, at minimal cost to the manufacturer. As another poster mentioned, they need to sell to an audience beyond "readers of a site like this". That's just smart business, and it'll help camera companies survive. You can whine all you want, but someday you might be whining that so many brands have left the camera industry all together because they were driven into the ground trying to please "readers on a site like this" who only wanted more and more, for less and less money.
A bit pricey, but definitely a beautiful little camera. However, I wish the front dial was left un-labeled, so you could just program it to do whatever you wanted it to do.
What I find most interesting is that Sony is so new to the game, and yet they've chosen not to take a me-too approach. I think that can be one of the advantages of having a fresh set of eyes; you end up solving problems in a new and innovative way., and you're not bound by traditional thinking.
webber15: Prefer Canon's way of doing things regarding build and repair...more durable in the long term I seems...
...more repairable with its existing components in the long run. Not so sure that it's necessarily more "durable". But the flipside is that the Canon has more components to get knocked out of whack over time.
mr.izo: omg, sony invented rubber sealing..
The article doesn't say anything about Sony being first with rubber seals in lenses. What the teardown does make note of is the size, quantity, and degree of rubber sealing used in this lens, which is something that we should applaud. It's something that hardly anyone will ever see, but it's good to know that they went the extra mile to provide it to the degree that they did.
Nick932: It seems that a lot of plastic parts are used. Plastic ages and warps overtime.I wonder If this review will be correct in a couple years.
It really depends on the type of plastic used. Most likely, this is a high grade of engineering plastic. And with the possibility of warping, we're talking a very, very long amount of time before you'd see it. And even then, it really depends on the amount of environmental exposure it gets, which is probably not much for the internal components of the lens. So I wouldn't worry about it. Modern high grade plastics are a miracle of engineering science. They are extremely stable and durable.
Besides the price, those two metal clips for the top flap are a deal killer for me. I might be able to live with it if it had just one central clip. But two is a no-go. 20-30 years ago, those clips might have been a good option. These days, I think they could have figured out a better way than old-fashioned clinky metal D-rings and clips.
Hibiscusbloom: Maybe I am just ignorant but why are they putting in so much resources in making a 35mm lens? They are getting not getting any smaller and remain big and chunky. A PJ's lens should always be small and as light as possible.
I have the original 35/1.4L. I too agree that this bigger, heavier 35/1.4L II is a move in the wrong direction. The 35/1.4L MKI is big enough. The MKII is quite a bit bigger and heavier. (The MKII is now 760g-- 180g heavier, and almost an 1" longer). And I doubt the differences in IQ are going to be that noticeable in real-world shooting, unless you're doing a lot of controlled A/B comparisons and pixel peeping. No thanks, I'll stick to my 35/1.4L MKI.No thanks
Jacques Cornell: Mirrorless shooters don't need no stinkin' AF adjustment.Yea!
@ J A C S - you may not be aware of this, but FF does exist in mirrorless, and lenses faster than f/3.5 also exist for FF mirrorless. FYI. Time to crawl out of your cave.
nerd2: Typical marketing speak. So we will never see FF fuji system? No thanks then.
FF is not the end-all and be-all of photography. Back in the film days, medium format shooters used to look down on 35mm systems, too. Some people think it's all about the format you use. Others think it's really about what you do with the equipment that you have that matters more...ie, talent.