drivecancel: Kind of depressing to see such little improvement in sensor tech from Canon, their best sensor is still only a slightly improved version of the 2008 5D II...
People/professionals shoot Canon because they are stuck with expensive (and good) Canon lenses or bang for buck (Rebel line). No one chooses Canon because of the sensors they use.
EduardoKleinFichtner: Image Quality is better than OM-D EM-1 and the score is better on Olympus camera? I disagree.
You may disagree but a camera is so much more than only the sensor. The Olympus is a working tool for photographers, Sony camera's are mostly nice electronic gadgets that also make nice photo's.
The nicest phone to use as a camera on occasions was the old Sony Ericsson K800i. To bad they don't make phones like that anymore (without the key's I mean).
Martinka: Nice video, terrible photos...
Please explain what is so terrible about the photos. And can you do better? Please show us.
nerd2: I don't get it. $1099 body + $899 12-40 2.8 + $1499 40-150 2.8 + 45 1.8 = whooping $4K worth of gear, frequent lens changes and only 5fps.
I could use D750 + 28-300 lens combo to take approximately the same outputs, while much less hassle overall (cheaper and lighter, does not require lens change, faster AF, faster fps, comparable DOF, comparable resolution etc)
It's already a well known fact on this site that you don't get it. :)
Great field test. Seems like m4/3 is up to the task of shooting such a difficult to shoot sport.
Eugene232: don't understand all buzz about this camera.I had an EPL5 which has a the same outdated sensor,IQ is a mediocre
So that means that a camera is much more than it's sensor. A lesson to learn for people like Eugene232. But according to his gear list he only has a camera and no lenses. The nice thing is that you can see the nice big sensor all the time without a lens in front of it.. Maybe in a year or so he will understand photography.
And what photo in your galleries needed more than mediocre IQ? Please show us.
Thorgrem: Only the 28 f/2.0 has a normal size and price. To bad it's not wider than a normal kit-lens. The rest is to big and to expensive. If I wanted to go FF, Sony wouldn't be an option anymore. To big and to expensive, can get the same size at a cheaper price at CaNikon.
Carry 1 body and a few lenses and the size advantage of Sony FF mirrorless is almost completely gone. Fewer lenses tho choose from and they are more expensive. No reason to choose FF mirrorless over FF dSLR. To bad Sony didn't meet expectations in size with ff mirrorless.
Only the 28 f/2.0 has a normal size and price. To bad it's not wider than a normal kit-lens. The rest is to big and to expensive. If I wanted to go FF, Sony wouldn't be an option anymore. To big and to expensive, can get the same size at a cheaper price at CaNikon.
duckling: A bit of conspiracy theory:The 42.5/1.7 was obviously designed to kill the Olympus 45/1.8, one of the few M4/3 classics. Perhaps a revenge for Oly's 40-150/2.8 which buried Pana's 150/2.8 project.
Yes, company's invest great amounts of money only to annoy the competition....
Thorgrem: Nice camera! Something Sony surly has mastered I think. To bad they don't develop any lenses for this camera anymore. Only FF E-mount is in development that means that if you have a APS-C sensor you will have to buy bigger and heavier lenses than necessary. Only a few APS-C Sony E-mount lenses are worth mentioning, most is mediocre at best.
Indeed. English isn't my strongest language.
Nice camera! Something Sony surly has mastered I think. To bad they don't develop any lenses for this camera anymore. Only FF E-mount is in development that means that if you have a APS-C sensor you will have to buy bigger and heavier lenses than necessary. Only a few APS-C Sony E-mount lenses are worth mentioning, most is mediocre at best.
So politics win a photo contest. Such a shame. (not that I have anything against homosexuality)
justmeMN: Canon forecasts that they will sell 6.4 million interchangeable lens cameras this year. Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong. :-)
There is still 1 thing good about Canon and that is brand recognition/marketing. But that is also going down but slowly.
ozturert: They are terrible because DxOMark says so...
DXO haven't tested them yet. And already complains on how it will score...
richard stern: Not one of these comments has mentioned what to me is the biggest failing of the m43 system, and that's the inability to track and keep in focus fast moving objects against a plain background, e. g. BIF, which my DSLR does so well. I have the original EM5 and a D7100. If Olympus could solve that, I'd upgrade my EM5 tomorrow.
And another E-M1 is sold tomorrow.
montxsuz: Anyone wants to buy a slightly used Panasonic 7-14mm ;)
The f/2.8 wont be cheap and the Pana is excellent. So yes, I think there is hope to sell it.
abortabort: The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.
I don't care about equivalence. I use m4/3 and never used ff. I know what I can and can't do with my m4/3 equipment. Why always revering back to a standard of long ago before the digital era.
Thorgrem: So at the end of this year we will have in the pro line of Olympus lenses:
Zooms: 7-14 f/2.8 12-40 f/2.8 40-150 f/2.8
Primes:8mm f/1.8300mm f/4
Very nice Olympus, keep it going but don't forget the Premium line. A new m4/3 12-60 f/2.8-4.0 would be awesome.
And now we talk about it. A m4/3 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 would also be nice. :)