bigdaddave: I cannot believe the 'Cons' section doesn't mention the elephant in the room - IT ONLY HAS ONE FOCAL LENGTH
In the days when even a compact camera the size of a pack of cigs has a reasonable zoom this 1950's throwback might appeal to the well-heeled but as an actual tool it's far far too limited
But DP love Fuji so they've overlooked the obvious again
In the days when the most used cameras in the world have fixed focal length lenses (usually around 28mm equiv for Apple's devices, for instance), not having a zoom lens might not be the limitation you suggest.
The Ricoh GRD series, for instance, has always found a devoted following because sometimes a relatively small camera (and this is small compared with any DSLR), with a fast prime can be a photographer's dream.
Ronan_M: "with the same shutter speed and f-number, a larger sensor will be exposed to more light than a smaller one and more light allows better image quality". Surely this is incorrect? In terms of TOTAL light, it might be true, as the total sensor size is larger in FX, but in terms of light per square inch, they both gather the same amount of light. I thought the better IQ for FX came because of the pixel density was lower on FX?
@dr.noise - nobody said it made the *pixel level* worse.
However, when considered as an entire image (so either blowing them both up or scaling them down to the same size), the cropped image will look noisier.
termix: Actually I would say it's a 35mm f/3 (Full frame equivalent ) not as the statement said "35mm equivalent f/2 lens" or am I wrong???
Since the ISO paradigm is based on actual f-numbers, it would be confusing to say 35mm f/3 equivalent, even though it's arguably more consistent than saying 35mm equivalent f/2.
35mm equivalent f/2 isn't wrong, it should be noted.
rened: I am a long time regular reader of DPR and notice that small typos are creeping into reviews and posts. I realize there is a lot of time pressure to get things posted. But somehow stumbling into these typos degrades the otherwise excellent standard set by DPR.
@rened - I'm sorry if that's the case. We do our best to avoid typos, but they can creep in.
If you see any, please send us a Feedback email (link at the bottom of each page) and we'll correct them as soon as we can.
Mike FL: From what I can see for buying a M43 sensor camera for *travel light*, buy LX100 if FL 24mm - 70mm is all you need, and LX100 will be better in low light b/c faster lens, and LX100 is smaller.
Or Canon G1X-2 b/c the zoom has more reach than LX100, and a flip LCD. IQ is poor than LX100, but LX100 has poor useability b/c you can not do low-angle.
If you want weather sealed M43 and/or changing lenses, Oly is your choice.
Mike FL - the LX100 is indeed smaller but, although it does indeed *have* a Four Thirds sized sensor, it doesn't use all of it. It's a 2.2x crop camera, so don't forget to figure that in too.
ABM Barry: How do we process RAW Hi res. I downloaded the latest version of Adobe dng converter 8.8. However, none of my Adobe programs can handle the 40,000kb files and the 102,000kb have no chance?
The supplied olympus disc also states that it can't handle them, ... it states: "FILES TO LARGE"
I can't imagine the reviewers actually tested this out or they would have mentioned this problem? Or if they did, why wasn't it brought to our attention?
I probably would have put off purchase until it was sorted!
Also the shooting menue option is only jpeg or RAW+jpeg, can't seem to capture RAW only? not an option? (I don't shoot jpeg, far too limiting)
The logical question is: "What have I missed"
We've been processing with Photoshop CC and Adobe Camera Raw, so haven't been going through a DNG step. I'll try to look into it early next week.
ABM Barry: I have owned my MkII for about 3 weeks, It's much more competent than I had expected!
The HiRes is very workable, ... However, I have a question re HiRes file size.
The first files I shot in HiRes came out jpeg 7296 x 5472. I had set the system to RAW only as I have no use for jpeg's. I then brought up the quick menue and sure enough, it was default to jpeg! I selected this in order to change it to RAW only, .. no-go SFN + Raw with 7296x5472 only showing. The RAW is suposed to be 9216x6912, any ideas as to how we can acheive the RAW output only with the higher resolution?
Image stabalization; ... fantastic! feels like it's on a tripod.Articulated screen, just great.
I owned the previous model which was very good, however, the MkII is so much better in nearly every aspect of operation and results.
It even feels and sounds far better. .. This is a very good camera.
The Raws from High Res mode are always 64MP - there aren't multiple settings.
Shoot Raw + JPEG and you'll get a 40MP JPEG and a 64MP Raw. Though this raises interesting questions about what the best resolution to render the data at is.
odyk: From EM-10 Review "One feature unique to Olympus is that any of the mode dial positions can be assigned to recall a custom camera setup (or 'MySet' in Olympus parlance)."
Does anyone know if this is still an option to EM-5 Mkii?
Yes, it is.
Valiant Thor: Silver Award? I've had this camera for about 2 weeks and it is fantastic! I like using it over my GH4 and I would rate the E-M5 M2 somewhere in the titanium ~ kryptonite range. Five stars in my book and I've owned a LOT of cameras; a fact for which my wife will be eager to testify against me.
P.S.: The M2 is far more than a minor, incremental upgrade over the E-M5 (which I also have). If the reviewer can't see that, he should seek alternative employment. This kind of work requires a high degree of perspicacity.
@Valiant Thor - I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest it was a minor or incremental upgrade. After all, the first line of the conclusion is: 'The Olympus E-M5 II is a more significant reworking of its predecessor than its looks or choice of sensor seem to suggest.'
Or phases such as: 'Yet under the skin it seems every aspect has been reassessed and, where necessary, modified...'
I agree that it's a fantastic camera (and I hope the review conveys that sentiment). It's improved in almost every respect, over one of my favourite cameras.
However, for similar money or less there are several other fantastic cameras you can choose. At which point, the E-M5 II is **one of** the best cameras in its class, rather than the stand-out best. It was a very tough decision (I think it will be a stand-out camera if you own any good mFT lenses), but it's one I'm comfortable defending.
It really is intended as high praise.
Jakub Kubica: "extensive customization options can be overwhelming" - this should be in "pros".
@Jakub Kubica: you may note that "Extensive and customizable external controls" *is* listed as a Pro. The full quote from the Cons is actually: "*Complex menu system* and extensive customization options can be overwhelming."
For some people it'll be a Pro, but I felt that benefit is unusually difficult to gain full advantage of (something that was confirmed every time I handed the camera to anyone else).
Obviously there's not as much room for nuance in a list of bullet points as there is in the full conclusion and complete review. But if you do read the review, you should see I've tried to balance the benefits that the camera's customization brings against how hard that would be for a first-time user (while also making clear than anyone with experience of the Olympus menus will appreciate it).
The camera didn't miss out on Gold because of this (it's more a Pro than a Con, overall). It didn't get a Gold because, while it's one of the best in its class, it's only **one of** the best.
Kurt_K: I see that the regular studio comparison was done with the Oly 45mm and that the high-res comparison was with the Panny 42.5mm. Are there any plans to use the latter lens for regular studio comparisons in the future?
Probably not. We try to avoid going into the territory of the rare, expensive and exotic, for our studio lenses. The 45mm F1.8 is a really good lens - it just isn't 64MP good.
We don't, for instance, use cost-no-object Zeiss Otus lenses on DSLRs.
RichRMA: Back in the days of the compact P&S's, the "bridge" camera and the DSLR, it was simpler for people. I think (witness what happened to the poor Nikon dF when it was released; the camera's not poor, but its reception was!) some people are simply mystified by anything that is not from the old molds. Canon and Nikon's line of all black, lock-step DSLR bodies looks like a picture of the old Soviet Politburo but that is what most people know. This attitude undoubtedly plays on the minds of some of those doing the reviewing. Imagine if you've driven 4-door sedans all your life, and someone stuck you in sports car? Imagine how alien that would feel?
Strictly speaking, he only wrote about being stuck in a sport car (driving is only implied).
Equally I felt that there was an implication that I'd done 22 pages of driving before concluding that I like (some) sports cars.
I'm going to park this metaphor now before I crash it.
jtan163: @DPR Staff any chance of writing a description of the points system and the Gold/etc award system and linking it to the pre-amble and conclusion of each review (or just link it if it already exists), so we can reduce (sadly I don't think we will eliminate) the why did such and such score X or Y comments?
I'll send you some cookies.
The link in the conclusion which should be to [this article](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained) had broken. It should now be fixed.
Does this apply to reviewers with a track record of [really liking sports cars](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/22)?
ChuckTa: The high iso images look fairly good, but DXO measured previous EM5 actual iso =3024 for iso6400, that is less than half of rated iso. I wonder if DPR find the same result with the newer model.
The ISO standard is based on JPEG output brightness, so its irrelevant whether they're doing it by amplification or tone curve. This is not cheating, regardless of whether you put "original" in quotes.
If the test scene images are requiring longer exposures, *that* would mean they're not conforming to SOS ISO, but nothing DxO shows has anything to do with ISO accuracy.
CaptainBlood: Two of these "Best of 2015" cameras have already been discontinued. How does that happen? Both (the Nikon P340 and the Panasonic LF-1) seem to be selling well and neither is that old. Why do manufacturers pull such cameras from the market? I take it they're planning replacements but why not wait until the replacement is on the market before you pull a best-selling one off?
With respect, nowhere is it claimed that those are *the best* compacts. It's a list of all the pocketable compacts with a 1/1.7" or larger sensor. (Larger cameras are in a duffetent roundup). Nowhere is it suggested that we've selected this group. The only ones we recommend are recommended on the last page.
phoenix15: This camera deserves gold award. I can't understand DPR judgment.
@Magic Man - I'll add that one to the list of companies that people have speculated (falsely) that we're 'in the pocket of.'
DxO didn't measure the E-M5 as having 'actual' ISO 3024 at the ISO6400 setting (since that isn't what they measure).
They found that the E-M5's (JPEG) ISO 6400 setting, places middle grey one stop further down the Raw file than the Raw-based ISO standard that DxO uses (and manufacturers don't) to normalise results between cameras.
In other words, Olympus has chosen to devote 1EV more of the camera's dynamic range to highlights, rather than shadows.
[As DxO puts it](http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/ISO-sensitivity):The ISO settings reported by camera manufacturers can differ significantly from measured ISO in RAW. This difference stems from design choices, in particular the choice to keep some “headroom” to avoid saturation.
Chuck Bradford: Field of view, depth of field, compression at focal length just don't work the same on crop sensor, I became very frustrated experiencing this. How an 85mm lens works on FF, a 50mm doesn't work similar on crop as some suggest.Also the quality of glass is not there for crop.
Take any capable photographer with the best crop camera, and the best glass that has never shot full frame, and give him a FF and a 70-200 2.8, there is no comparison. This is what I experienced.So I would say the question is whether or not a person plans to continue to try and improve their skill and ability as photographers, if the answer is yes, then you should aspire to FF. Don't spend a lot of money on slow glass for the crop, supplement good glass by buying primes that will work great, and transfer up.
May I also point out that lenses behave precisely as you'd expect them to on APS-C:
A 50mm F1.4 lens used on an APS-C camera will offer *exactly the same* field-of-view, depth-of-field and compression (which isn't a function of focal length), as a 75mm F2.1 lens would on a full frame camera.
As per the article, I disagree with you almost entirely.
Buying lenses that 'will work great [on full frame]' while you don't have full frame, is a bizarre suggestion to me. Especially since you feel they don't behave the way you want them to on APS-C.
My point would be: if you're determined to move to full frame, sell all your gear and make the switch now. Don't buy into the myth of the upgrade path by feeling you have to stick with your current brand and buying lenses that won't (on APS-C) do what you want them to do on full frame.