First impressions shooting with the Olympus OM-D E-M5

@yabokkie - "they were very popular in the 1970s but finally the line failed and the users betrayed."

The line failed because it couldn't make the switch to AF technology. As for the users being "betrayed", you forget that the users "betrayed" the OM line first. In other words, photographers switched to AF in droves, leaving little or no market for OM to survive on. If there were enough customers to support the OM line at a reasonably profitable level, you can bet that Oly would have continued to sell it! But the reality is that you can't continue to sell something that very few people want to buy. Sure, there were some diehard OM fans, but there just weren't enough of them to support the product line. That's what happens in the free market: products get discontinued when they fall out of favor with the public. Nothing is forever.

The OM range never failed: management failed to see AF being so demanded at all levels in the market so quickly.

They did see the opportunity to build smaller system cameras and mFT is the current format with a good size to IQ pay off for amateurs and press photographers alike. Much like OM was in 135!

Regarding Art Filters, I think it's perfectly in keeping with the theme of the camera. It's a lot like loading up an old film SLR with a particular film emulsion. I can see a lot of people saying, "Today, the 'film' I am going too shoot with is the Dramatic Tone II Art Filter 'film'." I'm not an Art Filter guy myself, but I can definitely see myself using the Dramatic Tone II Art Filter. In a way, I miss the days of loading up B/W film, and forcing yourself to visualize all images in B/W.

You also have to realize that not everyone wants to sit down and process their images to look a particular way. Again, this gets back to the old-school film mentality.

Besides, the Art Filters are merely an *option*. I don't know why people get so freaked out about the mere inclusion of a particular *option* in a camera. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's as simple as that. Different people have different tastes.

"it just devalues the overall impression of an otherwise advanced camera; they belong only on kiddie-grade compacts"

Nonsense. Its just an feature. It does nothing to degrade the function of the camera. This is about the least important issue you could possibly come up with.

Have you ever tried a serious micro 4/3 camera, Older N Dirt? If you didn't, how can you be so sure about entry-level DSLRs superiority? Just because they are DSLRs? Because of sensor size? I have friends with entry-level DSLRs, and my E-P1's JPEGs are not inferior; actually they have better colour and sharpness. The only letdown is the lack of a proper viewfinder. Even noise is not an issue once you learn to minimize it. You need a Canon 60D or a Nikon D7000 to get a significant improvement over the E-P1 in sheer image quality - especially when you mount legacy lenses. That 18-200 lens you mention won't give you f1.4, but my OM 50mm does.

my brother bought one of these entry level Canons with the very popular superzoom from Tamron. The images tended to be so soft that I advised him to get the lens swapped out.He did and just the same. The Nikon and Canon kit lenses are a little better but not close to the likes of the Panny 14-45 never mind the m43 primes. I'm still waiting for any real evidence that APS-C overall image quality is better than m43's post 12mp. FF is admittedly a different ballgame.

With that logic, a 7D is a waste of money since the T2i has a similar 18MP sensor for much cheaper price.

It isn't just about IQ/sensor, the E-M5 provides features you can normally get in higher level and much more expensive cameras, such as weather sealing, extensive physical controls, and high burst rates. The 7D, K-5 and D7000 were $2300, $1600 and $1200, respectively upon release.

That said, the m4/3 body coupled with Panasonic/Olympus lenses can produce great results. There are tests (on DxO, slrgear, etc.) that show lenses like 20/1.7, 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 mounted on newer bodies perform equally or better than APS-C equivalents. Even the lowly Olympus 14-42 II beats any 18-55mm in terms of sharpness and distortion; it is also internally and silently focusing, which is not the case with the Canon and Nikon.

Not only that, you can get the Olympus 14-150mm on E-PM1, a much smaller and cheaper package than any Nikon/Canon/Sony 18-200mm on an entry level DSLR.

Like This?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_400_series

I think Oly intends for the E-M5 to be the first model in the OM-D series.

At least it does not have an X in the name. That would have been confusing!

"OM-D" is equivalent to "EOS" or "PEN". That's not the actual model name anymore than "EOS" or "PEN" is. The actual model name is "E-M5". After all, no one says of the EOS Rebel T3i that Canon couldn't decide between EOS, Rebel, and T3i, so they went with all three!

It's not that weird, they have other cameras with a full name something like 'PEN E-P3'

PEN or OMD is the series they are apart of & E-P3 or E-M5 are the model numbers.

Could also be that they had to actually produce a camera that everyone wants to recoup their financial losses?
Manufacturers always keep their best until last so as to provide an upgrade path to entice all the suckers in the world :-)
I hope that the 'last' part is not prophetic ...

Money <> intelligence or have you been sleeping the last 4 years?
I was reffering to those that have to have the 'latest' whether or not they will use it.
Now is the age of 'wants' not 'needs'
I have a cellphone - I use it to make 'phone calls' - i.e. actual interpersonal relationships. My 'latest' still does the same elementary tasks that my first, +15 years ago, did.

Antony John, you are so right..

Yes; When it was first decided to wind the 35 mm film horizontally instead of vertically, the die were cast.

I agree with Francis. It's everyones right to make an a-hole out of themselves in public if they want to.

Part of the fun of new releases is talking about them with your peers. You can always ignore the comments. But totally disabling all comments penalizes those who enjoy reading them and don't seem to have a problem separating useful comments from trolls.

2 good cameras no doubt (at least that what is expected from 5D3) but quite frankly, painfully BORING. More Megapixels is BORING, no innovation, no creativity, ugly looking camera, like deformed (D800).

Yeah, let's discuss how BORING the D800 is, will the 5D3 have more megapixels? (ZZZZzzzzz)

I'd credit Olympus for pushing ahead IS performance. The tests will be interesting.

5D3 = Dd2 + more megapixels and some obscure video export format option that requires oceans of CPU or drive space to process and looks equally ordinary on an iPhone screen. It and the D800 are both outside my pauper budget anyway.

@Paco 316

The highest resolution DSLR in history, the D800, may not be for you, but it is anything but boring. Even at $3000 Nikon will have a hard time with demand for it. High Resolution images, megapixels in a FF DSLR, is not the same a cramming a lot of megapixels in some cheap P&S. Professionals asked Nikon to make a camera capable of high resolution images. Why do you think all the pros were so upset when Canon announced the EOS 1DX with 16 mp? Whether you have this need or not, there are applications that benefit, or even require, high resolution images. No, this is not a camera to run after Jr with. It's a professional tool and the high megapixel count has zero to do with marketing. Why do you thing Phase One makes a 45 and 80 mp digital backs? Marketing? How silly.

@Cy Cheze "obscure video export format". If know what it means to record in uncompressed files (8-bit, 4:2:2), maybe you should read up on it so you don't sound so foolish next time you comment.

There's over 1100 comments on the E-M5 preview, perhaps that's the reason for the 'most discussed of 2012' tagline?

I agree, in silver this camera looks like my OM10, but it's not a FF, nor a cheap camera. It's all about nostalgia, like the cool B&W filter. Now, i can buy a 1000euro camera than can produce grainy B&W or high saturated color shift shots, like in the good old days, wonderfull isn'it :))))

Well...there is always the Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 for MFT....
I have to say...do not be swayed by that perceived "negative"...there are so many benefits to the smaller system, like immediacy of use that more than make up for the general lack of "super" shallow DOF.
There are primes with low f numbers that are more than adequate.

For the same field of view, that's absolutely correct. And compared to your typical dslr aps-sized sensors, I suppose it's 1 stop of DoF you lose. Or gain if you're interested in a wider depth of field at a particular aperture (to hit the sweet spot for the lens, for example). Remember though, that this doesn't affect the exposure; a f2 lens for the m43 is still effectively as fast and bright as a f2 lens for a 135-format camera.

Its kind of silly that everyone always compares to sensors to full frames. Why not compare it to medium format? I have a full frame camera but most don't. They are just too expensive. Its like going to buy a Prius and asking how the acceleration compares to a Ferrari. "So your telling me sir this car gets to 60 in 9.8 seconds...that is three times longer than a super car" Come back with this argument when there is a sub 1k full frame camera.

Obviously there's a trade-off. I shoot with a Canon 5D, which is a FF camera. But I specifically bought an m4/3 camera because a 5D is so large, especially with FF lenses mounted, that it's very conspicuous. It's just not very practical for street shooting or any conditions where you want to be as stealthy and inconspicuous as possible. And a FF rig takes up a lot more space and weighs a lot more than an m4/3 kit. So for me, the trade off in DOF is worth it in situations when I'd much rather have a compact kit. But on the other hand, for professional shooting, I still prefer my APS-C and FF gear because it offers more DOF range and flexibility.

Also....A 50mm F2 lens will get the same bokeh on any sensor. Smaller sensors can achieve bokeh just like full frame.
Pick up this camera and the 45mm F1.8. Your bokeh dreams will come true.

That depends how you look at it! In many (most?) cases the extra DOF is in fact a bonus. Razor thin DOF can make it hard to get a picture in focus.

@Mssimo , how many 85mm F1.2 you have for medium format. Let me know then I will compare that to full frame. When we are talking for DOF lenses also matter. If medium format was 3000 $ and has number of lenses equal to FF , everyone will be comparing to MF. We are not so stupid as you think we are.