Previous news story    Next news story

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

By dpreview staff on Feb 21, 2012 at 20:39 GMT

The European press event for the Olympus OM-D E-M5 gave us a chance to get some proper shooting time in with one of the most discussed cameras of 2012. Our previously-published preview already looks over the features and custom options but this trip gave us a chance to really use the camera. Andy Westlake hit the streets of Amsterdam with an E-M5, determined to find out how its features work in real-world use and looks at how well the Art Filters and processing options work.

Comments

Total comments: 269
12
biglou052371
By biglou052371 (Apr 30, 2012)

So here it goes...I am as amateur as it gets.....I am an amateur photographer in NM trying to promote Rugby.....unfortunately......I am now seeing the limitations of my E510 so I am torn between the OM-D E-m5 and the E-5. I really love my 510 ( http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/162512567169735/photos/) but I know that it is an obsolete entry level camera. Can someone please recommend either the OMD E5 or the E5. I can afford both but I do have lenses for the 4/3. I would really like at least 9 focal points, 12 megapixels, and 5+ fps. . I am even willing to entertain camera hopping to another brand <ducks from flying beer cans> but the total package (inc. at least a 300mm lens) has to be <$2k. Please help me. I dont really know all the technical jargon but I know how to use a tool when it is in my hands !

0 upvotes
Bad Dongz
By Bad Dongz (Apr 23, 2012)

Simply beautiful, Oly did a good job reviving the OM series.
The weather sealing makes it Perfect!

0 upvotes
Jdm308
By Jdm308 (Apr 10, 2012)

Montekato, you are not mistaken. It appears to be better than just about anything, until you get to the Pentax 645. I spent about 10 hours this weekend comparing image quality to everything I can imagine. It appears just about nothing under 10g clearly beats the image quality.

0 upvotes
Jdm308
By Jdm308 (Apr 10, 2012)

I just sold my xsi, and ready to order the OM-D. However, the only question left is the finish. If the silver body came with the silver lens, that would be the choice. But it appears right now, the black lens is the only choice. Please don't come back telling me it doesn't matter, the point of a camera is not the finish. I have a bachelors degree in commercial photography, been doing this for 46 years. This is a toy for me. I just want opinions on finish. :)
Thanks

0 upvotes
foramen
By foramen (Apr 10, 2012)

Havent seen it in personal but I like the Silver with matching silver lenses. The black looks so Pro which is very nice too . But, looking at the silver camera with the black grip accessory in you tube, doesnt really look good to my eyes. I wanted the grip too so I will get the black . Just my opinion. Anyway, you cant go wrong whatever color you choose.

0 upvotes
Jdm308
By Jdm308 (Apr 11, 2012)

I think I agree. The battery pack does look better on the black body. I had a motor drive on a silver Nikon F1. And also on a black F2, and the F2 did look much better. Thanks.

0 upvotes
AndrePierre
By AndrePierre (Apr 5, 2012)

i have an E-PL1 and ordered an E-M5. I sold my Nikon D200 and lenses to get the E-PL1 with the kit lense and a 14-150 zoom + viewfinder + flash. I can carry my equipment with me all the time in a small bag. Nothing compares to having a camera with you when the photo opportunity happens. Moving to micro 4/3 has been great. The E-M5 will add better sensitivity, autofocus and resolution, but i'll still keep the E-PL1 around .. the kids actually love it.

0 upvotes
montekato
By montekato (Apr 2, 2012)

I have been comparing the E-M5 to a number of other cameras using the studio comparison tool. Is it my imagination, or does this camera equal or exceed some of the better Nikon and Canon DSLRs?

0 upvotes
Toothring
By Toothring (Apr 1, 2012)

Why the heck can't Nikon bring something similar to market for this price?!? I'm think I am ready to admit defeat.

Comment edited 35 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
choyhoe
By choyhoe (Mar 13, 2012)

Can my Pan M43 lenses (pancake, 14-45, 14-140) be used on the E-M5 without adaptor and still retain AF capability?
I have been waiting for the new GH3, but not sure when it wi come out. If my Pan lenases can be used on the E-M5 competely, I will take the EM5 now.

0 upvotes
E.J.
By E.J. (Mar 13, 2012)

Yes

0 upvotes
Travis922
By Travis922 (Mar 8, 2012)

My new OM-D that I ordered on Olympus.com isn't supposed to be billed until it ships... It got billed this morning!!!! That either makes me really happy or really unhappy that they are billing it 1 month before the supposed ship date. Anyone else's camera shipped?

0 upvotes
ksmhjx
By ksmhjx (Mar 10, 2012)

which country are u in? Have you ever received it already?

0 upvotes
Fedorsha
By Fedorsha (Mar 12, 2012)

I got a bone bone!

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
lowincash
By lowincash (Mar 7, 2012)

I've always liked the retro looks of old slr cameras especially after using an old srt101. I had only wished they come in digital format and here it is, the OM-D!

Btw, does anyone know if the black grip in the front of the camera rubberized or kinda hard plastic like those on the E-P3?

0 upvotes
photohounds
By photohounds (Mar 5, 2012)

I used OMs for weddings for decades. Often (where flash was off) the people were not even aware I had shot ANY photos - even in a church!

They were used to the loud "click-clack" from the other 'big 4' makers products. That velvety smoothness also made better hand-held shots in low light due to less camera shake.

Other photogs at the, time used to argue that a quieter and smoother shutter made no difference. They were just defending 'their' brand against the available evidence.

40 years later, nothing's changed. I loved the quietness of the E-1 and it is still in the family.

1 upvote
RWPacific
By RWPacific (Mar 5, 2012)

I'm currently using a Canon 60D, sometimes with a macro lens and when the shutter releases I often get a blur of a very scared bird. I realize that, while mirrorless, this camera still has a mechanical shutter and have been in pursuit of information about how much less noise this camera generates. Can a mirrorless camera owner or Andy help me out with this question?

The other thing that I'm hoping I can understand better is the best 4/3 lens for this type of work. I'm looking at both the 12mm f/2.0 and 45mm f/1.8 lenses but am concerned about the minimum focus distance of the f/1.8 and how good the bokeh is on either which I haven't been able to determine from samples I've seen. Here's what I do if you'd like to look http://www.flickr.com/photos/61751629@N02/6621828417/in/photostream. This is a 400mm shot but the two above this in my photostream are macro shots.

Any helpful thoughts?

0 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 6, 2012)

I've the Zuiko 45mm/1.8 and its great little lens with excellent sharpness and nice bokeh. Performance/price ratio is magnificent. It weights only 110 grams. Very good choice for portraits.

For macro stuff you might have better luck with the new Zuiko 60mm/2.8 which is also weather sealed like the OM-D.

0 upvotes
finitude
By finitude (Mar 26, 2012)

Hello Ron, I just looked at your photos on flickr. Very nice. I assume you're using the canon 400mm prime. Which macros? Judging by the photos I saw, I'm not certain the 12mm will work, although the 45 might produce some good images. I am assuming you are in a blind, by the way. As for shutter sound, my experience with Oly mft has been the shutter is certainly not silent, and a bit quieter than a Nikon dslr (d80), for eg, but will still spook wildlife. Incidentally, I favor manual canon fd primes on my mft cameras, and am particularly fond of my breech mount 85mm 1.8.

0 upvotes
dra77
By dra77 (Feb 28, 2012)

Actually I agree with both the comments on my original post. Olympus lost their way badly in not advancing with the technology and market which was a great shame. If the OM-D recaptures what they did very well and puts them back on track then all credit to them. I have struggled over the years to find a digital system camera as compact and light to carry as the OM, in recent years the Pentax K5- 7 probably being the closest I have considered.
For the record they were not 'cheap'

0 upvotes
dra77
By dra77 (Feb 27, 2012)

At last 35 years on the true successor to my 1977 OM1N which I am still using together with my OM Zuiko prime lenses. I suspect many of the commentators below never owned or handled one of these amazing cameras, the most compact beautifully designed, made and best handling SLR of its time.
I look forward to trying out the OM-D because from its looks it is very close to the ethos of the original OM and if so I will be at the front of the queue.

3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 27, 2012)

exactly, OM used to be stylish, handy and cheap SLRs with less quality. they were very popular in the 1970s but finally the line failed and the users betrayed.

so is Olympus going to do it once again?

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 28, 2012)

@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.

3 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Feb 28, 2012)

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!

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Feb 28, 2012)

it sounds like "we used to have good products in the old days" (which isn't totally true) but I'd prefer "we lead the world into the future."

I do hope mFT will have a future. NHK's new experiment SHV (8k 33MP 120fps) chip is about the same size as 4/3" (slightly larger) and I think it will be the best size for superzooms.

0 upvotes
sauchiyong
By sauchiyong (Feb 29, 2012)

I usd OM cameras and lenses, lenses on Canon body until now... There are still market now for good optics that is manual focus like Zeiss, and Leica. unlike leica, Olympus did not hold on until a decent digital body. I do hope a OM size 36MP body that take OM lens can be here. Very soon there will be a competition on lenses (manual or AF) that can deliver what sensor can do... However, there be a MFT sensor that can match 36MP soon, when the time come, Olympus would have an unfair advantage over Nikon and Canon. For now, it is just unfair to compare olympus with others.

0 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 29, 2012)

I'm a relative newcomer to photography, but analogue cameras are my aesthetic reference due to early exposure to film cameras (an uncle of mine sold Minoltas and Fujis). Last saturday I held an Olympus OM-1n at a shop that sells second-hand cameras and lenses. Wow! It is beautiful; it feels perfect in the hands - despite having no grip - and feels solid and balanced. It has the clearest, most crystalline viewfinder I ever experienced. I'd buy it on a heartbeat, even if it meant further expenditure with film rolls and revelations - but unfortunately it was already sold.
The OM-D seems to take on where the OM-4 left - albeit with a 10-year interval during which a lot happened. Let's hope it has image quality to match. The photos shown here are from pre-production models, so it would be premature to evaluate the camera based on them.
By the way - why did they choose such a clumsy model name? Couldn't they call it 'OM-D5'? Or was that too simple?

0 upvotes
walter marshall
By walter marshall (Feb 27, 2012)

Don't like the art filters, ignore them just use the camera!

0 upvotes
Camp Freddy
By Camp Freddy (Feb 24, 2012)

Looks like a winner so far: cheks a lot of boxes and will have probably the best out of camera jpegs yet on mFT.

Weather proof, OLED, good EVF, advanced IBIS, Bulb exposure display, fast CDAF- I mean it is going to be a really great users camera for people who want to be out shooting with a light rig and not wasting time in post-proc'

As soon as it is confimred that FT glass will work okay on it I will want to handle one and probabvly get one.

3 upvotes
Reactive
By Reactive (Feb 24, 2012)

Art filters? Why do Olympus bother with gimmicks like this - it just devalues the overall impression of an otherwise advanced camera; they belong only on kiddie-grade compacts.

And when will any manufacture create a camera where the user's greasy nose doesn't have to grind all over the rear screen? Don't humans have a nose sticking out of their face? My old DV camcorder had an extending viewfinder so the body rested on my cheek, which gave excellent stability. Reviewers make a lot of fuss about a camera's handling, buttons, and the grip - but never challenge the fundamental silliness of the flat-backed SLR shape.

4 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 24, 2012)

Please don't react badly, but I actually find some of the art filters very interesting. I only use two of them with my E-P1- pop art and grainy film - and not very often. Even though I shoot mainly manual and can't be bothered with iAuto or SCN modes, I don't object taking photos just for fun every once in a while, and the pop art filter, with its strong solarization, can be quite fun to use. The grainy film is no substitute for a good black and white photo, of course, but the contrast it gives is very hard to achieve using the camera's exposure settings. Then again, those are not instruments for the serious photographer, which leads me to partially agree with you - but every now and then we must take some moments of fun. In photography as in life. I love Bruckner's 7th, 8th and 9th symphonies, but I don't feel guilty or ashamed when I listen to indie pop music!
Otherwise I entirely concur with you about the viewfinder - even though my nose isn't too long... or too greasy.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 24, 2012)

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.

4 upvotes
Vince876
By Vince876 (Feb 25, 2012)

Hi, you said
>It's a lot like loading up an old film SLR with a particular
>film emulsion
[...]
>I miss the days of loading up B/W film, and forcing yourself
>to visualize all images in B/W

I'm not at all a lover of these effects, but your post have made me look at the question in a different way: if you see the effect of the filter on the rear screen (see how I love them ... never used), well, I agree.
Thanks.

0 upvotes
Vested
By Vested (Feb 25, 2012)

"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.

5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 26, 2012)

@Vince876 - yes, those Art Filters are real-time art filters, so you can see the filter effect on the rear screen as well as in the EVF as you're shooting.

0 upvotes
Older N Dirt
By Older N Dirt (Feb 24, 2012)

I want one.....and the camera too!
Seriously, at this price and size, a waste of money. Better an entry Canon or Nikon DSLR with a single 18-200 lens. Cheaper too and better imaging.
Like buying a fully loaded Mazda and paying the price of an entry BMW.. Same size, same price, but what a difference!
I'll keep my system thank you.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (Feb 24, 2012)

There is a dramatic size and weight difference between an OM-D with lens, vs a Canon/Nikon DSLR with lens. This size difference is *worth the money* for many people. It makes for a stealthier, easier-to-carry, less conspicuous camera rig.

You also have to realize that many people interested in buying an OM-D *already* have a DSLR, but want something smaller, lighter, more compact than the DSLR. I shoot with the Canon 40D, 60D, and 5D. But I bought an Oly E-PM1 with a VF3 viewfinder because I wanted something smaller than my DSLR rigs. Wow, what a huge difference! That got me sold on the m4/3 system. Eventually I'll also buy the OM-D. I'm still keeping my Canon DSLR system for my professional work; but my go-anywhere, take-everywhere camera that I use for most of my personal, casual shooting is now my m4/3 camera. I sling the camera strap across my chest, let the camera hang off my back, and most people hardly notice I have a camera. Heck, sometimes I don't notice either!

3 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 24, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
dko22
By dko22 (Feb 25, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Feb 25, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Mar 3, 2012)

The features in this OM-D beats easily the entry level DSLR and those entry level zooms are not very good.

There is several MFT lenses which are very very sharp with much larger aperture. They can even compete with similar mid range DSRL primes easily and will beat the entry levels offerings like EF 50/1.8 or 35/2 which are real dogs.

Panasonic 20/1.7 and Zuiko 45mm/1.8 for example produces excellent sharpness and both weights only about 100 grams.

1 upvote
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Feb 24, 2012)

what's the point of the battery grip?
Anyway Olympus makes good looking consumer camera

0 upvotes
Reactive
By Reactive (Feb 24, 2012)

Old (film) Olympus SLRs were always the most compact range - it was a selling point. But my OM10 was almost impossible to hold safely unless it had the Winder 2 attached, or at the very least the bottom half of the 'ever-ready' case. I often had to wrap the strap around my thumb to be sure. This E-M5 will cost around 10x my OM10... so a grip is probably a good idea!

0 upvotes
Vince876
By Vince876 (Feb 25, 2012)

Well, if your OM-10 was difficult to hold, at the time you hadn't to complain, because ALL cameras were made the same, starting from the start of XX Century, as they at first started as boxes, maybe rounded ones. And no one seemed to be bored, the today's need for a grip just started with the autofocus boatanchors.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 26, 2012)

What's the point of the battery grip? Firstly, it makes vertical/portrait shooting more comfortable. The vertical grip has a shutter button, control dial, and two function buttons. Secondly, the battery grip gives you extended battery life. And thirdly, the vertical grip package includes the add-on horizontal grip, which greatly thickens the horizontal grip, and adds a shutter button plus a control dial on that add-on grip.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Mar 25, 2012)

Funny, I think nobody captured my feel for the "battery grip."

Oly OMD-EM5 by itself is nice and petite, a work of art. Alongside the DSLR dinos, however, it looks a bit crowded out. With a battery grip (and a hood/shade, even indoors) I can take the EM5 right into the thick of it and with the extra shoulder room get the pics and get noticed.

(I am not a pro but done a few weddings -- all mine.)

0 upvotes
Cabreo001
By Cabreo001 (Feb 23, 2012)

I wouldn't know what to say about the camera, but if she is the sales rep I'll buy one.

0 upvotes
Jeff Peterman
By Jeff Peterman (Feb 23, 2012)

Seeing the photo above, it does look remarkably like my OM-2S with a Winder 2 attached. But I never looked like that model when I held it. Which is probably a good thing.

0 upvotes
wyoming
By wyoming (Feb 23, 2012)

i have an olympus pen, i like it and it exeeded my expetations.
it does good pics and you can modify quite every impostation from the menu so it's a very good camera in my opinion.
but i still think it isn't an alternative to a dslr for a professional user, so i'm curious to see how this really goes.

2 upvotes
M1963
By M1963 (Feb 24, 2012)

I have an E-P1. I agree with you when you say it is no substitute for a DSLR for professional purposes, but that was not Olympus's intention anyway. However, I think the E-P1 compares favourably to entry-level and midrange DSLRs in terms of sheer image quality, and betters many of them with out-of-camera JPEGs.
And I don't think the E-M5 is the «Pen Pro» everyone was talking about until the former was announced, despite its striking Pro looks with the grip attached. According to some things I read around the web, there will be a new 4/3 DSLR to replace the E-5 and a more sophisticated, professional-grade, OM-D model, so Olympus keeps giving contradictory signs... Let's just wait - and hope Olympus Co. doesn't fold after all the scandals that afflicted it!

0 upvotes
sauchiyong
By sauchiyong (Feb 29, 2012)

when that sensor is on an SLR, Olympus FT is alive agan. With 5 axis IS it will become something press photographers want... FT will be very competitive again.

0 upvotes
martygervz
By martygervz (Feb 23, 2012)

I have been using Olympus for years, bought the Pen series, the E-3 and E-5. Great cameras. Fast and great colour. The menu operations in the newest versions are a bit wonky, convoluted. This new model seems to bring it back to the basics with more dials, giving control back to the shooter. I applaud this, and expect to add it to my lineup. Kudos to Oly!

0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (Feb 23, 2012)

Good comments, which I am enjoying. Wish I had been Rip Van Winkle. It's taken a while, and the price points are premium, but we are finally seeing larger sensor, fixed lens cameras that make sense and larger sensor compact system cameras that look and function like cameras, not part of a space ship control panel. Certainly, advances in LCD + screens, EVFs and sensor manufacture all helped. No, I don't want to give up the modern marvels of image control, but we have all taken many a perfectly fine photograph just setting aperture and shutter speed, focusing and pushing the button.

0 upvotes
makofoto
By makofoto (Feb 23, 2012)

"but we have all taken many a perfectly fine photograph just setting aperture and shutter speed, focusing and pushing the button."

You should try the Auto Intelligent setting on some of the newer cameras ... sometimes they can do better then us! Especially if shooting action where you can't be fiddlying with controls ... and there are so MANY options on these new cameras

0 upvotes
Roger
By Roger (Feb 22, 2012)

How about a digital back for all the old film cameras. So you don't have to buy, buy, buy, a new camera every year or two? You know where you buy a digital back for your film camera, maybe even two, three, or four with different sensors. No new cameras just a back Leica did it they just charged to much. Your good old film camera and lenses with a new back. All of my old film were able to change screens, prisms, and backs.

Something to think about.

3 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 22, 2012)

This has been proposed and dismissed countless times before. First of all, there just aren't that many film cameras still in circulation (or that people still want to use). Secondly, a digital back would have to be specifically made for each of these various film camera models; you can't just do a one-size-fits-all back. Thirdly, it would never work as well as a fully integrated digital camera that was specifically designed to shoot digital. Fourthly, these backs would probably sell in such low volumes that they would end up costing more than a complete, new digital camera anyways. So it's just a really, really bad business proposition.

3 upvotes
moonheadone
By moonheadone (Feb 23, 2012)

Like This?

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

1 upvote
bailey65
By bailey65 (Feb 25, 2012)

I remember those, and the price! For a different approach see this http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/imagek.html
I have finally made a pragmatic decision and am trading my Canon T90 kit, but with regret. However I can't wait any longer for the digital film cassette to appear. So I have upgraded my E-1 to E-5.

0 upvotes
parkmcgraw
By parkmcgraw (Feb 22, 2012)

It would be nice to see a revival of the robust, and very dynamic Japanese camera bodies of the 1970's that many photographers have not forgotten, and today are holding sentimental feelings.

For example, the introduction of a Nikon F2D matched to a stabilized 35 megapixel, full frame detector, that at the press of a button in conjunction with eye movement, switch modes from shooting stills to collecting 4K video, along with focus, exposure, flash, and rate controls in less than 100 milli seconds, paired to an array of hybrid interchangeable screens, prisms, and viewfinders.

After all, interchangeable prisms, viewfinders, and screens were devices that broadly extended the interface, form and function of the camera body, and tool. Hence disappointed that the manufactures stripped these flexibilities from the core design philosophy. For the motivations that drove such peripheral diversities have not departed from the multi faceted needs of a professional and or evolved photographer.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
offertonhatter
By offertonhatter (Feb 22, 2012)

That would be lovely, a Pentax LX, or like you say Nikon F2, Canon F-1, Olympus OM-1 and the like would be lovely to have in a digital format. Great bodies and design.
But at the moment technology, size and bulk would have an impact. Also the sheer power needed to run them, hence large batteries.
But, such is the speed of technology, we may yet have very small electronics, wafer thin sensors of massive performance and new battery tech that provides enough power but in a smaller cell.
In the meantime, we have to accept bigger bodies, or smaller bodies with smaller sensors.
Still, it is something that we may look forward to.
At least the camera makes are looking at the design that harks back to a more stylish era.
I do like the idea of interchangable prisms though :-)

Now how about a digital Rolleiflex with a square 50MP sensor and excellent Zeiss 85mm F2.8 on the end. That would be something else........ :-)

3 upvotes
backayonder
By backayonder (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm still trying to work out if the model is holding the new camera or the original

0 upvotes
PaleGreenThumb
By PaleGreenThumb (Feb 22, 2012)

What I want to know is, can the E-M5 store 16Mpx images in raw and jpeg simultaneously at 9fps? And if yes, what write speed do you need on the SD card? Do you have to spring for the full-blown 90MB/s-write-speed card, or is 30MB/s-write good enough?

Agree with audijam, my AE1P was sweet. Like the OM-D E-M5 because it looks so similar.

0 upvotes
Joesiv
By Joesiv (Feb 22, 2012)

cameras have buffers, which is internal memory that is very fast, that will store images as they are taken until they are able to write to the card.

No you won't need the fastest card to shoot at 9fps, but if you want that buffer to be purged quicker, to get more shots in, then yes, a faster card will help that.

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Feb 22, 2012)

Where is my Canon F1D or AE1D?

1 upvote
jase
By jase (Feb 27, 2012)

Amen to that, a small, all manual, full frame, digital SLR or rangefinder for £1000 or less.

1 upvote
Geodesiq
By Geodesiq (Feb 22, 2012)

They couldn't decide between OM-D and E-M5 so they went with both? Brilliant! It doesn't have an OM mount so that part is ridiculous. The only thing of interest is the in body stabilization for tele shots.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 22, 2012)

The world loves acronyms. String together any letters you like and there's a 1,000 different interpretations.
I would have just preffered 'The Camera' instead.
BTW, Geodesic is spelt with a 'c' - or is this an acronym?

2 upvotes
MichaelKJ
By MichaelKJ (Feb 22, 2012)

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

1 upvote
Vlad S
By Vlad S (Feb 22, 2012)

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

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 22, 2012)

"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!

4 upvotes
Keto
By Keto (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
offertonhatter
By offertonhatter (Feb 22, 2012)

Yes, as it has been said, OM-D is the range of cameras in the Olympus range, the E-M5 is the first model, just like the PEN range.
Both hark back to classic Olympus cameras of years gone by, with the looks that match. Does it matter that it does not have the OM mount, when it can use an open standard micro-M43 mount instead? At least you can use an OM converter on it.
Kudos to Olympus for actually giving us the camera in the first place.

0 upvotes
zkz5
By zkz5 (Feb 22, 2012)

It isn't open, it's patented and requires a license to use. You probably can't even get a copy the specification without signing an NDA.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 22, 2012)

The camera has been around since approximately 1826. Over the intervening period it went through various itterations until around the late 1950s when the ergonomics were refined such that all manufacturers produced the same body shape (SLR or rangefinder 35 mm) because it was a proven design - and so it continued for another 30 years.
Enter the digital age and cameras changed, more so SLR than other types. Why, well because it was the 'new camera age' and thus design had to change in unison to show that the camera was 'different' - not because the changes were better but simply because the camera manufacturers could. Sod ergonomics and ease of use etc.
The Oly OM-D and similar shaped cameras from other manufacturers are simply a return to 'what works best' and I'm really surprised it took so long to get back to that position.
So, when others denegrate the Oly OM-D it's simply because their brand has not yet woken up to this basic truth and they're just venting their spleen in anguish.

13 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 22, 2012)

Could be. But it also could be that due to the accounting scandals and billions in losses, Olympus has no money left over for a name designer. So, they knocked-off one of their old film camera bodies on the cheap -- and voila!

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 22, 2012)

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 ...

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 22, 2012)

Who is "everyone"? How any different than "all the suckers in the world"? However fancy or derisive the definition, it's where the money is.

This is the age of smart phones and flat screens. If a firm launched a product inspired by a 1970 CRT TV, with lots of knobs a grilling, who would buy it. In particular, who would pay the premium needed to cover the higher marginal cost and (relative to a smart phone) lower marginal utility?

This besets all the camera makers, not just Olympus.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

5 upvotes
elefteriadis alexandros
By elefteriadis alexandros (Feb 22, 2012)

Antony John, you are so right..

2 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 22, 2012)

Thank you kindly Elefteridais

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Feb 22, 2012)

I don't think ANY camera could recoup Olympus' investment loses. The digital imaging division is only 15% of their total business.

They would need to top Canon's camera sales for about four years in a row to get back the money they wasted on bad investments. And that's just not going to happen in our lifetimes.

However, it sure wouldn't hurt to make this division profitable. And to keep the wolves away from their door....

0 upvotes
Humboldt Jim
By Humboldt Jim (Feb 22, 2012)

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

1 upvote
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Feb 22, 2012)

There is mechanical constraint with the mirror and the optical viewfinder. Oly digital simply micmic the "good old look",instead, Sony nex puts the EVF on the left corner and try something else, nearly impossible to do in film age, except some curiuos oly camera with an ovf on left.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
George Hsia
By George Hsia (Feb 23, 2012)

Antony, if you think this is what works best then you clearly have never used an E-1 which is a fabulous piece of technology ergonomically.

Why were SLR's shaped that way? Think about it....

Let's see we need the mirror and the prism... well, that's the hump.... we need to have this thing called film so and it kinda rolls across the back.. so let's see ... we need a spot for the roll and a place to spool the film after it has passed... Gee, let's put a box around that, what do you get. The standard film SLR that you have had for ages. Is that really a surprise?

The reason the OM-D has the grip is that the square box isn't comfortable to hold for long periods of time. It is also why you have the thumb rest because without it the box is hard to grip. If this was truly what works best then the grip and thumb rest would not be necessary. I like the OM-D but let's not disparage other vendors to validate our own design preferences.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 23, 2012)

@George,

I'm not disparaging any design. You miss the point. technology was available to make a round enclosure for cameras years back but it wasn't done. Why?
My point is that ll manufacturers used the same basic design because 'it worked'.
I've handled Nikon, Canon, Leica, OM, Nex etc old and new and the 'oblong box' of the 'clasics' still feel better in my hands - i.e. more comfortable.
Obviously the way something 'feels' is an objective assesment but the 'old shape' was a success for many people otherwise it would have been changed.
Think about it. All those compacts - what shape are they?
Not to mention that even the modern DSLRs still maintain the same basic body shape - but much larger.

0 upvotes
jase
By jase (Feb 27, 2012)

The Leica M9 and to a lesser extent, the Fuji XPro-1 and X100 are a return to what works best for experienced amateurs who would rather use a camera than a proprietary computer with a lens on the front. I look forward to Canon and Nikon doing this seriously too.

0 upvotes
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Feb 22, 2012)

I vote to disable commenting on these news stories. If we thought the comments could be childish/foolish/arrogant/rude, etc in the discussion forums, just look below. There ARE some useful comments...or at least comments that are not intentionally demeaning, but way too many are insulting and childish. There's nothing wrong with dissent, but very often the comments people make here go way above and beyond that.

12 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (Feb 22, 2012)

I agree! And it just lowers the level of dpreview! :/

5 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 22, 2012)

@ D200_4me: This here is NOT a news story. it is a brief, preliminary camera review instead.

There was no voting, AFAIK. But if you would indeed vote for disabling commenting -- then why exactly are you commenting here? And in so doing, commenting on other people's comments?

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 22, 2012)

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

5 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
Antonio Rojilla
By Antonio Rojilla (Feb 23, 2012)

What we need is the option to "downvote" comments. Well, I'm too used to Reddit and the like...

0 upvotes
Optical1
By Optical1 (Feb 24, 2012)

My favorite forum option was the ability to down rank a comment into oblivion!!!

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 22, 2012)

"One of the most discussed cameras of 2012????"

Wow.... 2012 must have been a very short year indeed. I thought the world was not supposed to end until sometime in November, no?

Re. the model designation.... these weirdo model numbers are getting more and more ridiculous from all mfrs. Looks like it is the lab rates themselves deciding that the thing will be called at the end.

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Feb 22, 2012)

LOL!!!!!!!!! i know eh! i think D800 vs 5D3 should be the most discussed cameras of 2012.. OM what? O! Lame puss?! hahahahahhaahhaa.....

0 upvotes
Paco 316
By Paco 316 (Feb 22, 2012)

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)

4 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

3 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 22, 2012)

2012 ends 21st of December this year - or so they say.
I'm not holding me breath about this otherwise I won't live to see it ;-)

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Feb 22, 2012)

no i am not making fun of the camera but rather simply the statement.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Feb 22, 2012)

@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.

1 upvote
Paco 316
By Paco 316 (Feb 23, 2012)

@ Marike6

"The highest resolu.... " BORING! Megapixels is a cliché Nikon is betting all their nickles and dimes on. Other than video, it brings nothing to the table the Nikon D700 didn't offer already, mind you, the Nikon D700 is even better looking than that ugly piece of box the D800 is. Phase One, as any other Medium Format is for an exclusive Niche of photographers, like the OM-D. Something Francis seems to ignore, hope you don't.

Comment edited 46 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
IainH
By IainH (Feb 23, 2012)

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

2 upvotes
sauchiyong
By sauchiyong (Feb 29, 2012)

I can see medium format camera users are about to switch to FF (if they are already switched), feel sorry for a Pentax 645 user... there may be still a difference, but centainly not worth the difference in price. And I also see FF users would start to consider FT because it is getting there... A complete system (FT+MFT) for the digital age.

0 upvotes
spontaneousservices
By spontaneousservices (Feb 22, 2012)

Wow, it looks so... fake! Worse than the revamped VW 'beetle' of a couple of years back. Ugh.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 22, 2012)

Right, those physical control knobs and dials don't actually do anything because they are "fake". And that viewfinder hump doesn't actually house an EVF, stabilization sensors, an accessory port, and a hotshoe because the hump is just "fake".

Meanwhile, cameras that are heavily dependent on rear LCD menus for their controls and functions...yeah, all those on-screen "virtual" controls, those aren't "fake", they're "real"!

4 upvotes
RoyGBiv
By RoyGBiv (Feb 22, 2012)

It really should have been called something like the OM-5...as if anyone would seriously conclude that they're rolling out a film camera.

From the looks of it...I'm pretty impressed with it!

1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (Feb 22, 2012)

There's something wrong with the photo above.

0 upvotes
Sergiusbr
By Sergiusbr (Feb 22, 2012)

Yeah! and the nose looks very strange! Bad pp.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 22, 2012)

Yeh, she's holding an OM-D and not me!

1 upvote
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 22, 2012)

I think i'd rather have the Fuji X1-pro than this one. micro43 just feels too small for me.

2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 22, 2012)

Go ahead, knock yourself out. It will probably be "at least as good" as the other recent Fuji-cams, the X10 and the X-S1. We all know how great those two had turned out to be, don't we?

0 upvotes
D1N0
By D1N0 (Feb 22, 2012)

Do you know what baiting means Francis?

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (Feb 22, 2012)

I rather think he does :-)

0 upvotes
safeashouses
By safeashouses (Feb 29, 2012)

He's a master at it. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

0 upvotes
snapper1967
By snapper1967 (Feb 22, 2012)

Guy it's just you.

1 upvote
A Guy Platt
By A Guy Platt (Feb 22, 2012)

Is it just me or did the preview read rather flat? Little excitement to it, certainly nothing to make me want the camera. I think the tone of the preview is set by the sterile images of the model holding the camera. Sort of a plastic model with a plastic camera.

1 upvote
erwink
By erwink (Feb 22, 2012)

The beautiful model is genuine flesh and blood, - camera is magnesium alloy. (Although some plastics are used...)

10 upvotes
Thoughts
By Thoughts (Feb 22, 2012)

oh well, subjective view on this. To me, this marketing campaign seems spot on. Even the model's hair seems to match the styling of the camera. An elegant young lady holding a classic camera (potentially of course).

2 upvotes
jtan163
By jtan163 (Feb 22, 2012)

Want want want.

0 upvotes
Gianluca Grossi
By Gianluca Grossi (Feb 22, 2012)

Bellissima!!!!...just preorder....I'm number 27 in the list at my local store here in Italy.

4 upvotes
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Feb 22, 2012)

Evvaiiiiii!!

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Feb 22, 2012)

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be...

0 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Feb 22, 2012)

I practically strongly dislike all the retro approach in every aspect.
I think that all these retro approach is clearly aiming to new borns in every activity. New borns are a rather dangerous species for me as well as all the apprentice magician, quite in fashion these days...
BTW, my point of view does not have to do with the core qualities of the product...

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Goreyo
By Goreyo (Feb 22, 2012)

Good thing you were never new to photography once.

4 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Feb 22, 2012)

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 :))))

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Feb 22, 2012)

Looking at the model shot above... first thing also came to my mind was that there is something rather fishy and disconcerting about her... or the camera she is holding... or both... or at least with the photograph itself.

0 upvotes
ianimal
By ianimal (Feb 22, 2012)

The model looks a bit like Sean Young in the movie Blade Runner.
Retro look both for the model and camera.

3 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Feb 22, 2012)

I agree, for a retro camera it's a very good model choice :)

1 upvote
Michele Kappa
By Michele Kappa (Feb 22, 2012)

And I wondered "Where have I seen her, where have I seen her..."

0 upvotes
Kirppu
By Kirppu (Feb 22, 2012)

So who are the other weather sealed contenders int the same category?

0 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Feb 22, 2012)

For about the same price, there is the K7 and K5 in APS-C. I have the K7, it's a small and well build camera.

2 upvotes
flipmac
By flipmac (Feb 23, 2012)

Well, prices (almost) always go down after release.

The K-5 was initially $1600 for the body. The D7000 was $1200 and 7D was $2300. All are/were more expensive and also bigger/heavier.

So, the E-M5 is the cheapest weather sealed interchangeable lens camera to be announced. It is also the only one that is mirrorless.

That said, I almost got a K-5 (which is relatively compact and has IBIS) when the price came down low enough.

0 upvotes
Nic Walmsley
By Nic Walmsley (Feb 22, 2012)

Olympus, any chance you can add Dramatic Tone II to the Pen 3 lineup, using a firmware update?

0 upvotes
xpanded
By xpanded (Feb 22, 2012)

If you shoot raw you can (probably) convert them in Olympus Viewer 2. I have an E-P2 and an E-PL 1 and I can use all 10 art filters with raw files from both cameras. I believe it was not thus in the beginning.

0 upvotes
Stepanfo
By Stepanfo (Feb 22, 2012)

Wow, what a Lassie! What is Her name?

1 upvote
vladimir vanek
By vladimir vanek (Feb 22, 2012)

Her name is Olympus OM-D E-M5 :)

9 upvotes
njkdo
By njkdo (Feb 22, 2012)

Why they don't do a digital like old Kodak Brownie, maybe wood or bachelite?

1 upvote
BJL
By BJL (Feb 22, 2012)

Digital Brownie! You win! This is the ultimate "why don't they revert to a design abandoned decades ago due to technological improvements but which I fondly remember because I was in my prime when it came out, so everything from that era looks good in the rear-view mirror" post. There can be no more, hopefully.

0 upvotes
tlinn
By tlinn (Feb 22, 2012)

Excuse me if this is an obvious question but does a 4/3 sensor really lose two stops worth of DOF compared to a so-called full frame sensor? So it would take an f/2 lens on a 4/3 sensor to achieve roughly the same look as a full frame f/4? I knew there would be a reduction in low light IQ due to smaller pixel size but I never thought about the effect on DOF when migrating to a smaller camera.

3 upvotes
zyran
By zyran (Feb 22, 2012)

correct.

2 upvotes
Infared
By Infared (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

3 upvotes
Macx
By Macx (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

9 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
spidermoon
By spidermoon (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm alway puzzled why there is no small entry level FF digital camera. My OM10 film camera is small and light. Why FF always means pro with big armored body and zillions pixels ?

0 upvotes
TorsteinH
By TorsteinH (Feb 22, 2012)

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.

1 upvote
cesaregal
By cesaregal (Feb 22, 2012)

On a 10" large print Circle of Confusion value is 0,2mm
(CoC is the larger blur spot that you still perceive as a point).

With a FF (36x24mm sensor) you must enlarge the image 7x to have a 10" large print;
on the sensor CoC=0,2/7=0,028mm.

With a 4/3 (17,3x13mm sensor) you must enlarge the image 14x to have a 10" large print;
on the sensor CoC=0,2/14=0,014mm.

Then a FF has a DoF greater than a 4/3 camera.

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Feb 22, 2012)

@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.

1 upvote
BJL
By BJL (Feb 22, 2012)

No, it gains two stops of DOF: f/4 in 4/3 gives as much DOF as f/8 (same FOV) in 35mm format, and so two stop more DOF than f/4 in 35mm. And for many things, like macro work and most landscape and architectural images, that is an advantage.

Oh, but maybe you were using the "more is less" inverted meaning of DOF, as if having stuff our of focus is always the goal.

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Feb 23, 2012)

@zxaar You don't really get my point. Why compare it to FF? At least APS cameras are in the same price range. I understand there is no fast lenses for MF, if anything, you should understand why this is a good thing for smaller sensors. We will start seeing lenses that would never be made for FF. I do own the canon 85 1.2 by the way.

0 upvotes
zxaar
By zxaar (Feb 23, 2012)

FF is close in price range than the MF. Sony A850 is under 2000$ and Canon 5mk2 you can get between 2000$ to 3000$. Plus lots of people buying them. Plus there are plethura of lenses available for FF both in film and in digital format. This is the reason FF is very well considered. If it were upto me I would buy mamiya MF digital but price is too high to get one for hobby purpose. FF is viable and thus is compared. Even APC is compared with FF many time.

0 upvotes
perry rhodan
By perry rhodan (Feb 22, 2012)

The twilight street shot at iso 8000 !?!? The results made me check the tripple 0 for a few times. Is it a typo? Ok its 1600x1200 but alas almost to good to be true. This could be a dealbreaker for me. If IQ stands as I expect its going to be mine. Uh oh and a lot of others too. Good shooting Oly!

2 upvotes
inorogNL
By inorogNL (Feb 22, 2012)

there are even some iso 25K shots on the web and those look usable as well, stunning perfomance for m4/3 !

0 upvotes
Total comments: 269
12