You obviously never used this camera. I love it more than my Nikon D7000. It is so easy to produce brilliant images with this beauty.

Yep a disaster, so much of a disaster that I us it as my main camera daily in my pro photography replacing my other cameras

Take your pills...

People "with skills" take great pictures no matter the camera. m4/3 is a great system with a good lens selection. Are they up to par with DSLR, no.. But they are great camera's for the price and great pictures can be taken with them.

Flat is such a subjective term and is strongly related to the lens used.

All digital and print images are flat and it is the mind that assembles the image to give the perception of depth.

Depth often relates to the amount of fine detail you see in the different distance layers of a scene.

The EM5 has no problems capturing detail with a good lens ... have a look at DPreview and DXO.

In Lightroom you can add and limit depth by using the Clarity, Sharpening and Saturation tools.

DPR used to be the first website for potential owners to check for information about cameras. That was true many years ago when the founder was still doing the reviews. Now, it seems their priorities have changed or are they really that understaff?

I am already shooting with a full frame DSLR, a Canon 5D Mk2, for the last 5 years as my main camera. When image quality is important, shooting using a full frame DSLR with an appropriate Zeiss lens is hard to beat.

Over my 40 years of photography, I have used a variety of cameras from film to digital. On most casual occasion I will just use my favourite Canon G12 for convenience. My other favourite cameras are the Lumix GF1, GM1 and a Ricoh GR.

I will be getting the Canon 7D Mk2 for speed and extra reach once I have given it a full test in the coming months. I am also considering the Pentax 645 for landscape and portraits when large print are required.

While I enjoy using a micro 4/3 camera, it still has its limitation.

I feel the EM5 photos looks slightly sharper than EM1 especially with the Oly 45mm lens. I have both cameras. Yes, the EM1 is not a compact camera. I have 6D and also thinking about 7D Mk2. The Oly can't come near the 6D in low light situation. The whole idea of m43 was compactness/probability but lately Oly and Pana started making their top bodies like DSLR. They started expending the features to the point they started compromising the size. The size is comparable with Fuji X and Nex. I guess Fuji would go in the same direction if they want to compete in pro level. Pro grade is not all about weather sealing; the gear needs to withstand some abuse also. I like my EM1 with prime lens but rather take the 6D if I want to go with zoom lens. It’s more versatile for all kind of shots. None of these cameras are pocket able as smartphone, won’t be with you all the time. Usually plan for the usage/planned usage. So it doesn’t matter whether the camera is big or small since I have planned for it

Well guys, not to point out the obvious or anything... if you want small, m43 has you covered, why do you need to by the biggest (m43) body out there? Oh and the E-M1, as a system, is still (and always will be) smaller than any of your beloved Canon gear.

Better to reset the mount in this case. Make it a bit larger to properly house the sensor, add a few mm in flange distance. That should help with some wide angle legacy glass and encourage third party lens makers like Sigma to actually support it.

While you're at it, make sure the mount is not wobbly.

Luckily, the OMD line is fine as it is so there's no need to change mounts every few years, they can just stay the course, keep expanding the largest mirrorless system on the market and keep building cameras that last for years and years.

What does FF mean? Is it based on that ancient, 3:2 35mm FILM size? I'd rather they do a slightly larger sensor with a 4:3 ratio to make better use of the lens image circle and to more closely match the majority of image crop ratios in print and online.

Just what Olympus needs, another mount to support. No thanks, they have had a hard enough time trying to turn the company around.

Hmm, Sony owns Olympus now do they? That's news to me, probably to Olympus as well. Oh, you mean that they bought some shares in Olympus... guess that means I own Apple as well.

I feel the same way about the Nikon Df too. It's a cut above any other digital SLR I've ever owned.

Exactly and I'm one of them. Sold my Olympus gear for Sony + Loxia. I could not be happier.

Why would anybody with photography as a hobby or profession interested in a Sony product? Sony is mostly for gear-heads who don't care about lenses or a system that is developed.

Given the age of the EM5, it is expected. So really, not that much of a rumor.

It's not a rumor. The EM5 was pulled from the dealer ordering system.

The GH4 is certainly a more competent camera for video overall, but Olympus have video image stabilisation which is so good, one reviewer called it "alien technology".

(not that it matters to me, I like shooting just stills...)

What are the 7axises of a thing ? Or even 18axises ??? Does it includes the "time" axis ? Will it keep its value constant? No shaken prices :D

"What are the 7axises of a thing ? Or even 18axises ???"

Those are questions best left to the Marketing department.

"Personally, I would prefer a camera that does NOT have IBIS."

Yeah, I hate having all of my lenses stabilized by default. I also prefer buying larger, heavier, more expensive, more complex lenses with more possible points of failure. Down with IBIS!

Umm, it took way longer than six months for them to release the E-M1 after the E-M5... If the former is nearly three years old and the latter is about a year old it would seem they actually waited about two years in between, year and a half at least, if you bought the E-M5 way later then regretted it that's not exactly their fault mate.

The problem was, "the means" is a completely new sensor that still needed to be fully developed when the E-M5 came to market. Other than the E-M5 and E-M10 with their Sony sensor, the E-M1 has a – possibly more expensive – completely different Panasonic sensor which includes elements to perform phase detection AF, which is necessary for the task. By the way, this still is the only existing imaging sensor fully able to drive the AF of conventional DSLR lenses in the world. Not even Sony has something similar yet, even though it would tremendously help them to get their A-Mount and E-Mount lines of products closer together.

Anyone who thinks cameras are produced like soft drinks is wrong. They do not produce a few every day to meet daily demand.

They are produced in huge batches, based on sales forecasts, just like books are published. And sometimes they might get a second production run if demand is very high, but they are NOT in continuous production.

I honestly doubt that any EM5s have been produced since 2013. Olympus was just selling units left in inventory, and now that there are almost no new inventory left, they are faced with only two options:

1. Fire up the production line again to produce more copies of a 2+ year old camera, or

2. Create a successor model, to fill the huge price gap between the EM10 and the EM1.

Olympus really does need to fill that gap. And they will fill it with an updated version of the EM5. A camera more capable than an EM10, but less capable than an EM1, at a price between the two.

Raist3d, look at who the poster is.
Nuf said.

Oh my goodness...
John by all means try to get hired as DPreview proof reader.
We all would profit so much by your delightful insight in how exactly language should be used, how we all should write and what words are accurate and appropriate.
A truly valuable service indeed.

I agree with John. "Reached out to" is terrible corporate speak.

A larger sensor will always outperform a smaller sensor, no matter what.

"A larger sensor will always outperform a smaller sensor, no matter what"

Lens size when lugging up a mountain?

"APS sensor ....... more or less same weight."

Don't think so, camera's maybe - system - No.

You can't overcome the laws of physics. A littemore heavier lenses yes, but also better quality pictures due to the physical size of the individual pixels on the sensor. Unless one is willing to take a camera with less megapixels. Not to speak about depth of field and other physical limitations of 4/3 vs APS vs FF that play a role.

"Many people looking for a small system are now looking towards Fuji due to their APS sensor, retro look and more or less same weight and AF performance."

This gearhead perspective is not even funny anymore.

You compare an average Fuji X combo to carefully cherry-picked m43 combo to support your opinion.

Fuji lacks cheap small lenses and small bodies with VF. If you own only Fuji X, you can't scale down as much as you can with the m43.

All systems involve compromises, and the Fuji X isn't a bad compromise. For many people it will be ideal.

For those who demand "slightly better image quality than M4/3" it might be the best solution. Anyone who wants "much better image quality than M4/3" will have already moved to full frame.

But Fuji simply has nothing as "small and light" as a Panasonic GM1 with a 12-32mm lens. And they never will, thanks to those "laws of physics." A larger image circle really does have consequences here.

The Fujis have excellent lenses, too, but they are larger and heavier. Their handling can also be quite irritating. Their sensors show very little noise but are not as sharp as m43.
As a system I'd still take m43, because it offers much more flexibility.