The E-M5II has been selected twice at Imaging Resource best 2015 camera reward:
Once because of the best “Camera of Distinction”:
Overall, the Olympus E-M5 II takes what we loved about the E-M5 and polishes it to perfection. Combined with the ever-growing lineup of fantastic Olympus lenses, the E-M5 Mark II is a top-notch system camera for the enthusiast photographer.
And also because it has the best “Technology of Distinction”:
We’ve tested the E-M5 II’s 40-megapixel mode, and the results are very impressive. While medium-format cameras with high resolution sensors will still win on the resolution front, the level of detail the E-M5 II can deliver in its 40 megapixel mode with a good lens (and Olympus makes many such) is truly impressive. When you consider the price point, it’s a tough act to follow.
E-M5II store links:
E-M5II in Black at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto and GetOlympus.
E-M5II in Silver at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto and GetOlympus.
E-M5II In Europe at AmazonUK, Jessops, WexUK, Namencolor.
24 Responses
4 year old sensor and its considered innovative? Guess I can stop reading Imaging Resource.
Current models: D810, D7200, A7II, anything Fuji/Pentax/Canon have 3 or more year old sensor technology.
Notable exception: Samsung NX1, which hasn’t set the world on fire. So maybe there is more to a camera/system than just the sensor.
Supposedly, the D7200 has an all-new sensor, but then, it was supposed to have a Sony sensor and that is apparently not true, either. It seems that the new sensors, except for Samsung, are only minor changes to existing sensors.
Previous one was Toshiba I believe..
The current one is supposedly made by Toshiba also, which might explain the banding I’m seeing in the very high ISO sensitivities. The sensor manufacturer of Nikon bodies was mentioned this week on Nikonrumors. It seems to work fine usually, even if it’s only a minor revision of the older sensor.
Let me simplify this for you. Sony owns Toshiba now. All new cameras, sold presently, and going forward, are Sony chips, unless your camera is a Canon, Sigma, or Leica. This includes Panasonic.
Samsung isn’t a camera company, it’s a consumer electronics giant that “dabbles”. Olympus was a camera company first and foremost, and now, because of financial mismanagement, they have lost the resources to pursue alternatives to reboxing Sony’s table scraps, like everyone else.
To see the decline of Olympus like this breaks my heart…
Olympus is a medical company first and foremost…
Unfortunately, Oly’s medical business is showing some of that awful culture in the company
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-olympus-superbug-outbreaks-20151221-story.html
I noticed some interesting statistics there…
First:
“The Food and Drug Administration has identified 10 outbreaks of drug-resistant infections; seven are linked to Olympus scopes…”
Second:
“Olympus holds 85% of the U.S. market for gastrointestinal scopes.”
At least on first reading, that sounds like Olympus scopes are 20% less likely to produce outbreaks than competitors. If there has been any wrongdoing at all here, obviously I am not defending Olympus. But there needs to be a little bit of basic scientific literacy and evaluation when reading an article like this…
Maybe I’m wrong…
The problem is that Oly did not disclose prior outbrakes and that is going to be trouble. The design of the devices was identified as a problem long ago and Oly hid this from other customers.
These numbers are insignificant in terms of medical research. The only conclusion to be drawn from this would be “there is no statistically significant higher risk to attract an infection from Olympus endoscopes. Further research is required…”
@aljudy: In any case, the same risk should not apply to the E-M5 II unless you intend to use it the same way
Of course, the manufacturer is responsible for cleaning the product after every use in hospitals.
Having worked in health care for about 7 years, I know that hospitals don’t take care of things properly, unless demanded specifically by law.
Yeah, I’m sure the author must have taken that into consideration.
You would hope but it’s often the case that they are pressed for time and think it’s more interesting to leave out the boring details.
I was being sarcastic about the manufacturer being responsible for cleaning their products in use by hospitals. Hospitals are generally sloppy. It’s a wonder more patients don’t die, what with everything that happens in the operating room.
Oh please.
Nikon just acquired Samsung’s entire mirrorless camera lineup.
Does that make them “real” cameras now?
Sony acquired Minolta/Konica. Same thing there.
I’d argue that today’s cameras are electronics devices that you mount lenses to, so companies like Samsung, Sony and Panasonic, all “electronics giants” have a leg up there. That’s why they’ve partnered with “real” camera companies… Sony + Zeiss and Panasonic + Leica.
Calcified old school camera companies like Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Olympus (to a lesser extent) cling to the past and have difficulty moving into the future… still using snappy mirrors or designs of an era 70 years ago?
Nikon didn’t acquire anything from Samsung. There was a rumor early December, but both parties have denied it. Even if there was a quiet acquisition that was meant to stay secret until a formal disclosure, they can’t actively deny it — they can only decline to comment.
Also, I’d argue that mirrorless designs predate SLR. The slapping mirror is not the thing, but the fact that the companies that make DSLRs don’t bring anything new to the table. Things like adapting lenses, the compactness (which is arguably about the same as old film SLRs, btw), whatever aren’t really the game-changers that are making mirrorless a force in my mind. It’s the fact that they are promoting rapid turnaround on significant new technology advances. That is where the traditional camera manufacturers are just abject failures. The mirrorless brands are bringing us something to be interested about, some new feature, some improvement in quality, some new mode of processing, all the friggin’ time.
Would you have seen Nikon or Canon come forth with a BSI full-frame sensor? A super-35 readout in 4K with no pixel binning? Sensor-shift high resolution? Heck, even software features like live long exposure that the Olympus cameras offer… Or that you get meaningful new features and improvements in firmware updates… something E-mount, X-mount, and MFT mount cameras are pretty darn good about. Instead, we’re expected to be excited by something that brings one or two handy features and effectively changes nothing else whatsoever… and/or the occasional significant advance in one individual component of technology that also comes to us in isolation.
I think the big failure of the NX line was price. You had this great sensor and a few awesome top-grade Schneider lenses… but to have to pay $2500 off the bat just as an entry point, and then having the next step down be a significant step down with loads of sacrifices and nothing in between either in bodies or in glass… And then of course, the level of marketing dollars and message behind it. Look at how much they put into selling the Galaxy phones, but who knew that Samsung was actually making high-end cameras and glass? Because of that, nobody even had any sense that they were going to support this lineup. Sony, even when the E-mount had barely 3 or 4 lenses was diligent about at least letting people know that something is coming (even if it was flat out prevarication). I never heard a peep out of Samsung… just… “oh hey, here’s a new NX camera…” “Oh, and a new NX Mini, too.”
The biggest win of the NX line to me was that they offered the best GUI of any high-end camera ever made… not that that’s a very tall mountain to climb. Too bad nobody will ever learn from this.
My point is, Olympus is reboxing a Sony feature set handed to them by a Sony bean counter and is forced to cut costs everywhere to pay for a four year old image. When the other companies you mentioned “paired up”, Olympus managers were high on sake, not realizing that Sony would eventually squeeze them out of business. Instead of a billion dollar accounting scandal, they could have bought a state of the art fabrication facility, or done some real partnering with Fuji, or Toshiba, or even Panasonic/Sony.
As it is now, Panasonic has access to Sony m43 hardware six months earlier, with Panasonic getting the newer m43 sensor before the critical holiday shopping period.
I’m sorry, if you make digital cameras, which, as you say, requires an electronics giant, and you didn’t see Sony as an existential threat 5 years ago, when it mattered, you deserve to be out of the business… and that’s clearly the writing on the wall for Olympus.
There are so many inaccuracies and mistakes in that last post, it is difficult to know where to start.
Firstly the Olympus cover up took place in the early 1990s with some stupid investment decisions.
It’s not right what they did,but had they not done so it would have bankrupted the company and they would no longer exist. The crash in Japan at that time meant that it was unlikely any other company would have taken them over.
When the scandal was uncovered 20+ years later (due to crude attempts to account for the losses) Olympus was a far larger company and able to survive.
Secondly, a company of Olympus size can’t just buy a multi billion dollar facility in an area which is not their core business. They would never be able to finance it and certainly would never have the cash for it.
And any business of that size would have to be viable.
The reason that so many of these fab businesses are being merged and taken over is that they are not viable businesses.
You need massive economies of scale and it is only the big players that have that.
Thirdly sensor IQ has barely improved over the last three or four years. Any new technologies like BSI have (so far) had minimal impact on IQ. It simply doesn’t make financial sense for Olympus to get a company to develop a new sensor with minimal differences to an existing sensor (see GX8 new sensor).
Finally, the improvements in sensors are finite and the best you’re going to get is a stop of low light improvement before you start hitting physical limitations due to the way light behaves at the quantum level. And that assumes 100% efficiency which is very difficult (impossible ?) to achieve.
You are absolutely right on a number of levels. I will shut up now.
Did you read them before this?
Sony was at the top of most of their lists.
There really wasn’t anyone who wasn’t mentioned. Even though I own the Nikon D7200, I don’t see how it was chosen over the Pentax K-3 Mk II. The D7200 could have been called the D7110 since it had such minor changes.
Sadly, most of what’s out there have minor changes to their sensors and have called them new.
It deserves it!!!
All the bellyaching!!!! It’s a great camera…love mine….some day in the ever so distant future we will get another sensor…but until then, I can still create images with this one!!!!! 🙂
HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!!!
Do you have problems with the quality of the images coming from EM5II? Sitting and cry over that it is not the latest sensor is just childish. The result the camera gives is excellent, so who cares what sensor that sits in it?