There are the prices in YEN of the new Olympus camera and lens (Source: Digicameinfo). I converted the price in Euro and Dollar but as usual keep in mind that the price will be different because of TAX and VAT reasons.
1) E-M1 body ¥ 145,000
Converted: 1100 Euro or $1500
2) E-M1 with 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 kit lens ¥ 175,000
Converted: 1330 Euro or $1800
3) E-M1 with 12-40mm f/2.8 kit lens ¥ 220,000
Converted: 1670 Euro or $2200
4) Power Battery Holder HLD-7, ¥20,000
Converted: 151 Euro or $200
5) PT-EP11 Waterproof housing, ¥100,000
Converted: 750 Euro or $1000
6) 12-40mm f/2.8 lens only, ¥90,000
Converted: 681 Euro or $900
The good news is that the 12-40mm f/2.8 lens is cheaper than the [shoplink 31225 ebay]Panasonic 12-35mm X lens[/shoplink]!
—
For sources: Sources can send me anonymous info at 43rumors@gmail.com (create a fake Gmail account) or via contact form you see on the right sidebar. Thanks!
For readers: Don’t miss any news. Join our group on facebook and follow our tweets.
Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct
558 Responses
This is fantastic!!
That was me…
The price for the 12-40mm lens sounds very good…can’t wait to see a review comparing it to the Panasonic!
So…let’s see..according to what I am reading below…that is USA $900 time 20% import duties ($180)…so we should really expect a price closer to $1000 on introduction…but that will come down a little within a year like the Panasonic has. Hope this is a better lens though!!!!!!! Sharper across the whole frame.
I don´t see any prices. I just see price rumors. Be sure that Oly is going to announce the 12-40 for at least 899 euros incl. tax in Europe.
The Em-1 is priced a little high, but we all expected that. The 12-40 is priced very nice 🙂
Looking forward to both these in the near future, excited and anxious!
The Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 does not have optical stabilization. This is not relevant for Olympus camera users but a consideration for Panasonic camera users other than the GX-7 users.
The Panasonic 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.8 sells for a much lower price in Japan than it does in the US. I am not sure whether this also holds true for Olympus. The point in mentioning this is that Panasonic ought to sell the 12-35-100mm f/2.8 zoom at a lower price outside the US. The counterpoint to this may however be that the low price of the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 in Japan may not carry over to prices outside Japan.
I already have the Panasonic 12-35-100mm f/2.8 which were purchased from Japan but I am hoping that the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 will be priced much lower than what the Panasonic 12-35-100mm f/2.8 sells for outside Japan.
After Olympus releases a matching lens to the 12-40mm f/2.8, I am hoping that it (or Panasonic) will then release a 70-200mm or 80-220mm f/2.8 zoom.
Correction: “The point in mentioning this is that Panasonic ought to sell the 12-35-100mm f/2.8 zoom at a lower price outside Japan.”
The Panasonic 12-35 was priced very high because it had no competition. The Olympus 12-40mm is apparently priced low because it does. It will be hard to sell if it is priced higher now, given that many people have already spent their money and bought the 12-35mm. The same thing happened to the GH3. Many people have already spent their money and bought the E-M5, when the GH3 arrived, too late.
You listening, Panasonic and Olympus? Get the 8mm or 10mm prime out first. Also get a high performance 14mm and 17mm prime out first. No, Olympus, not high priced, I said high performance.
Important comment. I can almost hear the outcry when it is announced that the prices are higher than 900 $ / €.
“The Panasonic 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.8 sells for a much lower price in Japan than it does in the US. I am not sure whether this also holds true for Olympus. The point in mentioning this is that Panasonic ought to sell the 12-35-100mm f/2.8 zoom at a lower price outside the US. The counterpoint to this may however be that the low price of the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 in Japan may not carry over to prices outside Japan.”
Of course! It is called Customs duty and VAT!
When I look on ebay to buy e.g. the 12-35 I get a much lower price to buy this Japanese produced product from a dealer from Japan. But when it is shipped to me in Sweden I will have to pay approximately 30-35% extra to the Swedish government in Customs duty and VAT.
The Customs duty part will make the price of these Olympus products higher in EU and in the US. The VAT will make the Euro-prices higher and for the US-market the sales tax is different in the different states.
Might perhaps be wiser to compare an Olympus product that is currently selling for 10000 Yen and look what the price for this product is in US-dollar or in Euro instead of using currency conversion rates.
Prices in USA åre normally given without tax. Prices in Europe åre given With tax. Experience tells that The numerical value with tax in Europe in euro typically is the same as the numerical value in dollars. Thus, I would guess a price of $1499 for the E-M1 in USA before tax, and €1499 in Europe with tax.
—
For me personally, this is a little more than I’ll be willing to pay; the E-M5 serves me fine. I’m not saying that such a price would be unreasonable. Still, I think they would sell much more if the body is €1100-1300. not
I guess it also depends on where they are manufactured.
If lenses are assembled and packaged in the country where they are sold as well that means in theory a much cheaper price than the home engineering country. If Olympus for example has to buy it from manufacturing countries with a higher currency value, that means higher prices for Japan?
In my experience Olympus does not price gouge on a country by country basis like Panasonic does. I notice this because where I live we are subject to the worst of it from companies like Apple, Panasonic and Adobe… sometimes having 100% markup compared to USD pricing.
They may charge ridiculous amounts for their lens hoods, but at least they are consistent 🙂
I wish I could say the same about the UK Olympus prices here can be shockingly high.I was previously a FourThirds user and the prices for the HG and especially SHG were way too high as high or even higher than high end FF glass.
Very nice. Good news. 😉
Yes please, 12-40!!!
And please Oly / Pana give us a 11-22 f2.0!!!
I would rather like a ‘fast’ 6-12 or 7-14. Why is it called fast anywhay?! The lens is not fast, it just can be wide opened… maybe AF is fast 😉
In german we say ‘lichtstark’ wich translates more to bright.
Oh or small ‘fast’ wide primes like 7mm or 9mm would be great.
Lenses are usually called ‘fast’ if they have a larger than normal aperture for their focal length because this allows for ‘fast’ shutter speeds. Comes from the days of slow film and the need to hand-hold.
Actually it is about time of letting light to sensor not about speed of letting light to sensor what shutter does. Fast shutter speed = short exposure time…
-p-
How important are fast lenses like this 12-40 in these days?
For portrait there is the 45/ 1.8
Excellent lens: fast and sharp. And pretty affordable, high value for money.
75mm for more shallow DOF?
Fast and sharp example
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcosartoriphoto/8293198393/in/photostream
Glaubst Du im Ernst daß “lichtschwach” und “lichtstark” mehr Sinn macht als “fast” and slow”? 😉
Ja, kommt ja auch mehr Licht durch die Optik.
Mehr Licht erlaubt eine kürzere (faster) shutter speed. Klar wie Kloßbrühe?
Ist das heutzutage bei diesen guten Sensoren noch soo wichtig ????..
Wir haven doch die Terminologie auf Deutsch und Englisch verglichen: die Idiome “lichtschwach” und “lichtstark,” “slow” und “fast.” Jetzt wechselst Du das Thema plötzlich. Aber natürlich ist Lichtstärke auch mit den “guten” Sensoren von Bedeuting – für Dich halt vieleicht nicht, aber für mich schon. 😉
Lichtstarke Objektive bieten unabhängig von Sensorreserven (nebst eventuellen Rauschproblemen) die Option, Bewegungen auch bei wenig Licht ohne Verzerrung einzufangen. Und beim Filmen bedeutet höherer ISO auch mehr Hitze, und somit viel stärkeres Rauschen – deswegen lieben Filmer gerade die lichtstarken, teilweise extra deswegen adaptierten Objektive. Zudem ist da auch noch das Freistellpotential, das mit keinem ISO-Gedrehe erreicht werden kann, höchstens mit Effekten in der Nachbearbeitung, und selbst da trennen sich die Geister bzgl. Wirkung und Quali.
“Fast lens” hat mich zunächst ebenfalls etwas irritiert, aber mit “lightstrong” würden wir wohl auch keine Lorbeeren ernten… 🙂
“Ist das heutzutage bei diesen guten Sensoren noch soo wichtig ????..”
Fuer “Available Light Photographie” – schon. Stell dir vor eine ganz normale gemueticle kneipe…
Danke für die Antworten, so ganz klar ist es mir immer noch nicht…
Bis ISO 3200 ist heute auch kein Problem mehr, sofern es den sein muss.
Filmer bin ich keiner.
Das mit dem Freistellen macht Sinn, dafür würd ich mir aber das 45mm / 1.8 kaufen.
Wie viele Deutsche hier unterwegs sind! 😉
Nun zum Punkt: Stell dir vor, du willst etwas fotografieren, wofür definitv mindestens ein Verschlusszeit 1/1000 s oder sogar schneller brauchst. Gleichzeitig ist das vorhandene Licht aber so schwach, dass du mit deinem hypothetischen 12-40 F4 mindestens auf IS0 6400 gehen musst. Mit dem F2.8 kannst du nun entweder die ISO auf 3200 runterschrauben oder die Belichtungszeit auf 1/2000 s verkürzen, wenn 1/1000 s doch noch zu lang war.
Man hat einfach mehr Möglichkeiten, ISO und Belichtungszeit zu variieren, da dir Blende einen Stop mehr gibt. Wäre es sogar ein F2 Zoom, hätte man im oberen Fall auf ISO 1600 runtergehen, auf 1/4000 s hoch oder die oben genannten Sachen zusammen machen können. 😀
That would be awesome to get an OM-D EM-5 kit with the new 12-40 around 1300 euros 🙂
Why stop there? 300 euros would be even better… Or how about 10 euros?
Why isn’t it 5 cents?
Why not? He said em-5 (five), not em-1 (one)… Even if 1300 is a bit optimistic for a kit, you can find EM-5 at 700 euros nowadays…
At this price I think I’ll get the E-m1. Good, though I expect a 1500 € price because of taxes.
I thought about the body only as well.
It is interesting that Oly has not followed their normal way of pricing with the body being very expensive compared to the kits. I think maybe Oly is making a stand here and providing a camera body for the 4/3 users and pricing it so it will sell well.
Add about 20 % for VAT to those Euro prices and take the same amount for the Dollar prices. Then you’ll probably have realistic prices.
Oh, OK. Thanks!
Oh my! The 12-40mm is priced much lower than I expected. Perhaps by the holidays we might see the E-M1 + 12-40mm for $1,999? That sounds like a spectacular deal!
I’d love to see that by the end of the year. 🙂
o-ou, I need to see DxOmark, how it compares to my 12-35.
it can not beat 12-35… they are in different class level…
Well we had someone say it’s better than the 12-60, so it’s it might be in the same class.
Admin:
I don’t know if anyone else noticed, but there was a ‘statement’ in the 12-40 thread that the E-M1 uses the same battery as the E-M5 – just one, not two as some were hoping.
We shall see that. wouldn’t be funny if it will turn out that Oly’s 12-40 2.8 will be optically better, cheaper, weather sealed and with a longer range than the Pana 12-35 ?!!!
???
What do you mean ? panny 12-35 should be better ? I really don’t see why, the two lenses have similar size/focal/aperture, they should be close !
When Olympus choose to make top notch glass they are up there with the best, and I mean up there with Zeiss, Schneider Kreuznach, et al.
If Olympus have built this as a pro lens (and going by the “pro” signage on the barrel, they have) it will be superior to the Lumix 12-35 by a significant margin.
But let’s wait and see some images and scientific assessment 🙂
Dont you know, that, the other name Olympus is ; Leica of the East
Btw ,Olympus has already proven their glass is one of the best in many category
I’d say, overall, not bad prices. US price for the E-M1 could be as low as $1200 (does anyone have good stats on this?), and $900 is already below what I expected for the 12-40/2.8.
I’ve already posted my anti-Oly-is-too-expensive-troll poem a few threads ago, so if a troll comes along talking about “overpriced for puny sensor” or “aperture equivalents”, someone else will have to rise to the occasion and send them home with some art. 🙂
Well, they cut the cake in half but keep the price… and you are ok with that because half a cake is easier to carry than a whole cake.
You are free to feel that way. But don’t bash people for stating simple truth.
Since when is miniaturization cheaper?
Since the process of doing so requires to REMOVE mechanical parts like the mirror, pentaprism, focus sensor, OVF glass, etc, as well as simpler optical formulas with less glass for lenses thanks to software corrections. Mirrorless should be way more affordable than DSLRs if it wasn’t for economies of scale and market perception (poor marketing = poor sales = higher prices). R&D cost were covered a long time ago too.
This was all explained the day m4/3 was announced.
So the 16MP E-M1 should be much cheaper than the 16MP Nikon D4? Oh wait, never mind…
“R&D cost were covered a long time ago too.”
Uhmm…
Why didn’t we have 16mp or higher sensors with on-sensor pdaf together with the fastest contrast based s-af in a m4/3 camera a long time ago?
You are right that the R&D for developing the system spec was incurred a long time ago, and probably made up for by now, but thats only a small part of the R&D that is needed just for keeping pace with the market. Your suggestion will merely ensure Olympus won’t have the means for it and due to low to non existent profit margins won’t be able to justify making the means for this available.
With all respect, your point of not overpricing so the system can be competitive is totally right, but price undercutting is another thing, and is part of a drive to the bottom that Olympus and Panasonic alike should try to avoid at all cost as lowering margins too much will simply ensure the bean counters will scrap their camera divisions rather sooner then later, nothing more and nothing less. Rather, they should make sure they also do provide proper products for the more budget oriented part of the market. Awareness won’t come from price cutting however, so only ensuring you have things at a low price simply is not going to help without creating enough awareness among people.
I get it. People better agree with you on anything or they are trolls. How dare they have different views?
Venting personal views regarding pricing (as in: “Won’t buy it, ridiculous!”) is plain silly. Moreover, it’s just not interesting.
When the criticism merely adds up to attacking a company, it smells like old-fashioned trolling. Trolls can be good fun, but that’s because they’re laughably stupid.
Recently, we have seen more than enough informative posts explaining pricing strategies for the “endless armchair economists”. For the coming weeks at least, we can focus on other things.
“endless armchair economists” That is plain silly venting too.
The post that refered to them (I assume you know what we’re talking about) was pretty enlightening, and – like a few similar posts on the topic – much more substantial than the usual two-sentence complaints about price. But if you’re happy to wait and see if those posts get anywhere, that’s fine.
Yep, maybe I missed the point. My bad.
The lens seems much shorter than 13 centimeters. Could it be that the length mentioned in the specs is body included?
Converted prices will not work.
If Olympus charges $900 in USA, than they will charge close to 900 euro´s in most of the EU states…
More likely the 13cm length is when fully extended.
Wow 2200 euro for not so small M43 combo with kitlens. I keep wondering what the smaller and much better new nex7 price will be. Damn 2200 euro, thats 6 smaller Nex 3 kits wich have better picture and video output. Keeps one wondering what Oly is thinking.
Nice try, but it won’t work.
?
Yeah the sony lenses ar pro quality compared to Iphone 3. Sensorsize does’nt matter if the lens is crap.
Sony lenses aren’t crap.
All of Sony’s E-mount lens are CRAP. At least Zeiss & Sigma know how to make lenses.
Lol.
It’s obviously not for you then. But why spoil the party?
Bla bla bla… Yawn…
welcome back, paid troll, once again.
He fangirls keep it cool…..its obvious that you girls are blinded by the light. Common for 2200 euro’s you can do so much better IQ, iso, dof, video, low light, small size, large print, DR…etc etc wise. One thing thats cool about this em1 is ibis and weatherproof. But thats somewhat overrated dont you think. Ibis will be soon availeble on the nex also. Its a nice gadet camera but picture/video wise it will not be much better then the not so good em5 (restrictions small sensor). And yes i have had em5 and no it was not because of me that the pictures from mine d700 nex7 and x100 where way more better. Dont get me wrong i like 43 but Oly is digging its own grave with this high FF territory price range. They should target the under 800 euro price tag with this camera.
I’d rather have a turd in my hand than a nex. with or without Ibis.
Send me your address and I will happily oblige.
I can send you a nice micro four turd if you like? 😉
Yawn… Man, u are like a broken radio… so damn boring…
You to get a life.
And you don´t?
Just need u to stop bothering 4/3 forum with ur b..lshit. U don’t like 4/3 and m4/3? Just don’t get one and don’t annoy those liking it
APS-C is “off topic” as far as I’m concerned. Only trolling addressing FF and larger will be accepted from now on.
🙂
Much better IQ, already starting to get funny. IQ difference is tiny, especially considering that most nex lenses are rather mediocre. And how you can compare top grade f2.8 zoom to a crappy plastic kit lens?
Go away until nex will have fast zooms AND good zooms. And nex might also want to add few more decent primes, most current ones are soso. Zeiss indeed has some good, but way too expensive primes, but their AF just simply sucks 🙂
They’re not thinking about you, that’s for sure. I get the feeling they *are* thinking of me! Get a Nex and get out! 🙂
Already have a NEX but maybe i am going to buy this EM1 for my kids or wife.
Did you say this because your wife and kids are better informed in their camera needs? Or, are you such a backward Neanderthal that you believe that such an “ironic” comparison is some kind of insult? That your wife and kids deserve something far less than your, more important … superior needs …
If that’s the case, thank you for showing your ignorance to all those reading here. Not only are you a troll, but your POV is so dated and socially inept; it gives a clue to why you spew out the dreck that you do? So much explained in so little.
DESTROYED!
No damn you are stupid or just playing stupid. The wife and kids just wants a camera to point and shoot and if they need a little bit more the em1 can provide them. also the kids like to play at the beach and sometimes in the rain. The em1 would be good for that to. But its just to expensive picture and video wise. Me i need high quality pictures with lots of control (dof etc…)and big prints. Just something m43 can not do. So this had nothing to do with rangs etc…. Just the differents between point/shoot and high quality pictures and video. So playing retard i like the em1 but the high price Oly asking is just to much for their 43 system quality wise.
you realy do not have a clue do you? Do you know the difference between nex and m43? I suggest you find some reviews and read them. Then there is the glass.
Not very logical Shenkie,
You complain it is too expensive, yet will buy it as a point and shoot for your wife and kids. hmm.
if you going to play stupid, at least learn how to be good at it.. you do have a point about waterproofing, and if you DID want an OMD, then as soon as the EM1 will be available, the EM5 will be MUCH CHEAPER…
and there are several waterproof cams on the market.. soo… why …. ah..
geeze.. why am i even responding to your inane comments… i’m playing into your hands, arent’ I…
ha ! you win…
Shenkie is one crazy troll. Personally, I like the “I’m going to buy one, but…”. He tried it before, but without explanation he got no comments, so now he’s trying this.
Thats funny, I only see nex bodies in the hands of high school girls and hipster wannabe teenagers. They even come in pink. Is yours pink?
Olympus targets a different demographic with m4/3 than the one targeted by Sony’s Nex. You’re definitely a Nex type. Good luck.
It’s looking good though our Australian $ is lower since last year & consequently we will have to pay more for the privilege of owning this kit. 🙁
+1
(then + 10%)
Realistically, it’ll probably be + 20%. 😉
It will probably hit the AU$1000 GST limit hence add 10% to the price((
Lets see if the full zoom range can be used with this new 12-40 lens. The 12-50 was only 2/3 of its zoom range useable, due to the insane amount of CA at both ends. For the rest a nice lens though…
Really? I must have got a good one…
Without facts your post is a troll.
These are facts. The severity depends on the quality asked for.
I am a happy owner of the E-M5 for 1.5 years, and bought the 12-50 and 40-150mm for vacations trips. The medium zoom range of the 12-50 is quite useable and relatively sharp. But full zoom in or full zoom out shows high amount of purple fringing. Those are facts. And if you demand quality than those zoom ranges are barely useable.
But is the 12-50 usable? Quite so yes! The smooth zoom and macro mode is a nice addition.
It remains a fact that cheap zoom lenses show relative quality at 2/3 of the entire zoom range. Compare the sharpness of the 45mm (which I proudly possess) with the 12-50mm…
Is that so hard to swallow?
Then, I must not have the same 12-50 as you. Mine is really useable at both ends and CA is nearly non existant. Got a lemon maybe?
I’m sorry but your experience, “feelings” or “generalities” aren’t facts at all. Link us to reproductible tests or pictures proving your sayings, then everybody’ll be able to debate with you upon real facts.
You’re talking kit lenses versus ‘Pro’ lens.
Mine is the kit lens for E-M5. No 4/3 lens.
Speaking about the m43 12-50mm: http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-m43-olympuspanas/olympus-12-50mm-f35-63.html
This is what I experience too in photo´s with large dark/light situations (snowy mountains and other contrast-rich situations):
¨Aberrations: At 12mm we get a highly visible lateral chromatic aberration presence, and at most apertures you’d ever use. That’s with the in-camera correction active, so raw files can be laden with CA. I did note variable correction at 12mm between different camera bodies, even with the latest lens firmware installed. The 12mm chromatic aberration in the corners may exceed what some of the cameras can deal with. At longer focal lengths, the chromatic aberration mitigates to the point where it can be mostly ignored in JPEGs, though it is still highly present. More so than any other m4/3 lens I’ve used recently, I find myself doing post processing chromatic aberration correction with images shot with the 12-50mm.¨
If there is a pro 4/3rd 12-50 lens, then I´m not speaking about that one.
The man posts proof and lo-and-behold; crickets.
Found that one: http://www.lenstip.com/334.5-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_12-50_mm_f_3.5-6.3_ED_EZ_Chromatic_aberration.html
Quote: “Slow lenses, and the tested Olympus qualifies to be described as such, rarely have problems with longitudinal chromatic aberration. As you can see in the photo the Olympus is not an exception to that rule and that aberration in its case is corrected well. When it comes to the lateral chromatic aberration it makes itself felt at the shortest focal length where its level can be described as average. In the case of longer focal lengths the problem is just marginal. “
Aaaaaand then photozone said:
However, the CAs increase significantly in the extreme corners to around 2.2px.
never ever heard of anyone complaining about insane CAs on the 12-50mm…
Prices are within reason. E-M1 is priced perhaps $200 too high for it to be a hot seller while the 12-40 could be $100 more and still enjoy a very nice demand. I would expect those rumored prices to remain stable for at least 18 months (unless the E-M1 turns out to suffer serious issues).
cool, hope that is about where the prices start off
If that price is right on the 12-40/2.8 (and on the assumption that its a great optic!) then its gonna be super popular. Not having in lens IS would naturally mean that it should come out cheaper than the Pan 12-35/2.8. But that prices looks VERY good in comparison.
The interesting bit will be how the 12-40/2.8 price compares to 12/2.0 price … and 12/2.0 + 45/1.8 price (sure we’ve all already got our 12 and 45). Not everyone needs f/1/8-2.0 😉
Yes, and someone could use 12mm on E-m5 and 45mm on E-m1 🙂
Yes.
If 12-40 price is right, I’ll be selling my 12/2 and picking this bad boy up in a heartbeat!
With these prices may be a great success for Olympus
Has anyone noticed the MIC printed on the cover to the side ports???? Is this what I really think it is??? I may need to sit down.
yes, it was menitoned already in the very first post -great news nevertheless. Another person pointed out that the video specs must have been improved (of how much we don’t know) at least a bit compared to EM-1 just because they bothered with these HW output.
“Another person pointed out that the video specs must have been improved”
I would say that a TruPic VII will be better in this respect than its predeccessor…
We only noticed that 2 or more days ago 😉
No point providing a Mic input for E-M5 video quality, eh? 🙂
This baby has both Pany and FF fanboys going crazy with fear. And with this pricing, no strong arguments against it remain.
Let’s hope Oly customer service worldwide is raising the bar appropriately, because The New King may attract a lot of serious customers.
This camera had already so many nicknames here..
The Dark Knight, the OBS and so on..
Personally, I can’t help myself but to feel attracted to it, not just because of the featureset, in a different way than the GX7 which is also very interesting for me, but kind of lacks soul -or a stronger identity that the EM1 seems to have. Or perhaps I am just ranting..
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! !! You truly live in your own world. “With these prices”….hahahahahahahaha 1700 $ for body only and grip? Yes thats a steal! Question is whos doing the stealing?
It truly is remarkable seeing the SAME people on this post that were saying not more than a couple of months back that 1300 $ was too expensive for m43s. Now magically its not, its actually reasonable.
So sorry, just pushing the buttons! 🙂
I may be called an Oly fanboy (since I prefer Oly to Pany on most cases) but I still stand by my criticism of Oly’s pricing and marketing strategies. m4/3 should certainly strive to offer good value for money for every demographic: Lower than FF prices for FF users, good entry prices for P&Sers and a rich feature set at adequate prices for enthusiast.
In the light of recent developments I think Oly must have(thankfully) realized this, otherwise there’s no explanation for the disparity in pricing strategies between the 12-40mm (labeled Pro) and the overpriced (enthusiast) E-P5 in regards to their respective prices proportional to their corresponding market segments. The E-M1 is very close to that fine line between good value and overprice but when one punts the E-M5 intro price in perspective, it could’ve been worse.
All in all, Olympus did well to not go overboard like so many here feared (and some even relished the prospect of an overprice). After all this time of Pany dominating the zoom arena in m4/3 it’s nice to see Oly come back to their glory days, the 12-40 is probably gonna become the first MUST HAVE zoom for Oly just like some of its primes have become for many.
As a FF Canon/Panasonic owner, I’m overcome with happieness!! I expected that lens to be $1400!
Seeing the price that low, I know rhe the 12-35mm will see a price drop to ccompete. Now I have the chance to get it!!
So being scared?? Haha!!! Not even the slightest! GX7 is reserved, and now I might get the lens I was hoping would get a decent price drop.
Can’t WAIT!
Mr ALLCAPS
See? One press, two buttons! 🙂
You’d almost think they are one and the same.
Agreed, but the two personalities seem quite different at times (although the motivation seems identical). Also, the time difference between posts is not that suspicious.
Still, no proof. Who knows: maybe it’s just you and me on this forum.
Or maybe… it’s just me?!
Please no, I’m not you!
Sanity restored.
Microphone ?
The euro prices won’t be the final prices. Where I’m from $=€, because of taxes.
The real price of the zoom with the f… taxes for Europe would be at least 820€, for the EM1 just the body 1320€…
But most likely they will match once again the prices in $ and €, so look at the prices in $ and that will be.
+1 it will be so.. sadly.
no new converter m4/3->4/3 ?
Yes, it needs a metal adapter.
The initial leaked video shows camera using an MMF-3 adapter, which is weatherproof. The performance changes are in any tweaks in the sensor and in the processing/focusing using the CPU/sensor, so there should be no need for an additional adapter.
Except admin reported in an earlier thread that there was a new adapter designed to compliment the appearance of the E-M1. I think he might evan have said it would be bundled.
Remember the 3 question marks that were teased a few weeks ago? I’m still wondering what the third ? is. We’ve got E-M1, new zoom…..maybe a new 4/3 adapter?
Thanks, I had missed that 🙂
A new adaptor? I can’t think what they could do to justify a new one (other than the slash the cost of the MMF-3, which is ridiculous).
Actually, I can think of an added feature – a built-in tripod mount. That would make sense given that you might be hanging some heavy 4/3 glass off the thing.
The waterproof housing for the E-M5 is still between 900 and 1000 euros in Holland, so I certainly would expect it to be that expensive for the E-M1 as well.
Give it up Olympus. This is embarrassing. μ43 has totally failed to take off. No surprise there: overpriced cameras (and lenses) with tiny sensors – the public aren’t stupid. It’s a long time since Olympus meant anything in the camera business.
Don’t waste any more money on this system – it will be dead in a few years.
welcome back troll.
Why do you waste your time here instead of making wonderful photos with your HUUUGE sensor?
To Fuji James, STFU!
There’s something tiny in you too (call it your sensor if you want).
Now this is troll.
Lighten up people, he’s got to find something to do while he waits for his camera to focus.
+100
+1
Ok, here’s a quick haiku for you.
(Shin, I can do better but I feel lazy, and you are the poet here) 🙂
Inveigh of trolls
Hiding behind their sensors
Undisguised envy
Photography is not your only talent.
Cheers! Poets-against-trolls, I love it!!
Please don’t turn this into the DPReview forum by screaming “Troll” constantly whenever someone posts something you disagree with. This is the Internet. There are going to be people that don’t agree. You should know that by now. Converse with them or ignore them. But screaming “Troll” in a poem or not is just name calling, counter-productive, and accomplishes nothing. Join in on the more productive conversations. And please refrain from the DPReview model of screaming “troll” at the top of your lungs whenever someone posts their opinion, and you don’t like it.
As I read it, the comment was this:
“Give it up Olympus. This is embarrassing. μ43 has totally failed to take off. No surprise there: overpriced cameras (and lenses) with tiny sensors – the public aren’t stupid. It’s a long time since Olympus meant anything in the camera business.
Don’t waste any more money on this system – it will be dead in a few years.”
If you think the above could function as the start of a constructive discussion, you are completely deluded, maybe irreparably.
This was TROLLING by a T.R.O.L.L. There.
I’m having second thoughts… Anyway, if you weren’t serious, I have to apologize! 🙂
Matt, I have always been polite and I’m simply joking now. For the same reason I could say that the action of “trolling” is offensive too, since those people come to a forum they’re not interested in, and start bashing other people’s opinion.
Usually without offering any proof of their statements/rants.
This haiku is an answer to J Shin’s verses: I see it more as an elegant and funny way to reply to (boring) rants we read again and again from the same people.
You can ignore them, you can try to explain your opinion to them, and now you can take inspiration from them and write verses. 🙂
SaRtori sans R
Sad trolls scatter like photons
Flash! Enlightenment.
Oilymouse you need to improve! 😉 haiku verses follow a rule: the metric must be 5-7-5 That’s the funny part in writing them! Another rule is that they should describe a feeling + something “real”, be it a tree, the weather and so on, but this is not mandatory.
Thanks for the good advice. But what haiku rules did I break exactly?
Oilymouse: you have to count the syllables: the first line must be made of 5 syllables, the second line 7, and the third line 5 syllables.
Ouch! My fault, sorry! I just realized that your second line was actually divided in two, and I have misunderstood!
Your haiku is perfect! 🙂 well done!
I hope “trolls” will keep on inspiring! 🙂
Have to admit I’m rusty, but I would have felt terrible if my homage to your name was obviously in erroneous form. Will keep up the practice 🙂
Marco/Oilymouse: love them! 🙂
Now, Matt does have a point, tho’. If we could do this without using the word “troll”, perhaps it would be more effective? Or if we could praise trolls in a back-handed way? I’ll need to think about it. It’s certainly an interesting challenge…
How’s this?
‘Neath internet’s bridge
Lurks fierce large-sensor’ed creatures
That just won’t shut up.
Ah! Nice! Clever use of folklore, very “high context” like Haikus are encouraged to be.
Seriously, we should do a contest. 🙂
A king is rising
Truths of old dispensed in vain
Sensors embraze light
So uplifting! Beautiful! 🙂
Yes, that’s nice, and I like how it sounds!
James a reality check for you. Fuji sales are less than M/43.
If this holds true, $1500 is exactly what I was expecting the E-M1 to cost, but I was hoping for $1200 to $1300, which would make it much more competitive. However, other than the PDAF for 4/3 lenses, I’m not sure there’s much else that would make it worth a $500 premium over the E-M5. Need to know a LOT more on what’s on the inside….
The $900 price tag of the 12-40 is fantastic! I’d certainly get one at that price.
– Olympius
It has the $200 grip included :p
Also there is a better viewfinder & updated 5-axis IBIS.
And I think the body will be build like a tank. But I am not going to buy it, since I have an E-M5 and no 4/3 lenses.
Anyway, I am curious how the pdaf is performing.
I seriously doubt this camera will be built along the lines of the classic E-1, E-3 and E-5. To my eyes, it seems all they’ve done here is put a permanent grip on the E-M5, and are now calling it a new pro camera! Yes, the E-M5 is a nicely made piece of equipment, but it’s no where near the construction of the big E-x DSLR’s, but then almost nothing is. I wouldn’t be surprised if the GH3 does better in this regard, I need to rent one and put it through it’s paces to find out.
From the leaked spec’s, it seems there are only three things that are improved on the E-M5: a better EVF, 1/8000 shutter speed, and I assume there will be some sort of focus peaking. I’m not sure that’s worth $500, but it could be to someone. Obviously there are a bunch of folks all excited about this camera, but unless you own a bunch of 4/3 lenses you want to mount on a tiny little camera (after paying an extra $200 for the adapter!!!!), I really don’t see the point of this for a “pure” micro 4/3 user. If all you have are micro 4/3 lenses for your E-M5, there doesn’t seem to be a darn thing that this camera will improve upon in terms of usability or IQ. I do hope I’m wrong, we’ll find out for sure once this thing is revealed to the masses “officially.” That’s why it’s important to find out what’s inside.
As for focus tracking: you need PDAF to do that, and lenses that are setup for PDAF. All the micro 4/3 lenses are CDAF only as far as I understand, hence that PDAF implementation will be completely useless for M.Zuiko owners. Olympus never, ever made a truly “hybrid” solution like Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Samsung. In the past, it was always one system or the other, but never both together. I do hope I’m wrong about that too, but I doubt it.
Maybe this new 12-40 will be the first of a new line of hybrids when it comes to focusing, but that of course doesn’t do a bit of good for the lenses you already own.
– Olympius
I think it’s easier to think of E-M1 = E-P5 + VF-4 + PDAF + Grip + SLR_shape – Rangefinder_shape.
If you accept the price of E-P5 and VF-4, $1500 is not bad; if you don’t, then it’s more of the same overpricedness. (I agree that $1200-1300 in the US is more like it, and that is still a possibility. Sony’s NEX-FF is rumored to be $3000, which is quite a bit too much.)
There is also WiFi tethering, which many people will love, but I assume that will be implemented in E-P5 soon enough.
E-M5 and grip are already $1300. Add the wonderful viewfinder (I use a VF-4. it’s much better) and efficient tracking AF (hopefully) and there you are. There will be other little touches too (mic slot, PC sync, DOF preview button, more spacious control layout, larger battery etc.) which may or may not justify an extra, depending on your specific requirements. My own experience with high end Olympus gear (E-3, E-5) is very positive. All those little bits add up to a dependable and luxurious gestalt.
Sneye, since I can’t remember from the hundreds of comments, did anybody wrote anything about a “real” 100 ISO?
No.
Ok, thank you.
Hi Marco, didn’t someone write (not so long ago) that all modern sensors have a natural base of 200 ISO, making any speed slower than 200 artificial. Perhaps Sneyes memory is better.
OMega thank you for yor reply. Honestly I don’t know if it is a limit or just a lack of interest. And I’ve missed that comment for sure. I would have loved a 100 ISO for landscaping, but I know also it won’t change my life.
The more options the better!
I did notice that the iPad app (when wifi controlling the E-M1 in the leaked video) did have an ISO100 setting when he scrolled to the left. Not sure if it’s a real 100 or pulled though.
I also noticed that detail. The most sensible assumption is that is the same “pulled” 100 as of the EP-5. Which is still a good thing, of course.
Weeklygerbera + Anonimous thank you! To the folk out here: can someone explain how “pumped” or “simulated” 100 ISO works? Perhaps someone owning an EP5 can help.
Marco, shoot at iso 200, overexpose by 1 stop, and then pull the result down one stop in pp. That is essentially what extended iso 100 does, and also explains why it reduces DR as well as removing some remaining noise.
The native ISO of the sensor is not something you can choose, it comes about as a consequence of the physics involved. The lowest ISO is the sweetspot – the unamplified sensitivity of the sensor. To get higher ISO/sensitivity, amplifiers are used to improve the Signal to noise ratio.
Forcing a lower ISO than the sensors native base ISO degrades IQ. It’s my understanding that smaller pixels have a higher base ISO because they are smaller.
Nokia are doing some really interesting things with their 1020 phone camera in terms of sampling multiple adjacent pixels and oversampling to achieve better S/N ratios.
https://i.nokia.com/blob/view/-/2723846/data/1/-/Lumia1020-whitepaper.pdf
Efficient tracking AF?? You’d better lower your expectation.
You already tested one? Share the results!
Here is some food for thought for you. Nikon and Canon have for a long time been enhancing the tracking capability of their high-end cameras by trying to make their AF sensors recognize color, and more recently shape. Both are needed to make tracking workable as it helps the camera to tell apart the moving object you are trying to focus on and nearby objects at the same distance. Now we have no idea yet how well pdaf works on the e-m1, but if it works well, on-sonsor pdaf can have a very significant advantage over implementations with separate af sensors.
I wonder if this could put some pressure on the pricing of the Panasonic 12-35?
I’d hope so, but am not sure, since they don’t necessarily compete because one has OIS and one doesn’t.
I think realistically 12-40 could be $1100 and kit combo could be $2400, 12-35mm is selling for 76000yen in Japan, but on ebay it is still selling for $940
Cheaper than I expected it to be. Can’t wait to see some tests now.
But as I know Olympus ( like almost any other company aswell ) they’ll do a one to one conversion.. So we probably can expect a 900 Euro price tag in the euro zone.
This is the Breaking News~!!!
I guess the European body price will be the US price with Euro behind it. The price of the zoom looks promising.
Wow! Good price on the lens. It will be an interesting fall season.
The bad news is that I’m not really interested in 12–35 or 12–40 range, or at least not such fast one nad not for this price. It would be much more interesting if Olympus, Panasonic and Sigma beat on bright 35–100 lenses. But unfortunately Panasonic has the only release so far.
Interresting post really.
No disrespect to you Kesztió but why is it bad news just because you don’t need it, there are many others who maybe don’t require that range, that doesn’t make it bad news though. This looks a superb piece of glass and I fully expect it to have nothing but excellent results when it is tested (except possibly for DxO marks, they will probably liken it with a Pepsi bottle).
Looks like there will be no silver black version this time, I was really hopping for one.
There must be one. Think of all those silver lenses.
I really hope that there will be a silver/black body. Most my lenses are silver.
If I don’t recall wrong, yesterday Admin wrote that there will be the silver version too. Perhaps not immediately available, as happened with E-m5.
it’ll be a limited version for 300 bucks more 😉
Nice. Here comes the first pro grade Zuiko lens for m4/3 at a affordable price.
The EM-1 is a game changer. Olympus can shamelessly make pro grade lenses for m4/3 now, because its user base can use their 4/3 lenses with m4/3 future cameras, so there will be HG and SHG lenses for everyone (the owner of 4/3 lenses and the newcomer in m4/3).
One beautiful system they said. It could be true after all 🙂
Olympus, now bring it a 35-100, 50-200 and 7-14 without CA problems!
Okay, so it’s:
* a minimum of 1500€ for the body
* plus 200€ for the grip (which is absolutely mandatory for a tiny camera such as this one),
* plus about 150€ for the MMF-3 (if you can even get it, because it’s not available in all European countries)
A total of 1850€ just to have a modern sensor, albeit in an extremely small camera, to use your good lenses on.
Erm… no. Absolutely not. That’s more than the price of E-5 on release, and that camera, unlike any of the m4/3 offerings, including this new tiny toy, was actually a pro camera with pro features and pro build quality.
Most people who have the HLD-6 only use the horizontal part, so unless someone is going to shoot in portrait mode all day long, the grip is far from mandatory.
It is if youre gonna use it for the only thing it does over the em5: focus those giant 43s lenses.
based on?
Funny, I almost always use both parts of the hld-6 for a number of reasons, battery life and being able to switch batteries without the camera turning off are just 2 of them, better balance when putting a FL50R on top of the camera being another one.
Now I don’t think my behavior is anywhere representing the majority of people, but, I think that is just as true for what you said.
The E-M1 body has a significantly redesigned and larger grip on the body itself. Thus I would think that the external grip would only be needed for the extra power capability, or if you had large hands. If the latter applies the whole small camera body may prove to be a problem, since it is significantly smaller than the E-5 body.
Price of body yet to be finally agreed on, we can only consider what it will be outside Japan at present.
Grip, The Real Stig has answered that very correctly, the majority only use the first part of it.
Now for the MMF, I would say the vast majority of people likely to obtain the E-M1 will already possess an MMF of one version or another,the fact it is an MMF suggests it will be no different to a either of the previous models, or even the Viltrox copy (which is perfectly useable) the only loss incurred would be the weatherproofing.
Now consider the cost…
No.
This is a camera with PDAF, and PDAF is needed for 4/3 lenses. This camera is aimed towards 4/3 users.
If you’re a 4/3 owner, you almost certainly HAVEN’T bought into m4/3, so you don’t have an adapter. And even if you DID have an adapter, it almost certainly wouldn’t be the MMF-3, making the whole combination entirely useless – weatherproof body, weatherproof lens, adapter is not.
If you’re a 4/3 owner, you NEED the vertical grip, because even the diminutive E-620 is bigger than the E-M1/5. Even if you have small hands, there is no room for the pinky finger without the grip. Therefore, the vertical grip is mandatory. Not only because of finger space, but also because gripless 4/3 DSLRs have three times the battery life over m4/3; gripped 4/3 easily quintuples it.
This camera won’t sell. It doesn’t provide 4/3 users with what they want, and it provides useless features to m4/3 users at a serious price premium.
I’d gladly pay 2000€ for a native E-7. I’m not going to pay 1850€ for a frankenkamera that doesn’t do what I want it to do.
Over at our local Oly shooters’ club, we had a lengthy discussion over the weekend, and the general consensus is that it’s finally time to just let go and switch to Canikon. m4/3 is a flawed idea for the fashionistas that’s going to be obsolete by smartphones and software in 4-5 years. Canikon still does photography, not hipsterisms forced down your throat, so that’s where all 15 or so of us will be heading.
“This camera won’t sell”. This only quote makes your post a troll.
The man posts the most sense filled comment of the century and is called a troll??!
Welcome to 43rumors
Yeah, except his post wasn’t “this only quote”, was it? Find yourself.
Yes too bad… Evil is in details… and trolls sometimes well hidden…
So a fraction of a sentence in a paragraph out of all that makes him a troll?????
Thats even worse!
I agree. Troll. You too, probably same person. That’s the problem with these forums.
Also, his argument is specious and superficial. I own no 43 bodies, and purchased E-M5 first, but I do own 43 glass now (and that’s the main glass I use on MFT). So the logical conclusion is… I want PDAF, I will buy E-M1, and others will too.
So moose’s arguments fall down. And he’s a troll (like you). It’s all self-consistent.
Cheers.
Oh boy…first I dont need two identities to tell you what I think. Im not an anonymous coward either. Second, you people need to learn how to read.
He is saying that if you’re gonna use the em1 for 43s lenses (because otherwise your buying a 1500$ em5, you do see that, right?), then the horizontal grip is a must. The hg and shg lenses were already too big for the -small for 43s but bigger than em1- exxx bodies. And then theres the question of the adapter; is it weather sealed? Otherwise it would be stupid. So how wrong is it of him to say it is a 1850 $ frankencamera when you add up what you need for it to work? And that it wont sell because current E owners wont go for it?
You people ask for arguments and opinions and when presented to you its all pitches and forks and lets hunt the troll.
Oh hello true one!
It seems you just don’t really understand the difference between guesses based on a rumored yet unanounced camera, and arguments.
Now, if you want to argue based on rumored specs then you may want to consider 1/8000 shutter speed, a larger and better evf, large grip, possibly dual card slots, microphone input jack, freeze proving, improved sensor and processing, just to name some things from those rumors that make it different from the e-m5.
You are that true homer that claims making reasonable arguments? Sure.
Hi. You must be from DPRview forums and ran out of people there to call troll. Welcome to the internet, where people vary in Opinion and not everyone is sucking at Olympus’ teet. The only Trolls around here are those that constantly cry troll until their mommy comes and picks them up to save them from those nasty opinionated trolls.
Don’t worry, little baby, the trolls won’t keep you from your $3,000 mft camera setup.
Really?
O dear jebus….someone who actually makes sense here! I never thought id see the day…..
Getting the em1 and not using it for the 43s lens focusing ability is like getting a 1500$ em5
You are getting more than that. I dont have 4/3 glass anymore but I would love the 1/8000th shutter, no AA filter, and improved EVF. The latest processing engine will probably be a bonus as well.
then a 900$ ep5 or a 900$ GX7 fits your bill just fine. really youre gonna pay 500$ for 1/8000 shutter? And really youre gonna buy a 1500$ camera for the jpegs??
You could be right. But I guess it would be worth waiting for a formal announcement, and even to try one hands-on, first? I don’t know about you, but if I found Canikon’s offerings attractive for my needs, I would not have gone 43 in the first place. Do either offer a rugged body with a swivel screen, even? I don’t think so… And a lens to match the 50-200? Maybe, but nothing springs to mind.
Don’t loose time with him with rational advices. The gentle sheep will follow his 15 fellow “former FT users” toward Canikon land… Feels so secure to follow the mainstream… Masses can’t be wrong, can they?
David,
Back when I went Olympus, many years ago, I did so for a reason – outdoor photography in extreme weather conditions was always my thing, and Canikon didn’t have anything back then that would compare to the E-3 and the Zuiko (S)HG lenses. I fell into a gdamn muddy-sloshy creek in the middle of winter and my photo gear just brushed it off. Things have changed in six years and these days serious weatherproof cameras are easy to obtain even if you don’t have tons of cash. The crop factor is still somewhat of an advantage, but it has been negated by longer zooms on the Canikon side, as well as more megapixels.
I have started shooting airsoft for money. I’m not making a living out of it because it’s very niche, so I’m not a pro in the strict sense of that word, but the E-M1 is a clear downgrade over the E-5 – not only for me, but also for my fellow Oly shooters, which are mainly serious birders. In my case, none of the m4/3 offerings have enough structural integrity that would allow me to run and jump with a 50-200 or 35-100 attached, for example, nor do any of them offer a top LCD, which is insanely important. In the case of my birder friends, well, it’s a matter of EVF; not that the EVF is bad per se, but because it drains battery life, and birding is like fishing: it’s all about the wait. Battery life for EVF birding isn’t there yet, even with the battery grip, and won’t be for quite some time. I have also been told that an EVF is a no-no for night-time photography because it ruins your night vision. Can’t attest to that, haven’t tried it in those conditions.
At the end of the day, which 4/3 users might be interested in the E-M1? Those with (S)HG lenses. How many E-xxx users have (S)HG lenses? Yeah. Bodies and lenses go hand in hand. The E-M1 is just as unwieldy with a (S)HG lens as an E-xxx is, if not more due to a shifted centre of mass, on top of having an extra potential point of structural failure in the form of an adapter.
So, the E-M1 won’t work for pro(sumer) 4/3 users for all the reasons I have mentioned above. It won’t work for former casual 4/3 users because the kit lenses are almost worthless and the body is too expensive. It won’t work for m4/3 users because PDAF is useless for them and the price is too high. That doesn’t leave a lot of potential buyers.
m4/3 in general is really good for casual (snap)shooters and street voyeurs; the people who carry their camera with them as an accessory. Therefore it’s only logical to assume that m4/3 will suffer the same fate as compact cameras – it’ll be eaten away by smartphones when they become “good enough”. Their optics and sensors are improving, and so is the software. Today’s Instagram is tomorrow’s accurate bokeh simulation for selfies.
This whole E-M1 story is reminiscent of the upcoming Windows 8.1 update – people wanted the start *menu* back, and Microsoft gave them a start *button* instead, which doesn’t solve the underlying problem. In this case, the problem is that a native mount 4/3 body with a new sensor is needed. The E-M1 isn’t a capable platform for catering to the needs of E-x shooters with (S)HG lenses, and that’s what it theoretically should be, with its PDAF-on-sensor. As one example of its inadequacy, I have gone through 2000 shots with a HLD-4 with some battery life to spare. An E-Mx with the HLD-6 can barely last 500 with the original batteries; 3rd-party ones are very lucky to exceed 100 shots per battery (I wish I was making this up, but I’m not), while some 3rd-party BLM-1s were even better than the originals.
With Canikons, you have clear upgrade path*s*. Plenty of lenses, plenty of bodies, plenty of everything, and you’ll eventually have full compatibility in a known body when the EVF replaces the OVF and the mirror is gone. With Panoly, you… don’t. Everything is more or less the same and the main differentiator is basically whether the camera has an EVF or not. It’s been almost five years and only recently have we started seeing some types of lens tiering. The 75mm might fall under the old SHG category optically, but it’s not even weather-sealed. The Panasonic X zooms aren’t that great. There’s no telephoto. I wonder if the new 12-40 is even going to be optically on the same level as the old 12-60…
Olympus, in particular, doesn’t get it. They had a growing DSLR marketshare of close to 15% globally before they ditched it, despite not playing to the strengths of the system in the form of macro and telephoto (and quality CAF, of course). m4/3 still isn’t profitable for them, after almost five years. Now they’re trying to merge systems and move old 4/3 shooters over with a camera that isn’t fit for the purpose. They don’t get it. They never will, I’m afraid.
Enough text; coffee’s done, gotta cook dinner, no more time to write.
Amazing things you know about a camera that is currently not even announced yet.
And eh, with a single, new, Olympus branded battery, on a good day, my E-3 doesn’t get much beyond about a 1000 pictures, often I’m at my second battery quite a bit before that. Different use maybe, but it sounds to me like you are comparing a close to best case scenario to a close to worst case scenario.
I bought into MFT before 43 (glass), so I’ve been looking forward to OBSystem for a long time. This camera is anything but useless to MFT buyers who want top grade glass. It’s key to using some glass we already have. So: nice try.
“If you’re a 4/3 owner, you almost certainly HAVEN’T bought into m4/3, so you don’t have an adapter.”
Thats not exactly true.
To witness, I own an E-420, E-620, E-3, 11-22, 14-54, 50-200 and the ‘kit’ 14-42 and 40-150 as well as a Sigma 150 macro. Yet, I also own an m4/3 body (more then one actually) and an MMF-3. Actually, much of the 4/3 stuff I only got after my first m4/3 camera.
I know quite a number of people who either sold their 4/3 bodies when switching to m4/3 but kept their lenses, or kept both body and lenses.
That YOU didn’t do so might indicate there are also other people who didn’t do so, but that isn’t exactly making your statement anywhere true.
“And even if you DID have an adapter, it almost certainly wouldn’t be the MMF-3”
Why not? At introduction there were very nice deals on the E-M5 including it.
Bad assumption really.
“, making the whole combination entirely useless – weatherproof body, weatherproof lens, adapter is not.”
Uh… you understand what *ENTIRELY* useless means?
Obviously you don’t. An MMF-1 or 2 is totally usable but won’t be weather resistant. That does matter in certain situations, but going from there to ‘entirely useless’ clearly shows you aren’t even trying to make a reasonable argument, rather, you are being ridiculous.
“If you’re a 4/3 owner, you NEED the vertical grip,”
Maybe YOU do, but most certainly you need to learn something, talk for yourself and not for others.
I’ve used the 50-200 on an E-M5 without HLD-6, and that is quite workable provided you have anywhere sane handling technique. With the grip part of the HLD-6 it does become a lot better however, and oh surprise, the E-M1 will offer an even better grip there.
There are other reasons that make the battery part desirable for me, but that has everything to do with battery life and actually appreciating a portrait grip.
” because even the diminutive E-620 is bigger than the E-M1/5. Even if you have small hands, there is no room for the pinky finger without the grip.”
…
“Therefore, the vertical grip is mandatory. Not only because of finger space, but also because gripless 4/3 DSLRs have three times the battery life over m4/3; gripped 4/3 easily quintuples it.”
Hmm, curious, my E-3 manages about 70-100% more pictures on a full battery when compared to my E-M5 depending on the exact situation and use. Better? most certainly. 3 times? Not by far.
But we get it, you are one of those bitter 4/3 users coming over from DPR, only being able to express yourself with hyperbole and trying to ridicule anything other then your specific choices. Your bitterness is not welcome here, take it somewhere else.
+1. That’s why he’s trolling (event if he can’t admit it).
Generalities based about own self, words not based on real facts (own unreproductible experience doesn’t qualifiy as fact) makes an entire post look like a troll.
It’s so nice that you took his personal opinion as gospel and validation of your own ideas.
Gotta love the internet. A group of 15+ people who are old enough to be your parents and even grandparents, shooting Olympus 4/3 since 2007, is considered invalid, while a single newbie person’s words are the absolute truth.
Canon fanboys hate Nikon fanboys. Nikon fanboys hate Canon fanboys. m4/3 fanboys even hate each other, if they’re in the opposite camp, on top of hating Canon, Nikon, Olympus 4/3, Pentax and Sony *users*. It’s the most bitter, vile community of fanboys I have ever seen on the internet, and I’ve been online for a very long time.
quote:”A group of 15+ people who are old enough to be your parents and even grandparents, shooting Olympus 4/3 since 2007, is considered invalid, while a single newbie person’s words are the absolute truth”
See? Out of real arguments, you now use the ultimate trick: “we are older so you shouold shut up!”.
1. You just have no idea about how old ppl on the forum is 🙂
2. Wisdom isn’t dependent on age
3. A wrong argumentation stays a wrong argumentation, even if 15 guys back it up…
Once again, don’t be so certain and keep an open mind… and we’ll see if “it [the EM-1] will never sell” 😉
“Gotta love the internet. A group of 15+ people who are old enough to be your parents and even grandparents, shooting Olympus 4/3 since 2007, is considered invalid,”
Shall we look again at some of the ‘arguments’ ?
“If you’re a 4/3 owner, you almost certainly HAVEN’T bought into m4/3,”
Totally unfounded assumption. A better one is “if you are a bitter conservative 4/3 user, you typically hate m4/3 a lot because it means change, and that is something conservatives hate”.
“so you don’t have an adapter.”
Totally unfounded assumption.
“And even if you DID have an adapter, it almost certainly wouldn’t be the MMF-3,”
Bad assumption, as it has been available for quite some time and has been bundled with the E-M5 in various places.
“making the whole combination entirely useless – weatherproof body, weatherproof lens, adapter is not.”
Totally moronic. 4/3 lens will work just as well with mmf-1/2. Sure you lose weather sealing, but really, that isn’t the same as ‘entirely useless’.
“If you’re a 4/3 owner, you NEED the vertical grip, because even the diminutive E-620 is bigger than the E-M1/5. Even if you have small hands, there is no room for the pinky finger without the grip.”
Funny, the people making this argument already held the camera in their hands and know about the ergonomics? Where are their test reports? There is a whole community of potential buyers waiting for those reports, they could be making some good money there.
“Therefore, the vertical grip is mandatory.”
And who exactly do those 15 people think they are to decide that for others? Ever heard about arrogance? This is a prime example of it.
“Not only because of finger space, but also because gripless 4/3 DSLRs have three times the battery life over m4/3; gripped 4/3 easily quintuples it.”
Can you quote some reproducable tests for this? Things we can test ourselves, or test reports from reputable testers will do fine.
Sorry but when people, regardless of how many, and regardless of their age make extremely bad arguments based on wild assumptions, conservatism and bitterness, and on top of that simply fail to understand the difference between opinion and fact, there is absolutely no reason to listen to them, rather, there is every reason to ignore them until such time they start understanding that difference and start using logic and facts for their arguments.
“while a single newbie person’s words are the absolute truth.”
Hmm yes, except for that newbie having started with photography when auto exposure for SLRs was a totally new thing, which is probably before you were born even.
Oh, and don’t get me wrong, there are currently some very good reasons to desire a DSLR for certain uses. The E-M1 may change that, but we simply don’t know for now, and won’t know until there exist independent tests that show if/how well it is capable of tracking subjects.
However, the silly troll post above has nothing whatsoever to do with good arguments.
“Grip, The Real Stig has answered that very correctly, the majority only use the first part of it.”
Says whom?
There’s inflation, of course, but most importantly this package is worth much more than the E-5! Moreover, the out-of-pocket costs are lower for those that have an MMF adapter.
Price is good, especially for introduction. I think it will be in short supply for at least 6 months, probably 9.
The big question is this:
Is it worth upgrading from E-M5 to E-M1? To me, an owner of quite a few HG 4/3 lenses, the answer is obviously yes. I will be able to sell my E-5 with little penalty. Nevertheless, E-M5 users who are strictly m4/3 gear owners might not enjoy substantial benefits. The new viewfinder is dramatically better, but the one in the E-M5 is perfectly adequate for framing. PDAF could be useful for some shooting styles, but is largely unnecessary to most humanity. “Image quality” of the E-M5 is quite adequate already so any improvement there would be academic only (otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this). Lets face it, the excitement about the E-M1 is mostly GAS. All in all it’s a very nice but very expensive camera which will not contribute much to E-M5 owners’ photography. I would save my money for nice lenses.
My next one will probably be the one with the greatly improved dynamic range on the sensor. I believe it is the cooperation between Olympus and Sony paying off.
How Olympus will call that one I can only guess…
In 2014 we will see Em5 II with sensor from EM1. The next big step in IQ will come in 2015 – a time when organic sensor era begins.
In the meantime invest in lenses as I do with my OMD 🙂
Good line of thinking.
The (quality line) m43 lenses er amazing. Right now I have 12-50( so-so), 40-150 (so-so) and 45 (great!). Enough for a while. Love to test the 75 but don´t know many situations that justify the price point. Next zoom (Tamron??) should have little CA, don´t care so much about speed, because the IBIS does some great corrections 🙂
Because of this I will not buy a new camera before the we know how good the new sensors are. At the moment, the sensor of the E-M5 is good enough, and I don’t expect a big improvement with the current sensor technology.
For E-M5 users without 43 lenses it’s better to buy the new lens then then the E-M1. Except somebody wants also to buy a 50-200, but I hope, Olympus will also bring out a good tele zoom.
I agree absolutely. BTW to me the E-M5 is already borderline as to size. I would trade it happily for an E-Px, with *built in* EVF, but for IQ I am more than satisfied, and I doubt that the E-M1 will carry noticeable improvements.
Despite that I cannot but admire the E-M1 for 4/3 users and sports shooters. For them it’s well worth taking the step, if everything went according to plan.
Sport shooters with M43? LOL…….
Agree.
Though with the E-M1 I want to see results with 4/3 glass that uses phase detection?
But, that would mean much more bulky equipment and the loss of portability.
It would mean being able to own a single type of camera, and up/downscale it as needed for the job.
Oh, and a 50-200 + EC14 is still nicely portable compared to a setup with an equivalent range zoom on especially a full frame camera. (say a 6D with the 100-400L and 1.4x tc), not to mention, due to the brighter aperture, its a bit easier to focus for the camera.
A bulky setup? most certainly, but as bulky as other setups you could use for the same job? I think that is a much more relevant question then the absolute amount of ‘bulk’.
said earlier that you know nothing you just confirmed it.
12-40 is not cheaper, compare japanese prices to japanese.
Panasonic 12-35 is 76.000yen, 12-40 is 90.000yen.
Thats an interesting observation. Was it the 12-35X price on launch?
Most importantly, compared to some of the pessimistic speculations I have read here an there on this forum and on dpreview, rumored priced of the 12-40 is nothing alike $1800 or even more!
Doesn’t really matter which price was at launch. No point in comparing them either.
Lets politely agree to disagree.
You’re comparing Pana’s street price to Oly’s. MSRP. Oly, with a 25% discount (conservative for Japan), would match Pana’s price.
For the callow readers: a Canon 6D with a 28-135 IS is way cheaper if you don’t mind a little more bulk. It probably vomits on this quality-wise, too.
Just keeping things in perspective…
Your username is apt.
You miss-specified that kit. You would have to get the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L to be comparable. The price of the 6D and that lens on Amazon Uk is €4000.
It’s easy killing trolls, all you need is the truth.
> It’s easy killing trolls, all you need is the truth.
That’s art. The Stig is joining the poets-agains-trolls initiative!
++
No, I’d need a 24-70 F5.6 . Learn the basics.
6d is going for 1500 $ in too many places to list (try deal runner or even amazon) and ooopppsss….look at what I found
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-24-70mm-2-8-Standard-Canon/dp/B001NEK2Q4/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1377517133&sr=8-6&keywords=tamron+24-70
Lets see…1500 +824 is…
Are you missing up Sigma 24-70 and Canon EF L 24-70? Too big, they won’t bite…
Care to rewrite that as an understandable sentence? Are we now on the other side of the size argument? Cause nobody was on that boat when the gh3 and 12-35 was anounced. Pathetic
See why I refused to comment on this forum for so many years? Now my name pops up every post. This NOT me. Somebody do something!
Just add a photo (can’t remember how I did it) and then log in each time you write a comment.
That’s proably the important point: we do mind the bulk…
otherwise I would have own a 5d for long time now, be it second hand if needed to keep the budget low enough
but I don’t want vomit in my pictures.
so better go for the Olympus you reckon then?
That could be an issue for anyone lugging those big brutish cameras around all day.
I have a 6D. Reading your post you certainly do not, and have no idea what you are talking about.
Really? You have a 6D? Can you switch it on?
And the usual prats who compare lenses with the same aperture on different formats? Is that a piece of your brain in my dustbin here? Tell your bosses at Olympus to lower the prices, then we can talk.
Here you are miserable little troll. Once again they’ve been feeding you to much and you’re f*rting averywhere? Go back to your cave, enough for today!
You are as bad as the troll, just wasting everyone’s time pointing out the f*cking obvious. And before anyone says it, yes my post is a waste.
🙂 I think this is permissible – the style and flow appeal to me. We should encourage the better trolls so the lesser ones wither.
I already have a bulky DSLR or two. So thank you, I’ll take the small size, proper weathersealing, fast and precise focusing and IBIS this time. If you don’t mind, of course.
Keep this in perspective: The E-M1 is weather sealed. What happens when vomit hits the 6D, as is far more likely, anyhow?
Umm…the 6d is as weather sealed as the 5d mk3…oopppsss
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/2012/10/
Uuuurrg!!! I am not writing these things!
Bollox ain’t got none.
If this price is right is the very good price, for example is price on E-M1 under E-30, and maybe approach to
E-M5.
It’s not a good price if you want to attract new camera buyer to buy m4/3.
Plenty of other models for that.
Rather small discount for 12-40 inside kit. 220.000 vs 235.000yen 🙁 Though this brings it to panasonic 12-35 price level.
I haven’t paid that much detailed attention in the past, but it was my impression that the U.S. prices have been lower than one would expect based on Japanese list prices and the relevant Yen/Dollar exchange rates. Please correct me if my memory is faulty 🙂
50-200 f3,5 PLEASE！
Sweet if pricing is true. Still the most expensive Olympus m43 lens though. There might just be a chance this lens is indeed better than the panny due to the lack of OIS
i was hoping for a bigger sensor on this body, honestly u cant call “pro” a 16mp camera, this model is going to be a big fail with this price
Hopefully we had no expectation on the size of your brain, you peanut headed troll…
Nikon D4?
Image circle.
Sony are working on something just for you.
I agree about the price. But, a bigger sensor?? You must be kidding.
There is only one size. The right size.
“In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, in the expert’s mind there are few.”
Funny how D1, D2, D2x, D2H, D3, D3s D4 all are considered pro without going up to 16MP.
So you think the Nokia Pureview 808 with its 41MP camera is the top pro camera since NO other DSLR offer that much MP?
Marc. F1 is going from 2.4l to 1.6 and loosing 2 cylinders. Does this mean that F1 is not pro. Or did they lose that when they went from 3.0l to 2.4 or on earlier changes?
Q U E S T I O N:
Are fast zoom lenses still that important in these days???
(they have even more problems with sunlight)
For DOF in portraits there are special lenses like the 45mm / 1.8.
Such lenses are crucial to be competitive with FF cameras. You need a very good sensor and small, fast lenses with just enough DoF control to get as close as possible to FF without sacrificing portability.
Please note I said “competitive” – not a complete replacement. On the same note: FF is never going to fully replace MF or vice versa.
thanks
I think to acquire shallow DOF, with m4/3 system you need longer focal distances, like 75mm, right?
You can have it with fast lenses too of course. (Shallow DOF is overrated and abused today, but it’s just my opinion)
Ulli, I know you love it for your photography and that makes sense! 🙂
45/1.8 gives good results. Look ate the samples here: http://www.camerastuffreview.com/olympus-lens-review/review-olympus-45-mm
The answer is even simpler: work. If you work in photography 24-100 is your workhorse range, and covering an event with a prime is a big no no
so the answer is that there is no need for a fast zoom and for DOF there are the 45 /75 mm lenses. Thanks! 🙂
Needs are dependant on the user. If you have the 45 and the 75 then youre limited to that. Which is fine if you do limited amounts of photography or you have control of your surroundings (where youre gonna be). But zooms are top for convenience, think about it: a high quality zoom of this range gives you 28 f2.8 primes! In one lens! Thats not all, all of those 28 primes cover a focal lenght you currently cant, and even if zooming with your feet kept the same perspective (it doesnt) its very unlikely youll have the space to do so.
thanks & flowers 🙂
“a high quality zoom of this range gives you 28 f2.8 primes”
No, it’ll be 29 actually 😉
Just a slightly off-topic observation. You actually know how distance relates to perspective, noted this before, without ever having seen your pictures, you seem like a knowledgeable photographer, quite unlike many of the noisy gearheads here. Please keep posting, much appreciated.
Simply not true. What did all though fashion, street, landscape & portait photographer use before zooms? Poor old Ansel Adams, Annie Leibovitz and Henri Cartier-Bresson, they would have been much more succesful if they only had zoom lenses. And f/2.8 is not fast in prime land, in fact it is the slowest in the 24-100mm (35mm equivalent) range. There are plenty of pros who need speed, portability and something discrete. This is not a reflection on this lens.
Come on thats not a fair statement. Thats like asking why we need cars when we use to get around so well in horses. Or that people use to live without refrigerators just fine and cook in ovens with no timers. Take Henri carter for example; at the height of his things zooms didnt exist!!! The first stills zoom was invented in 1959 and it was a long time before they became main stream. By the time he was given the Hasselblad award zooms was starting to become something. He was entering his 60s. So sure he was skeptic about them, its even rumored he called them the work of the devil.
If im on a shoot where time constraints are not an issue or I can control the crowd (make them pose) then sure, ill use a prime. But a wedding or a hectic event, a zoom is a must. Wides for group, zoom for portraits and everything in between with just one lens will certainly get me more of the event. Did it used to be done with primes? Sure, but im willing to bet they missed a lot of stuff and would have killed for a zoom.
Come on now that’s not fair. Thats like asking why use cars when people use to get around in horses so well. Or that people use to do fine without refrigerators and cook in ovens with no timers. Take Henri carter: at the height of what he was doing zooms didnt exist! The first stills zoom was invented in 1959 and it took quite some time to make them mainstream. By then henri was winning carrer Hasselblad awards and entering his 60s. So its understandable why mr 50mm is believed to have said zooms are the work of the devil.
If im in a shoot where im controling time or its just a small controlable crowd then sure ill use a prime, a 50. But weddings and other hectic stuff the zoom is just a must. I can do groups, portraits and everything in between with a 24-70. I can be covering whats happening here and over there without looking stupid trying to run and not miss it. Did tbey use to be done with primes? Sure but a whole lot was lost and im willing to bet they would have killed for a zoom.
Posting it twice doesn’t make it any fairer! You make the sweeping statement “… covering an event with a prime is a big no no” and I argue my case for primes being just as relevant and you say it it not fair?? How did sports photographer ever capture any decent photos before the 200-400mm lenses arrived. Your analogy to cars/horses is not relevant unless you are Amish. A better analogy is sedan and sports cars, one is a jack of all trades/master of none (zoom) and the other requires a little more thought and is less practical but both relevant. You missed my whole point about those famous photographers – they didn’t need zooms (whether they were available or not) to capture their images. The major advantage of primes is controlling depth of field, minimizing weight or trying to be discrete. I don’t understand why using a prime is associated with “controling time or its just a small controlable crowd controlling”.
The car comparison makes perfect sense, no matter how much you may dislike it.
Also, I rather doubt that post was made twice to make it ‘more true’, rather, it may have to do with moderation, don’t you think?
Wait a minute, I get it now, the horse is actually the zoom (more versatile but slow) and the car is the prime (limited to roads but is much faster). Thank you for the clarification, mr anonymous. And I was joking (notice the exclamation mark) about the double comments but you are a bit slow like the horse/zoom.
Ok, lets look at your previous argument then…
“Simply not true. What did all though fashion, street, landscape & portait photographer use before zooms?”
See, THAT is exactly why the car argument makes sense. How did people ever get around before there were cars? Oh indeed by horse and buggy. Less convenient in many ways, but it certainly works.
It makes perfect sense because you use the historical non existence of a technology (zoom lenses) to justify the existence of another technology (prime lenses). You can certainly try to misrepresent what was meant and try to argue against that, but that is properly called a strawman argument.
“Poor old Ansel Adams, Annie Leibovitz and Henri Cartier-Bresson, they would have been much more succesful if they only had zoom lenses.”
Another Strawman argument.
“And f/2.8 is not fast in prime land, in fact it is the slowest in the 24-100mm (35mm equivalent) range.”
Try to find a large format ’50mm equiv’ lens that is faster then f/2.8. But that isn’t what ‘we’ were talking about? It is what Ansel used, and you used him as an example… But maybe you should consider your examples a bit better, as the large format cameras most of them used are cumbersome in use anyway, and adding the ‘convenience’ of a zoom to them usually makes very little sense.
“There are plenty of pros who need speed, portability and something discrete. This is not a reflection on this lens.”
Ah, so you do have a real argument also. Good, and totally agreed on that one, but it really didn’t need the strawman arguments, half truths and the like that you used to justify prime lenses before that.
The car/horse analogy still makes no sense. Maybe I should start using CAPS to help with my straw man (two words) arguements. Today’s photogs use primes maybe less than zooms. I use primes more but my focal lengths requirements are 300+ mm. Primes are just as relevant today but no so horses (as a mode of transport). Comparing different types of cars is a better analogy as both are used today.
“It makes perfect sense because you use the historical non existence of a technology (zoom lenses) to justify the existence of another technology (prime lenses). ” So if zooms had existed I would have argued for them instead? No, zooms have been around long enough that if they were superior to primes (just like cars are to horses) they would have disappeared (just like horses from our roads) but they haven’t and again are just as relevant today (cannot say the same for horses).
“Try to find a large format ’50mm equiv’ lens that is faster then f/2.8. ” Okay let’s change the format. Show me a MF zoom that approaches the speed of an equivalent MF prime. You can try moving the goal posts all you want but my arguemnt is still valid. Now that is a good example of a straw man argument. And what half truths? Maybe those photographer mentioned would have produced better images with a zoom but we will never know. That does not change the truthfulness of my statements.
Lookit, its an analogy, not reality. Its always pretty easy to take an analogy and shoot a hole in it by turning it on its head. You could also try to follow the analogy and try to understand its point, that would be trying to have a discussion instead of a petty argument.
The point is simple: at some point in time, people used prime lenses for their photography, as there was no alternative other then a pinhole. At some point horses were the primary means of longer distance travel as there was no alternative other then walking.
Cars came about and changed that, they essentially relegated horses to a number of niches, one of which you funnily mention yourself, cross country travel. Most people never use horses, but don’t go tell those that do use them that there is no good reason for using them in their specific niche.
Zooms came about and changed that, they essentially relegated primes to a number of niches, one of which you funnily mention yourself, very long lenses for various applications. Places where you need every bit of light that you can get to name another one. Don’t go tell people who use primes that there is no good reason for using them in their specific niche.
Get it now? or still going to try to shoot holes in the analogy instead of trying to actually try to understand its point and then argue the point (one you actually happen to be making yourself as well between the lines)
If I can easily shoot holes in the analogy, it is not valid. Again, the original poster said using primes is a big no no. I challenged that sweeping statement with plenty of examples and all you can talk about is a lame analogy. Primes do not occupy a niche, no more than zooms are only used by lazy, unimaginative people. How about that for an analogy? As you pointed out, it does not have to based on reality so we can make up all the shit we want. Get it now?
It’s not just a case of DOF, it’s for low light too.
Concert photographers, inside wedding shoots, even street shooting – situation when you don’t have the time to switch lenses or be closer to the subject when the light is not optimal. In fact, for me, these lenses are much more interesting because of the greater amount of light reaching the sensor than DOF.
$1500 for the body alone…obviously Olympus don’t want new customers.
This is the cheapest PRO body there is – in any system. There are plenty of options for you, like E-PL1.
Pro body?? Now that’s new.
You are caught.
No, it isn’t.
Actually, it will be the most expensive pro body in the m4/3 system, as the GH3 is cheaper.
Still, if it delivers on what is being rumored, its going to be worth the price for those looking for a ‘pro grade’ camera and for the kind of size/weight/quality benefits m4/3 offers.
Clients who can’t afford or don’t want to spend 1500 on a mirrorless body can buy the E-M5. 1500 for the Olympus haut de gamme it’s a very competitive price. It will be superior to the Nikon D7100 or Canon 70D considering the DX and EF-S lenses are much inferior to the Olympus primes and this new f2.8 zoom. And there are very few who buy L lenses for APS-C bodies.
Why do you think they want to buy a m43 to begin with? Have you not read about the mirror-less’s sales in America and Europe?
Superior to D7100?? You must be kidding me. DX lenses are much inferior to the Oly primes? Wow…
Look. What I’m saying is, given the sales are so bad, pricing a m43 body that high doesn’t seem a smart move for getting new customers. I’d say it should be around $1,100 or $1,200. I’m talking about new customers, not those who already own a m43 or looking for a m43.
Well, before VHS, the Betamax system by Philips was vastly superior, but it failed big time.
Sales have NOTHING to do with quality, only with conservative minds, no research and just fall for commercials.
You make it seem like this is the only m43 camera in existence. If you can’t afford this there’s already plenty of cheaper models for you (EPL5, Gx1, etc). It’s like bitching about the price of a Land Rover being expensive when you know you’ll end up driving a Camry.
What a load of rubbish. As the EM-1 is considerable more expensive than either the 7100 or 70D it should be better. A fairer comparison would be against the replacements for the D300 & 7D. And there are plenty of Canon/Nikon users who buy the L or equivalent lenses. Far more than the number of full frame users simply because the size of the user base. Neither the EM-1, the zoom or the 70D have not be reviewed so let’s wait with the sycophantic statements. If it is that good we will all be using Olympus by next year.
“it should be better”
Well, that would be reasonable yes, but define ‘better’.
A d7100 is NOT better for much of my use then an E-PM1, simply because the first would spend much of its time at home while the later would almost always be in my bag or coat pocket… but when at home, that d7100 would all of a sudden be better…
You meant the E-M1’s IQ should be better?
Is the IQ of a 5Dmk3 better then that of a 6D? and by enough to justify the very significant price difference? Or might it be that it is somehow ‘better’ in other ways?
Another mr anonymous! Did you bother reading the original poster’s fanboy comments? He made a comparison between the E-M1, 7100 & 70D, so why are you talking about the E-PM1? I could make the same specious argument that my E-PL1 is more useful/better “in my bag or coat pocket” than my 1DIII but that has nothing to do with price nor the poster’s comments. He inferred that the E-M1 was better because of the 43 lenses and that justified his claim that $1500 is “very competitive”. Two of those three cameras have yet to be tested so that alone makes his statement ludicrous. But who cares how the 70D performs. It is the E-M1 that has to convince, that its C-AF and ability to track in the EVF is good enough for the 43 user base to embrace it.
You are not too bright are you?
Yes, I did read the original comment, and I was specifically replying to YOUR argument, pointing out that ‘better’ isn’t just a matter of technical specifications. The E-PM1 example was to demonstrate that technically inferior can still be better if it is more suitable, but I suspect someone who thinks ‘fanboy’ is an argument simply lacks the brains to understand this kind of thing.
Did I mention anything about technical specifications in my arguement? Maybe I should haved started using CAPS to make my case seem more convincing. Again, he compared three models, two of which have not been reviewed and claimed (in typically fanboy style) that the E-M1 had to be superior because of the lenses and that the rumored price of $1500 was competitive. By his reasoning (and I assume yours) you can charge more for a camera just because it takes different lenses and that this suddenly makes it more competitive? He’s a fanboy, get over yourself.
You know, you started about it having to be better then either of the 2 others because of the price. I merely said:
“Well, that would be reasonable yes, but define ‘better’.”
And then gave you an example of why better is extremely relative.
By now unsurprisingly, instead of trying to follow the example and argue the point it makes, you try to argue the example.
Sure we’ll have to wait for the first reviews, completely agree with you there, but having a camera that is due to its sensor size is a bit behind the best aps-c sensors out there combined with a nice set of very high quality zooms some of which can be had for very nice prices and including 2 f/2 ones is indeed very likely going to be extremely hard to beat for any aps-c type camera. Figuring that one out is no rocket science.
I don’t need to define ‘better’, I wanted the original poster to show what made this largely unknown/rumored camera better not simply because of the lenses. You seem to accept his claims yet have a problem with my reasoning! Let’s use an analogy (not cars & horses, okay?), if Sony managed to produce a range of lenses rivaling those from Olympus, then you would happily accept them charging more for a cameras even when there is no compelling evidence as yet for the camera being any better? So if I decided not to use any zooms but just primes (because as we both know, primes are superior) I should in fact pay less for an E-M1? Next you will be telling me Canon should be charging more for the APS-C cameras because they can take the EF-S lenses as well as convert modest lenses like the 300/4 to a supertele 480/4. And why do you keep going on about your E-PM1 example? I understood your reasoning but try to remember that this discussion/argument is about three other cameras, none of which is the E-PM1. I wish Olympus the best, I have invested a lot of money in their m43 system but I believe this camera and the aging 43 lenses are not going to change anything for them. And thanks for pointing out it has nothing to do with rocket science, there’s no foolin you.
Putting up demands for vague things and then refusing to qualify those demands.. sounds totally reasonable don’t you think?
Oh, a few more things…
Relevance of the e-pm1 example is simply to show that what is better for one isn’t always better for everyone. Since that kind of better lets us determine if a camera would be better for ourselves but not if its better in general, its not going to get us anywhere. Objective differences however may show why one choice may be preferable over other choices in certain circumstances.
And eh, flagship models are seldom if ever high volume items, so its more then a bit silly to expect huge numbers of this camera being sold.
Also, yes, the available lenses for a system quite determine the usability of that system and hence affects the value of components of that system, through that isn’t so much the number of lenses but the quality and variety.
And on it goes, anonymous. A new untested camera is 50% more expensive than the existing D7100 and the sole reason provided by the original poster is because it takes 43 lenses! You don’t have a problem with that, but you do have an issue with me challenging that assertion? I provide different analogies to refute the poster’s statement but you stick with you fucking irrelevant E-PM1. I give up, logic or reasoning fall of deaf ears.
$6000 for D4 body alone? Guess Nikon is playing Gozilla on the poor folks
Thanks bbking 😀
@admin
Sorry. if I missed the info: Is there an any indication that Olympus will incorporate in the E-M1 an automatic CA-correction – like Panasonic?
Please excuse my english – i am not a native speaker.
Could someone explain to me why you would waste your money on this over a full frame camera? I just can’t understand it.
Simple. If you can afford only one, either try both for yourself first or just go FF (and rest assured nobody will ever blame the camera).
Experience is what makes a photographer.
(I love these FF comparisons!)
Can you tell me why you choose a DSLR?
C-AF.
Higher number of pixels.
Better high ISO performance.
Optical viewfinder.
You don’t need to convince me get a m43 cuz I have one.
That is a heavy and bulky Full Frame DSLR. For the lesser sized DSLR´s the gap with m43 has become negligable.
Pete, I asked John about it.
From your previous posts I know that you don’t want to hear anything from anyone, thus you are called “troll”.
A question for you then: why do you visit this forum? You say you own a m43 camera, then you should appreciate every step forward of this system.
I regulary visit SonyAlphaRumors, LeicaRumors, FujiRumors because I’m interested in photography, and though I don’t like DSLRs for many reasons, I don’t waste time writing comments “mineisbetterthanyou” style.
If you can’t see the advantages of full frame, maybe you should get your eyes tested.
Changing subjects is when you don´t have an answer. Busted.
Mr d800e: I was asking Pete, and before I asked John a different question.
Anyway, a question for you: where have I written that I don’t see the advantages of 35mm size frame?
Hint: never.
I can’t understand why you have to feel somehow attacked: I asked John why he choose a DSLR. Guess what, noone is going to show me the secrets of Universe, I’m only interested in knowing the personal reasons: be it the price, the “camera of the day” deal, the “bigger is better” factor, the pixel peeping fanatism, the “professional” use, the love for the flipping mirror sound.
Taking photos is not a job for me.
My regular job is a completely different one, still due to the right compromise (that’s the key word for everyone) between size, IQ I can always carry my camera with me, along with a bunch of primes, filters and a tablet, all in a shoulder bag.
I saved money for a Monochrome, is its sensor good enough for you? Or is it a stupid camera because it takes only bnw photos? Or because it has no AF? Or no IBIS? No, it’s another camera, and I would use it to do what I love: taking pictures. In a different way than I do with E-m5. Or you with your nice d800e.
I hope you get the message: enjoy photography.
Why do girls from Italy have hair on their armpits and legs???
LOL I have never heard about this stereotype before! Where have you been in Italy?
I can’t speak for Italian women, but a lot of us don’t shave because we have people who love us for our whole persons, rather than because we have big sensors, smooth high-ISO, or put out cheap models stripped of features.
(OK, I admit it! Troll-bashing is so much fun sometimes. 🙂 )
Still not enough to get more people to buy into it though.
More importantly, why do Italian chicks have hairy armpits?
Where did u read this bullshit?
Why do you care? We can have pictures look like FF if we use pin hole art filter.
You would replace the Mack truck with a F1 car because its faster? Or put a Hornet on the run usually made by a Jumbo for the same reason?
Or better still bypass all the stations on the train line so that the trip is more efficient and you can claim that all trains “run on time”
E-M5 Body (amazon.co.jp): 73.000 YEN
E-M5 Body (amazon.de): 899 €
E-M1: 145.000 Yen
-> E-M1 by “rule of three”: 1786 €
Hope: no one will be frustrated ..
If Sony releases the A77 replacement with headphone jack and mic input and most importantly with 5 axis IS I’d much rather get that and the new Sigma f1.8 zoom. Would be a much more capable system, and cheaper too. 2.8 on micro four thirds is a bit limiting.
While I can appreciate the IQ of such a combo, my back cannot. That lens alone is only 45 grams lighter than my GH3 with the 12-35X. We are all in m43 for a reason, mine is because its the best compromise between size/weight and IQ.
900 Swiss Francs would be a nice price if this lens is really so good 🙂 Can’t wait for serious reviews.
Don’t bet on that ! Usually they fix a price such that the good+ the VAT is the same as What is asked for the good+VAT in the EU. Since EU VAT in most our neighbouring EU countries lies between 19-21%, one wondwer who tasks the difference (Swiss VAT is only 8%, so there is about 10-12% which go in unknown tasks : the retailer, the distributor or the manufacturer ?
Er, probably the huge overheads of lazy, inefficient, arrogant, incompetent and complacent Swiss retailers. Do you need to look any further?
I don’t know why, but in Switzerland camera equipment is always cheaper then in Germany 🙂 I remeber, when the E-M5 came out the kit was in Germany 1’500 Euros, and in Switzerland 1’500 Swiss Francs. The price droped more in Germany then in Switzerland, but E-M5 is still a little bit cheaper in Switzerland. And that in such an expensive country! 😉
I could also live with 990 Swiss Francs if the lens is so good as expected. And anyway, I don’t need it before next spring, I almost never make pics in winter, and the price will drop a little bit until then.
When the micro four thirds system was first announces, there was so much excitement. But, now, a few years later, it has fallen totally flat. Sales have gone nowhere; rehashing of older models; lenses more expensive than DSLR alternatives. I was seriously thinking about buying into m43, thank God I kept my trusty old DSLR, instead.
Hopefully you don’t rule the world and nobody cares about your humble opinion here.
Don’t forget to close to door when you leave. Say “hi” to your friends. Thanks. 🙂
When the micro four thirds system was first announced, there was so much excitement. But, now, a few years later, it has fallen totally flat. Sales have gone nowhere; rehashing of older models; lenses more expensive than DSLR alternatives. I was seriously thinking about buying into m43, thank God I kept my trusty old DSLR, instead.
Interesting influx of Trolls lately….
Yeah. Still wants to run Offy engines at the brickyard. 50 years after G. Hill displayed the future.
m43 lenses more expensive than dslr ones? You know it’s not true. Compare the 45mm/f1.8 with the Canikon 85mm/f1.8 or this new lens with the Canikon 24-70mm/f.2.8 and you’ll see that the Canikon lenses cost 2-3 times more!
Not if you honestly compare them like for like but that will never happen here.The 45mm F1.8 lens gives you the same DOF control and AOV and total light of a 90mm F3.6 with pretty mediocre build quality.
Even on DX the 85mm F1.8G an excellent performer from wide open easily matching the 75mm F1.8 and at better focal length {127mm vs 150mm} the 75 though lovely is a bit on the long-side in many normal situations. The 85mm F1.8g is half the price EU/UK and gives the same DOF control as an F1.2 lens on mFT.
As for the 24-70mm lenses they have the same AOV,DOF and total light ability as a 12-35 F1.4 lens on mFT wonder what they would charge for this.Now you fanboys can charge in and claim all F2.8s are the same !!there are excellent off brand 24-70 F2.8 lenses such as the Tamron 24-70 vc
Again with f equations?! No, I surrender. You are right. 75mm is an average lens with a top price.
@Marco
I never said the 75mm was average I said “the 75 though lovely” .The reason for the endless need to explain the effect of equivalence is down to the various factions that lurk here.First we have the illusionists “there is no difference F2.8 is F2.8 no matter what, and how dare you mention it” then we have the half sum followers they remember to double the focal length but conveniently forget to do the same with the effective aperture. Then we have the reasonable folk who know the difference and don’t care about as it has no impact on them , i am in that camp. Then we have the FF trolls who come here to mock those in faction 1.
The 75 is a very good lens but it is no miracle it is not even sealed, it has no hood and the truth is that even on DX the cheap Nikon 85mm F1.8g matches or betters it.
@Anonymous (please add a nickname, it’s easier to spot replies) you are correct about your opinion (75mm being lovely) but you are wrong when you compare the lens on DXO chart: here is the score when using it on E-m5
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/898/(lens2)/823/(brand1)/Olympus/(camera1)/793/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/680
I don’t care about DXO numbers that much (only sensor analysis tell me something). I prefer looking at images.
Anyway, in the link above you’ll see a score of 27 for the 75mm and a score of 25 for the 85mm.
Are 2 points worth a discussion? Not to me, as I prefer looking at images taken with them.
As always the truth is: if you’re happy with it, go on with it. 🙂
@Marco
The difference is tiny using the E-M5 and I imagine if the 85mm F1.8G was available tested with the D7100 then it would move ahead the bottom line is that these lenses on their respective system deliver excellent results.The image quality on both is excellent the 75m is probably better built though it for some odd reason lacks weather sealing doesn’t come with a hood and costs double the 85mm Nikon here in the EU/UK.f1.8 on Nikon DX gives the same DOF as F1.2.
You can make beautiful poignant images with any camera of any format no one in their right mind challenges this.It is the ridiculously skewed cross system comparisons that I find tedious.
The bottom line is that if you want higher resolution you need a larger sensor, if you want the best DR you need a larger sensor , if you want better high ISO you need a larger sensor, if you want better colour depth you need a larger sensor.
It is all the nonsense claims made in mFT forums that make us a laughing stock to other camera system users.There is a virtual flood of posts in mFT forums telling people how mFT is a good as this or better than that system, which you dare not challenge or you will instantly be labelled a troll.
To put the insecurities into perspective I typed Olympus into the search of the Nikon FF forum on DPreview and got 10000 hits I put the word Nikon into the search of the mFT forum and got nearly 70000 hits.The mFT mentality seems to work like a cur nut saying that his Ford Focus is as fast as a Lamborghini as long as you stay under 70mph. That is the essence of mFT any other systems advantages are travailed or ignored ,while mFT advantages are blown out of all proportion. The truth is that if you opt for mFT over larger sensor systems you are making the decision that you are prepared to sacrifice varying degrees of image quality for the benefit of a smaller lighter system.
@Anonymous
Using the same analogy of the ford focus which I do not drive neither do I drive a Lamborghini though. What is the point of having a Lamborghini in a place where the speed limit is 45?? Other than show off??
See you are shooting yourself on the foot with that one. Let me expand on this. Yes a Lamborghini is faster than a ford. But what if my intention is to commute every day from point A to point B in a place were the speed limit is 45 having a faster, more expensive, way more inefficient car is not such a good idea anymore. Both of them are going to accomplish the same task on the same amount of time while the Lamborghini is going to cost 20 times more to own and maintain. Btw you do not have to use a ford focus you could get a luxury car so you don’t come back saying that the Lambo is going to be more comfortable. Which it probably won’t since it is built for speed not for comfort.
This is the point people try to explain to you and others who preach that FF (or a bigger sensor etc) is better. No!! There are instances were FF is actually NOT better. For example hiking, backpacking, traveling and there are many other more examples I could come up with were bigger is not better.
Plus way do people always complaints about choices. Imagine how would you feel if it was the other way around and I’m assuming that you defend FF because you really need the differences it brings and not because you are in the bandwagon who thinks that bigger is better without thinking about is going to be used for.
Agreed. He/she was technically right, but alas shot herself in the foot nonetheless. The *practical image quality* is what we should be discussing here: the theory of sensor size is not open to interpretation anyway. The trolling back and forth is a simple fact of webforum life.
Besides, I could not care less about being “laughing stock”. Nor should anybody else: it’s an irrelevant generalization that ignores the fact many people have experience that goes beyond 4/3 sensors.
All this is irrelevant. The E-M1 is coming. Never before has there been such a capable 4/3 sensor camera. And what do we get: whining, complaining, moaning, bitching, “laughing stock” this, “Lamborghini” that. The more competitive m43 gets, the more we’ll see posts like this.
Thing is: Oly and Pany don’t need to maintain an artificial boundary between crop sensor and full frame sensor offerings. So m43 will ultimately push beyond APS-C as sensor performance increases (assuming that m43 sensor performance will be equivalent to current FF sensors within 5 years). Throw in a few very fast primes (1.2) and zooms (1.8) and ciao, baby.
@Anonymous I agree with you: that’s why I don’t get why some people simply trash a camera that’s not even for selling yet, because of its “tiny sensor”. That tiny sensor is more than enough for many people, but more important, people have the right to choose.
My personal experience is that a photo taken with this tiny sensor + 75mm has been printed 1 meter width and won a prize. It’s displayed in Rome near photos taken with DSLRs by real pro photographers from all Europe.
The size topic always ends with a sentence like: you can have it bigger but if you can’t use it…
You will never convince the nutters that there is a difference both in DOF and total light it is kind of funny watching them spout out stupid defences of why a small sensor is so super dooper
75mm no hood non-weather sealed with F3.6 FF DOF
Vs
85mm with hood weather sealed with F2.7 FF DOF
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/898/%28lens2%29/823/%28brand1%29/Olympus/%28camera1%29/0/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/680
For the comedian above
The 45mm vs the 85mm on FF oh dear oh dear not quite a match is it
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/823/%28brand%29/Nikkor/%28camera1%29/792/%28lens2%29/532/%28brand2%29/Olympus/%28camera2%29/0
Pros can get a great shot with anything, so you can take your DOF Garbage and shove it because only baddies like you need such crutches.
Haha, I almost chocked. Hey stupid username comes and takes this:
Now let go through the basics. We all know that comparing lens only make sense using similarly graded sensors. Here we have D5000 – OMD – D7000:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/793%7C0/(brand)/Olympus/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/587%7C0/(brand3)/Nikon
As we can see D7000 is newer and using same sensor as D5100 / D7100. It scored around 80. Hence D5000 is a better comparison for OMD-EM5.
Now here is the lens comparison based on similar sensors OMD – D5000:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/898/(lens2)/823/(lens3)/532/(brand1)/Olympus/(camera1)/793/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/587/(brand3)/Olympus/(camera3)/793
Oh no!!! D5000 with 85 1.8 scored the lowest!!!. Even lower than the cheaper 45 1.8!!!
Oh you want D7000 (sensor scored 80)? Here we go:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/898/(lens2)/823/(lens3)/532/(brand1)/Olympus/(camera1)/793/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/680/(brand3)/Olympus/(camera3)/793
Tsk tsk… Two scores better for more weight and 100 dollars more? Sure that economics makes sense as always. 75 1.8 scores two scores higher at 300 dollars more? May be rough but it is still better. Period.
Haha, I still laugh at how you use D800 to compare with OMD-EM5 for lens test. How many megapixels does that thing have at maximum resolution? Do you know how that affect the sharpness test?
Oh btw in my country you can buy three buffaloes for one D800. I will gladly take two bulls and an OMD any day. At least I can take care of my family’s business and taking pictures at the same time :).
>Oh no!!! D5000 with 85 1.8 scored the lowest!!!. Even lower than the cheaper 45 1.8!!!
this is b/se DxO corrects for FF twice
really this site is quite useless for lens comparisons, its completely pointless metrics and bag of tricks diagnostics are just bullshit waiting to happen
That’s really interresting to see how the results vary when you change the camera:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/823/(lens2)/532/(brand1)/Nikkor/(camera1)/439/(brand2)/Olympus/(camera2)/793
Both are at 23 DxO mark…
Congratulations !! you shown that 36 MP is sharper than 16 MP, amazing ! no ? and now i can tell you that 540 g is lighter than 1.3 kg this is also amazing, is it ?
If you want the best IQ: go full frame
If you want to carry your camera everywhere (trip, concerts, hicking, trecking, climbing, skiing, flying :D) you have m43, simple ! is it ?
Anyone falling for his links, make sure you set the camera body from GH2 to E-M5, because it turns the tables on his first comparison in favour of the 75mm and brings the 45mm closeer – 23 vs 25 The 75mm was 27 vs the Nikkor at 25 😉
Of course you have to expect little subterfuges like that from FFanatics.
Yes and choose Nikon D7000 for the Nikon lens and that Nikon lens gets a real spanking! LOL
Spanks ! really I see the 75mm has a bit better sharpness and a bit better ca , the 85mm on the D7000 has a bit better transmission, a bit better distortion and surprisingly a bit better vignette. I fancy if the D7100 was available it would move the 85mm F1.8g above the 75mm in all categories
For me, less dof is not an advantage. even if I repeat myself, I don’t like portraits where only the tip of the nose is sharp 😉
Hey troll, see this:
“FWIW I think the Oly 75/1.8 knocks the hell out of the Nikon 85/1.4. Paired with IBIS it is low light heaven.”
Do you know where I take it from? Wanna know? Nikon gear forum that is:
http://nikongear.com/live/index.php/topic/51026-nikon-2002-vs-olympus-7518/
Sadly, the quote was even written by admin with >14000 posts. I bet he owned most if not all the Nikon lens out there. He is the right person to make the call. More importantly, he know more than you.
Lets see we have multiple respectable lens test sites such as DXO, SLRGEAR ,PHOTOZONE all singing the praises of the 85mm F1.8g after doing controlled testing , you have a link to some random dude on a forum lol. What is it with some of the guys here are you really so insecure that you have dodge reality to try and defend a camera,it is seriously creepy.I use and prefer mFT because it is smaller and lighter than the DSLR kits and the image quality is good enough for me.The difference is I can accept that The best larger sensors deliver better results in key areas resolution,DR,color depth, DOF control ,high ISO etc non of this matters to me as I would not consider carrying a FF kit but it remaisn a fact.
Haha, see my comment above. Random dude may be but at least he is an admin with tons of posts at a respectable forum. Who are you again?
He is a random dude giving an opinion based on god knows what the respectable lens test sites are basing their conclusions on controlled testing.Clearly unlike you I am someone who can differentiate the difference between subjective opinion based on seeing a handful of pictures { you did read the link ?} and results of controlled critical testing. I am an exclusively mFT user but posting anything other than over the top exaggerated praise of Olympus is met with viscous attacks by a bunch of fanboys who have zero ability to reason.I have the 75mm and I am more than aware of its abilities.
Well The comment I refer to is out of moderation. You can see it above.
Quanzizi, your brain is probably average for an M43 owner.
1, My comment proves my theory using DXOMark aka his source of reference. What’s his response now?
2, Average for M43? Still smarter than lot of trolls on this forum. Fine with me :).
I smell a troll…
When you were at slrgear you could have read their 75/1.8 test. “One of the sharpest lenses we have ever tested”
This is the Nikon 85mmF1.4g vs the 75mm F1.8 , looks like your source is talking bull
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/898/%28lens2%29/388/%28brand1%29/Olympus/%28camera1%29/0/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/792
Heck even the 1995 85mm F1.4d is better not bad for an 18yr old lens designed for film
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/898/%28lens2%29/388/%28lens3%29/244/%28brand1%29/Olympus/%28camera1%29/0/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/792/%28brand3%29/Nikkor/%28camera3%29/792
Haha is that still you? See my comment above, it’s out of moderation.
Maybe you should learn and try to understand how DxO lens comparison works?
Lol you are using a GH2. Common man, don’t be so desperate. Btw how is that the monster D4 only scores 33 on 85 1.8 vs 27 on 75 1.8 by OMD (both have 16mp instead of the 36mp of the D800)? Oh the 1600 85 1.4 scores the same. Man that sucks…
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/898/(lens2)/823/(lens3)/388/(brand1)/Olympus/(camera1)/793/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/767/(brand3)/Nikkor/(camera3)/767
Quangzizi, I see someone replied to you using my name, but it has no face, therefore he’s not me and he’s not logged in. 🙂
Hey Marco, of course I know it’s not you. Your comments contain deeper reasoning and your pictures show that. Really like your shots. Cheer :D.
But hey, you are like a celebrity now with trolls using your name. That’s sth right?
Couple the 75mm with OMD E-m5 and check the score again, if that’s so important for you.. Geez..
Just as the 85mm F1.8g would move ahead if it was tested on the D7100 The point is the differences in the results of these lenses is miniscule
1, True, but by how much and more important does it justify the increase in weight/bulk?
2, D7100 is out only recently and costs more
The D7100 costs less than the newest mFT bodies E-P5 EU/UK and will be half the price of the E-M1 which is using the same sensor as the E-M5 or E-PL5 etc.I don’t know how many buffaloes the difference will be 😉 the D7100 sensor is clearly better.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/865|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/793|0/%28brand2%29/Olympus
The E-M5 price is withing 5% of the D7100 here
http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Olympus/Olympus-PEN-System-Cameras/Olympus-OM-D-E-M5-Body
http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Nikon/Nikon-Digital-SLRs/Nikon-D7100-Body
The critical advantage of mFT is size and weight if your main criteria is absolute image quality then there are better choices.I am fully aware of the better technical accomplishments of larger sensors but for me a camera set up that is so heavy I am apt to leave it at home is of zero interest each to their own
Agree with you “each to his own”. I know D7100 is better. That’s a indisputable given fact. Yet it also weights more, costs more and most importantly, requires larger lenses. I really like its ability to crop but then again for me it’s not that important.
Btw a buffalo costs roughly 900 bucks atm. It’s considered the main source of income for many of my fellow countrymen. Or you can make the conversion to rice (in tons!) :D, that’s another popular one. With a D800, we are looking at around five tons of rice.
+100
yup,.they would never believe until they experience how sharp the 1.8/75mm,.but here; the link from slrgear
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1521/cat/14
and i quote their statement;
Sharpness
The Olympus 75mm ƒ/1.8 is one of the sharpest lenses we’ve ever tested. It is tack-sharp even wide open at ƒ/1.8, gets a little sharper through to ƒ/8, and stays sharp even stopped down to ƒ/16. At ƒ/22 there is a bit of diffraction limiting that exhibits a little generalized softness.
and as a comparison sharpness ,.look at BLUR INDEX,.it surpasses the Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM which worth $12,000
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1368/cat/10
about the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G AF-S ,.is an excellent performance but again look at the BLUR INDEX,.is not even pink/purple
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1480/cat/12
and i quote their statement about the sharpness;
Sharpness
The Nikon 85mm ƒ/1.8G AF-S provides excellently sharp images, though to achieve maximal sharpness you must stop down to at least ƒ/5.6. Wide-open performance is good, perhaps showing a little de-centering in the sample copy we reviewed, as the bottom of the frame was marginally sharper than the top. Images are very sharp even when used wide open, though as you might expect central performance is slightly better than the corners, so overall image sharpness appears better in the sub-frame D7000 than in the full-frame D3x, at least in apertures wider than ƒ/5.6. There are marginal improvements all the way to ƒ/5.6, where the lens is pretty much as sharp as sharp gets.
Diffraction limiting begins at ƒ/8, but you won’t practically notice it until at least ƒ/11, if then. There is some loss of sharpness at ƒ/16, the lens’ smallest aperture, but it’s not hugely significant.
,.or if you still can not believe,.here Ming Thein blog talked about the f1.8/75mm
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/22/review-the-olympus-zd-751-8-for-micro-four-thirds/
and his statement abut the Glass;
You’ll notice that up til this point, I haven’t said much about the optics of the lens. We are now fortunate enough to live in a time when there are very few truly bad lenses, plenty of excellent ones, and a few really exceptional ones -but the difference between excellent and really exceptional is so small, that it takes near perfect conditions to see it. I think the 75 is one of those that manages to cross the excellent threshold into exceptional – at least in my mind. It delivers absolutely stunning resolution and sharpness across the frame, even from maximum aperture at f1.8; stopping it down increases your depth of field, but doesn’t really make much difference to sharpness. In fact, it’s one of the sharpest lenses I’ve ever used for Micro 4/3. There is a tiny improvement in microcontrast visible between f1.8 and around f2.8; things are pretty static from there on down, until you hit the diffraction limit somewhere between f8 and f11 (on the OM-D).,
.it comparable even with The Leica APO -Summicron worth $7500,.and here
Resolution isn’t everything, of course – if the lens had an ugly bokeh signature, a horrible transition zone, odd color transmission, or worse, massive lateral/ longitudinal CA – then we might well write it off completely for any one of those flaws alone. Except…the 75 doesn’t suffer from any of those maladies; it’s one of those very rare things: a transparent lens. It delivers a neutral, accurate rendition of the subject with very little of its own ‘personality’ (read: charmingly artistic optical flaws) impinging on your vision. The only flaw I could find was a trace of spherochromatism (color fringes on bokeh) on very strongly backlit subjects; regular lateral chromatic aberration is completely absent, and there are no odd corner gremlins to be wary of, either. Place your subject wherever you wish, with confidence.
Overall, there are very few lenses I would place in the company of the 75 – the Nikon 85/2.8 PCE, perhaps; the Nikon 200/2 VR, definitely; the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH FLE; and I would go so far as to say it has that same level of clarity I’ve seen only so far in the Leica 50/2 APO ASPH. (Who knows if the 75′s ultimate resolution is as high as the 50/2 AA; it doesn’t matter, because it wasn’t designed to cover more than 17x13mm anyway.)
FF has the advantage for portraits. However considering that all the new FF lenses from Canikon have the sweet spot at f5.6 and from f8 the quality drops significantly, they are not that good for arhitecture. With a m43 (sweet spot at f4&f5.6) you can shoot better architecture. At f5.6 you’l have the same dof as f11 on FF and better quality.
In terms of gathering light an f1.8 m43 is the same as an f.8 L lens from Canikon. Considering ibis and you’ll have a great outdoor/indoor architecture combo.
And the majority of DSLR users are APS-C owners, not FF. And they use kit lenses. So I don’t know why all the fuss abot FF. And the dof of m43 is almost the same as the dof of APS-C (2/3 stops difference is insignifiant)
lenses from Canikon have the sweet spot at f5.6 and from f8 the quality drops significantly, they are not that good for arhitecture. With a m43 (sweet spot at f4&f5.6) you can shoot better architecture. At f5.6 you’l have the same dof as f11 on FF and better quality.
Where to start really lol, firstly the latest generation of lenses from Nikon etc deliver excellent results from wide open especially for the fast portrait lenses
PHOTOZONE
“”The Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G is an excellent lens that performs on a very high level in almost any regard. Sharpness is excellent in the image center straight from the largest aperture, the borders and corners deliver very good resolution wide open and excellent sharpness stopped down”
A little lesson in diffraction just for you all formats lose the same amount of diffraction at the same DOF so a FF lens at F8 will lose the same as an mFT lens at F4 so there is no diffraction advantage for smaller sensors.
Many lens achieve their best results at F5.6 even the 75mm does best at F5.6
http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus75f18m/tloader.htm
I am curious how many shots you think need corner to corner sharpness on a FF at F1.4 [f0.7 on mFT] fast portrait lenses are specifically designed to offer high levels of central sharpness.
“and total light ability”
Oh, that one again. Total light ability of a lens doesn’t change when putting a different size sensor behind it, the lens really doesn’t care about that at all for how much light it transmits.
When I saw the first leaked pictures of the E-M1, my first thought was: What a ugly camera. But now I find it very attractive and it seems very useful.
Never the less: In the next months I will keep at my OM-D. But if the 12-24 mm lens is very good, I will buy them. At the moment at walking-tours and travels I use the 12 mm, the 20 mmm and the 45 mm lenses and I hate it to change the lenses in short periods. But up the now I do this because of the image-quality.
Best regards
Adda
sorry: I mean the 12-40 mm lens of course.
Nice. Now I have to figure out where to get money to buy it. Oly 60mm macro and some old nikkor/zuiko lenses are on my list too. But E-M5 + 60mm Macro + this 12-40mm seems really like my dream travellers kit for digital. Nikon full frame with 24-70 and 105 macro would be too bulky and heavy.
For me the ideal traveling kit would be E-M5 and 3 mfT zoom lenses from Olympus from 9 – 150/200mm… Maybe also the 75-300, but that really would be at the limit.
M: “For me the ideal traveling kit would be E-M5 and 3 mfT zoom lenses from Olympus from 9 – 150/200mm… Maybe also the 75-300, but that really would be at the limit.”
I travel and shoot – simultaneously – with: (1) E-600 + 11-22, (2) PEN1 E-M5 + Leica 25mm; (3) E-PM2 + 70-300. I am not an athlete and have never been. I plan to get another epm2 for the Leica 25mm and life will be beautiful. Will be even more beautiful with an E-M1 + 11-22. I keep wondering why people would not want to use two E-PM2s with 12/2 and Leica 25mm OR Oly 45mm for much less money and much more IQ instead of the envisioned E-M1 + 12-40.
Need to shoot wide? Use 12/2. Need to shoot long/portraits? Use Leica 25mm OR Oly 45mm. This is the correct solution for me. Why not for others? I am simply at a loss.
Please, read “PEN1 E-M5 + Leica 25mm” as “PEN1 + Leica 25mm”.
Are you serious ?
Two E-PM2s + 45mm + 12mm would cost you $2096, the 12-40 is suppossed to be only $900, there’s no sense in going that route, not financially nor in terms of convenience. Sure, you no longer have to change lenses but that’s about it, you have to carry another body and you still have to switch cameras on the go (that sounds as cumbersome as swapping lenses). With the 12-40 you only need to invest in 1 body and not have to worry about anything else and if rumors are true IQ will hardly be affected.
This zoom lens is designed around convenience, it allows you to go out and be prepared for whatever comes you way. With primes you need to have a special mindset, to program yourself to adapt to the focal length, primes are built for a purpose and are chosen beforehand.
All right, I have to explain. My standpoint is of someone who has already invested in both 43 and m43. Apart from 11-22, I have 12-60, so for me 12-40 is of almost no interest. But E-M1 I would like to buy – at a lower price :-). And yes, while 12-40 is about convenience, 12-60 is much more so. My question, however, is why, when money is not at issue, people do not go “the other route”: e.g., two small bodies with two small lenses. 12/2 and 45 will be highly superior IQ-wise to 12-40 and will be easily handled. You grab the left body for wide, the next second the right one for long/portrait. I seriously consider arming myself with E-M1+11-22, E-PM2+Leica 25mm and E-PM2+70-300 (here AF works well!) for daylight shooting and replacing E-PM2+70-300 with E-PM2+Sigma 6o/2.8 for low-light conditions. And because E-M1 appears to be too expensive, I will wait. The E-600 that I now use is perfectly all right for landscapes etc. in all situations, including low light.
And the bad news is…
those prices are based on the exchange rate, and that’s not how the prices end up. Take a look on Amazon at the current prices for an E-M5 with 12-50mm lens –
Americans are paying over by a factor of 1.4, and in the UK and Europe it’s a factor of 1.6.
That increases the cost of the E-M1 with 12-40mm to $3113, £2274, 2634 Euro.
Shouldn’t that be $3,798.99?
“12-40mm f/2.8 does not have optical stabilization.”
I agree with Lego, it’s a big difference.
So glad I bought Panasonic instead is I don;t like getting ripped off
So glad I bought Panasonic instead as I don’t like getting ripped off
Only slight concern is the very different pricing in the EU/UK very commonly the USA price in $’s is straight converted to pounds IE $999 becomes £999 { $1512} which even with our different tax systems means we are paying considerably more.Case in point the E-M5 launched at $999 in the USA as opposed to £999 in the UK so I am not so sure i would consider a straight conversion from Japanese prices to reflect possible UK/EU prices
I think it would be high time sigma, tamron and tokina start to make lenses for m43 systems if the PDAF on the EM-1 works reasonably well. It may be easier for them to adopt existing designs and offer nice alternatives to the system.
The EP-5 will be waiting for this camera to join it on the dusty shelf.
I hate to break it to you Olympus fanboys who frequent this site. You have to remind yourselves you are the MINORITY.
Yeah, Most of you praise this camera, most hide behind the fact that this is a labeled “Pro” camera to justify that high price, some of you will buy this camera,
But sadly, a funny as well, you are NOT the MASSES.
Speaking for the States, most people will EASILY buy a DSLR or a NEX/FUJI over thus camera. Its $500 overpriced. Its not going to sell out the gate, its just not going to. There is just too much more value in a DSLR over this camera.
Conplain, call me a troll, say I dont know what im talking about, doesn’t matter. You Fanboys/girls are such a small percentage, it doesn’t matter.
Truth Hurts.
Mr ALLCAPS
Wow, not just a troll but a very dedicated one. My life is now completed :).
“The dog barks and the caravan moves on…”
Hey you! I see someone forgot to flush. Wooosh. Done.
Looks like we are important enough that canikon turds have to visit her again, and again, to puke their garbage.
If you have so much passion deterring fanboys/girls from purchasing an overpriced olympus, why not stretch your efforts into deterring fanboys/girls from buying into the leica promise, or the dyson innovation or for a much larger audience iphone fanatics. Your work is on a much greater scale there.
You are probably correct.. i do alot of travelling around the world, an dSLR’s outnumber micro 4/3 buy a HHHUGGGGEEEE LONGSHOT.. on my Last trip around south america, i saw … ONE OMD.. and a million Nikon D5000’s and rebel ti-whatever…
it may be a niche market until this system can match Dslr’s in all respects…
but people like me who are willing to give up our D7000’s in favour of a small expensive m4/3 will be happy, regardless of what cameras are de rigeur at the moment…
Really doesn’t matter for me if I’m marginal consumer. And shouldn’t you be out there taking pictures with your so superior APS-C slr?
Shouldn’t that be: ‘MR ALLCAPS’?
Didn’t you say that you have a Panasonic m4/3? You know that i has the same sensor size as Oly m4/3?
Poor whiners like you are pathetic.
I make enough money that I can buy me an em1 every day, so whats the big deal?
Back to the poorhouse with you, you bum.
“But sadly, a funny as well, you are NOT the MASSES.”
No kidding, Sherlock. This particular camera is for the semi-pro/advanced photographer who owns and would like to continue using 4/3 glass. A premium product for a niche market commands a high price because of the low volume.
“Speaking for the States, most people will EASILY buy a DSLR or a NEX/FUJI over thus camera. Its $500 overpriced. Its not going to sell out the gate, its just not going to. There is just too much more value in a DSLR over this camera.”
As you may recall, the NEX-7 (body) was listed at $1200 and $1700 for the X-Pro 1 (body). Unlike the E-M1, neither has weather sealing, IBIS, touch screen, wifi, 1/8000s shutter, on sensor PDAF, etc. Where’s the value in those cameras? If it’s $500 cheaper, i.e. $1000, then its the same list price as a E-M5/GX7. That doesn’t make any sense.
As for DSLR, the E-M1 is targeted to someone who would be interested in a 7D or D300 but don’t like the weight; both were (and still are) expensive and neither have a direct replacement from Canikon yet.
Good prices. Good products. No need for Daewoosonic.
Here in Italy you can buy a Nikon D600+nikon AF-S 24-85 VR for 2.079 euro.
I don’t think that Oly will sell a lot of E-M1 kits at that price level
And you can find and EM-5 with 12-50 for 1000 euros. And so what?
Bear in mind that the demographic for m4/3 is: Photographers who prefer smaller camera/system. The E-M1 is a top tier camera in m 4/3. A FF 6D, or 1Ds (E-M1 build is somewhere in-between) are much larger with lenses. Make sense?
The 24-85 is 3.5-4.5 not 2.8!
If it´s true the price sounds very reasonable.
System will dead soon people here are just a bounce of wannabes
“will dead soon”? What does that mean and in what language?
Hey! There’s a nice haiku for you up there!
Wow what a FF mind with “will dead” and “bounce of wannabes”
Ming Thein on his excellent blog writes that “I was told by one of the manufacturers that a mirrorless camera has approximately 60-70% fewer parts than a DSLR, and can be produced in significantly less time.”
Link: http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/08/24/the-demise-of-the-dslr/#more-6329
No doubt this new camera will be fantastic…but I do wonder if Oly and Panny are not pricing them too high. At a time when Canon and Nikon are coming out with very aggressive pricing on dslrs…including FF…and now Sony is coming out with their new series which is a NEX E mount that looks like a small dslr at a very aggressive price point…these new m4/3 cams with smaller sensors may find it hard to gain traction in the market.
I hope this new camera and the new Panny GX7 both do well, but both are coming in at relatively high price points for the market.
Consider yourself as part of the happy few. After all cameras are just boxes with holes, camera companies catch their rats with 🙂
Ask for a loan to put some glass in front of the hole, to those rats who seem to have a blind trust, like Mr. Reee 🙂
Ironically, a product that seems to be less popular and cheaper to make will be priced higher if the people who buy the product are solid fans. As I’ve explained about Leica products:
http://leicarumors.com/2012/05/19/the-mystery-of-leica-pricing-explained-by-j-shin.aspx/
So, the fact that µ43 models are admittedly priced higher relative to cost of manufacture means that they have a solid following of people who are buying them for reasons other than cost-effectiveness. That is to say, µ43 is not a commodified product line, and µ43 products are not seen as interchangeable with other product lines. This is the magic that Apple products have, for instance, as does designer fashion in general.
I guess the question is what this magic is, and whether it is reasoned or delusional. It’s not just smaller size, since µ43 bodies are not that much smaller; lenses are smaller, and tend to be less obtrusive, which does matter. One thing that was important to me was the fact that it is a large, comprehensive system:
http://leicaapostate.com/index.php?file=20130801__Mirrorless_Lens_Range
Numerous pros have also commented here talking about specific advantages a particular µ43 model affords in certain situations. Being able to put the subjects at ease. Portability. Performance of a particular lens. Etc. µ43 has enough performance in it that many people believe the IQ compromise is minimal; if you are using low-ISO, and nail the exposure and lighting, then there is no compromise at all.
At the same time, I think some of us also like being contrarians, being able to get great images out of bodies that others consider toy-like. There is something magical and gleeful about sneaking in a fantastic sensor, hidden in a point-and-shoot form factor. Panny fans like having a fantastic video machine that is, in fact, very competitively priced. For centuries, artists of all stripes, pro or amateur, have sought the most interesting ways of doing things, and doing great work with reputedly “bad” material is a long tradition. If you can produce stunning art with a box of Crayola, why pay for Caran-d’Ache? Why worry about archival quality, when using food is more interesting? And µ43 is certainly interesting.
I hope they all do bad and they will just hipsters will use it is totally over priced md bad performance this camera at least is olympus that’s is way better than panasonic ,panny make really bad products this gx7 is a fail
You used a coma in your “sentence”. You’re in progress kid. Go on.
I’ll never understand why FF Kids feel so threatened by m43 that they have to troll all the time.
I have 2 FFs too (6D and D300E and combined more than 25K$ in glass) and love m43 for its low weight, great design and very good IQ.
One day, the advantage of FF IQ will be so small that its negligible and I guess then all those hatefull fanboys will realize that toting tons of glass around is just not as much fun as having a small and versatile camera that takes good images and doesn’t break your back.
I think they are unconsciously aware that FF is becoming the next medium format. 35mm film replaced 120 and now M4/3 is doing it to FF. They feel threatened and are fighting to hold on to the past and the familiar.
The unfortunate reality of sales and critically profits would suggest otherwise if anything mFT is at a critical point in its history and it could just as easily fold as dominate[ i doubt both somewhere in the middle maybe!}Panasonic and Olympus imaging divisions have made huge losses in the past and the market penetration outwith Japan is far below what was hoped .
Say what!?
I must admit, I’m surprised at the amount of talk and excitement over the 12-40 lens. The Lumix 12-35 looks perfectly competent for the job so the Olympus lens is a bit redundant in that light. I’d rather have the m43 lens choices extend to every niche rather than creating redundant lenses competing against one another.
So personally, I would have been more interested in a higher end zoom like a smaller, m43 version of the Zuiko 14-35 f2.
The 2mm on the wide end and the 5mm on the long end make the lens considerably more versatile than the stop of light.
Competition is always good, maybe it will set the 12-35 price lower and it pushes manufacturer to give better perfomances. I have the 12-35 and I’m happy for that 12-40, even if I won’t buy it !
Ok I would prefer a crisp 9 mm f2.8 weathersealed prime 😀
We have been told the IQ of the 12-40 surpasses the 12-35 and the Zuiko 12-60 so it is higher end in it’s own right, hence the excitement.
@The Real Stig
Well do not believe everything you see or read. Yes I guess it will be a pretty nice lens but 12-60 will not be defeated at least not the corner sharpness !
Cheers
The 12-60 at the wide end is really distorted not forgetting it dops from F2,8 very quickly
Monopolist.
I don’t understand why someone would pay these kinds of prices for a sub-APS-C size sensor. The trend these days is moving to full frame, which provides a lot better image quality and can be fitted into a small body. Well, to each his own I guess.
OMG
the trends this day is to go FF? maybe for a few keen enthusiast yes.
well, FF lenses will always be huge, specially with the more demanding new sensors (look at the size of the new zeiss 55mm). I doubt many people will be enthusiastic about that.
m43 offers a good compromise between quality and size. Actually, that’s how 24*36 became the format of choice over MF in the film era.
That’s what is attractive, independently of price. you then have different model for different wallet/needs, with varying figure. As long as the quality is good enough, the rest is more important. we are there now.
What is so hard to understand?
“Good enough” is a challenging concept to those who base their assessment of quality upon technical criteria rather than upon their experience / practical needs / art. Unfortunately, those vast, detailed transmitted-light displays and the web do not make it easier for technology aficionados. They are destined to break their backs and wallets while desperately trying to keep up with the rat race. It’s such a pity you can’t compare prints over the internet. Tragic, really.
You always put it so elegantly, sneye. Always a pleasure reading a comment from you.
well, trajic is may be a bit over the top 😉 it’s only cameras
but yeah, this good enough depends on everyone, no official threshold here. I would however expect that potential customers, in their majority, already have a digital cam and therefore some experience of IQ. Coming from point and shoot, m43 will impress no matter what, and previous dslr owners may have realised it is not IQ that’s limiting them anymore
I went with Leica when I started in photography because then I’d know that, if anything was not right, it would be my fault. Once I saw that what I got out of an E-PM1 was not discernibly different, I made the switch. Accepting the “good enough” has been a very relaxing thing for me.
Funny thing is, my first camera, an R3MOT, developed a very annoying but ignorable problem soon after I got it. So has the E-PM1. The R3 was still good enough, and so is the E-PM1.
In fact, actually, I’d say that the R3 and the E-PM1 have both been more than “good enough”. They both offer lots of things that fancier models don’t. Topic for another day, since I need to go to work. 🙂
The trend is to have lighter equipment, buddy!! I totally agree with Anonymus!!
@babaar
You simply don’t understand the benefits of M43. It’s about being small while providing “good enough” IQ. It’s all a matter of compromises, you can’t have it all.
Not everyone needs FF. I’d actually say that for 95% of shooting situations MFT is good enough. Mind you, I shoot with a D800 and I’ll be buying a E-M1 along the 12-40 f/2.8. Sensor tech has gone a very long way and the IQ one gets today from the latest crop of MFT sensors is better than anything else pro could have used 20 years ago!
The point of MFT resides in its size and weight. Also, the 2x crop factor can be very useful. The Pana 100-300 gives you an 200-600 equiv. in a super small package. I own a Sigma 50-500 and believe me, 9 times out of 10 I take my Pana G3 + Pana 100-300 instead. Yes, the IQ is not as good, but it’s close enough to make the FF kit irrelevant.
I find it funny that someone who owns a d800 and probably the latest and greatest 4/3 camera who plans on buying the em1 is preaching about “good enough” . call me crazy but that just doesn’t make sense.
Small body? No. There are some on here who are pretty good at photography, no matter the camera. Frankly speaking, a very good point and shoot like the rx100 is capable of giving you images that are often hard distinguish from DSLRs.
True. OTOH, there are compromises you have to take into account. Good enough is not “best possible”. This implies that ppl are less prone to spend thousands of dollars for the product. Em1 looks great, but, as it happens recently, overpriced for what it offers.
No wonder the new Olympus cams are NOT selling well…
But ‘full frame’ isn’t the ‘best possible’ either (there are some medium and large format options that are technically better), and eh, what is the best possible anyway? That totally depends on what you need.
The best camera is the one you have with you, not the one with the best specs.
“Best possible” doesn’t just depend on what you need, it also depends on what you can afford. If image quality were the only issue, we’d all be chasing medium format digital cameras costing $30,000 or $40,000. But short of selling off a few of my internal organs, that just won’t happen for me (or likely, anybody else in this discussion).
So “what you need” will differ from person to person, as will “what you’re able / willing to pay.”
Personally, all the “trend is toward X camera type” talk is nonsense to me. I take pictures for my own whims, buy camera(s) for my own needs — so why am I supposed to care what “all the cool kids” are allegedly doing?
Totally agree SSP Eric, thanks for putting that in much better wording then I did.
People do forget that FF was, itself, a huge compromise; it was called “small format” back in the days. It was the smallest “good enough” format given the film technology of the time, but not too small for the precision engineering abilities of the lens manufacturers.
If the sensor and lens technologies continue to improve, Pentax Q may some day be considered “full frame”. If the camera-phone trend continues, all the ILC lovers will be left trolling phone-camera rumor sites, saying what horrible compromises they are making.
Meanwhile, I’ve still got my Century Graphic 6×9. Some real photography gets done when you have to lick and reload your film every 8 shots, if only because no cat will hold still long enough for you to adjust your Scheimpflug planes. 🙂
Sorry; didn’r mean to bash cat photos. Actually, I have a big cat envy.
Interesting points about sensor size.
Some readers here might remember the 110 film craze of the early 80’s. Mostly, the tiny format produced lousy photos, IQ-wise hardly satisfactory even at 4x5in. (Except when Kodak spooled Kodachrome in 110, but that’s a whole different story.)
Nobody mentions the fact that the 110 format was ~13x17mm. But, wait a second, that’s almost exactly the same size of our “modern” 4/3 sensor!
In other words, FT and mFT are the current-day manifestations of a much-maligned “tiny” film format of the past. It’s hardly inconceivable what’s now regarded as a “tiny” format will become more than acceptable in the future.
To be sure, technologies are moving targets, while endless debate over trivia is a constant.
Now that you mention it… It reminds me about APS-C film cartridges. That wasn’t such a hit either, but worthy of an honorable mention as the inspiration for more than a decade of DSLR products.
But I guess you’re right: where film was the bottleneck before, we now see digital technology advancing rapidly, rendering all such comparisons nonsensical at best.
Your point is only that film stock has known size limitations, even that can be then debated with all the professional 16mm cine archives which also habitat a similar same footprint … I think everyone knows by now that digital sensors work better than film when it comes to miniaturisation. It didn’t happen overnight, but it happened.
I’ve always laughed at the marketing of “APS” Digital. Let’s take one of the most unpopular film formats and make it our standard! Out of all of film’s vast history, they chose APS? (I guess somebody held the TM and was going to squeeze something out of that dead horse) At least FourThirds chose “half-frame”, which in Cinematic stock sense was considered “Full Frame”. Now none of this has anything to do with performance and capabilities, it’s simply a standard to weigh in on. Some people hang onto 35mm/135 film as a magic standard, that magic is based on film stock technology. That isn’t really relevant in this new age.
Go Pro video and cellphones show a better solution than 110 and disc camera horrors. Mine is bigger and better, is a dated chant. A parallel. At the turn of the 20th Century. Every respectable man had a pocket watch. This hadn’t changed much since the 1600s when the pocket watch was first invented. In a only a matter of years, not decades or centuries; deemed originally a feminine concept, the wristwatch took over and replaced the pocket watch as the must need standard. Technology made the ability to create the same device smaller, and the advantage of that ability was realised, dated opinions changed and timepieces advanced, waterproofing, shock-proofing, auto-wind, increased accuracy. All the time in a smaller package.
Maybe timepieces aren’t cameras, but the historical technological path could provide some clues.
Actually, I happily shoot with both my PEN E-PL5 and my Pentax Auto 110, depending on the subject.
But what opened my eyes the biggest was using the Pentax lenses on the Olympus with an adapter. And because the frame/sensor sizes are the same, the lens focal lengths match. The only disappointment is that 18mm is the widest you can get.
What it proved was that the film was the Achilles Heel of the format, not the lenses. I enlarged some up to A3+ for an exhibition and few believed that such quality came from a lens not much bigger than a thimble.
Sometimes I look at Little Brother (the 110) and wish he were digital. I have promised him that if I win the lottery, I will make a New Brother, a digital Pentax Auto 110 that uses the old lenses – and a new wide angle.
Oh, and the camera and lenses came in black. Except for the Safari model, which was brown and cream, but he only goes out on special occasions.
I’ll stop now. Thank you for reading my dreams.
That is a beautiful promise. Thank you for sharing it!
Correct. But lets clarify, medium and large format are not just technically better, for some things they can be creatively better as well. Medium format commonly have 40, 60 and 80 gb backs now. And have you ever seen the magic that can be accomplished with the swings, shifts and tilts of a large format camera with a good optic?
The best camera though is always the one with you.
It’s not a football team, it’s not Roma v Lazio, etc
Just cameras for taking phots.
The micro stuff does allow for a smaller rig overall when you bang the lens on,
but there is room for both – FF & MICRO ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They each have their place, as do SLRs with optical VFs down to a P&S. And I will use both depending on the need
It just seems human nature to have to pick a “team” – i use Canon, I use Nikon, I use Olympus…..just use the effing kit that suits the job and be happy. Peace.
some people must crave/need the attention of being a troll. Personally, I look forward to a pocketable medium format, with small lenses to match. In the meantime, M4/3rds is fine with me.
In this picture the EM1 with 12-40/2.8 looks like a lot more attractive kit then previous views without irrespective of pricing. The slightly wider and longer range of the 2.8 lens should be an advantage. From this view the shape of the VF does look different from that of the EM5 as seems wider and extends back further???
This photo doesn’t show the join between the grip and body that looked temporary or tacked on in the original photos.
Personally i think em1 + 12-40mm should be priced at $1699. 1200 for the body and 900 for the lens. 200 off the bundle.
$1200+$900-$200=$1699!
??
Please explain your math.
ha! my mistake. should be 1899 though at 1699 it would definitely be a hot seller.
There’s 3 kind of people:
* Those who can do math
* Those who can’t
Eh no wait a minute…
There are 10 types of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don’t.
There are two types of people – those who think the world can be divided into two types of people, and those who don’t 😉
Well, from my point of view APS-C has absolutely nothing to offer. It is just compromised FF with too much weight and tiny advantages.
I have FF for work and m43 bodies for hobby. If I had to settle for only one system, I think I would chose m43. More so after bodies like GH3 and E-M1.
What is interesting in the 12-40 is that there is hope that Oly used *less* FW correction that Panny, and thus that the lens is intrinsically better, resolution wise.
But this too must be checked. It will also be interesting to make a ‘Strange Comparison’ with the old 12-60. I expect a lot of bitching 🙂
Well I hope that silly “PRO” designation stands for something. I’m not going to buy this lens (I’m fine with my m4/3 primes and 4/3 zooms, thank you very much), but if I was I would be willing to pay an extra $50 for a copy without that obscenity.
I think the PRO label is not enough visible, why they don’t make the letters in red blinking led 😉
It’s about enjoying taking photos and something else at the same time, not just bringing heavy stuff sweating.
Can someone remind me if there was an actual rumor about a 2.8 telephoto from oly, or am I’m confusing it with Sony or whishful thinking from people here? 12-40 looks like a nice lens, but it’s a completely new filter size, which is a bit vexing.
There have been a couple of different rumors about F2.8 telephoto zooms from Oly. 40-150 and 40-200 are the two I am aware of. Panasonic has already announced and shown prototypes of an upcoming 150mm F2.8 as well as their 42.5mm F1.2. Just don’t have dates for them yet.
Pro with scene and art mode ?
Pro with AF mode?
Pro with Photoshop?
No wait… real men take pictures with a FF sensor, a magnifier, masking tape and a swiss army knife (or is it McGyver?)
“:Pro with scene and art mode?”
Why not? It is already there in the processing engine and does no harm. Because of shared components with other models they would most likely have to engineer it out at extra cost. When I shoot now days, I always shoot JPEG=RAW. I use the JPEG’s to remind me of what I saw and then post process from RAW for maximum quality. One of the nice things about Olympus is that if you specify JPEG+RAW with scene/art mode effects you can experiment in the field with ideas but it will also save an unadulterated RAW file as well. It’s actually an effective way to stimulate creativity and you still have that RAW file to work with. Saying “Pro with scene and art mode?” is like saying “Hot Rod with satellite radio”. It is okay to have both. The hot rod is not lessoned by having the satellite radio, nor is the pro camera lessoned by having some creative functions. In each case the extras are optional for use.
Let’s face it, for those who have been long in photography, you could question the “Pro-ness” of autofocus, autoexposure, high speed drives, digital displays, CA correction, distortion correction, dynamic range enhancements, etc. But the reality is they are common parts of digital photography today. Useful tools when you want them but can be ignored if you don’t.
A camera is not “less pro” because it has some extras.
> A camera is not “less pro” because it has some extras.
Indeed. Moreover, I read and hear (and think myself) that shooting straight-up jpeg is something that more experienced photographers enjoy (and while you’re at it, you might as well use something like “dynamic B+W”). So, IMO every Olympus should have this.
Here’s the kicker: while a FF body + 2.8 zoom lens is something most people (pros especially) rather leave at home during a weekend trip with the family, an E-M1 + 12-40 is easily brought along. Of course you’d want those scene + art modes then!
Anybody spot the HDR button? That would be a nice addition.
Yes the HDR button has been mentioned many times. It is also the drive settings and timer button. What we don’t know is if the camera does in-camera HDR or whether that is just to set bracketing and exposure options for post processing HDR. I personally don’t mind either way as long as I can save bracketed RAW files and do my HDR on the computer where I can have precise control. Many in camera HDR functions compile exposures in camera but then save only the compiled image, and not the individual files. I don’t like that. But I think it would be nice if the camera let me create a “reference” JPEG HDR but saved the individual files as RAW. Otherwise I’ll do it myself the old fashioned way.
i wouldnt mind a single output file unless it was Raw. Then you could tweak the file in Post till the cows come home
i mean i would want a single Raw
I understood what you meant. 😉 The problems is that once you submit the different exposure files to in camera processing by combining images, it ceases to be a RAW because they have already been modified. But there is lots of software available for combining images on computer, where you can work from the original RAW images “until the cows come home”.
That is just a little bit too simple. For example, many cameras can apply in-camera darkframe subtraction for long exposures to raws, and in fact, all raws are somewhat processed, or ‘cooked’ as its often called.
Raw ain’t 🙂
well guys…the “pro” in front of cameras,lenses,brushes,software,shoes and condoms can be used when u use them for a payed jobs…even a point and shoot can be “pro” tool when you can sell the photos taken with it.
The real “PRO” is behind the camera. However Olympus has used the “Pro” designation in the past and if they hold true to that post then it indicates an item that is designed to higher standards for durability and quality.
Kodak + Fuji: same thing exactly.
For $900, one would have to take a hard look at it. I primarily shoot with primes, but a zoom is a godsend when it comes to traveling with less fuss.
em-1- is this not an inferior camera to the em-5?
but the price is almost the same? shoud it not be much cheaper? help me out …
Nope, the “1” number means that it is a superior camera than the OMD.
Interesting, seeing as the E-M1 is an OM-D.
You mean like the E-1 is superior to the E-5? Or the E-P1 is superior to the E-P5? And if “1” is top what comes next, 0.5? The numbers & naming of cameras by Olympus is absymal and bears no resemble to logic or common sense. Canon and Nikon are not far behind.
Rumors have it:
The 43 adapter will be available cheap for E-M1. I don’t know what that means, but I assume it means the Olympus MMF-3 (water-sealed 43 → MFT adapter, since that’s in the leaked video) will be available for $50 (total guess, but there’s no glass in the adapter, so why not).
So, $1450 + 50 would be… $1500 for E-M1 ready for 43 glass.
Optional battery expansion / portrait grip: $200.
Total: $1500 / $1700 depending on battery / portraiture needs.
(Total speculation based on rumors but consistent with rumors so far.)
Gak. Well the latest rumor does mentions $1500 body, and does not mention MMF-3 adapter. So maybe the starting point is $1500 for totals of $1550/1750, but I’m hoping the kits (at least the early ones) include an MMF-3 adapter, or at least a really cheap deal.
Wait a half year or a year and there will probably a cheaper body for a proper use with 43 lenses 😉
There’s no glass in an MMF-3 either, but Olympus still charge $160 for it!
It is splash proof and well made, and can be bought for $90.
I have a theory. That those who purport that FF is ‘equivalently’ better than m4/3 must be encouraged to choose their format of choice and be it.
But if they keep coming back here bitching it is a sure sign that they don’t have the money to fund their ambition, and therefore must be treated as beggars.
Possibly they have only the money for a P&S or for a smart phone, that is why they are so ashamed that they stay anonymous. Therefore why even argue with these beggars whose investment are only virtual. Possibly they don’t even have money for college, being in the youngest bracket of American consumers.
Only as them to clean the premises, after they have disgorged their bile 🙂
There is one thing I miss about FF (granted, I only did film):
All the wonderful legacy wide-angle glasses.
There is one thing I’m willing to concede to FF folks (but not to APS-C folks):
High-ISO performance.
I can’t say I’ll be in µ43 forever–since I’ve already betrayed one system, I could do it again–and I admit I’ve expressed some strongly-worded “disappointments” at sonyalpharumors from time to time–because I once really wanted to be able to love NEX–but all the bullying and baiting here is a bit too much sometimes.
Perhaps if we felt a bit less insecure about ourselves, we wouldn’t be baited as much?
Yes that makes sense. However AF speed is of the essence. If did convince myself to buy a Sony FF mirrorless (or a Leica, if money was no object) I would just get a couple of lenses, like HCB.
m4/3 lents you have everything else, with no loss of resolution, and top technology.
So why get caught into binary thought?
Still looking for a second hand 135 format alpha here so it can share the nice 24/2.8, 28/1.8 and 135 STF lenses I’m currently using on my Minolta AF film cameras.
No, not going to ‘leave’ m4/3 over that, amazing as it may seem to some on this forum, not only is it possible to use cameras from more then one brand, its even possible to use more then one system!!
🙂
You keep calling others beggars, but you yourself are poor by choice? With you, it always comes down to money. Mentioning yourself and HBC in one breath is offensive.
LOL! It seems to me that money is of the essence, for many, in photography.Therefore why hide it? Better show it! 🙂
And since you find offensive my mentioning HCB, let me mention Man Ray’s delicious quip: “Dreams that money can buy”
Isn’t it a perfect definition of Art? The problem, Sir, is that you miss the irony… 🙂
I think some of the people here espousing 35mm FF have mastur”bated” a lot. LOL
@JShin even that has changed in the modern approach. Most wide landscapes and panoramas that you see now rely more on PostProduction and stitching, vs a lens that can grab everything in one frame. That doesn’t always work of course, but a small camera and tripod and some planning is a lot easier than large kit, especially if you want to subject and isolated mountain range somewhere …
Or a link to your photography blog required before you can post 😉
FF nex with d600 sensor , or even better one , with Olympus ibis is going to be really interesting , an interchangeable RX1 will be compact awesome, if the wallet is not to feeble
Its too bad thats only really going to work well for wide angle lenses. Anything somewhat approaching ‘tele’ will either be large, optically heavily compromised or very expensive, and likely some combination of the 3.
Oh wait, that requires Sony to release lenses to begin with.
Really, they should work out the kinks of the rx1, provide it with a very good evf, and you have a killer street camera that can still be very compact. A full frame nex is interesting, but no direct competition to m4/3 for pretty much everything except when using it with wide-angle lenses.
Yes, that is why I mentioned that in case I went FF I would get only two lenses, probably a 17mm and a 30mm.
RX1 has also a v. good teleconverter so you can double those focals when needed. OTH Street Shooting is about Content, so m4/3 is perfectly adequate for that.
I was sure and I wrote many times that 12-60 would not be made. It either cannot be made – for physical reasons or, if it can be made at all, it would be the same weight and size as 12-60. Plus more expensive. Oly opted for a faster zoom, which is OK, but the versatility of 12-60 is something you cannot do without, once you have the experience with it.
You’re right, there’s no way Oly would have attempted a new 12-60mm.
It’s pretty clear Oly wanted a lens to compete with the 12-35mm, so had to produce a constant f/2.8 zoom. Since a 12-60mm f/2.8 would be really huge and heavy, they had to restrict the zoom range to “only” 12-40mm. No doubt 12-40mm taxed the limits of lens engineering, but probably not coincidence that it was just enough to outclass the 12-35mm.
While I never had the 12-60mm, I always enjoyed the 14-54mm I’d owned since 2004, and used on several cameras (E-1, E-3, Pens, EM-5). The disadvantage of the 12-60mm was the 1-stop loss from max aperture in mid-zoom range and beyond. The 14-54mm was more constant through most of its zoom range.
But I’d agree it would be nice to have a “normal” zoom with a longer reach. Perhaps there’s a market for a higher aperture zoom covering 14-60mm or even 17-80mm. I’m not holding my breath waiting for it, but who knows, as mFT matures, such options might emerge.
FF is better.. thats that. how m1 would compare with pentax k5II i wonder..
Many APS and FF cameras are ugly and too heavy and you will have to carry a tripod where ever you go. My first and last DSLR was a D700 I used it a few times but after that I just lost interest, that thing felt like a heavy rock and now it is accumulating dust. I can understand the need for a professional to use the best camera out there, but for me photography is just a hobby and with less pain it will be a good hobby!
How long do you reckon this will take to ship realistically?
Christmas? After that?
I remember the GH2 took a little while to arrive.
Oly has usually delivered sooner than 3 months after product announcment. Though there have been exceptions, like months of unavailability of spare batteries for the EM-5. I’m sure others here will have additional examples.
Seems like there was a rumor that the EM1 was going to show up in November some time, which sounds plausible. If it matters, that would be just in time for the holiday season…
I benefit from browsing your site. Many thanks!
Benefit from knowledge or humor? 😉
90k yen is OK for me for that lens. If it’s weatherproof and has decent image resolution with no major flaws that people report, then it’s definitely on my list.
If Olympus calls a camera body or lens “Professional,” it is a given it will have weather-sealing and good-to-great robustness. Since Oly normally appears to use the lower camera lines to “beta test” upcoming pro bodies, glaring negative issues are normally a non-factor.
Those of us who spent their time with film. did it of course with FF 135mm. It is no wonder that we are so blase’ with FF.
Despite what noobs believe, it doesn’t entail better per pixel resolution, quite the contrary. And for me having twice the DOF with 4/3 was extremely welcome.
So as long as we get the same or better per pixel resolution, I don’t see the need of getting FF, as cheap as it may go.
Could we please have an automatic block filter on “APS” and “FF” comments on this forum please. It is extremely tedious and completely irrelevant for existing m43 users.
Just joined the 4/3 ranks with an OMD power kit and 75-300. It’s a long time I had so much fun with a camera. However the price of the E-M1 better be around 1100.-€. Any higher price will lead to a Sigma SD1 disaster. I was heavily intending to invest in lenses and bodies of MFT after I sold my D800, but with the current “marketing evaluation” on prices I’m defietly holding off until I see some reason coming back to the Olympus marketing guys.
Greetings from Germany
micmac
Your e-m5 is still a current camera, no need to upgrade to an e-m1 really unless it offers a specific feature that is really important to you. The E-M1 is not a direct replacement for the E-M5, and such a replacement isn’t due till spring next year at least.
It’s not about replacing my gear. It’s about system reliability and reasonable company policy. I long doubted 4/3 to survive. Now they are at the dawn of getting fully accepted as a serious alternative to DSLRs. However you easily get equivalent gear of Nikon, Sony or Canon with better specs for sometimes less money. Imagine a E-M1 1500.-€ with 12-40 2,8 for 1000.-@ competing against D7100/Sigma 18-35 1,8 or Nikon D600 with Tamron 28-75 2,8!? I’m serious. The E-M1 doesn’t fit that bill. And it looks like Olympus tries to significantly push up the prices. That’s not going to help sales and popularity.
micmac
sigma 18-35 ONLY is over 800g!you fucking guys should consider the weight!
You have excellent taste. My next three buys:
1) Sigma 18-35 as soon as I can pick it up;
2) D600 as soon as the dust & debris have settled;
3) E-M1 as soon as I can get my hands on it.
Please note the E-M1 just may arrive sooner than the D600… 🙂
After that, all done for the next 20 years!
Hopefully the 12-40/2.8 will work quite well on the “venerable” EM-5. Would make a nice combo for a reasonable weigh/price ratio with low compromise on quality comparend to competition (if you don’t shoot flying birds playing soccer of course, as every FF fan here do, seems so 😉 ).
I just don’t get it why do people argued about this M43 is not good enough compare APSC or FF or bad or just cannot compare, too expensive. If these people don’t like M43 just LEAVE this site, no one force you guys to read this site, post comments, or even force you to use M43, some people like some people don’t, some people like small size , some people like their big gun. some people think FF is unbeatable compare small tiny sensor M43. so what??? you dont like dont come don’t buy don’t give UN-experience comments (if you think shooting bricks and looking at 100% is experience? think again!!). at the end what really matters is the picture that SPEAK. i come form a canon 5D mk2 user with several L lens and after i switch to M43 completely, i don’t really missed my FF camera beside the Bokeh, so what? that is my opinion, my experience, something i HAVE TRY, i LIKE, and i do really enjoy even though it only using small tiny sensor that many people laugh at. SO WHAT??
i just annoyed when people argued about sensor size, slr vs mirrorless, camera brand Can*n vs NIK*N, IOS vs android vs blackberry, Haizzzz
Hired by marketing or just uneducated?
3) E-M1 with 12-40mm f/2.8 kit lens ¥ 220,000
Converted: 1670 Euro or $2200 or £1423.51 @ 1.9.2013 prices
is this correct???????????????????????????????????
I love the precious information and facts a person give your posts. We’ll search for your website and check out once more listed here on a regular basis. I am somewhat convinced We will be knowledgeable a lot of new stuff listed here! Good luck for one more!