I just learned that in some regions the E-M1 announcement will happen at 5am London time and in some other regions at 6am. This means that at 5am London time first official E-M1 info and review will be published here on 43rumors. Converted in other timezones this means:
9pm in Los Angeles
12am in New York
5am in London
6am in Berlin
13:00 (1pm) in Tokyo
As usual stay tuned on 43rumors by that hour. I will keep you updated with links to reviews, image samples and preorders.
31 Responses
That means the GH3 just became a bargain videocam that pretends to be a camera.
That also means the GX7 just depreciated by AT LEAST $200.
Thank you PANNY for making my Christmas list juuuuust a bit easier.
Here’s to failure!
Why? The GH3 has been discounted recently, but that has little to do with the E-M1 and a lot to do with Canon’s newly discovered RAW video streaming.
The GX7 has just been announced and is not even on the market. It makes a rather attractive alternative to the E-M1 for those who like its design better. It even costs a lot less. If anything, GX7 sales are going to increase after Oly’s announcement.
Why would GX7 sales increase after Oly’s announcement? The GX7 is a toy compared to the EM1. Completely different cameras, the two aren’t even in the same league. The GX7 is designed to be compact, the EM1 is designed to not only use the m4/3 glass but take advantage of the much better 4/3 lenses and it’s aimed at a completely different type of photographer.
Besides focusing 43s lenses, what can the em1 do over the gx7? You know, other than get you fantards wet
A much better grip and handling for one. Most likely much better C-AF. The larger size with additional grip and good AF with 4/3 glass alone justify it over the GX7. Don’t forget a better VF too. Or a better deal on that 12-50/2.8 lens in a kit bundle with EM1. It’s probably not going to a be a purple fringing machine like the 12-35/2.8 lumix as well as most likely produce better color/contrast too.
Not that the GX7 is bad, as it’s not. But if you were going to go rangefinder style, might as well step up to a Fuji as the lenses and IQ are better than most of the m43 glass (and 4/3 glass will focus like a dog on a GX7 and handle bad as well), or even better… Be a man and go Leica.
First, the gx7 has a higher resolving evf, how is the one in the em1 better? Ths rest of what you said is pure speculation. You dont know the color, contrast, rendition or purple fringe of the new 12-40 (not 50 like you said).The fact that oly now corrects fringing Iin camera like panasonic probably means its not much better. Either way the issue on the 12-35 is am over exaggeration as usual here.
You also have no idea how neither of them feel in the hand and I can most certainly assure you its too small for 43s glass without the add on grip. Thats another 200$. Still worth fhe price?
True homo…why do you come here…you are so annoying.
the truth usually hurts the sensible fangirls.
And now that the camera is out and the phase detect focusing is shit you all have nothing to justify the price
Forgot, also far superior image stabilization. This is nice with legacy lenses.
GX-7 is a toy…even compared to the E-P5.
Just for my curiosity: How much time in advance do the so called testers get their Camera before the official (press) releases?
Tomorrow, as usual, dozens of “first hand” tests will be published exactly on the second of the official release, in the hunt for clicks and publicity. With one review being more useless than the other. Just to satisfy our (me included) drive for the brand new. Those previews (some fake them even being “real” reviews) are never useful. Never. The guys usually are unable to find out what’s really good or bad, it’s just the “pressing here activates this and that function. F1 can be assigned ISO blabla. You can see how fast autofocus works blabla, Up to ISO 2400000, even more art filters (press here). Only big problem: The camera will be available only in black and the HDMI connector cable is not included.”…
They aren’t in depth, but we shouldn’t expect that – too early.
As far as black only and no HDMI cable included – Silver has been mentioned (we’ll find out shortly of course, maybe Pro Pink and Pro Purple will be announced too). And they don’t include a tripod either. Nor a camera case that holds all of *your* lenses, etc. Those cables are easy to find online.
I really do hope those are your only big problems with this camera. Of course, that means you’ll be one of those in the pre-order queue ahead of me.
Yes, I agree we will not learn much new about the camera in these “reviews”. But if right people are in the audience, they wil certainly push the presenters to have some clear word about their 4/3 camera line, 4/3 lenses (and what is their future), m4/3 lenses, and what to expect in general from Olympus in the future.
“I-Squeeze-Seven-Feathers” is my honorary Apache nom de guerre!
Who cares? We already have heard enough already so I don’t expect any new news.
I won’t be staying up for the release of the massively over priced, massively tiny sensored, nonsense.
I will, because 4/3 HG and SHG lenses are far superior to your Nikkor glass.
That is simply not the case the problem with lenses is that you need to mount them on a camera that is the hurdle that smaller sensor cameras fall at .At equivalent AOV and DOF there are many FF lenses that easily outperform their would be rivals on FT/Mft. Adding insult to injury these SHG lenses are huge for the format and cost at least as much as FF alternatives
The edge to edge resolution is better, period. Much more consistent. They also have far better color/contrast characteristics, especially wide open compared to other lenses. They won’t be huge for the EM1 w/ grip. Besides a 300/3.8 on an EM1 is far smaller than a 600/4 on a FF, and it is less expensive. Same goes for a 50-200/2.8-3.5 vs. a 100-400L. Don’t forget the faster shutter speeds attainable by the faster aperture. I’d take a ZD 14-35/2 over my 24-70/2.8L or a 12-60/2.8-4 over my old 24-105/4 L any day of the week. The only FF UW zoom worth a crap is the Nikon 14-24/2.8 and it is HUGE compared to the ZD 7-14/4. My 16-35 and 17-40 L’s are dogs in the corners even stopped down.
Can’t wait to dump the FF gear.
+100
leave them alone,.they just don’t know how superb the Optic quality of the 43 glass,..
A couple of sightly off topic questions I’ve been wondering about. I posted here since the other topics have hundreds of comments and it would get missed more easily.
1) to calculate the FF equivalent of a m43 lens, for example the 45mm 1.8, you say the the length is now 90mm, the light gathering capability is still 1.8, the DOF you get is the same as if you used 2 x 1.8 = 3.6 on FF, and the compression effect is what? The same as 45mm, or the same as 90mm on a FF? If only 45mm, why is it not the same as 90mm?
2) To counter the effect of a m43 sensor being smaller, why aren’t they trying to put in less megapixels, so that each pixel can be physically larger on the sensor and the image quality better? Of course, you would lose cropping ability, but wouldn’t it make more sense to limit m43 to say 8 or 10 megapixels?
Perspective (whether compressed or stretched) is based on distance to subject, not focal length. So if you had a 45mm on a m4/3 body and a 90mm on a FF body and you shot the same subject from the same distance, the perspective would be the same.
That’s what I thought. I thought it would be the same as 90mm on FF. But I read someone in this forum saying the compression would be the same as the native m43 focal length, and it’s been worrying me that that could be true.
1. Compression comes to 90mm because youre standing at twice the distance you would with a 45mm in ff.
2. Marketing basically. And because tech has advanced to the point that 16mp is very clean in m43s
Is there a rule of thumb that you could use to say that if the megapixels were say halved in number (which probably means each pixel doubles in size?), then it would improve high ISO by one stop?
I doubt it. It depends too much on HOW it was done. Beside, it won’t be – so don’t put too much effort into thinking about it.
The 16mp E-M5 etc sensor has better high ISO than the 12mp FT sensor which has better high iso than the 10mp FT sensor. The Nikon D7100 with its 24mp sensor has better {far better} high ISO than the 6MP D70 tech moves on from generation to generation.
The EM5 is only a stop worse at high ISO compared to 5D2 or A99. That’s pretty darned good, and plenty good enough for most anyone except news shooting in the pitch black of night. The EM1 is supposed to be even better. We’ll know for sure when the camera is out in the wild.
Sure with the same tech as current, and with larger pixels (lower pixel count) it might be cleaner…. But when it’s already so good, why castrate the pixel count? 16mp makes a fairly good 20×30″ print. With lenses like the panny 100-300 or the longer fast ZD lenses with excellent TC’s and the 2x crop factor, no one should need to crop in 99% of situations… So 16mp is actually a pretty sweet spot for noise control and ability to print fairly large. Composing correctly and shooting it right at capture time is always better than cropping. A lot of D800 people talk about how much they can crop with all the pixels they have, but that’s the cheapskate out. Learning to see and compose for what you want the end result to be at the time of capture makes you a better photog.
BTW the D7100 might have similar or lower noise levels than the D70, but quantity or amount isn’t everything. Noise pattern is more important. I’d rather have more noise with a good pattern over less noise but splotchy and spotty. The 6mp Sony CCD was actually pretty good pattern wise, Better than current Canon’s that’s for sure. Nikon improved their noise pattern even more starting with the D300/D90/D3 cameras, which is why the D7100 looks as good as it does. Luminance noise is very fine and uniform with more quantity instead vs. less noise but in clumps, throw in the lack of chroma noise and the high iso files print real well. Most of that fine but uniform noise melts away when printed. One of the reasons why the A77 and Nex-7 look so bad at high iso is because they are splotchy as hell with both chroma and luminance noise in a very clumpy pattern. FWIW the EM5 (and hopefully the EM1) also have a very nice uniform noise pattern similar to Nikon and Pentax bodies.
Well said.
The D100 and D200 didn’t do that well with colour but they were equal with what the 10D and 20D were doing.
The D7100 doesn’t look as good as you would hope, but it is packed with pixels.
Admin ,,Guys,.The first E-m1 review,.by ming thein ,.just fresh from the oven
http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/09/10/olympus-om-d-e-m1-review-1/
Guys ‘ read his interesting comment from Ming Thein about the E-M1 IQ;
Good news: this camera produces the best SOOC JPEGs I’ve ever seen; the output is very similar to the E-P5 (which you’ll recall I was very impressed with), but with the added flexibility of the color creator to shift WB and saturation (or apply virtual filters to your B&Ws). Sharpening is sensitive and not overdone; detail is crisp and the microcontrast characteristics of the lens are preserved well. The sensor’s overall tonal response seem quite similar to the E-M5; however there’s about a stop more dynamic range in the shadows, and noise seems better controlled – somewhere between half a stop to a stop. I’d say ISO 3200 still delivers good quality, and ISO 6400 is usable – this with JPEG noise reduction off. More importantly though, there’s little chroma noise and almost no odd hue shifts in the shadows at higher sensitivities caused by amplifying different color channels unequally. Color has always been Olympus’ strong trait; no exception here. Auto white balance is better than ever; it seems to have a slightly wider operating range specifically lower down in the Kelvin scale, making it able to better accommodate incandescent sources. The majority of the JPEGs in this review are straight out of camera; there are a few examples where I’ve processed a color file to compare against a SOOC B&W, and I think you’ll probably agree that the results are actually surprisingly close.