Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Holy crap ... that's my home town, Stratford. But it's about the Fuji, so this is in the wrong thread.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I was under the impression that the 12-35mm Panny is going to be a weather-sealed lens, maybe not.
As for wanting a fast zoom, 24mm is the perfect wide-end for a zoom lens and the bigger the aperture is, the more light enters via the lens for brighter viewing. The correct question is... who wouldn't want one? especially if Oly or Panasonic can make one that is compact.
david.elliott
Well-known
I don't at all disagree with the sentiment that these are two very different cameras. I'm just not sure which I should purchase.
The image quality of the x-pro1 and the high iso results look stellar from what I have seen in various reviews online and in various sample photos. I've never really used an autofocus camera (using autofocus lenses) seriously though. I used, sparingly, a nikon d70 for a while but that was quite a few years ago.
I do own an e-p2 now but I only use it with m42 mount takumar lenses and I mainly use it for macro work.
Weatherproofing doesn't mean much to me presently as none of my lenses are weatherproofed. So, I'm not sure that it would offer any real advantage? If the camera is fine in the rain, but the lenses arent, then what does it matter? The olympus has other things going for it though - it apparently has a better evf, faster autofocus, and very nice image stabilization.
Each camera has pros and cons, of course. Still, don't know which one I should go for. I've made a pro/con list a few times and still haven't managed to make a decision.
they won, I pre-ordered this morning.
rbelyell
Well-known
tbh will, if cost and sze are cosidered, i honestly couldnt care about shooting a 24 at 2.8. its just my opinion, and by no means do i want to cast aspersions, but i feel generally there is presently much too much emphasis put on shooting 'fast' lenses wide open. it seems like there are many out there, and i am not counting anyone here specifically among them, who only want to shoot fast wide open. i honestly dont get it. do i want a fast 40-50 for general low light shooting, sure. would i like a fast enough portrait lens to get me some saucy bokeh, sure. but other than that i really could care about fast or shooting wide open. even with my x100, if the light gives me a choice i hardly ever shoot it wide open, preferring 2.8-4 as thats where i think the cameras sweet spot is. i really like shooting at the lens sweet spot...
Zonan
Well-known
Did you see the special offer Olympus is running? A flash or conversion mount rebated when ordered together with the OM-D and 12-50?
I got the body only which comes with the little flash. I am going to use the PL 25/1.4 as my only lens.
Oh, I just saw the rebate form. That wasn't up this morning when I ordered. I will call B&H and add something to my order to get the bonus.
rbelyell
Well-known
well dean i dont put much stock in what people who ignore facts and live by dogma have to say. what i see with my own eyes is this cam will have better IQ and low light/high iso ability than the FF 5d, which puts it at least in the league of apsc cams like the sony 5n. sensor size conversations at that point seem to me irrelevent. facts is facts, and technology marches on over dogma!
tony
plummerl
Well-known
One problem with the rebate form: the rebate (as shown) is good on cameras and accessories bought between April 1 and May 31. However! I spoke to OlympusAmerica (I pre-ordered five weeks ago) and they informed me that an email will be going out to those that pre-ordered from Olympus telling us to add one of the accessories to the pre-order. This will then qualify us for the rebate. Not sure about those that pre-ordered from say, BH, but I would expect a similar accomodation.
Zonan
Well-known
Inspired by your decision, I had just ordered one myself, and that's how I found out about the offer
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Amateur crap? I guess Daido Moriyama is an amateur.
Johann Espiritu
Lawyer / Ninja
I just saw OMD (Yes, Orchestral Maneuvers in the Dark) live in Manila last Monday. Just thought I'd mention that since it was part of the poll! Haha!
ajuk
Established
I had an e-3 and it was worthless for AF tracking - my 5d is muuuuch better. It can't be much worse than that
I never said it was worthless, in fact I might get an EVIL, but only because it's smaller. If this sensor's so good why don't that ALSO put it in an SLR. Trouble is as the price of larger sensors goes down, 4/3 is going to become obsolete anyway.
I looked at Sony SLT camera and I genuinely don't get the point of it.
gavinlg
Veteran
I never said it was worthless, in fact I might get an EVIL, but only because it's smaller. If this sensor's so good why don't that ALSO put it in an SLR. Trouble is as the price of larger sensors goes down, 4/3 is going to become obsolete anyway.
I looked at Sony SLT camera and I genuinely don't get the point of it.
Because their SLR development is pretty much dead. They haven't brought out a 4/3 SLR in years.
People have been saying that the 4/3 sensor is going to become obsolete 'soon' since the e-1 in 2003. Right now m4/3 is commanding a large portion of the photographic market, and growing.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
No doubt this sensor (or a derivative thereof) will make it into a DSLR. Olympus has said the 4/3 E series is not dead.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Y'know, I don't think there isn't another camera offering the *combination* of features that E-M5 has, regardless the sensor size.
(this should ruffle some feathers
)Paul Luscher
Well-known
Just to drop back into this again and be annoying:
I think what I find interesting is that most people voting in the poll won't get the EM-5 because they "don't want to be caught dead with a dinky 4/3 camera."
Frankly, if that's the case, I find it silly. After all, wasn't the Leica the "dinky camera" of it's time when it first came out--and especially considering it was using 35mm film--essentially the 4/3 sensor of its time? And wasn't the concept of the Leica to be a small, light ""carry anywhere" camera? Isn't that one of the virtues Leicaphiles celebrate?
Same with the original OMs-- they were "dinky" cameras compared to the ones put out by the Heavies of their time--Nikon and Canon. Yet the OMs are now considered classics of camera design.
One thing I've noticed is that as technology progresses, it tends to make many things smaller, lighter and more capable.One good example is the cell phone: we've gone from the box mounted in your car to the brick that could do only one thing--dial out--to the flip-phone and the Iphone, etc. Do people deride the Iphone as "dinky" and prefer to return to the pocket-straining brick?
So why should a camera that's small, compact and light be an object of derision? And why do we think only a sensor as big as the old 35mm film frame can produce a "good enough" image? Isn't that retrograde thinking?
I for one like to think of the EM-5 as being the wave of the future--the Leica I of it's time if you like--with the same concept behind it. And from my personal standpoint, I am all in favor of a small, light camera which produces standout images--after a long day, a bag of Nikons can start to feel like carrying an anvil around....
I think what I find interesting is that most people voting in the poll won't get the EM-5 because they "don't want to be caught dead with a dinky 4/3 camera."
Frankly, if that's the case, I find it silly. After all, wasn't the Leica the "dinky camera" of it's time when it first came out--and especially considering it was using 35mm film--essentially the 4/3 sensor of its time? And wasn't the concept of the Leica to be a small, light ""carry anywhere" camera? Isn't that one of the virtues Leicaphiles celebrate?
Same with the original OMs-- they were "dinky" cameras compared to the ones put out by the Heavies of their time--Nikon and Canon. Yet the OMs are now considered classics of camera design.
One thing I've noticed is that as technology progresses, it tends to make many things smaller, lighter and more capable.One good example is the cell phone: we've gone from the box mounted in your car to the brick that could do only one thing--dial out--to the flip-phone and the Iphone, etc. Do people deride the Iphone as "dinky" and prefer to return to the pocket-straining brick?
So why should a camera that's small, compact and light be an object of derision? And why do we think only a sensor as big as the old 35mm film frame can produce a "good enough" image? Isn't that retrograde thinking?
I for one like to think of the EM-5 as being the wave of the future--the Leica I of it's time if you like--with the same concept behind it. And from my personal standpoint, I am all in favor of a small, light camera which produces standout images--after a long day, a bag of Nikons can start to feel like carrying an anvil around....
rbelyell
Well-known
paul, yours is the single best, most accurate and pointed analysis of this 'non' issue of sensor size that i have either read or made myself. bravo. 'nuff said, argument over.
tony
tony
Zonan
Well-known
Same for me. Sold my D200 backup, 70-200, etc. and going EM-5 to lose that anvil. Having just lugged the kit around with my D700 (which I'll keep as backup to the EM-5 for a while), I thought "why am I being uncomfortable walking around like this?" Some may need the big, heavy stuff for their purposes, but I no longer do. Nikon and Canon are following the Kodak business plan and becoming increasingly irrelevant, at least for me.