Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Olympus announces the OM-D E-M5, film SLR-inspired MFT
- Thread starter GoCubsGo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That SO looks like the old35mm models. Now look what you've done...I'm going to look at the UK price and discover (as usual) that it's $ for £, having said that, I've been on the lookout for a newbie, (was looking at the Fuji)
.....and things have been going well....and I have a little spare cash.....(orders camera)...
.....and things have been going well....and I have a little spare cash.....(orders camera)...
^^^
WAAH their all ganging up on me. Seriously though, the dollar for pound rate AND the 20% VAT we have in this country now means that grey would be the only way I'd buy ti here, and I never buy grey.
It's to be hoped I can organise my return home soon. I love Wales, don't get me wrong, but it's time to return!!!
WAAH their all ganging up on me. Seriously though, the dollar for pound rate AND the 20% VAT we have in this country now means that grey would be the only way I'd buy ti here, and I never buy grey.
It's to be hoped I can organise my return home soon. I love Wales, don't get me wrong, but it's time to return!!!
I'd not buy until the price drops a bit. It always does. Grey import in eBay can be a great deal: I bought my EOS 7D that way and saved a load.
I've had such bad experiences with ebay (got ripped for over 2K a good few years back) That I just wouldn't trust them.....I know they have protection in place now etc. but once bitten.
There are other way's of buying grey though....But what do you do if you have problems with the camera?
Depends a lot on the manufacturer. It's a risk you know about when you follow that route I suppose.
It's a standard micro 4/3 camera, not a new system from the ground up so yes, there are manual focus/aperture adaptors for most other lens mounts available.
We are going to order one when they become available. It is exactly what we are looking for in a camera. Oly seems to be upping their game with lenses as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see one major 'flaw' in the design, which is 100% due to the desire to have retro looks: the location of the EVF.
SLRs have their viewfinder in the middle of the camera for a very good reason: the pentaprism (or pentamirror) must be immediately above the lens and the reflex mirror. This is a great design for allowing an optical through-the-lens (TTL) viewfinder. However, this also means that when looking through the viewfinder, the photographer generally cannot use the other eye to survey the scene.
On the other hand, camera systems with either non-optical (such as most P&S cameras) or non-TTL viewfinders (such as all rangefinder cameras) have no such limitation. On these cameras, the viewfinder can be anywhere. One of the major features of a rangefinder, for example, is that the location of the viewfinder (on the left of the camera's rear) allows the photographer to compose with the right eye, and use the left eye to survey the scene (especially true for rangefinders with magnifications of 0.85x or higher). This is a HUGE advantage when doing street photography, for instance, and is one of the reasons (though not the only reason) that rangefinders are the preferred format for this genre.
Cameras with EVFs such as the OM-D E-M5 (who thought up that name!??!) also have the ability to have the EVF placed anywhere on the body; that is, there's no physical limitation, as in the case of SLRs. The Sony NEX-7 got it right, with the viewfinder placed top left. So did the Fuji X100. On other m4/3 and EVIL cameras, the optional EVF is placed above the lens because it needs to be seated in the hotshoe; I can appreciate this limitation.
But the placement of the EVF on the OM-D E-M5 is 100% down to maintaining the SLR looks; and I believe this will be to the detriment of the camera. If SLRs (and their inherent limitations) really are old tech and are being phased out by more modern designs, then let's not hang on to their limitations just so we can maintain their looks.
Last edited:
The EVF on the OM-D is elevated. On the Sony, X100, etc., they are within the body of the camera which necessarily requires their placement in the upper left. I had no problem using my left eye and shooting street scenes with our OM-1. I doubt I will with the OM-D. There is always the OLED as well. Your point is well taken but I still like the camera. I like the X-Pro1 as well.
I'm sure the camera will be a great performer (even with it's comparatively small sensor).
The point is that the only reason it looks like an OM-1 is to look like an OM-1. It didn't need to look like an OM-1, and the decision to make it look as such results in a usability compromise. All other things being equal, having a viewfinder that allows you to comfortably use the other eye for surveying the scene (should you choose to do so) is better than not.
The NEX-7 and X100 have the EVF (on hybrid OVF/EVF on the X100) within the body of the camera because there was no need to bolt on a bump on top of the camera, the way there is with an SLR; an SLR has that bump because its function requires it. The OM-D E-M5's function does not.
The X100 is a good example; Fuji was obviously trying to comp the looks of a Leica M3, but in so doing, took what was good about that design (the placement of the viewfinder being one) and added to it with modern features (like a TTL EVF).
Sorry for the rant, but it's just a pet peeve of mine: this seeming inability to see what is essential in a design versus what compromises the design makes to service function.
MFT is doing really well at the moment... all they need is some good new sensors (and this looks like an existing Panasonic sensor, not a new formulation - despite what Oly's marketing says).
I think I'm moving towards MFT as a possible choice for a small walkaround camera. Would have been Sony, but they really seem to have messed up their lens and sensor design. Fuji's entry is way too expensive, Pentax and Nikon aren't serious and Samsung fluffed their lens mount design so it won't take Leica M style lenses.
Would I get this camera though? No. While it's very pretty, I think they've made too many compromises to retro style - and the massive 'prism' is silly (I agree with Edge100). It's quite heavy for such a small camera, and while it's quite thin, the height and length are just a few millimetres less than my Canon 550D.
Good overview article by Thom Hogan:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/olympus-goes-hindu-welcomes.html
I think I'm moving towards MFT as a possible choice for a small walkaround camera. Would have been Sony, but they really seem to have messed up their lens and sensor design. Fuji's entry is way too expensive, Pentax and Nikon aren't serious and Samsung fluffed their lens mount design so it won't take Leica M style lenses.
Would I get this camera though? No. While it's very pretty, I think they've made too many compromises to retro style - and the massive 'prism' is silly (I agree with Edge100). It's quite heavy for such a small camera, and while it's quite thin, the height and length are just a few millimetres less than my Canon 550D.
Good overview article by Thom Hogan:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/olympus-goes-hindu-welcomes.html
We really like Oly Pens for city/travel/walk around/fly fishing/hiking/stick in a messenger bag, etc., cameras. One of the factors that I really like about the new OM-D is that it is roughly the same size as the EP-3, sans the VF. Look at about the 5:53 mark of this vid for a size comparison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG6RraONBzs The OM-D is also smaller and more compact than the X-Pro1. As to the retro style, well we are OM-1 fans so we like the style. I also like the X-Pro1 which is clear copy of the M9 (check out the dimensions in addition to comparing pics). For us, we will use the OM-D a lot. I think that it is a nice addition to the expanding options for those considering m4/3's and other mirrorless options.
----------
Yes, I was expecting a new sensor.
----------
Yes, I was expecting a totally new sensor.
----------
Yes, I was expecting a new sensor.
----------
Yes, I was expecting a totally new sensor.
The problem is that it isn't 'sans the VF'.
And that video is interesting... from the back the viewfinder design is quite ugly. The viewfinder itself is actually set quite low down into the body of the camera itself... the 'prism' turns out just to be adding an extra cm of dead height to the top.
I don't think it's that much smaller than the Canon he compared it to (especially if like me, you already have a similar Canon and you're looking for something small).
That kit lens is enormous (and f3.5-6.3)!!
Last edited:
It looks like a solid camera, and I'm a fan of the screen and the placement of the dual control dials. However, I can't get over that faux prism housing. I understand that it allows for existing products to utilize the accessory port, but those accessories were of marginal utility to begin with, especially with this camera (particularly the VF-2/3, given the integrated EVF and tilt-screen).
I'll wait to see what Panasonic has to offer later this year before pulling the trigger on any Micro Four Thirds bodies (just as well, with the fresh D800-sized hole in my wallet).
And yes, that kit lens is ridiculous.
I'll wait to see what Panasonic has to offer later this year before pulling the trigger on any Micro Four Thirds bodies (just as well, with the fresh D800-sized hole in my wallet).
And yes, that kit lens is ridiculous.
The issue is not that the OM-D looks like the OM-1; it's that it looks like the OM-1 for no good reason, and Olympus wasn't smart enough to get rid of the bits of the OM-1 that exist ONLY to service the function of the OM-1 (but are redundant for the function of the OM-D).
The X-Pro-1 may look like an M9, but it doesn't copy the features of an M9 that are inherent limitations of rangefinder function. For instance, if the X-Pro-1 merely had an optical viewfinder, then this would be a flaw because while the M9 has only an optical viewfinder, it is rangefinder-coupled, meaning it's actually useful for focusing (unlike the X10, for example, which has a useless optical viewfinder). Fuji didn't do that; they kept the design (which is a good and functional one), but modified it to suit a modern camera with modern features like a TTL EVF (and, in their case, an hybrid OVF).
It's like the old Creative Labs Nomad MP3 player that looked like a CD Discman. What was the point of making it LOOK like a CD player, when it didn't play CDs? A CD player has a certain shape because, well, a CD has to go in there. But a HD-based MP3 player doesn't need to be shaped like that, does it?
And similarly, Olympus kept a "feature" of its SLR cameras that serves absolutely no purpose on a mirrorless camera. In fact, it's worse than that: it's a feature of SLR cameras that actually detracts from the use of the camera, but is tolerated because of the benefits it brings to the SLR camera (namely a TTL optical viewfinder).
Again, none of this is a commentary against the quality of the Olympus OM-D; it might take great photos. But the usability of the camera will suffer because of the design decisions that were made. Olympus could have sold loads of these cameras just by putting in a built-in EVF (which was sorely missing from their other m4/3s offerings), but putting in a sensible place.
Apparently the camera is not for you, I like the camera. Then again, I don't care for the Sony. Sort of like MBP vs. MBA. Viva la difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
I beg to differ: Fuji has taken the rangefinder camera into the 21st century. They didn't copy the M8 or M9 for otherwise the X-Pro 1 would lack its ingenious viewfinder and the AF, for instance. Instead, I think the engineers were tasked to build the rangefinder of the 21st century and I think the X-Pro 1 sets the bar for digital rangefinder-style cameras.*
Regarding the comparison to the new Oly: if it weren't for the X-Pro 1, I'd be quite a bit more excited than I am right now. I was always a fan of the way the OM-3 and OM-4 looked like and I like the minimalism of the OM-D. But my heart tells me, I should start saving for the X-Pro 1
* I know that technically speaking, the X100 and X-Pro 1 are not rangefinder cameras, but you all know where I'm coming from.
Not really. They are not rangefinders. It really is that simple. It is possible to keep rangefinder focussing and have autofocus (see the Contax G system). So it would be possible to build a true 21st century rangefinder system. But Fuji have chosen not to. Their cameras are no more rangefinders than the new Pentax in yellow.
Apparently.
I also don't care for the Sony (NEX-5n lacks a built-in EVF; NEX-7 is too expensive and doesn't play well with wide-angle M-mount glass). I own the X100, which, to me, strikes the right balance between usability, cost, and performance.
I really the Fuji cameras as well. If the OM-D wasn't coming out, and we didn't have a few m4/3's lenses, there would be a X-Pro1 in my, errr, our future.