Olympus announces the OM-D E-M5, film SLR-inspired MFT

[Edge100]

I think I like the X-Pro1. There are two things that keep me from going in that direction:

1. Lack of focus peaking. This makes it very difficult to accurately focus with manual focus M-mount glass. This omission is even more curious considering Fuji were good enough to actually manufacture their own M-mount adapter.

2. APS-C. I'll say it: I'm a snob for 36mm x 24mm. You can compensate for the decreased angle of view on APS-C, but you can't compensate for the depth of field control, unless you make crazy fast glass (which I suppose is what is happening with lenses such as the Voigtlander 25 f/0.95 for m4/3).

I would have paid $3000 for a 16MP 36x24mm X-Pro1 body with focus peaking. THAT would have been a real challenger to the M9, and would have made me think seriously about parting with my 5D2/35L/85L/Sigma 50 kit. As it stands, I probably won't be buying the X-Pro1, and I definitely won't be replacing my Canon kit.

 

[OreoCookie]

Not really. They are not rangefinders. It really is that simple.

The point is that the X100 and X-Pro 1 appeal to the same audience that likes rangefinders: you want something small, unobtrusive, silent and you expect high image quality. Plus, you have an optical view finder that doesn't black out when you take a picture. That's why I wrote the Fujis are »rangefinder-style cameras« rather than rangefinder cameras, and my comment in the bottom was supposed to indicate that I am aware they're not technically rangefinder cameras.

 

[robbieduncan]

The point is that the X100 and X-Pro 1 appeal to the same audience that likes rangefinders: you want something small, unobtrusive, silent and you expect high image quality. Plus, you have an optical view finder that doesn't black out when you take a picture. That's why I wrote the Fujis are »rangefinder-style cameras« rather than rangefinder cameras, and my comment in the bottom was supposed to indicate that I am aware they're not technically rangefinder cameras.

I think I misunderstood and thought you were talking about visual style as opposed to style of shooting. When it comes to style of shooting Fuji have really messed up with one thing: manual focussing. Lots of people like rangefinders as they can manual focus using zone focussing. This seems difficult/impossible on the X100 (and maybe with the native lenses on the X-Pro 1).

 

[OreoCookie]

I think I misunderstood and thought you were talking about visual style as opposed to style of shooting.

Yes, I was talking about shooting style and the kind of audience the Fujis are supposed to appeal to. In essence, I meant to say that Dornblaser got it wrong: Fuji didn't mean to copy the optics of the M9, but appeal to people who like to use rangefinders.

When it comes to style of shooting Fuji have really messed up with one thing: manual focussing. Lots of people like rangefinders as they can manual focus using zone focussing. This seems difficult/impossible on the X100 (and maybe with the native lenses on the X-Pro 1).

I agree with that: I only got to play with the X100 a little bit in a local camera shop here and I had trouble getting the camera to nail the focus manually. They could have used their modern viewfinder to imitate the functionality of a rangefinder to some degree. I remember an older digital Leica showed a 100 % magnification of the image as soon as you touched the focus ring. Fuji could have implemented something like that as well.

 

[robbieduncan]

I agree with that: I only got to play with the X100 a little bit in a local camera shop here and I had trouble getting the camera to nail the focus manually. They could have used their modern viewfinder to imitate the functionality of a rangefinder to some degree. I remember an older digital Leica showed a 100 % magnification of the image as soon as you touched the focus ring. Fuji could have implemented something like that as well.

For zone focussing (and this applies to m43 as much) you don't use the viewfinder for focussing at all: preset the focus based on the scale on the lens (1st fail for these systems here is the lack of scale) and work out the zone you'll have focus using the depth of field scale on the lens (2nd fail for this being missing). So this shooting style which is used by a lot of street photographers using rangefinders is simply impossible with the current pretenders. Coupled with the often poor "feel" of the focus-by-wire systems employed and you really are no where near what is wanted.

 

[firestarter]

You can at least zone focus manually if you're using an M-mount lens on one of these cameras (although you might want to assume an extra stop of DOF compared with the guide on the lens)...

In other EVIL news, Dpreview published Sony's roadmap for their NEX lenses. The reaction from the Dpreview community seems to be that 'these lenses are aimed at Soccer Moms' and 'I'm jumping to M43, since Sony don't have serious glass'. Interesting.

 

[OreoCookie]

For zone focussing (and this applies to m43 as much) you don't use the viewfinder for focussing at all: preset the focus based on the scale on the lens (1st fail for these systems here is the lack of scale)

I thought you can include a scale in the viewfinder (on the X100, you can). Isn't that actually better since you don't need to take your eyes off the viewfinder?

and work out the zone you'll have focus using the depth of field scale on the lens (2nd fail for this being missing).

Although I don't think a depth of field scale is included, in principle you could add it to the electronic scale in the viewfinder, no?

Coupled with the often poor "feel" of the focus-by-wire systems employed and you really are no where near what is wanted.

Yes, that's true, my Olympus E-20 had a focus-by-wire system and I really didn't care for it. The only thing that was helping was the small sensor (and thus it was easier to focus accurately).

 

[robbieduncan]

I thought you can include a scale in the viewfinder (on the X100, you can). Isn't that actually better since you don't need to take your eyes off the viewfinder?

Although I don't think a depth of field scale is included, in principle you could add it to the electronic scale in the viewfinder, no?

I didn't know you could have a distance scale in the view finder. Personally I'd still like it on the lens, but that could work. I suppose you could potentially include the DoF scale too depending on how the distance is displayed.

 

[firestarter]

I didn't know you could have a distance scale in the view finder. Personally I'd still like it on the lens, but that could work. I suppose you could potentially include the DoF scale too depending on how the distance is displayed.

The problem will be whether the fly-by-wire lens gets 'parked' to a different focus setting if the camera goes into standby, or if the camera jumps out of manual focus mode.

Fully manual lenses can at least be relied on to stay put.

 

[robbieduncan]

Fully manual lenses can at least be relied on to stay put.

Speaking of which Voigtländer are releasing a second fantastic full manual native m43 lens. 35mm equivalent, full manual focus and aperture. Perfect for street work on a m43 body

 

[firestarter]

^^^ That looks great.

I'm kind of tempted to get a GF3. It's mad-cheap for an interchangeable lens camera with a 14mm pancake lens (£340). Good reviews too. It would be an interesting way to try the system out for not much money.

 

[driftless]

Yes, I was talking about shooting style and the kind of audience the Fujis are supposed to appeal to. In essence, I meant to say that Dornblaser got it wrong: Fuji didn't mean to copy the optics of the M9, but appeal to people who like to use rangefinders.

That was basically my point as well, I wasn't referring to optics, build quality, etc.

----------

Speaking of which Voigtländer are releasing a second fantastic full manual native m43 lens. 35mm equivalent, full manual focus and aperture. Perfect for street work on a m43 body

Image

That's a nice looking lens. I am going to add it to the wish list.

Speaking of lens, there is an OM adapter so we can use our old, manual OM lenses on the OM-D.

 

[robbieduncan]

^^^ That looks great.

I'm kind of tempted to get a GF3. It's mad-cheap for an interchangeable lens camera with a 14mm pancake lens (£340). Good reviews too. It would be an interesting way to try the system out for not much money.

Is that £340 for the camera with the lens?

 

[firestarter]

Is that £340 for the camera with the lens?

Yes!!

 

[driftless]

It is $552.-- in the States at B&H.

 

[robbieduncan]

Yes!!

Damn. If only I'd not just paid a load to get my car fixed and still need to pay for tyres. Not that I want to be getting into yet another camera system

 

[driftless]

Speaking of new cameras the OM-D E-M5 is available for pre-order at B&H ........

dpreviews has a hands-on preview of the camera.


http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusEM5/

 

[GoCubsGo]

Is that £340 for the camera with the lens?

Yes!!

I have the GF2 and thought to get the GF3 except that I wanted the hot shoe, they removed it from the GF3. I love the GF2, it's my first MFT camera, but I think I made a really great choice.

 

[firestarter]

It is $552.-- in the States at B&H.

Damn, you guys are getting ripped off! It's £10 less here, and that's with 20% tax and free healthcare!

I have the GF2 and thought to get the GF3 except that I wanted the hot shoe, they removed it from the GF3. I love the GF2, it's my first MFT camera, but I think I made a really great choice.

GF2 looks good too. I've got my DSLRs and speedlights and stuff though. I'm not looking to replace that, so I think a really small m43 camera with a good enough sensor to not have to use flash indoors would be great. Lack of hotshoe doesn't worry me too much.

 

[vancleef]

If my parents can get a hold of one while they're in NY in April, I will get one of these. Seems like the perfect camera to me, if it performs as well as the hype tells.
Too bad Olympus prices are ridiculous here in Sweden, we are charged $1500 for the body only while in NY it goes for $1000.

 

[maflynn]

This camera is definitely tempting me, it offers some of the benefits of a larger sensor thanks to the M 4/3, good lenses (I hope), not too large.

Given that I have to wait, I may sell or trade my Nikon V1 for this bad boy.

 

[maflynn]

I should have my head examined but I put a deposit down on the OM-D EM-5. From what I have read (and I know its wicked early) performance is excellent in terms of IQ, AF lock and what not.

I've put my Nikon V1 up for sale as well. If it sells before the middle of April great, if not I'll trade it in at my local camera company.

The V1 is a good camera but I have found it a bit nosier then I'm willing to accept. I shoot without a flash frequently and need to boost the ISO to keep the shutter speeds decent. at 800 ISO, I found my images to be a bit noisy, 1600 are very noisy. When I did my research, I was under the impression that the noise wasn't that bad for those levels but I found them to be unacceptable.

Too bad, its a nice tiny camera, but the smaller sensor is working against me

I am excited (and nervous) but getting this camera.

 

[driftless]

I have one on order, too. No nerves, just excitement. The Voigtländer lens that robbieduncan brought up in this thread is in my wish list.

 

[firestarter]

^^^ Why don't you guys actually try handling one before ordering?

Seems like a recipe for disappointment to buy without doing this.

 

[driftless]

^^^ Why don't you guys actually try handling one before ordering?

Seems like a recipe for disappointment to buy without doing this.

Ahhh, you're no fun. You should post the same thing in one of the new iPad threads ..........