[jct us101]

See more of the camera, accessories, and size comparisons, here:

The Olympus E-M5 from every angle

[pingflood]

Thanks for that link. Seeing how small it really is should quiet down the "lol huge camera" idiots who managed to convince themselves this is the size of a normal DSLR.

Since the new flash has LED for video recording, can the LED also act as a modeling light? That would be pretty neat.

[jct us101]

There's probably some silly software distinction that prevents that knowing Olympus.

[Unsinkable II]

There is a 24mm equivalent f2 M4/3 lens available that's under $1k and it's AF (fast and silent too!)
Yes going full frame does give you a few more options (Canon, Nikon, Sigma) but the OEMs cost more than $1k.

Except it isn't an F2.0 equivalent, is it? It's an F4 equivalent. :ugh:

[Unsinkable II]

I find it hard to imagine a situation where FF can take over.

Everyone to their own. Please note this is not directed at you, as you are without doubt a talented photographer, and a great contributor to PF.

I find it very hard to imagine how FF can fail to take over.

As sensor costs continue to decrease, SR can be put into a larger (than FF) sensor, with the electronics doing the compensation. OLED will decrease the display thickness, and hey presto, we have slim(ish) FF bodies.

In a conspiratorial world, some will say corporations won't let FF digital become mass-market. There HAS to be a tangible, visible benefit to using a camera over a quality smartphone. And that benefit needs to be readily visible to someone whose interests might not make them in tune to subtleties in photography.

[taurus9]

Except it isn't an F2.0 equivalent, is it? It's an F4 equivalent. :ugh:

An f2 lens is an f2 lens since it takes focal length into account. While some are interested in creating wide angle images with blurry backgrounds, others are interested in the flexibility for light gathering ability; in any case, the trade off here is for size/cost/weight which is the whole point of the use of smaller sensors.

[rparmar]

Wow! so this lens on the OM-D would be quite a compact kit and among the two manufacturers there is a nice selection. With an adapter the Pentax lenses can also be used, but how is the metering and aperture comtrol?

In a word: perfect.

Set your Olympus MFT camera to any mode you want, say Av. Control aperture on the lens. The camera meters and exposes accurately (unlike any Pentax camera) without needing the Green button kludge.

So long as you don't need auto-focus, Olympus cameras work better with Pentax lenses than Pentax cameras do. And have done since the very first MFT model. Sad, but true.

---

Last edited by rparmar; 02-07-2012 at 10:53 AM. Reason: grammar

[johnmflores]

Everyone to their own. Please note this is not directed at you, as you are without doubt a talented photographer, and a great contributor to PF.

I find it very hard to imagine how FF can fail to take over.

As sensor costs continue to decrease, SR can be put into a larger (than FF) sensor, with the electronics doing the compensation. OLED will decrease the display thickness, and hey presto, we have slim(ish) FF bodies.

In a conspiratorial world, some will say corporations won't let FF digital become mass-market. There HAS to be a tangible, visible benefit to using a camera over a quality smartphone. And that benefit needs to be readily visible to someone whose interests might not make them in tune to subtleties in photography.

Thanks for the kind words. And I'd happy to be wrong in this discussion. I'm not a sensor-size warrior; I'd be all over an inexpensive FF camera.

I shoot what I like and what I can afford. I'm with Pentax because when it came time to upgrade my Nikon D70, the D700 was just too big a step in size and cost. Make it cheaper and I'll strongly consider it.

[rparmar]

I find it very hard to imagine how FF can fail to take over.

As sensor costs continue to decrease, SR can be put into a larger (than FF) sensor, with the electronics doing the compensation. OLED will decrease the display thickness, and hey presto, we have slim(ish) FF bodies.

This argument doesn't work, since the advantage in small camera size remains with the smaller sensor. The same technologies that shrink bodies for larger sensors also shrink them for smaller bodies. And the market demands ever-smaller cameras as each year passes. Ask yourself how you will get a FF sensor in a camera the size of the Olympus E-PM1?

Larger sensors are there for those who need them and are willing to pay for the privilege. That will always be the differentiator.

[taurus9]

This argument doesn't work, since the advantage in small camera size remains with the smaller sensor. The same technologies that shrink bodies for larger sensors also shrink them for smaller bodies. And the market demands ever-smaller cameras as each year passes. Ask yourself how you will get a FF sensor in a camera the size of the Olympus E-PM1?

Larger sensors are there for those who need them and are willing to pay for the privilege. That will always be the differentiator.

Not just cameras, but also lens size. These are tradeoffs that the consumer must weigh and decide given their individual situations.

[deejjjaaaa]

This argument doesn't work, since the advantage in small camera size remains with the smaller sensor. The same technologies that shrink bodies for larger sensors also shrink them for smaller bodies.

they do not not shrink our hands though...

Ask yourself how you will get a FF sensor in a camera the size of the Olympus E-PM1?

m43 castrated body to the point that you want to puke = 110 x 64 x 34 mm

vs

FF body w/ optical VF (remove it and reduce the size the follows) = 139 x 80 x 37 mm

[er1kksen]

Unsinkable- my argument, as it was, is that the march of technology is going to make the advantages of a FF sensor over a 4/3 sensor less relevant, not moreso. When we've got a $500 Olympus E-P8 with a 4/3 sensor and a $600 Sony NEX-12 with a FF sensor and they both shoot clean with 15+ stops of DR up to ISO 6400 at 40-50mp each, most camera users are not going to choose their systems based on the stop or two of difference you might see outside those parameters. One buyer will go with 4/3 for the smaller lenses, another will go for the NEX because they want shallower DOF at the same perspective and aperture, another will go with 4/3 because the cameras fit their hand better, another will go with some APS-C system because there's a particular lens they're in love with. This already occurs to some degree, but for someone buying a 4/3 with current panasonic sensor tech because they like the lenses or UI, there's some hand-wringing over the IQ sacrifices. With that hand-wringing removed, smaller-sensor formats like 4/3 are going to become more competitive in the marketplace, as their primary disadvantage is gradually negated. FF on the other hand, while it will become cheaper and more accessible, will also become less and less prestigious as its real-world advantages are eroded. The people who will value the gain in performance at the outside margins of those camera's capabilities exist, certainly, but they're not exactly a large market. Preferences towards certain lenses or ergonomics or features is going to factor more heavily into consumer choice.

[rparmar]

deejjjaaaa, you're missing my point. But go ahead and puke. I'll be out shooting photos my clients and friend love!

[rparmar]

When we've got a $500 Olympus E-P8 with a 4/3 sensor and a $600 Sony NEX-12 with a FF sensor and they both shoot clean with 15+ stops of DR up to ISO 6400 at 40-50mp each...

All of us can invent imaginary scenarios. You have failed to show any evidence that yours will come to pass. I see camera prices going up, not down.

[Unsinkable II]

All of us can invent imaginary scenarios. You have failed to show any evidence that yours will come to pass. I see camera prices going up, not down.

Camera prices will stay about the same; it's technology prices that do and will continue to go down.

Today's high technology is tomorrow's entry-level technology.