Lotusm50 wrote:
It appears that they went out of their way -- and unnecessarily -- to make it look conventional, and in the process as sebboh suggests, hamstringing it, and limiting it.
I dont know if the design is limiting. By placing the VF centrally you do get the additional hump so you can place a big flash on it as someone mentioned, but I dont think the intention here was to make a flat pack camera, they've already done that with the Pens. I think the idea was to make an ergonomical camera that you can use for hours, maybe even professionally, with as little strain as possible. So you're gonna have grips, flashes etc, a hump would not make much of a difference. But you do get the weight advantage of m4:3 which does make a difference after a while. Besides if you ask most people I think they would prefer a centrally located VF, if not for any other reason but simply for the fact that they're used to it.
apart from the OM references I think Oly got this one right. I hope the EVF is cutting edge to make the camera usable.
Spyro P. wrote:
I dont know if the design is limiting. By placing the VF centrally you do get the additional hump so you can place a big flash on it as someone mentioned, but I dont think the intention here was to make a flat pack camera, they've already done that with the Pens. I think the idea was to make an ergonomical camera that you can use for hours, maybe even professionally, with as little strain as possible. So you're gonna have grips, flashes etc, a hump would not make much of a difference. But you do get the weight advantage of m4:3 which does make a difference after a while. Besides if you ask most people I think they would prefer a centrally located VF, if not for any other reason but simply for the fact that they're used to it. ...Show more →
you can put a full sized flash hot shoe on a camera without a viewfinder hump. in fact putting it above the main structural body of the camera actually requires more structural reinforcement than flush against the camera would. while they may have made a flat pack camera, they've never made one with an evf. i don't see how removing the hump would hurt ergonomics any. having most of the population not rubbing there nose on the lcd instead of forcing everyone to rub their nose on the lcd doesn't seem like a good choice to me. i'd rather have a left handed camera with the evf on the right than in the center. then at least i could have the option of not using my nose as a base. it's true though people don't like change in general even if it's better. there's lots of examples of this throughout history.
i just don't understand the excitement. it has a viewfinder, a grip that looks like it might actually fit the human hand, two dials, and some user customizable buttons. that's all good, but nothing unusual. i'm not seeing much that makes me think this stand out over this (other than a evf versus optical viewfinder and an updated screen) :http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE620/images/allroundview2.jpg
More images, without the grips. The 17mm is a tiny lens, so this gives you some idea of how small the camera actually is. A nice differentiation from the PEN line. Don't like dials and a pentaprism hump go for the PENs, like dials over buttons and a built in viewfinder you have the OM-D line.
I don't understand why not make the EVF in different places. Just put 3 connections in different locations (right, left and middle) and every photographer can switch to the location he/she finds more comfortable.
Aesthetically I like the middle location but functionally I'd rather if it'll be on the left.
I agree, on the left would reduce nose smudges and other annoyances. But, not a dealbreaker for me; as long as the price doesn't go all Fuji on us I will order.
sebboh wrote:
i just don't understand the excitement. it has a viewfinder, a grip that looks like it might actually fit the human hand, two dials, and some user customizable buttons. that's all good, but nothing unusual. i'm not seeing much that makes me think this stand out over this (other than a evf versus optical viewfinder and an updated screen):
These are all good lenses and tiny, pick a couple with this camera and you can have an very decent kit between $2k -$3k (provided AF is as good as Oly claims)
alundeb wrote:
I wonder how much of that is caused by the "25 mm f/1.4 on u43 is equivalent to 50 mm f/1.4 on FF" seduction.
Not much; most of it is because of price. Maybe even because of price/performance ratio.
I have a 5D and a GF1. If this thing have better IQ than the GF1, i'm out of the mythical FF. The 5D is much bigger, lenses are much bigger too, more expensive to boot, there is no pocketable alternative body to use the FF lenses on etc. etc. etc.
As it is, i can make A2 prints with the GF1 very close to the 5D (original), so this OM-D will probably make me quite happy.
If it was FF, it would be at least twice as expensive and i could use on it the old MF OM lenses (have a few and they are not incredibly great) and maybe the 1 or 2 new they would introduce with the new FF body: that would be a joke.
BTW, all of you dreaming of a FF body: how big do you print? In what darkness do you shoot most of the time and why? What were you doing with film?
Once we have bought our small and compact crop sensor cameras, we want some fast glass on them as well, and start buying lenses that are ridiculously heavy, expensive and poor compared to their true FF equivalents. Example: 25 mm f/0.95 vs 50 mm 1.8
If that's true for you, keep your FF gear. I have no use for the 25mm f/0.95.
I can live with a little more DOF on the smaller format and small and good lenses, thanks.
I do check statistics on my pictures database in lightroom, and i don't use wide open fast lenses on the 5D that much. When i do, i could probably have a little more DOF on the same picture and it would work the same.
OTOH, when i'm out with the 5D and a bunch of lenses for a day, i notice the difference in size and weight...
i meant excitement about the design of the camera. all those things you mentioned already existed and people on this forum do nothing but put µ4/3 down because of the sensor. i've always liked µ4/3, though i prefer the NEX for the way i shoot. this camera adds a viewfinder (about friggin time olympus!) and does a slightly better job of on the buttons and dials than the previous ones. unfortunately, they made it unnecessarily awkward to stick in a pocket by adding that ridiculously large viewfinder hump in the center. in my opinion they're effort to make this camera retro makes it more awkward and less usable. it's basically a gh2 with IBIS and cleaner lines. i like yakim's idea, having 2 or three interchangeable slots where so you could customize where the hotshoe and evf go would be awesome.
anyway it looks like a solid offering just not exciting in anyway other than retro look if you're really into that. hopefully they've cleaned up the liveview viewing interface a bit that was always my big usability issue with olympus.
Spyro P. wrote:
I was reading somewhere that the FF market is about 5% of total DSLR market, so I can sort of see why Oly is not interested in investing the R&D.
it's the pricing issue, the current cost of FF sensors means they can't price FF cameras as consumer items. this is the reason sony has been somewhat unenthusiastic about FF and high end cameras in general. it's not where the profit is. not only that but the people that actually buy FF are the same ones that demand a full lineup of lenses and a good support network (pros and wannabe pros). this means there is a huge expense to be taken seriously on the FF market with little money to be made. turns out the best reason to have a FF line is just for the halo effect. people saying this top of the line camera is what "serious" photographers use is good for selling the cheap croppers of the same brand as well as all the people that ask their enthusiast friends what camera to buy pointing them to the same brand as their own FF camera.
) $800