The way I think of it is this. Of course I wish it was cheaper, I wish everything was cheaper in life. I wish I didn't have to spend $1,700 on daycare. I wish it didn't cost $50+ each time I take my family out to dinner. I wish it didn't cost me $35 or so each time I fill my car up with gas.
I could wait the 6, 8, 12 months until it drops in price. Let's say in 8 months it drops down to $1,699. That $300 that I saved amortized over the 8 months means a savings of $37.50 each month. Much less than I would pay in rental fees.
Reading additional interviews show that Olympus is planning a 4 year product cycle for their flagships with allowable FW updates to improve the camera. And going by the 3 years of the E-M1 and the constant FW updates (The E-M1 now is completely different than the E-M1 at launch). It gives me confidence that my purchase now will be worthwhile because the company will support their product. We're not going to buy one now and get an updated version in 8 months like the a6300 -> a6500.
I was surprised by the $2K price tag as Olympus had hinted that there would be a minor increase over the EM-1. However, it really is too early to assess as we do not have a raw converter and no one has assessed/reviewed the continuous focus capabilities. I'm a little skeptical about Olympus' claims about the continuous focus and I have to wonder why no one that has used the MK2 has tried it out and commented. The IBIS results sure do look impressive.
I was one of those surprised and disappointed by the price too. Now I've pre-ordered the body, grip, and a couple extra batteries. I thought about why I added the m4/3 system to my Nikon FF kit. I wanted a smaller, lighter kit that is good enough for most things while still keeping high quality. I looked around at what lenses were available in what formats, and that led me to the Olympus system with its Pro line of zooms. All this talk of going to other mirrorless systems because of the high price ignores a simple fact. Most of the lenses for those other systems are much larger and heavier for the same field of view on m4/3. Glass is an investment, bodies come and go. The new E-M1 ticks everything I wanted that the Mk1 didn't have. Will the AFC be as good as my D5? No, I don't expect it to be, just like I don't expect the high ISO performance to be the same. But even it isn't it will definitely trim down the times I absolutely have to haul around the heavy Nikon kit, and that's exactly why I bought into the m4/3 system.
The pro zooms are a major draw for me as well. And the 75mm. I did shoot Fuji for a couple years and the primes, when compared to the high end MFT primes, are about the same size. The new f/2 primes are quite small. But the zooms are not as appealing.
I'm sure the E-M1.2 will drop in price after a year, if not sooner. That's just the early adopter tax for you. I do think it's a unique combo of size, build, speed, and features in the market. The X-T2 is a great camera, but not as fast and fewer features, namely IBIS. The Sony A6K bodies are frankly not up to the same build quality or usability of the higher end Oly bodies. So the E-M1.2 is certainly a premium product and that's reflected in the price.
itai195 wrote:
I do think it's a unique combo of size, build, speed, and features in the market. The X-T2 is a great camera, but not as fast and fewer features, namely IBIS. The Sony A6K bodies are frankly not up to the same build quality or usability of the higher end Oly bodies. So the E-M1.2 is certainly a premium product and that's reflected in the price.
Yes, but both cameras you mention have other advantages over the E-M1 II like more resolution, dynamic range, and better low light performance. As far as the speed and performance I think you could be right but you're making educated guesses at this point. On paper it looks promising but that doesn't always translate to actual performance. If the performance is there and is consistent in real world applications without too many gotchas then what you are saying is valid.
Iwas joeking wrote:
Unless they've discovered something radical, it's impossible for the Olympus to have as good Hi ISO as the larger sensors.
Barring a breakthrough in technology I think sensors have matured to the point where IQ is what it is. Any improvements in cameras will come from useability and features and sensors will stay the same or slightly better.
RobCD wrote:
Yes, but both cameras you mention have other advantages over the E-M1 II like more resolution, dynamic range, and better low light performance. As far as the speed and performance I think you could be right but you're making educated guesses at this point. On paper it looks promising but that doesn't always translate to actual performance. If the performance is there and is consistent in real world applications without too many gotchas then what you are saying is valid.
Yes, that's true. Sensor is an advantage for the APS-C and FF cameras. I think the value proposition here will certainly come down to build, operational speed, AF capability, and to a smaller degree size, lens selection, and other features vs the competition.
The whole "but you can get a FF camera for that price" counter argument is what makes little sense to me. The value proposition is different. It's the same reason a D500 and D750 can coexist at around the same price.
"AF Targeting Pad" -- where you can change the focus point by dragging your thumb (or finger) across the monitor while looking through the EVF -- is new to the E-M1line, right? This might compensate pretty well for the lack of a joystick. With so many more focus points, changing fast in two directions via those little arrow pads, especially with gloves on, begged for a better option. Hoping this is it.
Jack Kelley wrote:
"AF Targeting Pad" -- where you can change the focus point by dragging your thumb (or finger) across the monitor while looking through the EVF -- is new to the E-M1line, right? This might compensate pretty well for the lack of a joystick. With so many more focus points, changing fast in two directions via those little arrow pads, especially with gloves on, begged for a better option. Hoping this is it.
Was first available on the E-M10 Marl II, then the Pen F, and now the E-M1 II. Should be much improved with the faster processor as even with the Pen F there was a slight lag.
I think there will be a breakthrough in sensor development. They are still working on the organic sensor, global sensor, and who knows what else.
TMaG82 wrote:
Barring a breakthrough in technology I think sensors have matured to the point where IQ is what it is. Any improvements in cameras will come from useability and features and sensors will stay the same or slightly better.
TMaG82 wrote:
Was first available on the E-M10 Marl II, then the Pen F, and now the E-M1 II. Should be much improved with the faster processor as even with the Pen F there was a slight lag.
A several generations earlier on Panasonic bodies starting I believe with the GX7. Works really well and its a clever use for a touchscreen when using an EVF.
Some people will say "just use the Dpad" to move the AF box around, but think of it this way; what is easier ? Using a mouse pointer or the 4 arrow keys on your computer ? Sometimes arrow keys work, for just moving down an cell or two in an Excel spreadsheet, but other times, you need that ability to move at diagonal etc, and that is what the track pad feature allows.
Owning a XT2 and XPro2 as well though, I will say the joystick for AF also works really well to accomplish the same task
bobbytan wrote:
I think there will be a breakthrough in sensor development. They are still working on the organic sensor, global sensor, and who knows what else.
What did/do you think of the Sony stacked sensor? I have RX100v and RX100iii and the difference in DR is notable even between these two generations. I know its incremental-this sensor development process but the collective gains over the years at least to me have been impressive.
Well I assume Olympus is using Sony sensors eh? Surely they are, and being in the Sony/Canon camp as well I believe the most progress has been made by Sony.
I believe the E-II sensor is designed by Olympus and manufactured by Sony, much like the Nikon-Sony collaboration.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
What did/do you think of the Sony stacked sensor? I have RX100v and RX100iii and the difference in DR is notable even between these two generations. I know its incremental-this sensor development process but the collective gains over the years at least to me have been impressive.
Well I assume Olympus is using Sony sensors eh? Surely they are, and being in the Sony/Canon camp as well I believe the most progress has been made by Sony.
itai195 wrote:
The whole "but you can get a FF camera for that price" counter argument is what makes little sense to me. The value proposition is different. It's the same reason a D500 and D750 can coexist at around the same price.
I agree completely. Saying price should be higher for full frame and lower for anything smaller is not representative of today's camera market. It is the complete package that should determine the price and sensor is one part of that package.
RobCD wrote:
I agree completely. Saying price should be higher for full frame and lower for anything smaller is not representative of today's camera market. It is the complete package that should determine the price and sensor is one part of that package.
Yup, it's very narrow minded to hear people say "It's overpriced for such a tiny sensor". Or "You can get ca,era X with a bigger sensor for the same or less, and it'll have better IQ". That may be true, as again on pure IQ a larger sensor has a great possibility for better IQ. But for the feature set it's pretty competitive. And if you're able to shoot at say ISO400 instead of 6400 on your say non stabilized Fuji or Nikon shot, the disadvantage is greatly minimized.
Of course this is purely a mind game, but if I were to start from zero again in photography: E-M1 II + 12-100mm + 42,5 F1.2 would proably do for virtually everything. This camera seems like a great achievement, not necessarily in isolated technical specs (where it is mostly outspec'ed by larger format cameras, but as a whole that can master a multitude of situations in a realiable way and good quality. Except maybe for people who shoot mainly in the dark without flash and tripod, with moving subjects.
alba63 wrote:
Of course this is purely a mind game, but if I were to start from zero again in photography: E-M1 II + 12-100mm + 42,5 F1.2 would proably do for virtually everything. This camera seems like a great achievement, not necessarily in isolated technical specs (where it is mostly outspec'ed by larger format cameras, but as a whole that can master a multitude of situations in a realiable way and good quality. Except maybe for people who shoot mainly in the dark without flash and tripod, with moving subjects.
I agree about the versatility but a 12-100 f4 zoom on a micro four thirds camera is going to be very limiting in quite a few situations, not just in the dark. Don't get me wrong I could get a ton of use out of a lens like that but I'd want to have more than the 42 f1.2 to go along with it. But yes no doubt it will be a very capable system.
alba63 wrote:
Of course this is purely a mind game, but if I were to start from zero again in photography: E-M1 II + 12-100mm + 42,5 F1.2 would proably do for virtually everything. This camera seems like a great achievement, not necessarily in isolated technical specs (where it is mostly outspec'ed by larger format cameras, but as a whole that can master a multitude of situations in a realiable way and good quality. Except maybe for people who shoot mainly in the dark without flash and tripod, with moving subjects.
We don't really know how well it will perform at this point in time. We have only Olympus's marketing claims which are bold to say the least, and a few reviewers that neglected to test the camera's main claim to fame.
I hope it delivers as it will make an excellent system even better.
