whyamihere: Dear Olympus,
Remind me again: Why am I paying $1400 for the image performance of a 3+ year old APS-C camera? ('Portability' isn't really an excuse. Don't forget, you are in a joint venture with Sony, a purveyor of tiny APS-C M-ILC cameras.)
Everyone Confused By Your Price Tag (which should be just about everyone)
Macx: I guess? That might be a sale if you're heavily invested in older 4/3 gear. Otherwise, no.Chris96326: I'm just pointing out that Oly is late to the party in terms of image quality. Sony does have some laughably bad lenses. (And I've owned both, too. It's like we're connected... maybe we're twins :D )Mpgxsvcd: Nobody knows why Canon kept the same 18mp sensor for 4 years, aside from Canon. Also: Proof? (And don't give me any of that DxOMark BS.)Boissez: First, NEX 6 has phase detection, last I checked. Which means the rationale is: Weather sealing + mag alloy body = $500+ more? Uh, no.Photomonkey: ...You sure about that? Aside from Canon and maybe Pentax, maybe, everyone else has moved on to better sensors. See above about my feelings on 'better build quality' for what is ultimately still a big, bulky MFT camera that negates all of the advantages of the MFT system. Also, try pretending for a second that I might actually have some experience in photography.
PhotoPoet: Using a Sony RX 100, Nikon D7000 and of course iPhone5. I think I will pass. I am even with all the reading I am doing still confused as to "why" I want to switch. For me the D7000 (any DSLR) is speed. I will have to read a bit more to see if these four thirds cameras perform in such as way as to dump my D7000. Any one that is a user of this equipment, not just a "mine is bigger so its better" shooter, feel free to provide insight
Kimchiflower: You sure about that?
I used to own a GX1 (same sensor as G3) and a couple of primes and zooms (some of the same lenses you are using), and I just bought a Nikon D7000 and a couple of primes. There's plenty of difference, even if you're not pixel peeping.
Perhaps you're not using your camera or photo editing software correctly. Either that or you're exhibiting what psychologists call 'compensation bias' in order to justify your purchasing decision.
Either way, at least at an empirical level, I'd disagree with what you said with the exception of the point about portability. Mind you, I'm using the same bag as I was with my MFT gear for my Nikon DSLR with plenty of room to spare.
As an artist of different mediums:
If you see no artistic value in these images, then you are not truly an artist.
If you consider yourself an artist but still feel they have no value, then I suggest broadening your narrow-minded definition of art to include just about anything and everything, including these photos.
If you have taken photos like these and deleted them, then they were simply not appealing to you. Artistic expression is an extension of emotion. Always has been, always will be. You can't hate on someone for finding an emotional quality that resonates with them in these photos.
If you see these photos and don't like them but are still willing to call them pieces of art, that is understandable. I see art all the time that I don't like or don't understand, but I never tell someone that it's not art.
Grumble all you like about how how someone may have achieved popularity with these photos. Popularity is usually not the goal of most artists. Expression is.
Central Fla: Does this take into account that the lenses are heavier than most and each time they are rented they have to be shipped through the dreaded 3. I cringe having to ship my stuff once let alone a hundred times and that does not even take into consideration the "rental car" mentality of the customers. The big 3 shippers in the U.S. are terrible, and the fact that a heavy lens last 100 weeks is a testimant to their build.
If you read the last third of this article, you would know that they already considered weight as a possible factor. The significantly heavier telephoto primes aren't repaired nearly as often.
I've rented from Lens Rentals, and their packaging is well padded enough that even the worst US shipper would have to go out of their way to damage the contents.
A well-reasoned article that promotes dedicated photojournalists over reporters armed with iPhones published on the website of a news organization that fired several dedicated photojournalists in 2011 in favor of unpaid amateur iReporters armed with iPhones.
Oh, irony, you sweet, cruel monster.
whyamihere: Dear Nikon:
Wrong camera system.
Marike6: Yes, unpopular. Maybe not Canon EOS M unpopular, but, "Eh, maybe if it went on clearance," unpopular. Amazon's metrics aren't exactly a gold standard for tracking sales figures, especially here in the US. Never mind the fact that MILC make up less than 25% of all ILC camera sales, so even if the Nikon 1 system cameras rank in the top 5, all they can really claim is to be one of the slightly taller children in the kindergarten class.
Marike6, AnHund: You should probably read the preceding 170+ replies prior to mine. I don't see a lot of people excited to pay $900 for a lens that only works with an unpopular camera system. There's also little doubt there's a larger market for an 85mm f/1.2 for DX or FX cameras than there is for a 86mm f/3.2 (eqiv.) for the CX format.
If I were to make a minor edit to make you happy:
Just About Everyone
MrTritium: 420g with battery?! The Nex-6 and X-E1 weigh only 350g, and the nex-3n 269g. Is this camera made of LEAD?
I wonder if you missed the part of the spec sheet on the 2nd page where it says: Body Material - Metal.
It's not like this is the first PEN E-Px that weighed more than the competition.
Here's my perception of the problem:
Adobe has ostensibly decided that the Master Collection is no longer for people who don't make substantial amounts of money from their products. It's well established that most large companies will swallow the monthly cost and carry on. Smaller production houses will weigh their options and move forward accordingly.
Hobbyists & semi-pros are furious because the non-pro products are weak, and perpetual licenses make more sense due to the infrequent need to upgrade hardware/software to achieve results.
Education institutes are angry because Adobe has basically driven up costs substantially. Every institution with a design or architecture program just saw their projected software license costs explode.
When your business model for a product effectively sidelines the layman and the education sector, you're essentially left with big businesses. It may be good for improving revenue, but it certainly suffocates the potential for new customers.
Jim Evidon: Still no eye level finder either optical, EVF or hybrid. Therefore, not a serious camera for serious photographers. I'll stick to my OM-D and avoid the hand/arm shakes, thank you.
I've been photographing with a GX1 for over a year, and I've never had a problem with 'hand/arm shakes'. Nobody should, assuming you know how to hold a camera and can lift and hold a few pounds of mass. Never really felt the need to buy a viewfinder for the thing, even after I bought a decent Nikon and Canon DSLR.
If you think every 'serious camera' needs an eye-level viewfinder, that just means you're incapable of adapting to different circumstances. Good photographers make do with what they have.
Sergey Borachev: Sorry I read the preview up to this line
" - 16MP Four Thirds sensor (as used in GX1)"
and lost interest.
...And I read both of these comments and thought, "Since this is a GF camera - which is very obviously Panasonic's entry-level upgrade enticement camera - at what point did you think you were possibly getting a new sensor?"
Why would Panasonic upend their current lineup by introducing a superior sensor in a camera that is at the bottom of their product stack? If anything, you should be glad this has the GX1 sensor, which means the replacements for the G5 and GX1 should have better sensors than they do right now.
This upgrade pretty much went where I expected it to, especially after seeing the D5200 with the sensor and AF improvements (and little else). While I wasn't 100% certain that we'd see the 51-point AF system, I'm glad Nikon decided to take the D7000-series in that direction. I'm also quite interested to see the 1.3x crop in action - this would be a boon for wildlife/nature photographers if a 70-200mm could be converted into a 140-400mm with a few button clicks.
I'm also pretty happy they've pulled in design cues from the D600. I found the D600 to be quite comfortable to hold and easy to navigate, though I wish someone at Nikon would finally admit the placement of the ISO button is just silly. (At least put a raised braille bump in the middle or something to clearly indicate where it is without pulling your face away from the screen.)
I could honestly care less about the lack of GPS, Wi-Fi, or any of the video features. That's just me, though.
thx1138: I couldn't care less about the 70D, what I want to know when we'll see the 7D replacement. Until they have a high pixel count, high frame rate FF, there is an urgent need for a high performance crop camera with the demise of the 1D IV. 7D has 48MP FF equivalent and it'll be a good 3-4 years before we see a FF with that pixel count that can do 8fps and when it does, it'll be a hell of a lot dearer than any 7D APS-C based replacement.
"I want to know when we'll see the 7D replacement. Until they have a high pixel count, high frame rate FF, there is an urgent need for a high performance crop camera with the demise of the 1D IV."
The 1D Mk 4 was 1.3 crop. It also cost more than 3x than the 7D at launch. Perhaps you want a 1D X?
"7D has 48MP FF equivalent [sic]"
Not really, unless you're talking about what would happen if the photosites of an 18MP APS-C sensor were spread across a full frame. Even then, 'equivalency' wouldn't be a proper term. 18MP is 18MP.
"it'll be a good 3-4 years before we see a FF with that pixel count that can do 8fps and when it does, it'll be a hell of a lot dearer than any 7D APS-C based replacement."
It may be a lot longer than that. Getting perfect wafers to cut from, engineering the tiny photosites to capture the light fast enough, and then getting it to not cost as much as a full sized sedan are big hurdles.
meland: I suspect in time the market will shake out to look something like this:
* FF DSLRs - for Pros and top end enthusiasts
* APS-C (or similar) mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras - for mainstream enthusiasts
* High IQ compacts offering large zoom or fast aperture - for people wanting better than smart phone quality
* Smart phones - the new mass market compact.
I suspect most APS-C DSLRs will disappear having been replaced by mirrorless cameras that offer similar IQ but which are smaller in size. And low end compacts (from the established brands at least) will also vanish.
I have to agree. If the crop-sensor DSLR market is in decline, it's a rather slow one. People tend to forget that it's quite easy to make decent lenses for APS-C DSLR cameras - much easier than it is for a mirrorless camera with the same size sensor (otherwise there would be tons of native lenses for Sony's E-mount and Canon's M-mount). Mirrorless cameras also don't offer such an easy transition to the coveted full-frame market, which is part of the bait to get certain people buying a APS-C DSLR in the first place.
I don't think this market is going anywhere anytime soon, short of a technological revolution that makes top-end mirrorless cameras and their associated lenses much cheaper and easier to obtain. (Read: For the APS-C DSLR to kowtow to the mirrorless market, an OMD EM-5, a GH3, or a EOS-M has to MSRP at $500 on day of release. Until then, people will buy a D3200 or a T4i without thinking twice.)
I must admit, that's a lot of zoom to fit into a single lens. Combined with the smaller physical size and weight, it makes the smaller aperture understandable I suppose. The next-closest in Micro 4/3 is the Panasonic 100-300mm f/4-5.6, and that thing is pretty bulky & heavy (though it also features OIS, which is handy). The tradeoff here is more reach and a smaller, lighter package in the Olympus, versus a big, heavy Panasonic lens with a wider aperture and OIS.
As we prattle along in the comments section talking [complaining] about specs, people who want such a lens will make the decision that's right for their needs and likely find themselves happy with their decision.
Combatmedic870: If its better then the old then why not... It would be nice if it at least matched the old 14-45 lens.
Agreed. If the image quality of this new lens at least matches the 14-45mm, I'd gladly make the trade just for the internal focusing alone.
RStyga: Unless a very specific (usually subjective) requirement is in place, there is little point in arguing whether 6D or D600 is "better". They are both equally "good" and, in general, state-of-the-art DSLR cameras. There is no significant difference between them, and where there is, it is on very specific features, which brings us back to the beginning of this paragraph. Personally, full-frame cameras where out of my interest radar due to their increased weight, volume and price. Canon changed that with 6D. I also checked D600 but, after handling it, was not convinced of its physical (weight/volume) improvements. Price-wise, I was fortunate to to get a 6D on a much lower price than D600 due to a retailer discount scheme and Canon's rebate program. Well done, Canon.
I also have to agree with Gothmoth, and that's another part of my conclusion when comparing these cameras in practical use: Neither felt to me like they were worth $2,000 for just the body. There were just enough compromises on both that ate away at my feeling of perceived value. I'd gladly buy one or the other once the selling price drops to $1,700 for either.
I have to agree with the first half of RStygas statement. I had rented both the 6D and D600 and put them to practical use in an attempt to make a purchasing decision. I became comfortable with each over that time, though neither was perfect. The image quality is comparable, especially if you shoot RAW and do some light post-processing. While there are more AF points on the D600, the center 9 cross points aren't nearly as sensitive as the one in the center of the 6D. Both have their AF points mostly in the center of the frame, which makes them both pretty mediocre at tracking moving subjects - the D600 being slightly less mediocre (though this leads me to say the difference in FPS is pretty negligible if a camera can't track a subject worth a darn).
As someone who isn't invested in either company's lenses, they're both good cameras when held at arms' length. They both have their individual and shared deficiencies, but they're great for almost anyone who's not a pro sports photographer.