Thom Hogan: Sansmirror Serious Camera of the Year

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by bruce_rubenstein, Dec 27, 2012.

  1. Olympus OM-D E-M5
    For me, I use my E-M5 exactly like I used to use my Nikon D7000, and am not missing anything (other than weight and size ;~).​
    I found this interesting, because I also stopped using my D7000 when I got a OM-D last April. Note that in Thom's quote that the OM-D replaced the D7000 for what he shot. Since what I usually shoot matches the strengths of µ4/3 I generally get better technical image quality than I did with the D7000. There are things that mirrorless cameras don't do as well as DSLRs, and Thom has a companion piece that covers those things here:
  2. When I hear "serious cameras," it makes me chuckle a bit...But yeah, the EM5 is pretty freakin' serious:)))
    PS. My vote goes to RX100...
  3. The quote above extracted out of context, needs to be put back in context what Thom really stated, as below:
    "it basically replaced my Nikon D7000 (DX DSLR) as my hike-deep-into-the-backcountry camera."
    Such attempts to force own opinions make me chuckle too...
  4. Awww, Frankie, disappointed Thom didn't pick your cameras?
  5. I'm glad Frank provided that context, which rather noticeably changes what someone might gather from reading the the OP's post - which is definitely skewed, missing that information.
  6. On the bad side of the coin, the Olympus menus and setup are amongst the most frustrating on Planet Camera
    After picking up an E-PL1 ... I concur 100%
  7. I'm glad Frank provided that context​
    My quote of Thom's started with:
    For me,...​
    The context was in the piece I gave the link to. I also gave the link to the piece where Thom lists the weaknesses of µ4/3 cameras. In my post I stated:
    Note that in Thom's quote that the OM-D replaced the D7000 for what he shot.​
    Yeah, I was really trying to fool everyone when I directly linked to the original source material. Thank goodness we have Frank here who can click on a link I provided to show how nefarious and underhanded I am. So I guess that since everyone here, except for Frank, is too lazy to read what Thom wrote about the Olympus and the other cameras that were in the running. If anyone is interested in what other cameras he considered, you're going to have to read the piece yourself. Try not to move your lips when you do so.
  8. The year is ending but it is reassuring to see that like kids we are still bickering over whose toy is the biggest and baddest. Well done to all the kids in the playground. May the new year lead to more arguments.
    The OM D is not a bad camera at all for what it offers. If you enjoy using it over the big Nikon and Canons then it is the best camera for you. That is what matters.
  9. Anybody care to speculate why the EPL5 was not considered for the Sansmirror Entry-Level camera of the year? It seems to avoid many interface problems of the EPM2 and costs less than a Sony RX100. I am not enamored of GF5 samples. Not only is color balance too cool, but blue-greens are muddy like old Ektachrome. (GF5 was Thom's designated winner.)
  10. costs less than a Sony RX100​
    It only cost less than the Sony due to the holiday discount, it's normally $699. My guess is that it's simply overlooked due to its pricing. It's not expensive but not so quite "entry level" pricing either. These two were my personal final selections and I remember the EPL5 being over well over $100 more than the sony...
  11. I assume that Thom didn't consider the E-PL5 as an entry level camera, because it's not the Olympus entry level camera: the EPM2 is. They both have a lot of P&S camera DNA in them. There are more direct controls with the PL5, but the real interface issue people have is with the menus and the somewhat random placement of some of the settings. The Olympus menus are structured in a similar manner from one model to another, but not like other brands of cameras.
    The OM D is not a bad camera at all for what it offers.​
    Oh, thank you , thank you your lordship, and the horse you rode in on, for the glowing praise you've heaped on a mere trifling toy of a camera whose AF can't even track a scud missile on a moonless night, like serious cameras can.

Share This Page