dogbert

<p>Its been too little too late from Canon for me. I've sold a lot of my Canon gear and moved to M4/3 and loving it.<br>

Among the deciding factors for me were:<br>

Lack of in-body stabilisation from Canon - the Olympus 5 axis system is as good if not superior to any of the Canon IS lenses that I have used (24-105 L, 70-300 DO, EF-S 55-250 to name a few) and all your primes and legacy lenses are stabilised too;<br>

Small size with professional form factor - full weather sealing in the OM-D EM5 and EM-1;<br>

Blazing fast and silent autofocus, couple with a touch screen that allows near instant shooting - touch a point in live view to focus and shoot in a split second;<br>

The EVFs are now really good and to the point where I don't feel like I am missing too much compared to an OVF.<br>

10 fps - not that I use it that often but nice to know that I can without having to pay for a 1Dx.</p>

<p>Philip I am not sure what M4/3 cmaeras you have tried but the new Olympus 16 MP sony sensor has better IQ than my 60D and 5D and more dynamic range. I am not claiming it beats a 5DII, but if you not aiming to print much larger than 13x19 it has all the IQ anyone needs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just put my new EM-1 through its paces on the weekend and am very pleased. In every respect I can think of it is an improvement over the EM-5, but in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary way.<br>

Sizewise it is about the same as the EM-5 so anyone concerned about whether it is too big compared to the EM-5 need not worry.<br>

Ergonomics are improved compared to the EM-5. The grip makes a big difference. The smaller and more numerous AF boxes are just as easy to use but more precise now. The EVF is really good. Having set up the EM-5, the EM-1 was quick to set up and ergonomics quick to get used to.<br>

The functions buttons are more accessible and assigning the two front buttons to DoF preview and custom WB works really well. You hardly ever need to go into menues once set up.<br>

The IBIS seems to work better than the EM-5.<br>

About the only thing I have not yet detected an improvement in is the IQ, which unscientifically seems about the same as the EM-5.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My complaint about the Canon 8-14mmL is simply that it is a much larger lens, which makes little sense to me, where space and weight is always at a premium, for a lens that is used infrequently. But I can see that Canon made it to make a true fisheye for both APS-C and FF simultaneously. I am sure it is really good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or they could have made an APS-C fisheye like Nikon or they could have not discontinued the EF 15 f2.8 fisheye to keep the existing customer base happy. Glad I got my EF 15 fisheye when I did.</p>

<p>Also the talk that the E-M1 faces no competition is basically nonsense from any commercial or consumer perspective. There migh be no othe product that has its feature set or can do what is can do, but while consumers have choice it faces competion for sure.<br>

Pure competition involves two vendors selling identical products, eg cans of coca cola on the street. Vendors selling products with different features is simply differentiated competition - in fact most products in the world face differentiated competition.<br>

If this camera faced no competition, Olympus would be a highly profitable monopoly which clearly it won't be.</p>

<blockquote>From Dxo Mark. No difference in ISO performance between D7100 and EM5 at the pixel level.</blockquote>

<p>If the individual pixels have the same noise level the camera with the higher pixel count will show less noise for the same print/viewing size. Doesn't the D7100 have 24 mp versus 16 for the E-M5?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think this camera faces any competition really</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As someone invested in both Canon and M4/3 I am weighng up the E-M1 versus a Canon 70D or 6D. If the E-M1 were cheaper that would make my decision easier - not that I don't hink the E-M1 has an impressive feature set, but M4/3 sensors to date don't fully meet all my IQ needs.</p>

<p>I find it misleading that many in this forum claiming for "web images and fairly small prints" the SL1 will be ok. Realistically at medium ISOs you can print 13x19 print from an APS-C sensor and probably not be able to tell the difference between that and FF.</p>

<p>I'd also consider looking at Nikon. In fact if I were starting over today that is probably where I would buy as there products look more interesting to me at the moment. However, everyone's needs and preferences are different.</p>

<p>Having had a look at some more pictures I don't think it is too ugly anymore. And it is clear that it is not a successor to the EM-5 but rather a new body at a higher specced tier.</p>

<p>I purchase plenty of things on ebay but always do my research first on the seller. You can always ask them questions. For expensive items I always assume that there will be no warranty and ask myself whether I want to take that risk. Often I do. At the end of the day Canon's 6D warrantly will cover you only for a year and after that you are own your own anyway.</p>

<p>If you like the 10-22 on APS-C you will like the 17-40 on FF. As to the overlap with the 24-105 I wouldn't worry about it. The 17-40 makes a nice normal zoom for the 50D, or you could put the 24-105 on the 50D and the 17-40 on the 6D and using two bodies you will have 17 - 168 mm coverage. The shortcomings of the 24-105 are not so obvious when used on APS-C.</p>

<p>Its design would seem to make some sense as a successor to the E1, rather than the EM-5, and thus will allow Olympus to continue to sell its 4/3 lenses. However, I am still doubtful of the future of 4/3 system as opposed to M4/3. At least 4/3 owners have not been abandoned and it should be a useful bridging body between 4/3 and M4/3.</p>

<p>They seemd to have moved from the 70s retro look to more of an 80s retro look. Seems a bit ugly to me. The 80s was a bad era for industrial design.</p>

<p>Keith<br>

thanks for your post but I don't equate</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why? Do you want to use it to hammer in nails? Have you ever had a "plastic" body fail on you (i.e. the body, not the camera)? Has anyone had their plastic bodied 60D fall apart?<br />How does the exterior of the camera change how the camera works?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>as being equivalent to plastic not being seen as a showstopper. In any event for someone such as me, who might be sitting on the fence as to whether to upgrade, a metal body might have sweetened the deal. This was all my original post was meant to imply. I'm sorry for offending the sensibilities of the wise photonet elders and will try not to bother you again.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why? Do you want to use it to hammer in nails? Have you ever had a "plastic" body fail on you (i.e. the body, not the camera)? Has anyone had their plastic bodied 60D fall apart?<br>

How does the exterior of the camera change how the camera works?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me get this straight. Its absurd if I prefer a metal camera over a plastic one as these inspired contributions seem to imply and it is absurd for me to suggest the consensus on this forum is that it doesn't matter if canon makes all their cameras out of plastic.<br>

I don't know why I bother with this forum, when all it generates is abrasive comments about ones preferences.</p>

 

<blockquote>How does the exterior of the camera change how the camera works? I have a 7 year old DSLR that looks well used on the outside and still continues to take photos</blockquote>

<p>We should let Canon know that the consensus of this forum is that Canon should make all of their cameras out of plastic.</p>

<blockquote>Why? Do you want to use it to hammer in nails? Have you ever had a "plastic" body fail on you (i.e. the body, not the camera)? Has anyone had their plastic bodied 60D fall apart?</blockquote>

<p>Metal feels nice to hold and ages well. These days I am looking for a camera to last 5 years or more. Every plastic body I have had has looked scratched, worn and cheap within a few years. My 8 year old 5D now looks in better condition than my 2 year old 60D. As companies make cameras in metal and not just plastic clearly others feel the same way.</p>

<p> A nice upgrade to the 60D, but I probably won't jump at this. On the other hand I probably would have if it were metal.<br>

It also reminds me of how compromised the 6D was with its one cross-type AF point. This thing has got 19!<br>

I wonder if it has touch screen shooting like the OM-D? It seems like the AF should be built for it.</p>

 

<p>For me photonet just became dull. Philosophical questions, speculative questions, or questions about what I should choose (which is really asking what have others experiences been with said equipement) are all viewed unfavourably on Pnet. Yet to me they are more interesting than the " my 70-200 AF seems to need some microadjustment" questions.<br>

Responders of seem to often treat their posts as a contest to either humiliate the OP, or to slug it out with others who may have a different opinion.<br>

How many answers do we see that tell the OP to search, as if the responder's precious time is being wasted, yet the responder has nothing better to do in the first place than hang out on an interent forum?<br>

I used to hang out here for recreation, but it is too hostile these days for that.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mine failed in a similar manner, though it would shoot at 24 mm and lock up once zoomed. The flex cable is linked to the diaphragm and in mine they diagnosed that the diaphragm failed. <br>

As for filters I'd go for a thinner polariser that still had fromt threads such as a hoya pro 1 digital or HD. I have had a regular polariser vignette on the 24-105 and it wasn't overly thick, but I have also had some regular ones that don't vignette.</p>

<blockquote>I'm sure Canon priced the lens at what they think the market for that lens (professionals, hedge fund managers, doctors and dentists etc.) can bear and what will maximize their return on investment. They're not dumb.</blockquote>

<p>I agree they are not dumb. Nonetheless history is replete with examples of manufacturers and products that misjudged the market. I am not saying that they did so here, but I also don't think camera companies have a gaurenteed formula for turning their output into profit just through market research.<br>

EOS M anyone? How are those $800 24/28/35 IS primes selling?</p>

<blockquote>No viewfinder = no purchase. The lack of one on the E-P2 is an acute embarassment when using the hotshoe for flash.</blockquote>

<p>The E-P5 with a viewfinder was released last year. It is called the OMD EM-5.</p>

<p>Clearly one for the pros. I am actually glad Canon priced it so high as now I don't have to give it a second thought.</p>

<p>Whe I owned it I regarded ISO 800 as usable without too many concerns provided exposure was accurate, but ISO 1600 as an emergency setting - still fine for snapshots, however.<br>

I imagine a well exposed shot at ISO 1600 would still look better than the A640 at ISO 400.</p>

<blockquote>BTW, the Tamron 70-300 VC (vibration control -- same as Canon's IS) is reputed to be an excellent lens.</blockquote>

<p>I can confirm that the Tamron is an excellent lens for the price. I used to own the Canon 75-300 IS but the ergonomics were awful and the optics average. The new Canon 70-300 IS has better optics but still has the awful ergonomics - no full time manual focus, spinning focus ring during AF and front element racking in and out to focus. The Tamron is a rear focus design with a USM motor (like Canon's expensive lenses), which solves all of those issues.</p>