A great E-M5 review

[kwalsh]

You can check the studio comparisons at DPR or IR.  Be aware the Fuji appears to be using fairly heavy handed RAW NR at the highest ISOs.  The odd CFA pattern of the Fuji also requires blurring chroma channels in the demosaicing.  This means even at equal chroma NR settings the Fuji effectively has more chroma NR applied and lower chroma resolution compared to "normal" Bayer CFA patterns.  All that said, the Fuji is a larger sensor and a very good one.

Given the wide differences in their required demosaicing expect different answers based on subject and processing.  LR processing of X1 Pro is not great, the in camera JPEGs are surprisingly good.  So a RAW shooter might not like the X1, but a JPEG shooter would be happier.  The X1 Pro, especially in RAW processing, gives jaw droppingly awful "watercolor" artifacts even at base ISO for landscapes and yet seems to do really well at high ISO on architecture and what not.

So as far as IQ goes, "it depends" is going to be the answer and take with a grain of salt anyone rating one above the other for all uses.

As far as AF goes it is wicked fast on the E-M5 with most all lenses in single shot focus.  Faster than most DSLRs - honestly really, really fast.  This does depend on the lens though (just like with DSLRs) but most all the recent lenses are extremely quick to focus.  The 20/1.7 is probably the one that is noticeably slower than the others.  Also, as you are probably aware none of these are great at C-AF in burst shooting.  DSLR still wins there.

Finally, keep in mind I haven't had the opportunity to handle an X1Pro so I can't comment on it much.  I have the E-M5 and other m43 cameras so I can comment on their focus.  And I've been following a lot of interesting blogs and posts regarding demosaicing development for the X1 Pro and hence my warning about "it depends".  It really appears to, so be sure whomever you are talking to or the samples you are looking at match what it is you are shooting and the processing chain you use.  It sounds like you have a lot of X1 Pro experience already and are happy with the IQ for your shooting, so mainly you just need to find some E-M5 samples similar to what you now shoot on the X1 Pro.

Good luck!

[barryfitzgerald]

Forget the Fuji, let's talk about a FF D600 at a price that might not be much more than the Olympus is now. I was talking to a mirrorless fan and he felt the OM-D was not bad, but it would really have caused shock waves had it been a FF 35mm size sensor. We know that's not going to happen, but IMO it is again the most obvious mistake for Olympus to box themselves into the smaller format. Whilst it might do fine for a not hugely expensive range of Pen models, if FF really does come down to more affordable levels it spells huge danger for any ILC higher end models.

Better priced FF DSLR's could ravage the 4/3 sensor format and they won't be able to keep up with the much bigger sensor, nor the pixel density either.

[michael]

Barry,

The so-called mirrorless or Compact System Cameras are about just that – being compact. Not just smaller and lighter bodies but more importantly smaller lenses as well. The companies that are in this segment know very well what they're doing.

A Full Frame camera is, by definition (and the laws of physics), a large camera and is no threat to the new CSC.

Michael

[kwalsh]

Barry,

What Michael said!

And along those lines, technology for FF sensors is not the issue.  If you want a smallish FF system (it won't be truly small if it is FF regardless) that can appeal to a large enough market the technology limit is optics, not sensors.  One of the reasons m43 is producing outstanding lenses in extremely compact packages at reasonable prices is that they are at a size that allows lower cost mass producible aspheric elements to be used extensively.  Exotic glass in almost every lens as well.  Double the diameters of the elements and things get astronomically more expensive if you try to keep the size and weight down.  Once the elements get too large (and a factor of two is a gigantic change in size) you are left with only very expensive asphere manufacturing processes.

And before we go down the predictable path of Leica and other RF comparisons it is worth noting those lenses are typically very expensive and also MF.  You can't just "convert" them into AF designs.  For CDAF systems you need focus to be controlled by a very low mass focus group, something no RF lens was designed for.

I'm not saying a FF mirrorless wouldn't be a wonderful thing!  I am saying it is no threat to CSC - even if the FF sensor prices come down the optics will be a mixture of too big and too expensive for the vast majority of the CSC market.  Could prove to be a threat to my wallet though...

KEn

[BJL]

Forget the Fuji, let's talk about a FF D600 at a price that might not be much more than the Olympus is now.

Why? I would rather talk about actual cameras that we know somethng about rather than speculate in an information vacuum about imagined small, light, cheap FF unicorns. Never mind the endless speculation about sudden drops in 35mm format DSLR pricing (which instead is about the same now as it was when the original 5D and D700 arrived): Michael has made the far better point of basic physics: compact, light camera systems need compact light lenses, and the only way for 35mm format to match the current mirrorless systems for size with its longer focal lengths would be with proportionately higher minimum aperture ratios (long, thin lenses?), losing any advantage in low light performance or shallow DOF options.

P.S. I agree with Ken above whose post appeared while I was typing: I look forward to mirrorless in  35mm format (”post SLR"), but with quite different size, weight, price and performance trade-offs than Micro Four Thirds.

[barryfitzgerald]

Well one person's small is another one's large. I personally find a D4 a big lump to carry around and way too big. Some folks feel the D7000 is too small to be comfortable either.
I'm not sure how big this new Nikon is going to be, maybe around the size of a D7000, maybe a bit more. To some small means a genuinely small compact you put in a shirt pocket.

Point is size is not a matter we can really cut and dry/black and white in any way shape or form. But in terms of pricing where the OM-D is..well it could be a dangerous place. If FF creeps into even lower bodies over time a bit bigger or not it could be a hard nut to crack.
And I peer over at my budget Minolta Dynax 5 which is really rather compact for a FF SLR camera..and wonder if they could do a FF version that size. I suspect they could get near to that.

[BJL]

Barry, you are quite amazing: three replies to your post point out that one important issue for a compact camera system is having compact lenses, and yet you completely ignore that and talk only about body size. Of course, a 35mm format system _can_ be compact within certain severe constraints on lenses, like limiting focal lengths to not much longer than normal, or accepting very slow minimum aperture ratios at longer focal lengths and thus cancelling most of the advantages promissed by a larger format. That would satisfy some people, in the way that a Leica M body and lenses does, but a lot of people looking at CSCs are not attracted by those lens choice constraints.

P. S. Not that price alone is going to change the compactness advantage of a smaller format, but I am curious: what is your reason for expecting Nikon or anyone else to break substantially away from the roughly $3000 price of entry to 36x24mm format digital that has held steady since the 5D hit $2999 in late 2005? "I read a rumor on the internet" is not a satisfactory answer!

Well one person's small is another one's large. I personally find a D4 a big lump to carry around and way too big. Some folks feel the D7000 is too small to be comfortable either.
I'm not sure how big this new Nikon is going to be, maybe around the size of a D7000, maybe a bit more. To some small means a genuinely small compact you put in a shirt pocket.

[barryfitzgerald]

Jokes aside (I can't take the post above that seriously sorry)
I'm not ignoring anything..but to those who feel micro 4/3 lenses are "really small" they're not. This isn't breaking news to anyone who's used a 35mm rangefinder camera, which genuinely does have small lenses, with a FF sensor and it sits very close to the film/sensor plane too. Micro 4/3 lenses are smaller than DSLR equivalents, but they're not remotely as small as they could be considering the smaller sensor area. The only really small lenses are on the Pentax Q, which has a sensor even smaller than my finepix does!

As I commented before on NEX, the lenses are comically big (IMO) and the real advantage to a genuinely compact system is lost in NEX (IMO at least) same for Samsung's NX series some not that small lenses there either bar a few pancake ones. Which brings me onto the real meat..you either pancake lens it, or do a Pentax limited type (more compact lenses) strategy. They are pretty small..but may have compromises in other ways (speed/cost/performance)

Yes the OM-D body is pretty compact as anyone who's had a grab of one will know. But I'd hardly call the 12-50mm F3.5-6.3 a shirt pocket lens either! So what's the point in having a small body if many of the lenses are not that compact? You tell me. Some folks are saying the accessory grip is a "must have" because the body is a bit "too small" as above, define what the ideal is for xyz buyer?

As for the "affordable FF" we shall wait and see. I do think though that there might be some movement here..not that APS-C is going away for many folks, but a genuinely affordable FF body will have a big impact in the DSLR Market. I personally do think that it could cause problems for higher end mirrorless models..whilst size is a primary factor for some, it isn't for others. If you had a choice between a good FF DSLR for £1000, or the OM-D a lot of folks would pass on the Olympus, which I think is a bit overpriced really in European markets (Oly's currency conversion is 1:1 which is way off the mark)

[BJL]

[1] I'm not ignoring anything..but to those who feel micro 4/3 lenses are "really small" they're not. This isn't breaking news to anyone who's used a 35mm rangefinder camera, which genuinely does have small lenses ...

[2] Micro 4/3 lenses are smaller than DSLR equivalents

[3] As I commented before on NEX, the lenses are comically big (IMO) and the real advantage to a genuinely compact system is lost in NEX (IMO at least) same for Samsung's NX series some not that small lenses there either bar a few pancake ones.

[4] As for the "affordable FF" we shall wait and see. I do think though that there might be some movement here ...

Barry:
[1] did you miss my comment about Leica M? That 36x24mm format system achieves reasonable lens compactness by having no zooms and very limited telephoto reach options: as I said, many people will not accept such constraints on the lens system but instead want options like zoom lenses and substantial telephoto reach.

[2] In case there is any confusion, the size advantage of a system like m43 is in large part from the shorter focal lengths needed compared to 36x24mm format, with the size savings of non-SLR lens designs compared to SLR designs a nice but perhaps secondary factor. So compare m43 lenses to a 36x24mm format DSLR lens of twice the focal lengths when you consider the size difference. That is, since you were speculating about a less expensive 36x24mm DSLR, it is lenses for that format that matter in this comparison, not just DSLR lenses in an unspecified format. For example, name your favorite compact 24-100mm lens to compare to the Olympus 12-50, or a 28-84 to compare to the folding 14-42 lenses for m43. Or compact options like 28-300, 80-300, 90-350, 90-400, 150-600 or 200-600.

[3] I agree: the size of the zoom lenses for NEX is a mystery, and a disappointment for those of who want the flexibility of zoom lenses and decent telephoto reach options in a compact system. But the topic here is m43, not the failings of NEX or NX.

[4] Yes, I thought that this was the extent of your evidence. Strange then that you base so much of your warnings of  hard times for m43 on the basis of that imaginary competitor.

[barryfitzgerald]

That imaginary competitor is quite close so they say! I've no idea if it will be as affordable as they are suggesting I suppose we will have to see how that pans out.
I've said many times before and continue to this day. 4/3 is format which has nowhere to run..and that was proved conclusively with the demise of the DSLR 4/3 cameras. And I never once retracted that statement I made years ago..that 4/3 can't compete v APS-C DSLR's.

How it fares with ILC's? Well it will be much better suited to that. But the market is getting more crowded, Canon are sure to join in and things can get a lot more heated when that happens. Micro 4/3 might well have enough traction to stick it out for a while.
4/3 would be ideal for non lens change compacts, the sensor is big enough to distance it from those ho hum tiny ones.

Personally since the OM disaster of film days, and with 4/3 DSLR users being essentially left to fend for themselves, I would be highly suspicious of Olympus in the longer term. Being dumped once is bad enough, twice starts to reveal a pattern. Mix in some corporate fraud on an epic scale, and it's a company I don't want to do business with.

[fike]

Getting away from speculation about  market preferences and future viability of the MFT format...

I share the niggle about the battery charger having a big-ugly cable.  I partially ameliorated this problem with my E-PL3 by getting one of these expensive cables.
http://www.amazon.com/Notebook-Power-Cord-Figure-Eight-Plug/dp/B000BSLS0W

...and this looks even better.
http://www.amazon.com/SF-Cable-Adapter-60320-C7-receptacle/dp/B004OGXY72/ref=pd_cp_e_0

[Panorama]

I have to agree with Barry. Irrespective of how many here insist he's wrong, some of these companies may soon be headed for a new round of trouble.

The OM-D is impressive (most of it anyway) and combining it with a few small lenses sure beats carrying around 20-40 lbs. of C/N gear. As appealing as small ILCs are, and they are extremely appealing to me, I've never been willing to enter the 4/3 (m or not) market; I just don't see it as practicable long term and I can't forget the disgruntled Oly users that were abandoned in the 4/3 market.

I know people will cite that the m4/3-4/3 market is still with us and getting better, but the possibility of its demise is real (see Pentax FF rumors). Hence, I'm more inclined to buy an APS-C solution than 4/3 or m4/3 because it just makes more sense long term - and the sensors are dirt cheap to produce.

As with film, sensor real estate matters, and if Nikon releases a D600 at $1,600 or something south of $2k US, I believe people will buy it in large numbers, putting pressure on all markets, and *possibly* the Oly/Pen/Panny/et. al  m4/3 markets. I realize that it's (D600) not offering ILC size advantages, but for those that want good/great IQ in a small'ish package, it could attract many people. The other effect is that pricing pressure makes the cropped APS-C offerings cheaper and more attractive.

The real question is how many formats are required, which provide better results, and what are the corresponding prices? I'm betting on APS-C to be the survivor, but we should all know more in the Fall.

[fike]

I am not sure why everyone is so worried about another format and its viability.  Yes, of course there are business cycles and technical innovations that leave people holding a bag of worthless lenses.  It happens. It will happen again; perhaps with MFT.

The market is certainly seeing some interesting upheaval.  The recent phenomenon of half-decent camera phones is decimating the ranks of the point and shoot cameras, so they need to do something transformative.  The high-end (high margin) DSLR is moving down market with reports (and rumors) of everyone and their brother offering a consumer (prosumer) FF DSLR.  These are big cameras with big lenses. 

I do believe there is a credibly big market for interchangeable lens cameras in a smaller form-factor.  Whether that is APS-C or MFT, isn't important to most consumers, particularly as the image quality difference becomes negligible.  There are  more MFT options right now in this tweener-sized camera.  With Canon and Nikon's tepid entries into larger format compact cameras (so far) and their unwillingness to cannibalize their very profitable DSLR and lens markets, they have been slow, slow, slow to move.  This is what is great about the market for cameras.  The insurgents here--Olympus, Sony, Panasonic--have less to lose by doing something different in these smaller formats.  We may see more competition on the front of features and usability as the image quality difference becomes smaller.  It never fails to amaze me how much we will obsess over very small differences in image quality when 90% of the public can't see the difference.  But what is more amazing is that the opinions of super-pixel-peepers become the dogma and anyone who buys anything besides the IQ leader of the moment feels like the are a crazy heretic. 

By all means critique the EM-5 and its IQ and features and build quality and everything.  I think it is valid for you to not buy it because you think the future of the format is questionable.  I am considering converting my RAW files DNG for my Olympus gear for just that reason.  But with all that said, I think it is pointless to think the market is too crowded with players for them to survive. If anything, the EM-5 should be an indicator that Olympus can survive...now if they can get their executives in line, that is another problem.