Agree 100%. I had an X100, which has the same drawbacks a sthe XPro1. I loved it, really, but the EVF was too slow and the way you selected an AF point ruined it for me. Its not that the pain of selecting an AF point is the end of the world, as I usually MF anyway, but the MF functionality was useless to me. I sold it. I recently tried the X100s, and all my gripes have been addressed. You select the AF point with the right thumb, keeping an eye in the VF. The EVF is MUCH improved, and teh MF virtual split screen is usable. When tehse improvements hit the XPro(2) I will get one. The 35 1.4 is a fantastic lens, the color is second to none, in my book.
Waiting on an Xpro2 is keeping me away from the MFT cams, as I (still) have too many cameras, only two of which I actually like using, the M9 and the H 501cm with film. The problem with these cameras is that I'm limited to about 1000 iso, which is where the Nikon comes in, or eventually the M or Xpro2. maybe an MFT system if it fits me. An Xpro system at under $3k sounds good, as I'm not exactly turning a profit on these editorials and I can't shoot anything commercial due to conflicts etc.
The good thing is we have a lot of options with good image quality we didn't have a few years ago. Actually amazing image quality considering.
The things on any camera that are a quirk or workaround to me would be a disaster for someone else. I love the OMD, I have friends that would hate it and there is no reason to ever try convince anyone of what they should buy.
One of the few lessons I try to learn.
The x1 pro wasn't for me, even though the files at high iso are stunning and skin tones are beautiful.
The mft pana is great for work, great for video, not so appealing as a camera that I fell in love with it, though the video is killer.
The OMD is ok for video, pretty good actually, great for stills and to me very appealing.
The OMD still needs one more generation. Slightly better track/continuous focus, the evf is pretty and detailed, the lcd has a kind of strange cast to it like a mid curve has been pulled wrong. It also needs input and output sound, maybe an Olympus not Panasonic zoom or two, but other than that it works.
Olympus really needs a 25mm 1.2 or 1.4 lens, rather than the larger and much cheaper looking Leica/Panasonic 25mm (which is a great lens, just kind of big and ugly).
Now, I don't consider myself a brand guy, I dunno maybe I am, but I'd love a real M with the evf and autofocus (I know heresy), but the M with a center point manual focus is interesting but limiting.
Anyway, bottom line is today the most interesting cameras I see are smaller in size.
What I'd really like to see is less limits. How hard would it be to add sound in and out on the OMD, in camera stabilizaiton on any camera, even an in camera nd filter because these little cameras need nd filters in bright light, still or motion.
I know the electronic model is to send us drips of upgrades every 18 months, but it gets old regardless of the price.
You'd think a company like Olympus, who needs the profit on the camera ledger would understand that.
I'm afraid Olympus might just screw the pooch and decide amateur is the only way to go, which makes no sense in the fact they have all those larger 4/3's professional lenses sitting on the shelf, but hey, I'm just a buyer, but I've worked a lot of files and the potential of this camera is there to really make a statement.
How this relates to the Lunar. I dunno, other than the OMD is really pretty, the lunar a little pimped out for my taste, especially if I was writing a check. (Not).
IMO
BC
