New olympus body coming up question

[bcooter]

The thing I would like most for a new EM-5 is a focus overhaul. Make it behave like the GH3.

1. Back button focus. On the EM-5 if you have a button set to back button focus there is no quick way to switch to half press focus. You must dedicate another button to make the switch. On GH3 it is simplicity itself. If you press the back button focus it focuses and the focus rectangle turns green. Press it again and the green goes away and you can now half press focus. Press it again and it is focused back button.

2. Of course, as everybody mentions, a smaller focus rectangle.

3. Do away with the squares matrix for focus rectangle location. Make it moveable to any screen position. It is this way if you set the small focus option but then you loose the exposure highlight clipping indicators. Make the focus settings independent of any other settings. This is really dumb.

4. Allow touch screen focus positioning when your eye is at the EVF. GH3 has this and I find it useful. I can use my right thumb to move the focus rectangle to an approximate position and then do a slight focus and recompose or fine tune it with the arrow pad.

5. Make focus rectangle adjustments with the arrow pad less skitterish. Press and arrow key and the focus usually shoots all the way across the screen. You have to be very careful to make fine adjustmens.

The above is why I much prefer to work with the GH3

Larry

+1

[bcooter]

placebo effect.

I think all processing suites have different looks, usually different defaults, just like cameras cooking the raw for a "look".

We are presently shooting a project using omd's, gh3's, and Canon 1dx(s).

The Canon at times has a better file at very high iso, 25% better, until you put it into a raw processor and fine tune some presets.

Then the difference between the omd for stills vs. the 1dx is almost not apparent for anything up to 1200 iso.

I just shot both cameras, side by side, with continuous sources, same lens equivalents and they're is not a spitting difference between the two files.  The OMD looks sharper, shows a little more noise, the canon looks less sharp and smoother a little less noise, but fine tuning they are equal.

Actually amazes me considering 4/3's is virtually 1/2 a 35mm full frame.

Now with strobe in studio it's a different matter.   The Canon out performs the 4/3's cameras, the phase backs out performs the canons, but that's with a lot of light and flash, though for whatever reason (maybe placebo effect) I think the 4/3's images the subjects look more natural and less posed.



IMO

BC

[bcooter]

I'm excited about this camera as it's said it has no AA filter and is slightly physically larger, which the OMD needed.

What I hope, is that they have inputs and outputs for sound, including sound bars on the screen and a much, much, much, much, much more simplified menu system. 

Also a more simplified focus point indicator.  It now needs to be visible when not pressing the button.

One other thing . . . has anyone here ever used a go pro?   We have and I am simply blown away how good the metering system is.   Backlit, in water, out of water, night, day, into the sun, it just seems to always be right.

Whoever designed that meter for Go Pro needs to be hired by  . . . . well everyone.

IMO

BC

[jjj]

One other thing . . . has anyone here ever used a go pro?   We have and I am simply blown away how good the metering system is.   Backlit, in water, out of water, night, day, into the sun, it just seems to always be right.

Whoever designed that meter for Go Pro needs to be hired by  . . . . well everyone.

Yup. My thoughts exactly. I assumed Harry Potter was in charge of the metering myself.

[bcooter]

I wonder how they would deal with the differences in flange distance without an adapter? maybe have a movable mount that can shift backwards and forwards?

Well, the new camera is out, or at lest early additions.  Looks like an olympus and panasonic gh3 mated, which is a shame because the omd 3m5 is the prettiest camera I've ever owned.

For stand 4/3 lenses it has an adapter, whether this works well or not the guys that test until they bleed will let us know.

If it works, does better video I'll probably buy it if it really adds something in usefulness,  but man OLY missed a bet by not sticking with the omd 5 look, because everyone I know bought that camera for it's feel and looks.

It is irresistible and maybe I'll buy another one.

IMO

BC

[OldRoy]

For general information:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3534366
There's the usual frantic jabber going on already, principally centred on whether or not the leaks are deliberate. Apparently the "leaked" video has been withdrawn but there are plenty of stills of what appears to be a remarkably ugly little beast, should the aesthetics be your determining criterion.

It seems far more people than I'd imagined own 4/3 lenses. Oddly some of the discussion implies that the on-sensor pdaf only operates with these, but not the native M4/3 lenses - which strikes me as very odd indeed, if true.
Roy

[BJL]

It is slightly puzzling why so much talk about the leaked OM-D E-M1 body is about its looks --- all I see of note is a deeper handgrip, which makes sense given the typically greater weight of good Four Thirds SLR lenses compared to Micro Four Thirds lenses.

I would expect more discussion of the rumor that the E-M1 follows the recent fashion of having no low pass (AA) filter.


P. S. To OldRoy's comment that "It seems far more people than I'd imagined own 4/3 lenses": there is this strange idea that people gave up on Four Thirds and sold their lenses, no no one has them any more, but even if some of those lenses were sold, I doubt that many lenses were sold to be melted down for scrap: most of them are still owned by someone, even if gathering dust in a closet as mine have mostly been lately. In fact, I think this is the hard market-place reason for the expected somewhat high price of about US$1500: a price premium of $500 over the E-M5 or E-P5 is worth paying for a target market of people who own well over $500 worth of currently under-utilized Four Thirds SLR lenses.

Also, I have not see any evidence of the PDAF working _only_ with Four Thirds (SLR) lenses; only a far greater interest in that use case from people who own such lenses and find them to be effectively "manual focus only" on current MFT bodies. One of my questions instead is to what extent it improves focus tracking with moving subjects, with either MFT or FT lenses.

[bcooter]

It is slightly puzzling why so much talk about the leaked OM-D E-M1 body is about its looks --- all I see of note is a deeper handgrip, which makes sense given the typically greater weight of good Four Thirds SLR lenses compared to Micro Four Thirds lenses.

I would expect more discussion of the rumor that the E-M1 follows the recent fashion of having no low pass (AA) filter.

It seems Olympus went the pansonic gh3 route, which went the mini 5d2 route.  Good functioning camera with less style and yes, style does matter.  it's nice to use something well built and unique and of course the fend result is the final goal, but a Kia will get you to point a to b, but it's not as much fun as some other cars.

I have no doubt that 90% of all omd 5 sales were because of the way the camera looks and feels, because all in all the gh3 is a much more versatile and easier machine to work.

I don't think there is a lot of standard 4/3 lenses out there in people hands, I think there is a lot of standard 4/3 lenses on the companie's shelf.

Might be wrong, but I  know I'm disappointed in the way the omd leaked photos look of the camera.  If I wanted a 5d, 7d whatever those are easy to find.

IMO

BC

[SZRitter]

Also, I have not see any evidence of the PDAF working _only_ with Four Thirds (SLR) lenses; only a far greater interest in that use case from people who own such lenses and find them to be effectively "manual focus only" on current MFT bodies. One of my questions instead is to what extent it improves focus tracking with moving subjects, with either MFT or FT lenses.

Yeah, I don't understand it either. On the looks department, it seems they went ultra ergonomic, so I wouldn't judge a thing until I held one.

The PDAF is my biggest question. Since all AF basically goes back to the sensor and electronics telling the lens where to move, I don't see any reason it wouldn't work. My understanding is that CDAF optimized lenses just have faster motors and lighter lens elements so they can spin them faster. I could be wrong on the lighter elements though.

[BJL]

I don't think there is a lot of standard 4/3 lenses out there in people hands ...

Not nearly as many as Canon or Nikon, but Olympus probably did sell a few million Four Thirds SLR bodies, and so a comparable number of lenses, and as I said, even if many of those lenses are currently disused, most of them are probably still sitting in closets, waiting for the right body.

However, PDAF is not only for backward compatibility with SLR lens designs; it also has the promise to improve tracking focus on moving subjects with any lens, which would address the main weakness of the AF on the EM5. With Canon's latest innovation in on-sensor PDAF, I expect a hybrid of CDAF and PDAF to be the best AF solution in the foreseeable future.

[Mjollnir]

I think all processing suites have different looks, usually different defaults, just like cameras cooking the raw for a "look".

We are presently shooting a project using omd's, gh3's, and Canon 1dx(s).

The Canon at times has a better file at very high iso, 25% better, until you put it into a raw processor and fine tune some presets.

Then the difference between the omd for stills vs. the 1dx is almost not apparent for anything up to 1200 iso.

I just shot both cameras, side by side, with continuous sources, same lens equivalents and they're is not a spitting difference between the two files.  The OMD looks sharper, shows a little more noise, the canon looks less sharp and smoother a little less noise, but fine tuning they are equal.

Actually amazes me considering 4/3's is virtually 1/2 a 35mm full frame.

Now with strobe in studio it's a different matter.   The Canon out performs the 4/3's cameras, the phase backs out performs the canons, but that's with a lot of light and flash, though for whatever reason (maybe placebo effect) I think the 4/3's images the subjects look more natural and less posed.

IMO

BC

Based on your experience, then, would you conclude that the GH3 is the equivalent, IQ wise, of the OMD?

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Well from the leaked video the new one seems like it'll be a big step up AF wise with the FT lenses which is great since thats really what I want it for.

[Telecaster]

Does anyone actually know what stage of development this camera is in? Current evaluation may be premature both in terms of looks and functionality. The pics I've seen show a rather crude-looking beastie...more like a prototype than a proper pre-pro sample. IMO it's best to reserve judgement until the thing is actually out in the marketplace.

-Dave-

[Guillermo Luijk]

Does anyone actually know what stage of development this camera is in?

Should be officially presented in less than a month.

[bcooter]

Based on your experience, then, would you conclude that the GH3 is the equivalent, IQ wise, of the OMD?

I'm not a camera reviewer and I've found cameras are very, very personal, even when judging file quality . . .

Given that I have shot thousands of images, video and stills from the gh3's and OMD's.

To me there not the same cameras regardless of format.  They don't even feel or act like the same format.

The GH3 to me, is like a 5d whatever, just slightly smaller, with much better movies and autofocus.

It's a camera you can pick up, make a few menu selections, like type of still file and size, type of movie file and size and go shoot.

It also feels like a tool.  I don't purposely try to abuse the gh3's but I'm not careful with them either.  I mount them on cars, windows, booms, hand hold, just about everything you can do with a camera.

The evf is great, the wysiwyg viewfinder is great, the handling for a still camera (with the optional grip) great for stills, good for motion.

For motion, they suffer from the dslr type of package which makes smooth handling more difficult, but possible and makes things like the touch screen focus very good, but also more difficult when using one hand to shoot, one to mark focus (but once again doable).

The only downside in video is the bloody run/stop switch.  You either use the recessed one which is hard to use, of set it up for the shutter switch which is easy but also very easy in video to touch it and stop recording.  Since the info on the screen blinks out after a period (I assume there is another setting) you can shoot for 5 minutes, think you've recorded and you haven't.  This isn't just me, everyone that uses the GH3's on my crew have that happen.

The OMD is more like a leica.  Not exactly in the way it handles, but because it's more difficult and the buttons are very small, very sensitive.   A few hours a day will take you a week to get all of your settings right and it has the most complicated, deep, crazy menu in the world, like 20 something settings and 85 layers and if you accidentally hit the wrong button (very easy to do) it goes back to no menu or the main menu and you start over again.

I rarely use the OMD for video because it shoots 60 fps though a nice 60fps, is tricky to set up and has no headphone jack or sound bars for video (a must).

The only thing it has for video that the gh3 doesn't have is great internal stabilization.  If your good and smooth it looks like a bloody stedicam, (seriously).  Nothing I've ever used comes close

The Gh3 also has a better lcd screen and evf.  (not 100% better but better).

_______________________________


For still quality, I thought (and still do) think that the omd makes a sharper, more contrasty and detailed file.

The GH3 file looks like the video (which can be quite beautiful).  The GH3 still file looks deeper, slightly richer and not as sharp, not as contrasty with smoother roll off but it also seems more non pretty noise where the OMD noise is nicer. 

Both go to 800 iso in stills easily, the gh3 much higher in video, but if you know how to process both can go to 1200 without any real loss.

Note:  Now one thing is if you put the OMD lenses on the GH3, instead of their constant 2.8 zooms I usually use, the GH3 looks more like the OMD because the OMD lenses are brutally sharp. 

The thing is I also compared the two before buying.  More than I've ever compared any cameras and really didn't need to buy the OMD, but wanted to.   I love the build quality of it, love the way it looks and I love what I shoot with it.

Maybe it's nostalgia but it looks like a film camera, feels like one, until you get to the bloody 10 million menu settings.

The Gh3's just can't be discounted.  If you want or do shoot video and don't have one, then your missing something.   They are very, very good at video.  If you want to shoot stills they're fine, actually very good, but you can get any smaller dslr and shoot stills and get as good a quality, maybe better, except they are the finest example of an evf I've used.  Actually really, really good.

The OMD, is just different.   I love what I shoot with it.  I've finally learned it until it's intuitive (which like a leica takes time to make it feel like second nature), but it does now.  I also love the 4:3 aspect ratio for verticals and unlike 35mm cameras do not shoot too tight.  It focuses snap on, though doesn't track as well as the gh3, but it does hit focus really, really fast.

Once again, to me they are just very different cameras.    If I had to throw one away it would be the OMD because the gh3's do so much, but I'd really hate not to have it.

Now, the only pixel peeping I've done is next to the canon 1dx.  The 1dx is a great still camera, shoots everything fast and accurately and since I've had 8 1d series, it's second nature, but the difference between the files, at least in what I shoot is about 10%, if that, if you process really, really well.  If you don't you'll think both 4/3's are behind, but if you learn how to move the sliders, they are very good.

One more thing.   With the omd, I've done something I never thought I'd do which is to shoot it from the lcd.   I do it all the time and I frame stills better that way (don't know why) but I see everything and love the framing.

Today did a set up horizontal and pulled the omd lcd out tilting up and shot it like a waist level camera.   The results were nice and I tried to shoot the same angle with the 1dx and never could hit it.

Don't know why other than with the lcd I could view everything and the framing was perfect where with the 1dx like all 35mm cameras, I shoot too squeezed on the sides, but as I said, cameras are very personal.

I know this information doesn't help because neither one will win, (unless you shoot video) but they are both very electronic and do take some time to get use to them.

The OMD takes more thought, the gh3 is easier, the OMD feels better but with the gh3 everything is where it should be (except the video on/off), the gh3 has mic in and out, headphone in and out, a pc connection and well, everything. 

The OMD has a goofy mic input (from the hotshoe) no headphone jack, no sound bars, no real video control (especially when shooting), uses prime lenses which are small and good but also takes me 5 primes to do what two gh3 2.8 lenses do, except go to faster f stops. 

Now I don't really know about the next OMD, but I doubt if I'd buy it.  If it had a new sensor, maybe, or better video  . . . maybe but don't know why because the gh3's really have video covered.


IMO

BC

[Mjollnir]

I'm not a camera reviewer and I've found cameras are very, very personal, even when judging file quality . . .

Given that I have shot thousands of images, video and stills from the gh3's and OMD's.

To me there not the same cameras regardless of format.  They don't even feel or act like the same format.

The GH3 to me, is like a 5d whatever, just slightly smaller, with much better movies and autofocus.

It's a camera you can pick up, make a few menu selections, like type of still file and size, type of movie file and size and go shoot.

It also feels like a tool.  I don't purposely try to abuse the gh3's but I'm not careful with them either.  I mount them on cars, windows, booms, hand hold, just about everything you can do with a camera.

The evf is great, the wysiwyg viewfinder is great, the handling for a still camera (with the optional grip) great for stills, good for motion.

For motion, they suffer from the dslr type of package which makes smooth handling more difficult, but possible and makes things like the touch screen focus very good, but also more difficult when using one hand to shoot, one to mark focus (but once again doable).

The only downside in video is the bloody run/stop switch.  You either use the recessed one which is hard to use, of set it up for the shutter switch which is easy but also very easy in video to touch it and stop recording.  Since the info on the screen blinks out after a period (I assume there is another setting) you can shoot for 5 minutes, think you've recorded and you haven't.  This isn't just me, everyone that uses the GH3's on my crew have that happen.

The OMD is more like a leica.  Not exactly in the way it handles, but because it's more difficult and the buttons are very small, very sensitive.   A few hours a day will take you a week to get all of your settings right and it has the most complicated, deep, crazy menu in the world, like 20 something settings and 85 layers and if you accidentally hit the wrong button (very easy to do) it goes back to no menu or the main menu and you start over again.

I rarely use the OMD for video because it shoots 60 fps though a nice 60fps, is tricky to set up and has no headphone jack or sound bars for video (a must).

The only thing it has for video that the gh3 doesn't have is great internal stabilization.  If your good and smooth it looks like a bloody stedicam, (seriously).  Nothing I've ever used comes close

The Gh3 also has a better lcd screen and evf.  (not 100% better but better).

_______________________________


For still quality, I thought (and still do) think that the omd makes a sharper, more contrasty and detailed file.

The GH3 file looks like the video (which can be quite beautiful).  The GH3 still file looks deeper, slightly richer and not as sharp, not as contrasty with smoother roll off but it also seems more non pretty noise where the OMD noise is nicer. 

Both go to 800 iso in stills easily, the gh3 much higher in video, but if you know how to process both can go to 1200 without any real loss.

Note:  Now one thing is if you put the OMD lenses on the GH3, instead of their constant 2.8 zooms I usually use, the GH3 looks more like the OMD because the OMD lenses are brutally sharp. 

The thing is I also compared the two before buying.  More than I've ever compared any cameras and really didn't need to buy the OMD, but wanted to.   I love the build quality of it, love the way it looks and I love what I shoot with it.

Maybe it's nostalgia but it looks like a film camera, feels like one, until you get to the bloody 10 million menu settings.

The Gh3's just can't be discounted.  If you want or do shoot video and don't have one, then your missing something.   They are very, very good at video.  If you want to shoot stills they're fine, actually very good, but you can get any smaller dslr and shoot stills and get as good a quality, maybe better, except they are the finest example of an evf I've used.  Actually really, really good.

The OMD, is just different.   I love what I shoot with it.  I've finally learned it until it's intuitive (which like a leica takes time to make it feel like second nature), but it does now.  I also love the 4:3 aspect ratio for verticals and unlike 35mm cameras do not shoot too tight.  It focuses snap on, though doesn't track as well as the gh3, but it does hit focus really, really fast.

Once again, to me they are just very different cameras.    If I had to throw one away it would be the OMD because the gh3's do so much, but I'd really hate not to have it.

Now, the only pixel peeping I've done is next to the canon 1dx.  The 1dx is a great still camera, shoots everything fast and accurately and since I've had 8 1d series, it's second nature, but the difference between the files, at least in what I shoot is about 10%, if that, if you process really, really well.  If you don't you'll think both 4/3's are behind, but if you learn how to move the sliders, they are very good.

One more thing.   With the omd, I've done something I never thought I'd do which is to shoot it from the lcd.   I do it all the time and I frame stills better that way (don't know why) but I see everything and love the framing.

Today did a set up horizontal and pulled the omd lcd out tilting up and shot it like a waist level camera.   The results were nice and I tried to shoot the same angle with the 1dx and never could hit it.

Don't know why other than with the lcd I could view everything and the framing was perfect where with the 1dx like all 35mm cameras, I shoot too squeezed on the sides, but as I said, cameras are very personal.

I know this information doesn't help because neither one will win, (unless you shoot video) but they are both very electronic and do take some time to get use to them.

The OMD takes more thought, the gh3 is easier, the OMD feels better but with the gh3 everything is where it should be (except the video on/off), the gh3 has mic in and out, headphone in and out, a pc connection and well, everything. 

The OMD has a goofy mic input (from the hotshoe) no headphone jack, no sound bars, no real video control (especially when shooting), uses prime lenses which are small and good but also takes me 5 primes to do what two gh3 2.8 lenses do, except go to faster f stops. 

Now I don't really know about the next OMD, but I doubt if I'd buy it.  If it had a new sensor, maybe, or better video  . . . maybe but don't know why because the gh3's really have video covered.


IMO

BC

Thanks!
The reason I asked is because I've shot Panny for m43 exclusively now for a number of years, love the output for stills I get and LOVE the ergonomics and esp the menus/useability of the rig.

I only shoot stills, and only RAW, however, so vid isn't really part of the equation for me.

My next body will be either the GH3, the new GX7 (which seems to finally be a stills-oriented high end Panasonic) or possibly the OMD, so I'm possibly going to rent at least two of those before I do.

Thanks again for the detailed response.

[John Camp]

I also think the new Oly is ugly, but I have a feeling that it will handle very, very well.

I have a GH3, a GX1 and a Nikon D800,  and find that I don't use the GH3 much, except as a backup for the GX1. On a recent car trip, I never took the GH3 out of the bag. The reason is, I don't shoot video (I understand the GH3 is exceptionally good at that) and I'm usually in one of two places: I want (1) a small discreet camera, or a very small camera, and I'm willing to give up some image quality for that; or I want to maximize image quality. The GH3 is caught between those things: in terms of discretion, the GH3 catches the eye as readily as the D800, but has neither the range or the image quality of the Nikon; in terms of quality, it is not practically that much better than the GX1, while giving up discretion and carry-ability.

I think this will be the problem of the new Oly, at least for me -- it's an in-between camera, without the image quality of a DSLR, and without the discretion of a small m4/3. I'm not sure yet how big it is, but I've been told that it's larger than the earlier model, and from the on-line photos of it, sitting on that guy's hand, it doesn't appear especially small. In fact, I can put the D800 on my own hand, and get about the same image in terms of finger overlap, etc.

[fike]

I am also disappointed (in Olympus and myself for caring) that the EM-1 is not very handsome.  Looks like it was designed by castoff canon engineers that were exiled to soviet siberia.

I like the ability to use Four Thirds lenses. 50-200 f/2.8-3.5 is a great lens that is still somewhat compact and reasonably fast for its relative reach (when combined with 2x crop factor).  This fills out the lens options in a very meaningful way.

I was hoping for a built-in GPS. I like the feature for travel photography. Travel photography is one application where the EM-5's size/performance mix has made it a market leader--even if nobody buys it.

Nobody is talking about the sensor.  It sounds like a very incremental improvement in that area.  No increase in pixel count is reported and no bragging about sensitivity or dynamic range improvements.  Olympus has been known to stay on the same sensor technology for many many years. I guess it is too early to hope the Sony partnership would yield any new and substantial IQ leaps.

I have a myriad of pet peeves that I hope they address:
* viewfinder mode that doesn't overlay shot data
* 2-second delay with 3-frame burst for bracketing
* built-in intervalometer
* eye cup that doesn't fall off constantly
* smaller focus points
* Mysets on the mode dial (didn't see them in video....boo hiss)

Here is the teaser video from engadget, if anyone cares. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmeo2F8ftnI

[gerafotografija]

However, PDAF is not only for backward compatibility with SLR lens designs; it also has the promise to improve tracking focus on moving subjects with any lens, which would address the main weakness of the AF on the EM5. With Canon's latest innovation in on-sensor PDAF, I expect a hybrid of CDAF and PDAF to be the best AF solution in the foreseeable future.

Please correct me if I am wrong about this, but here are my 2 cents.

I thought one of the issues for CDAF only AF is that it tends to overshoot the critical focus lock and has to rack back and forth, which is inefficient. If seems like they can loosen up the focus lock stringency to get a faster "lock", but it may then be less accurate. Something like the RX1 and maybe GR probably have such sharp lenses on a big sensor, that the optimization needs to be for more accuracy rather than fast lock with CDAF.

 The Fuji single PDAF cross assisted CDAF in the X100s and X20 seems to work by allowing a fast and accurate lock when you can use the central cross sensor. Some of the recent DSLRs like the Canon 6d, even though it still has the mirror and separate PDAF sensor array available (if not using live view), seems to also have a single highest sensitivity PDAF sensor cross at the center, which is used in low light situations for a fast lock.

The PDAF sensors can have systematic focus inaccuracies like back focus, but have very consistent time to lock because they are not processing contrast data, they just do a simple phase based alignment - for better or worse.

So, if live-view mirrorless cameras are the way of the future, the only way to ensure both fast and accurate AF is PDAF assisted CDAF. Or CDAF correction of PDAF focus lock, if more PDAF points are made available. A by product of making more PDAF points available would be better continuous tracking performance, which is tough to do with CDAF.

The OMD probably favors fast CDAF instead of accuracy every time. At least I have some proof of this in slightly off focus bird pictures, where the lock wasn't on the part of the bird I intended. This new OMD Hybrid AF should improve performance for both m4/3 and 4/3 glass.

It also looks more like a small DSLR, and so the size advantage is mainly in the lighter/smaller lenses compared to equivalent FF and APSC systems. A small DSLR like the sl1 or 6d if they were redesigned for 4/3 lenses could possibly be competitive with the MILC cameras assuming the EVF takes up more or less the same space as a small pentaprism housing and the mirror scales down well. Extra depth of the body doesnt matter much if you put the deep grip on it. Weight mostly depends on materials, not just volume of the camera and lenses.

For people pictures, I'd rather have a flat grip in a RF style body, since it seems less threatning. Doesn't make much of a difference for other uses though if pocketability is not a design constraint.

 I wouldn't want the extra moving parts though if everything else is equal -- D600 spot issues seem to point towards the fundamental engineering issue with moving mirrors. I guess Sony has a solution for that.

Very interesting times in camera design.

[Guillermo Luijk]

I think this will be the problem of the new Oly, at least for me -- it's an in-between camera, without the image quality of a DSLR, and without the discretion of a small m4/3.

That is not so true. The current OM-D sensor performs better than any Canon DSLR with APS-C sensor, so the new Olympus will.