«

So I sold my Olympus E-5M. Why you say? They camera produced
outstanding images, especially with the old Panasonic 14-45mm zoom and
primes. Though in all fairness, despite the softness of the Olympus
12-50mm lens, it did produce very credible macros from 1" away for a
zoom, pretty amazing in-fact. One caveat about its performance.
Though its EVF has much higher resolution than old m4/3rds with older
EVFs, you run into a situation where you get interference clashes
between the EVF and objects with repeating, fine patterns more often
than with the older, lower-resolution EVFs. That was my experience
anyway.

So why did I sell it? One simple fact; the body is delicate. Yes, it
is built strong, but the shell/skin is very prone to showing any kind
of impact mark. So when a minor mishap produced one, I realized it
wasn't going to suit my style of shooting. I sling my camera over my
shoulder and occasionally, it will clack against a door frame, or
tree branch, or whatever, and the body has to be able to absorb this
without getting trashed.
My Nikon D300 and an 800 I used had no such susceptibility to showing
marks from minor impacts. When I sold my D300 after 2 years it had no
visible body marks. Good body, good paint.

I've been puttering around with my old Panasonic G1 which has served
well for years and whose body I don't care if it shows impacts because
the "skin" on it (like all of them) began peeling a couple months
after I bought it.

I didn't feel the need to replace the Olympus right away, but then
something happened. I was in a store I know and was shown an old
brass lens because the guy knows I like lenses of any kind to
experiment with. The lens was interesting, so I asked what he wanted
for it, and he said "keep it." Turns out, the lens is an old
specialized portrait lens worth $1600 or so, and since I don't really
need it (I have a 4x5 but haven't use it in a while) I'll sell it to
finance the next body. I'll give 1/2 back to the proprietor, which I
think is fair.

But what camera to get now? Here is the rub.

Olympus, in their magnanimous wisdom put the terrific E-5M sensor in
both the E-PM2 and E-PL5, both of which are 1/2 price alternatives to
the E-5M. However, neither have an EVF except as an add-on.

Panasonic, in their unmagnanimous wisdom decided (apparently) not to
put the new GH3 sensor (which matches the E-5M sensor output) in any
of the lower bodies, the key one being the G5. So the choice is the
$1299 GH3, a very complex and comprehensive camera IF one of your
goals is shooting top-flight video which I could care for about as
much as a plane ride on an African airline. (they crash a lot).
Upsides are that the body is a nice size, very comfortable with
blistering AF speed.

My inclination is to get the G5, sacrifice some of the quality I had
with the E-5M and call it a day. The alternative is going with
another mirror-less (maybe from Sony) and living with whatever
shortcomings they have (like the 3:2 sensor format) or, going back to
a DSLR which I'd rather avoid. Frankly speaking, a 1-button
magnification feature for manual focusing (I've got a lot of older
manual lenses) blows away any DSLR viewfinder.

It should be interesting.

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:36:43 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
: So I sold my Olympus E-5M. Why you say? They camera produced
: outstanding images, especially with the old Panasonic 14-45mm zoom and
: primes. Though in all fairness, despite the softness of the Olympus
: 12-50mm lens, it did produce very credible macros from 1" away for a
: zoom, pretty amazing in-fact. One caveat about its performance.
: Though its EVF has much higher resolution than old m4/3rds with older
: EVFs, you run into a situation where you get interference clashes
: between the EVF and objects with repeating, fine patterns more often
: than with the older, lower-resolution EVFs. That was my experience
: anyway.
:
: So why did I sell it? One simple fact; the body is delicate. Yes, it
: is built strong, but the shell/skin is very prone to showing any kind
: of impact mark. So when a minor mishap produced one, I realized it
: wasn't going to suit my style of shooting. I sling my camera over my
: shoulder and occasionally, it will clack against a door frame, or
: tree branch, or whatever, and the body has to be able to absorb this
: without getting trashed.
: My Nikon D300 and an 800 I used had no such susceptibility to showing
: marks from minor impacts. When I sold my D300 after 2 years it had no
: visible body marks. Good body, good paint.
:
: I've been puttering around with my old Panasonic G1 which has served
: well for years and whose body I don't care if it shows impacts because
: the "skin" on it (like all of them) began peeling a couple months
: after I bought it.
:
: I didn't feel the need to replace the Olympus right away, but then
: something happened. I was in a store I know and was shown an old
: brass lens because the guy knows I like lenses of any kind to
: experiment with. The lens was interesting, so I asked what he wanted
: for it, and he said "keep it." Turns out, the lens is an old
: specialized portrait lens worth $1600 or so, and since I don't really
: need it (I have a 4x5 but haven't use it in a while) I'll sell it to
: finance the next body. I'll give 1/2 back to the proprietor, which I
: think is fair.
:
: But what camera to get now? Here is the rub.
:
: Olympus, in their magnanimous wisdom put the terrific E-5M sensor in
: both the E-PM2 and E-PL5, both of which are 1/2 price alternatives to
: the E-5M. However, neither have an EVF except as an add-on.
:
: Panasonic, in their unmagnanimous wisdom decided (apparently) not to
: put the new GH3 sensor (which matches the E-5M sensor output) in any
: of the lower bodies, the key one being the G5. So the choice is the
: $1299 GH3, a very complex and comprehensive camera IF one of your
: goals is shooting top-flight video which I could care for about as
: much as a plane ride on an African airline. (they crash a lot).
: Upsides are that the body is a nice size, very comfortable with
: blistering AF speed.
:
: My inclination is to get the G5, sacrifice some of the quality I had
: with the E-5M and call it a day. The alternative is going with
: another mirror-less (maybe from Sony) and living with whatever
: shortcomings they have (like the 3:2 sensor format) or, going back to
: a DSLR which I'd rather avoid. Frankly speaking, a 1-button
: magnification feature for manual focusing (I've got a lot of older
: manual lenses) blows away any DSLR viewfinder.
:
: It should be interesting.

Get a Canon M. It's not a serious camera, but it's positioned as the precursor
of a possible line of serious cameras. Its sensor is much larger than that of
the Nikon mirrorless (which you panned for being too small), so it might
produce decent images. And if it doesn't work out, you can buy a 7D or a 6D
and re-use the lenses you'll buy. And we Canon DSLR users will hang on your
every word of commentary as we strive to see into our future.

Good luck ...

Bob

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:04:48 +0100, Alfred Molon <>
wrote:
: In article <>, Robert Coe
: says...
: > Get a Canon M. It's not a serious camera, but it's positioned as the
: > precursor of a possible line of serious cameras.
:
: Canon and Nikon are now where Nokia was when Apple launched the first
: iphone, or where Kodak was at the beginning of the digital revolution.
: A new game-changing technology (in this case mirrorless cameras), but
: Canon and Nikon unable/unwilling to embrace it because it would
: cannibalise their core DSLR business.
: Things will happen much at a much slower pace than in the mobile phone
: market due to all that investment in lenses people have, but ultimately
: Canon and Nikon can only lose in the medium to long term. They are
: deeply involved in a dying technology.
: Or do you really think that in 50 years lots of people will still use
: cameras with a slapping mirror?

Either that question isn't aimed back at me or you didn't read what I wrote.

No, of course I don't believe that DSLRs will still be widely used in 50
years. Where you and I differ is in our interpretations of what's happening
now, particularly in the case of Canon. Canon has produced a mirrorless
camera, the M, with a sensor as large as that of a 7D, a rarity in today's
world. But for the lack of a few critical features (notably an eye-level EVF),
it could be seen as a potential successor to the 7D. You evidently attribute
the absence of those features to Canon's unwillingness to risk competing with
their own products. I don't. I see it as Canon's tacit admission that managing
the power consumption of a mirrorless camera with a sensor that large and a
suitable EVF would be beyond their current capability. This will change as
batteries become more powerful and heat dispersion technology becomes more
refined. In the meantime, the M serves as the prototype for a more
sophisticated line of cameras for those willing to see it as such.

I'm already 75 years old, but I hope to live to see, and possibly own, a
mirrorless successor to my 7D's. If I get really lucky, maybe I'll get to see
the mirrorless successor to the 5D.

Would I buy the current Canon M? No. But I'd be perfectly happy if Rich (or
you) did! ;^)

Bob

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:22:33 -0600, George Kerby <>
wrote:
:
: On 2/17/13 1:04 PM, in article
: , "Alfred Molon"
: <> wrote:
:
: > In article <>, Robert Coe
: > says...
: >> Get a Canon M. It's not a serious camera, but it's positioned as the
: >> precursor
: >> of a possible line of serious cameras.
: >
: > Canon and Nikon are now where Nokia was when Apple launched the first
: > iphone, or where Kodak was at the beginning of the digital revolution.
: > A new game-changing technology (in this case mirrorless cameras), but
: > Canon and Nikon unable/unwilling to embrace it because it would
: > cannibalise their core DSLR business.
: > Things will happen much at a much slower pace than in the mobile phone
: > market due to all that investment in lenses people have, but ultimately
: > Canon and Nikon can only lose in the medium to long term. They are
: > deeply involved in a dying technology.
: > Or do you really think that in 50 years lots of people will still use
: > cameras with a slapping mirror?
:
: You may remember that Canon in the late 60's was the innovator of mirrorless
: SLR, but it didn't catch on so the discontinued the Pellex a few years
: afterward...
:
: <http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/c.../1965_prx.html
: ?lang=us&categ=srs&page=f>

Well, OK, but the Pellex was not a mirrorless camera. Indeed, as one or two
people have pointed out in these groups recently, the term "mirrorless SLR" is
an oxymoron.

Bob

On Feb 17, 7:05*pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <m0i2i81i5i43i7nmnjhrsnju0t0lfr3...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
> says...
>
> > Canon has produced a mirrorless
> > camera, the M, with a sensor as large as that of a 7D, a rarity in today's
> > world.
>
> The Sony NEX cameras have even larger sensors:
> NEX: 23.5 x 15.6 mm
> Canon M: 22.3 x 14.9 mm
>
> > But for the lack of a few critical features (notably an eye-level EVF),
> > it could be seen as a potential successor to the 7D. You evidently attribute
> > the absence of those features to Canon's unwillingness to risk competing with
> > their own products. I don't. I see it as Canon's tacit admission that managing
> > the power consumption of a mirrorless camera with a sensor that large and a
> > suitable EVF would be beyond their current capability.
>
> But Sony (and all other manufacturers of mirrorless IL cameras) are
> already capable of that. This, and in addition the fact that the M has a
> slow AF

That's a deal-breaker.

On Sunday, February 17, 2013 1:36:43 AM UTC, RichA wrote:
> So I sold my Olympus E-5M. Why you say?

I have no idea. I don't read that many reviews and frankly I don't think my shot would had been 15% better had I used a camera with a 15% better performance.


DanP

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:57:37 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
: On Feb 17, 7:05*pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > In article <m0i2i81i5i43i7nmnjhrsnju0t0lfr3...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
: > says...
: >
: > > Canon has produced a mirrorless
: > > camera, the M, with a sensor as large as that of a 7D, a rarity in today's
: > > world.
: >
: > The Sony NEX cameras have even larger sensors:
: > NEX: 23.5 x 15.6 mm
: > Canon M: 22.3 x 14.9 mm
: >
: > > But for the lack of a few critical features (notably an eye-level EVF),
: > > it could be seen as a potential successor to the 7D. You evidently attribute
: > > the absence of those features to Canon's unwillingness to risk competing with
: > > their own products. I don't. I see it as Canon's tacit admission that managing
: > > the power consumption of a mirrorless camera with a sensor that large and a
: > > suitable EVF would be beyond their current capability.
: >
: > But Sony (and all other manufacturers of mirrorless IL cameras) are
: > already capable of that. This, and in addition the fact that the M has a
: > slow AF
:
: That's a deal-breaker.

And should probably be seen as another symptom of a shortage of available
power on the M. Also, there's not a lot of reason to put, say, the 5D's
effective but expensive AF system on a camera that's destined to perform like
a Powershot.

Bob

Robert Coe <> writes:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:04:48 +0100, Alfred Molon <>
> wrote:
> : In article <>, Robert Coe
> : says...
> : > Get a Canon M. It's not a serious camera, but it's positioned as the
> : > precursor of a possible line of serious cameras.
> :
> : Canon and Nikon are now where Nokia was when Apple launched the first
> : iphone, or where Kodak was at the beginning of the digital revolution.
> : A new game-changing technology (in this case mirrorless cameras), but
> : Canon and Nikon unable/unwilling to embrace it because it would
> : cannibalise their core DSLR business.
> : Things will happen much at a much slower pace than in the mobile phone
> : market due to all that investment in lenses people have, but ultimately
> : Canon and Nikon can only lose in the medium to long term. They are
> : deeply involved in a dying technology.
> : Or do you really think that in 50 years lots of people will still use
> : cameras with a slapping mirror?
>
> Either that question isn't aimed back at me or you didn't read what I wrote.
>
> No, of course I don't believe that DSLRs will still be widely used in 50
> years. Where you and I differ is in our interpretations of what's happening
> now, particularly in the case of Canon. Canon has produced a mirrorless
> camera, the M, with a sensor as large as that of a 7D, a rarity in today's
> world. But for the lack of a few critical features (notably an eye-level EVF),
> it could be seen as a potential successor to the 7D. You evidently attribute
> the absence of those features to Canon's unwillingness to risk competing with
> their own products. I don't. I see it as Canon's tacit admission that managing
> the power consumption of a mirrorless camera with a sensor that large and a
> suitable EVF would be beyond their current capability. This will change as
> batteries become more powerful and heat dispersion technology becomes more
> refined. In the meantime, the M serves as the prototype for a more
> sophisticated line of cameras for those willing to see it as such.

I don't believe the power consumption theory. Micro Four Thirds and the
Sony Nex and the full-frame little thing from whoever that is clearly
disprove the power consumption theory.

Right now, mirrorless cameras still have a severe disadvantage in
autofocus speed, and the DSLRs aren't really good enough so there's
little slack for the mirrorless to be "good enough" (but it depends what
you shoot; static things, no problem). There's a very solid
technological basis for that, but they're working towards overcoming
it. There are certainly severe costs imposed by the flappy-mirror
design.

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Feb 19, 4:59*am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <3bc5i8p8fvtr3fbl02gsoq6kum6jpa7...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
> says...
>
> > And should probably be seen as another symptom of a shortage of available
> > power on the M. Also, there's not a lot of reason to put, say, the 5D's
> > effective but expensive AF system on a camera that's destined to perform like
> > a Powershot.
>
> m4/3 cameras have ultrafast AF systems. These are contrast AF systems,
> deriving their speed from very fast image read-out (I heard something
> like 120 reads/second) and lenses with fast Af adjustment.
>
> If the Canon M is performing as a Powershot, it's only Canon who is to
> blame by refusing to make it better. They have designed it to be
> mediocre.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site

I tested a Canon M today. It's not as fast as a m4/3 with a kit
lens. Great build, no EVF and no way to add an EVF. Canon and Nikon
are still treating their mirror-less like bastard step-children of the
DSLRs.