Key Features: 16.3MP Micro Four Thirds LiveMOS sensor; JPEG & 12-bit Raw image capture; ISO 200 - 25,600; 9fps continuous shooting; 1.44m-dot EVF / 3in, 610k-dot OLED screen; 1080/30p Full HD movie recording

Manufacturer: Olympus

specs
Quick Glance
Camera type Mirrorless Camera
Features
Camera type Mirrorless Camera

Mike B

May 15, 2012, 7:22 pm

Nice camera but needs to be £250 cheaper given you can get a Panasonic GH2 with 14-42mm lens for £570 (or £900 with 14-140mm zoom). Still I am sure it will drop over time to a more reasonable level and should spur Panasonic on to release a GH3!

Jerome Nolas

May 15, 2012, 9:27 pm

Right on! I wrote basically the same on the other web site and they almost stoned me to death...I am sure people will be happy with the camera but the price is ridiculous, that's all....have a nice day "Olympusians" and enjoy jour camera.

Martin Daler

May 16, 2012, 3:22 am

I'm sure it's a great tool. What I don't get is, when the camera has neither a pentaprism nor a spooled film canister, why is the designed hobbled by those anachronistic design constraints?

I would have thought that, freed from the need to house those fixed elements, camera designers would exploit the new-found freedom to accommodate other more pressing needs - more pressing, that is, than simply harking back to old times. It seems such a shame to squander their design freedoms in this way.

I understand that retro sells, but even cameras with a more modern cut to their cloth still seem to cleave to these old designs. Like the funky Pentax yellow job, all in-your-face modernity - it still is basically just a pastiche on the old pentaprism/mirrorbox/film canister and take-up spool paradigm. Yet that camera has none of those elements within, so why does it pretend from the outside that it has?

Aargh!

Spunjji

May 16, 2012, 7:57 pm

Martin - part of the reason for the particular design of this camera (specifically the lump on top) is necessitated by internal components, namely the IS system, which is actually rather large.

Beyond that, I think there's a lot of stock held in the shape a camera "ought" to be. To be fair, the current form factors are remarkably practical. I'd be interested to know what sort of shape you'd make a camera, though! :)

Martin Daler

May 16, 2012, 10:30 pm

I'd look at how best to hold and use a camera and design a shape that fits well in the hand - I'd prioritise that over accommodating phantom internals.

So even if the traditional slab 'n cylinder model has its advantages, they could still do something about the corners, especially the one that cups in the left hand. They could come up with a shape which makes it just as easy and natural to shoot portrait as landscape - maybe even look beyond the shape and consider a swivelling sensor or other solution to switch easily - who knows.

It just seems madness to cripple their room for maneouvre by saddling themselves with empty constraints.

comments powered by Disqus