Are you going OM-D?

[Trius]

Looking at Tony's thread, I'm back on the "probably not" side. Complicated, inscrutable menus are not for me. Heck, I don't even like menus, period!

[Dez]

Looking at the pictures in the reviews, I get the impression that it is quite large for a micro 4/3 camera. Isn't the whole idea for these things to be small and convenient?

I guess I just don't understand the niche. If I want big and uncompromising, I'll stick with my trusty Nikon DSLR, and get in some good arm exercise as well.

Cheers,
Dez

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by Dez

Looking at the pictures in the reviews, I get the impression that it is quite large for a micro 4/3 camera. Isn't the whole idea for these things to be small and convenient?

I guess I just don't understand the niche. If I want big and uncompromising, I'll stick with my trusty Nikon DSLR, and get in some good arm exercise as well.

Cheers,
Dez

Actually it's quite tiny - smaller than an original OM, smaller than a Leica M.

[digitalintrigue]

Untitled by restoration35, on Flickr

[gavinlg]

Extra size related pics I found on the web:

vs D5000 which is one of nikons smallest DSLRs:


vs 5d mkII:


vs d700:

[rbelyell]

much smaller than dslr, no question. deceptively larger than PEN series. taller and chunkier than X100.
tony

[rparmar]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

much smaller than dslr, no question. deceptively larger than PEN series. taller and chunkier than X100.

E-M5: 122 x 89 x 42mm
E-P3: 122 x 69 x 34mm

The former has a built-in viewfinder and actually measures shorter than the E-P3 plus EVF.

So I don't understand "deceptively larger". It is very slightly larger, but of course is weather-sealed and has a tilting screen. It seems to be to be a very nice form factor.

[celluloidprop]

lesson I see from above: if you're not being paid, you're probably going to hate life hauling around a 24-70/2.8

My D700 was still very large with a 50/1.4 on the front, but much less of a beast when I sold the 24-70G.

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by rparmar

E-M5: 122 x 89 x 42mm
E-P3: 122 x 69 x 34mm

The former has a built-in viewfinder and actually measures shorter than the E-P3 plus EVF.

So I don't understand "deceptively larger". It is very slightly larger, but of course is weather-sealed and has a tilting screen. It seems to be to be a very nice form factor.

perhaps if you had both and put them side by side you would understand. perhaps if you personally carried each around you would understand. other than that, cant help ya'.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

perhaps if you had both and put them side by side you would understand. perhaps if you personally carried each around you would understand. other than that, cant help ya'.

I'd imagine the e-p3 without the EVF would feel more streamlined. But the best comparison between the two would be with the EVF I think...

[rparmar]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

perhaps if you had both and put them side by side you would understand. perhaps if you personally carried each around you would understand. other than that, cant help ya'.

Well, you could help me if you at least tried to explain what you meant by the phrase I asked about. But you are not willing to do that, apparently. Instead, you suggest I spend a thousand pounds. Which is terrible advice, since even then I wouldn't gain any insight into your phrase which was, after all, yours.

Good luck with that attitude!

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by rparmar

Well, you could help me if you at least tried to explain what you meant by the phrase I asked about. But you are not willing to do that, apparently. Instead, you suggest I spend a thousand pounds. Which is terrible advice, since even then I wouldn't gain any insight into your phrase which was, after all, yours.

Good luck with that attitude!

let me be honest with you in return. perhaps i'm incorrect but i found the tone of your original post somewhat off putting, not one searching for understanding, but more of a 'gotcha, you dont know what youre talking about' kind of thing, and frankly it ticked me off. perhaps that was not your intent, but that was the effect.

i used the word 'deceptive' exactly because published measurements do not properly convey how the size difference 'feels', imo. frankly, the OMD is totally asymetrical, so i dont understand how it can be measured as if it were a perfectly rectangular block. its pyramid shaped, with one side being a fair amount thicker than the other, and even sporting a protruding 'lens mount housing'. while the OMD looks small out of the box, probably because pictures of it prepare one for a larger machine, it simply does not feel, nor is it in fact, as svelte or pocketable as the PENs. i never measured them, just as i dont test resolutiion through test charts, but with both, i feel pretty confident i can tell the difference.

and btw, i'm not 'asking you' to buy anything or do anything or put any weight whatsoever in what i say. i'm putting my thoughts out there, it'll be a help to some and not a help to others.

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

I'd imagine the e-p3 without the EVF would feel more streamlined. But the best comparison between the two would be with the EVF I think...

yeah gavin, thats what i thought at first as well. but even though i really like the shape of the OMD, theres no way around that its just more chunky and clunky than the PENS, even with the evf, which was pretty permanently attached to my ep2. compared to the ep2, it feels longer, it feels higher-even considering the external vf, and feels much thicker. i carried the ep2 with evf and certain lenses easily in certain jacket pockets, and the OMD is much harder to cram into those same spaces. when youre dealing with a piece as small and symetrical as the PENS, i think even small shape, size and weight differences are magnified.

[plummerl]

Basically, I'm not sure why there is this big effort to compare the PENS with the EM-5. Going back to the original film versions, the PEN was similar to a rangefinder (in shape), the OM series was an SLR (in shape). This is still the case today. Why do we care???? I love my OM-D EM-5. I'm comparing it to my E-510 and OM-1, OM-2 & OM-4! If you prefer an EVF-less camera, get the PEN. I'll stick with the EM-5.

[rbelyell]

youre absolutely right larry. they are two different types of cameras with different shapes. however i think many m4/3 users, esp olly pen users, have been waiting for the OMD to finally 'step up', and so comparisons with it are both natural and useful, just because we're starting from a common frame of reference as regards IQ, operating systems and size.
tony

[Trius]

Originally Posted by rparmar

Well, you could help me if you at least tried to explain what you meant by the phrase I asked about. But you are not willing to do that, apparently. Instead, you suggest I spend a thousand pounds. Which is terrible advice, since even then I wouldn't gain any insight into your phrase which was, after all, yours.

Good luck with that attitude!

Perhaps you should go into a shop and compare them side by side, hold them, feel them, etc.

[rparmar]

Originally Posted by Trius

Perhaps you should go into a shop and compare them side by side, hold them, feel them, etc.

Yes, if I could do that I would do that. But I live in Ireland. If you don't know what that is like, imagine I went to the capitol city (we call it Dublin) and walked into the only shop in the city to stock Olympus gear. Imagine the latest model on the shelf was the E-P1 and the price was 700 Euro for the kit.

No need to imagine. This was my experience just last week.

Therefore, every piece of photographic gear I have bought except maybe one (including many cameras and dozens of lenses) have been purchased sight unseen.

Helpful people on the internet make this possible. In return I try to be helpful back.

[rparmar]

Originally Posted by rbelyell

i used the word 'deceptive' exactly because published measurements do not properly convey how the size difference 'feels', imo. frankly, the OMD is totally asymetrical, so i dont understand how it can be measured as if it were a perfectly rectangular block. its pyramid shaped, with one side being a fair amount thicker than the other, and even sporting a protruding 'lens mount housing'. while the OMD looks small out of the box, probably because pictures of it prepare one for a larger machine, it simply does not feel, nor is it in fact, as svelte or pocketable as the PENs. i never measured them, just as i dont test resolutiion through test charts, but with both, i feel pretty confident i can tell the difference.

Thanks for explaining. That's all I asked for, so I could actually understand what you first wrote so cryptically. Sorry you somehow took offence, as this was definitely not intended.

[Dez]

[quote=rparmar;1862545]

E-M5: 122 x 89 x 42mm
E-P3: 122 x 69 x 34mm

The former has a built-in viewfinder and actually measures shorter than the E-P3 plus EVF.
quote]

That's certainly small compared to a DSLR, but the camera I ended up with is the Panasonic GF3, with the new shorter 14-42 lens. The body dimensions are

GF3: 105 x 66 x 32

Including the lens and lenscap, the total depth is 63mm. This camera is so small that it looks quite silly with an adapted Nikon SLR lens on it.

The camera controls are simple and it lacks an EVF, but the user interface is extremely intuitive. If you are using an adapted manual lens on it, you touch the screen where you want the focus point, and it immediately gives a 10X view centered on the touch point, as if it were designed specially for that sort of application. If I am looking at the screen rather than through an EVF, again I can touch the screen to indicate desired metering and focus points, even in the automatic modes, something which would be inconvenient with an EVF. The camera is quite well made, and supports every exposure mode I have ever heard of, again with intuitive manual controls. I have not done much research on 4/3, but it does appear that with this camera, Panasonic did indeed accomplish "less is more".

Cheers,
Dez

[Trius]

Only on RFF could a thread 25+ pages long be dominated by discussions of dimensions.

[rparmar]

Originally Posted by Dez

That's certainly small compared to a DSLR, but the camera I ended up with is the Panasonic GF3, with the new shorter 14-42 lens. The body dimensions are

GF3: 105 x 66 x 32

Yes, if you want to skip a viewfinder one can get very small indeed. I actually chose the E-P3 as a point of reference since it was the largest PEN with the features closest to the E-M5. The smallest PEN would be the E-PM1, which is quite similar in size to the GF3.

[rparmar]

Originally Posted by Trius

Only on RFF could a thread 25+ pages long be dominated by discussions of dimensions.

Well, I suppose that is only fitting, since compact size is a rangefinder benefit. MFT too.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Trius

Only on RFF could a thread 25+ pages long be dominated by discussions of dimensions.

And we haven't even began in the earnest uh... discussing, about silver vs black

Speaking of which, I'm rather surprised that the silver seems to be as popular (maybe slightly more) than the black from the hands-on images I've seen.

[Trius]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

And we haven't even began in the earnest uh... discussing, about silver vs black

Speaking of which, I'm rather surprised that the silver seems to be as popular (maybe slightly more) than the black from the hands-on images I've seen.

Or "which case, which bag, which strap ..."

[FrozenInTime]

Originally Posted by Trius

Or "which case, which bag, which strap ..."

Indeed, I'm not sure any of my current bags are optimal for this new camera
For those feeling the need, there is a what strap discussion over here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=41234983