[boren]

Let me have the honor to start...



The camera seems like a well rounded package, but there are several key points where it fails to be competitive:



- 11 AF points, 5 fps, 12MP and 720P are all sub-par compared to similarly-priced Canon 7D launched last year - 19 points, 8 fps, 18MP and 1080P. The Nikon D300s is also ahead with 51 points and 7 fps (same resolution as the Oly though)

- These specs are also way below some entry level cameras (e.g. Sony A55 has 16MP and 10 fps and costs less than half, their A33 with 14MP and 7 fps costs even less)

- No AF assist lamp. They had one in the E-1, why resort to the annoying built-in flash? Even some entry level cameras have this useful feature nowadays.

- Doesn't use the excellent GH1 sensor. Did Panasonic refuse to provide it? If not, then I really can't understand why Olympus chose the mediocre PEN sensor.

- Same heavily criticized ergonomics of the E-3. They had a good thing going with the E-30, why not continue from there?

- Large and heavy compared to what one would expect from a camera with a relatively small-sensor designed for outdoors use (think the old E-1 and Pentax K-7 for more sensible designs).

- No obvious firmware-only improvements (such as allowing the WB sensor to be used as an external color-meter for manual color temperature readings; multi-exposure HDR mode)

- Almost no innovation

- No ambition.

- No real commitment to FourThirds.



With 7 fps, 14-16MP sensor and 1080P movie mode the E-5 could have been a contender, but the way it is the only thing that could save it is a huge price cut (or a 12-60 lens free with every purchase of a body <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />)



PS.

Klaus will need to eat some crow for claiming Olympus would never release an upgrade to the E-3. I must admit I was a bit surprised myself though.

[Klaus]

I think it's a very fine camera but too expensive though. The pricing is about 25% over the edge compared to the competition.

And it's another example that Olympus does not understand the mass market. I'm slightly wondering about the target volume for this camera.

It's certainly a nice upgrade - especially the weak AA filter - but they won't sell many for sure. The 1000+EUR/US$ zone is just not their territory.

[wim]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284494276' post='2758']

I think it's a very fine camera but too expensive though. The pricing is about 25% over the edge compared to the competition.

And it's another example that Olympus does not understand the mass market. I'm slightly wondering about the target volume for this camera.

It's certainly a nice upgrade - especially the weak AA filter - but they won't sell many for sure. The 1000+EUR/US$ zone is just not their territory.

[/quote]

Well, I know that at least a few NG photographers use the E3, so I guess that may be their target market? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

[quote name='boren' timestamp='1284489328' post='2752']



- These specs are also way below some entry level cameras (e.g. Sony A55 has 16MP and 10 fps and costs less than half, their A33 with 14MP and 7 fps costs even less)

[/quote]



I doubt that you would put a A33 or some compact cameras with 14MP and 20fps mode above a Nikon D3 just because of some numbers with little to no practical relevance?

- No AF assist lamp. They had one in the E-1, why resort to the annoying built-in flash? Even some entry level cameras have this useful feature nowadays.

It's not so helpful on the E-1.

The Nikon D70 had a green light which is annoying.

- Doesn't use the excellent GH1 sensor. Did Panasonic refuse to provide it? If not, then I really can't understand why Olympus chose the mediocre PEN sensor.

I doubt that the GH1 sensor is significantly better than the PEN Sensor. I think this is mainly some forum hype.

- Same heavily criticized ergonomics of the E-3. They had a good thing going with the E-30, why not continue from there?

I assume that for an E-x they wanted to reuse the last E-x body parts

- Large and heavy compared to what one would expect from a camera with a relatively small-sensor designed for outdoors use (think the old E-1 and Pentax K-7 for more sensible designs).

Yes, that's also my opinion, but the sensor size has very little impact on camera size if you want to keep the viewfinder as large as the competition. The shorter flange back distance would allow for a thinner camera, but the swivel display will add those extra mm again.



Also see comment above, Olympus reused an old camera shell to save r&d costs.

- No obvious firmware-only improvements (such as allowing the WB sensor to be used as an external color-meter for manual color temperature readings; multi-exposure HDR mode)

ok.



I had hoped for the option to use an optional EVF like on the newer PENs. Also didn't happen.

- Almost no innovation

There is little innovation in all new DSLRs these days.

Maybe because there is little room for innovations.

It's mostly a numbers game. 2fps more, 3MP more, a few AF points and so on.



Maybe Olympus will sell 10.000 or 20.000 E-5 cameras. You can't finance much development & innovation with those sale numbers.

- No real commitment to FourThirds.

I assume that the focus is on mFT now.



For me the E-5 brings video and live view with contrast AF and hopefully a thin AA filter sensor to the FT world, which is important to me.

Others seem to need 7fps or 18 AF points, which is of little relevance to me, even if other systems would offer 2.000 AF points, ISO 3 million or 50fps

With 7 fps, 14-16MP sensor and 1080P movie mode the E-5 could have been a contender,

A contender for comparing data sheet numbers or as a tool to make photographs?



Martin



Btw, I also think the price is to high.

[boren]

[quote name='Martin R.' timestamp='1284497655' post='2763']

I doubt that you would put a A33 or some compact cameras with 14MP and 20fps mode above a Nikon D3 just because of some numbers with little to no practical relevance?[/quote]



You're missing the point. The fact is that Sony could squeeze those features in a $650 body, and Olympus didn't bother to do it in a pro body, even when they knew it's going seriously let down most of their user base and will result in a lot of lost sales. It's almost as if they want this camera to fail, just to be able get an excuse to ditch FourThirds as a non-lucrative platform.

It's not so helpful on the E-1.

I never used the E-1, but I find a very similar red-pattern AF assist lamp to be helpful on my flash units and some older film SLR's which had it built in. I guess it's a matter of implementation. My 1990 Minolta 8000i could focus on a blank white wall in almost any lighting condition thanks to using its powerful red-pattern AF assist lamp as a last resort before hunting. It worked so well, the camera almost always managed to lock on difficult subjects, as long as they were within the range of the lamp. But hey, it doesn't need to be that advanced (wink), I'd settle on an implementation that makes good use of this lamp when the light is dim.

The Nikon D70 had a green light which is annoying.

It's still a lot less annoying than the strobing the built-in flash.

I doubt that the GH1 sensor is significantly better than the PEN Sensor. I think this is mainly some forum hype.

It is 2/3 to a whole stop better in DR and noise, and very competitive with the best APS-C sensors. Check out the various reviews, and specifically dxomark.com measurements.

Yes, that's also my opinion, but the sensor size has very little impact on camera size if you want to keep the viewfinder as large as the competition. The shorter flange back distance would allow for a thinner camera, but the swivel display will add those extra mm again.

Fair enough, but I believe a merge of the E-30 overall size and articulated screen with the K-7 seals would result in a significantly smaller body than what we have we the E-3/E-5.

Also see comment above, Olympus reused an old camera shell to save r&d costs.

That's probably the main reason in the case of the E-5.

I had hoped for the option to use an optional EVF like on the newer PENs. Also didn't happen.

A DSLR with support for an external EVF? Now that would have been innovative and relatively easy to develop.

There is little innovation in all new DSLRs these days.

Maybe because there is little room for innovations.

It's mostly a numbers game. 2fps more, 3MP more, a few AF points and so on.

Come on, when was the last time a top-of-the-line camera was released with zero innovation? I can't think of one such example.

Maybe Olympus will sell 10.000 or 20.000 E-5 cameras. You can't finance much development & innovation with those sale numbers.

That's the catch. You can't sell more units without offering a tempting product, and you can't develop a tempting product without getting the funds from selling more units.

A contender for comparing data sheet numbers or as a tool to make photographs?

A contender for being a product that actually sells.



BTW, if I had to choose one DSLR+lens combo without thinking about budget or future gear purchases, I would have gone for the E-5 and 12-60 over any other combination. Everything else is either too heavy and/or lacking the features I want (in-body IS, articulated screen, multiple cross-type AF points, AF micro-adjust, dual dials, serious build quality etc). The superb 12-60 would have been the clincher. But life is more complicated than that of course <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Brightcolours]

I do not get why some have to make out as if the SOny A55 is an amazing machine.



It is just a DLSR-like camera, from the bottom end (compact consumer end) of the DSLR market.



Does it really offer 10 fps, as we know it from DSLRs? No. It offers 3fps that is comparable, and a strange 6fps mode that does not offer a view of the moving subject, and an even stranger 10fps mode which needs to have the lens at f3.5 (or f4 or f5.6 or f6.3 if the lens does not open up that far), with completely auto behavior.



Add to that the AF system having big trouble actually AF tracking (source dpreview).



So in effect, its real fps performance is 3 fps, and its 6 and 10 fps modes are too crippled (like the 11 fps APS-C mode from the Nikon D3).



Is it bad, that the A55v behaves the way it does? Of course not. But be realistic about its abilities.



Since boren attacks the E-5 with the A55v features, lets look at more details.



The view finder. The E-5, like the E-3, has a big heavy body partly because of an extremely big view finder. Not unimportant, that big view finder, it makes lifts the camera into the more professional field.

Is the EVF from the Sony A55v better? No, it is worse. Does that matter? Of course not, the A55v does not pretend to be a professional tool.



The body. The E-5 has a weather sealed body, made mostly from a metal alloy, like other professional cameras (A900/850, 5D mk II, 1D(s) series, 7D, D3(x/s), D700, D300). Does the A55v offer that? No. Is that bad? Of course not. It is not a same level camera.



One does not have to like the E-5, but it is a very good professional option for the 4/3rds platform. Is the A55v a professional camera? Clearly not. It is not intended to be one either.

[boren]

Brightcolours, you too are missing the point. I'm not comparing the A55 and the E-5 or claiming that they are at the same level or targeted at the same market. Here's my point (again): "The fact is that Sony could squeeze those features in a $650 body, and Olympus didn't bother to do it in a pro body, even when they knew it's going seriously let down most of their user base and will result in a lot of lost sales. It's almost as if they want this camera to fail, just to be able get an excuse to ditch FourThirds as a non-lucrative platform."



However, since you obviously want to hijack this thread and turn it into a one about the A55, why don't you start by replying to the post below. I'm still waiting for your reply :-)



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282913367' post='2250']

No, 3fps. its 6fps and 10fps modes are nearly unusable due to their implementation. And the AF system is too slow to really track subjects.[/quote]



Both the 10fps and the 6fps modes are very usable and useful, and the AF tracks moving subjects very nicely:



http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com/2010/08/mirror-mirror-on-wall-whos-camera-is.html

http://thepicturedesk.blogspot.com/2010/09/i-had-chance-to-try-a55-at-ball-game.html

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a55-nexvg10-zeiss-24mm-f20-at-a-launch_topic66944_page2.html



And a nice video (turn on your speakers to hear the shutter at 10fps while the AF is tracking the train):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8b7isSlnhQ



If your benchmark for 10fps usefulness is what $4000 pro DSLR’s offer, then I agree that the $750 Sony is at a disadvantage. Regardless, the 3.7fps limit of the 550D seems pathetic by comparison.



> Real AF in movie mode is silly on DSLRs, for they have shallow DOF. It may work for home video small sensor camcorders. Not in DSLR video. And the aperture needs to be open for this! brr.



The intended target market would get far worse results without AF or with slow-and-constantly-hunting CD-AF. With the Sony movies would actually be in focus, and this is a very real advantage.



> yes, but a viewfinder of worse quality. I know which I would prefer (not the EVF from the A55). So, the 100% is nice, the quality is not.



If the EVF is anything like the EVF's on the higher-end MFT cameras, then I believe quality would be more than satisfactory for most people. Furthermore, unlike insignificant differences in viewfinder quality, the added benefits (100% coverage and magnified MF) can actually make a difference in the results, not only in the user experience while shooting.



> yes. And the 550D has fast AF in OVF



The Sony has fast AF regardless of whether you use the viewfinder or the LCD. The Canon limits you to use the viewfinder to get fast AF.



> No. Silly P&S feature. If I want a DSLR for panoramas, I do want control over the process. Nice for P&S vacation shots, yes.



Nothing silly about sweep panorama. It's an extremely useful feature when traveling light, without a tripod, or without time to shoot panoramas "properly". You get much wider angle of view than you would with cameras lacking this feature (given the same constraints). The Sony of course supports shooting panoramas the traditional way too. As for vacation shots, for many people (again, remember the target market) these shots represent their bulk of landscape photography, so sweep panorama mode very relevant to them.



> Can't put the camera down on a surface.



Wrong. You can do it, down to 90 degrees.



> Can't put the camera on a tripod.



Wrong again, you can do it, down to 90 degrees (or even more if your QR plate is not very large).



> Can't support the lens/camera in a normal way with the LCD out.



Do you actually shoot at eye-level with the screen sticking out from the side? I've never seen anyone do it, so I’d assume it only affects a small number of people.



> Stupid position also with self portraits.



I don't care about self-portraits, but although the bottom-hinge is less useful for self-portraits shots using a tripod, it's better for those done handheld or using a short unipod, as the subject (you) is looking slightly below the camera. It looks more natural than looking to the side.



> It is crazy to want to hold the camera on the left! You hold a camera on the right to operate the camera, and UNDER the lens to support the lens and camera and operate the lens.



Wrong again. Choosing to hold the camera under the lens or under the body depends on its size. With long/heavy lenses you don't have a choice. With shorter lenses you can actually hold under the camera and with the heels of your palms to its left for a significantly more stable hold. Now here comes the other part that you've missed - when you hold the camera at waist-level it's very difficult to put your left hand under the camera, let alone under the lens (unless you have a third hand coming out of your knee). This is where holding it from the lower left side becomes so convenient. It's very difficult and awkward to do it with a side-hinge design. Don't take my word for it. Just try to hold both types of cameras (at waist-level) and you'll see that I'm right.



> Yes, it makes it better for HOME VIDEO where one does not have any idea about how awful that focus searching is on the screen.

But for that group, DSLR video with its shallow DOF is not a good choice in the first place.



Of course we're talking about home video. This camera isn't designed for professional cinematography with a dedicated focus-puller on the payroll ;-)



And you probably didn't bother looking at the sample movies from the various review sites, because they clearly demonstrate that unlike the constant-hunting affair with CD-AF, the Sony PD-AF keeps subjects focused most of the time. This is much better than what other DSLR's offer, and the image quality is better than small-sensor cameras, far better in low-light. The shallow DOF is another advantage, as long as focus is maintained on the subject, and with the Sony is typically is.

[Klaus]

> I do not get why some have to make out as if the SOny A55 is an amazing machine.





Because it's different. In a sea of same-same cameras it stands out. Whether you like/need the differentiators is a different question.



> It is just a DLSR-like camera, from the bottom end (compact consumer end) of the DSLR market.



I find it hard to classify it. However, even the difference between the latest EOS Rebel and the EOS 60D/7D is mostly firmware anyway (plus build quality). Regarding all the pressure from the bottom end it's probably hard for the manufacturer to make a high-end body really stand out from the crowd.



> Is it bad, that the A55v behaves the way it does? Of course not. But be realistic about its abilities.



No mirror slap / blackout.

Live Histogram in the viewfinder.

Size/Weight.



These are the key features. The fps rate was already a gimmick in the A550 as far as I remember.



Anyway, technically the K-5 seems to be the best new APS-C DSLR of the season. It seems superior to the 60D/D7000/A55/E5 to me at least.

[boren]

Klaus, why do you consider the K-5 to be superior to the D7000? Other than a couple of extra fps and the in-body IS, it seems to be on-par with the Nikon or even trailing (AF points, metering), while costing $400 more.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1284530590' post='2772']

> I do not get why some have to make out as if the SOny A55 is an amazing machine.





Because it's different. In a sea of same-same cameras it stands out. Whether you like/need the differentiators is a different question.



> It is just a DLSR-like camera, from the bottom end (compact consumer end) of the DSLR market.



I find it hard to classify it. However, even the difference between the latest EOS Rebel and the EOS 60D/7D is mostly firmware anyway (plus build quality). Regarding all the pressure from the bottom end it's probably hard for the manufacturer to make a high-end body really stand out from the crowd.



> Is it bad, that the A55v behaves the way it does? Of course not. But be realistic about its abilities.



No mirror slap / blackout.

Live Histogram in the viewfinder.

Size/Weight.



These are the key features. The fps rate was already a gimmick in the A550 as far as I remember.



Anyway, technically the K-5 seems to be the best new APS-C DSLR of the season. It seems superior to the 60D/D7000/A55/E5 to me at least.

[/quote]

Yes, those are key features. But the main key feature (PD AF with live view), which on paper seems great, comes with a number of negatives I did not anticipate and I do not find attractive (the discussed possibility for ghost lights, the less desirable EVF (brights and blacks get to be featureless, OVF's do not have WB issues). The underpowered processor and failing predictive AF also disappoint, and I do not like the bottom hinged screen.



Those are to me a "great idea, a shame about the execution" thing.



I have been reading about the Pentax K-5, it looks good. But which points make it technically better than the 60D and D7000, to you? It's 8fps maybe?