Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
EM-1X - is this the Bee's Knees of ALL MFTs, or - did Olympus blow it?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 next>>
Feb 11, 2019 13:20:50   #
Chris T (a regular here)
 
Seems they had a good thing going with that EM-1 II - but, now … I dunno … seems like they've screwed up more stuff, than the things they improved on. What do YOU think? … Do you have either one? … What's your take? - Should Olympus have left things alone? … Like Hollywood - you're only as good as your last pic!

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 05:26:48   #
wdross (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
Seems they had a good thing going with that EM-1 II - but, now … I dunno … seems like they've screwed up more stuff, than the things they improved on. What do YOU think? … Do you have either one? … What's your take? - Should Olympus have left things alone? … Like Hollywood - you're only as good as your last pic!


It's main competitor is the EOS-1DX. What do you think that means?

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 07:11:37   #
BebuLamar (a regular here)
 
Chris! Olympus just wanted to prove that small sensor/no mirror doesn't mean small camera.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 07:34:49   #
gwilliams6
 
Too big, way too expensive for any micro 4/3rds camera. Sports shooters need better low light/high ISO performance. You won't be able to get that with this camera. Sorry nice try, but sports shooters aren't paying for this. I got a NEW FF 20fps Sony A9 and with current rebates from Sony, only paid a few hundred more than this Olympus. You make the comparison !!

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 08:37:02   #
AntonioReyna
 
I had Olympus film cameras, but have never liked the layout of their digital cameras, or their styling. I have not checked out the new camera, but if costs close to full frame Sony or Canon cameras, why bother? You can try to convince yourself all day long, but the 4/3 sensor does not measure up to full frame in the end, although it is fine for most shooting. Pros will not be using it. Go to any big event and pretty much all you see are the big Canon white lenses, some Nikons and a few Sonys.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 08:49:19   #
tdekany (a regular here)
 
Olympus always tries to push the envelope. Those who are using it are loving it.

And that is all the info you want to listen to. It isn’t for everyone, but neither is the D5 or the 1Dx.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 08:50:57   #
tdekany (a regular here)
 
AntonioReyna wrote:
I had Olympus film cameras, but have never liked the layout of their digital cameras, or their styling. I have not checked out the new camera, but if costs close to full frame Sony or Canon cameras, why bother? You can try to convince yourself all day long, but the 4/3 sensor does not measure up to full frame in the end, although it is fine for most shooting. Pros will not be using it. Go to any big event and pretty much all you see are the big Canon white lenses, some Nikons and a few Sonys.


So many experts on this unavailable camera. Pros are using it, but the camera isn’t yet available until the end of the month.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 10:20:57   #
Low Budget Dave (a regular here)
 
The only thing I dislike about it is the spare battery case needs to be removable, for people like me. There are plenty of shoots where I only need 100 to 150 shots, and one battery is more than enough.

Making the battery case non-removable, to me, is a design flaw.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 11:52:43   #
burkphoto (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
Seems they had a good thing going with that EM-1 II - but, now … I dunno … seems like they've screwed up more stuff, than the things they improved on. What do YOU think? … Do you have either one? … What's your take? - Should Olympus have left things alone? … Like Hollywood - you're only as good as your last pic!


It isn't out yet. The few reviews on line are from folks who have been INVITED to test pre-production models.

To me, the X is a conundrum of sorts. It is GREAT for what it is, but what it is isn't necessarily appropriate for everyone. I wouldn't buy it for video, since it does not have a well-refined set of audio and video features. It would be overkill for the sorts of still photography I do. So I really don't care about it. For what I do, Panasonic's GH4, GH5, and GH5s are a much better fit.

That said, it does push the envelope a bit. I suspect it will sell fairly well to Olympus users. Whether it will attract a broader market — now that Sony, Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic have full frame offerings — remains to be seen.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 12:33:42   #
User ID (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:

Seems they had a good thing going with that EM-1 II -
but, now … I dunno … seems like they've screwed up
more stuff, than the things they improved on. What do
YOU think? … Do you have either one? … What's your
take? - Should Olympus have left things alone? … Like
Hollywood - you're only as good as your last pic!


It's not their only model. And it's useful to have
a flagship model to "raise the bar," cuz whatever
proves successful is soon enuf fitted into smaller
models. You asked "should they have left things
alone ?" Well really, there's no "things" to leave
alone. Hardware seems like "things" but is really
a material expression of ideas. Ideas will always
just keep on keepin on !

Personally I think a huge small format body is a
rather weird idea. Not all users think about size
of format. Some think only of capabilities ... and
that is verrrrrry rational. I'm olde skoole. Can't
help but laff a bit when I see that huge body in
a lensless state with a tiny m4/3 sensor peeking
out at me. Little green postage stamp, in a hole
in a huge machine ... looks silly to me.

But OTOH I'm participating, to some degree, in
the thing I laff at. I've been doing it since back
in the film days. I always thought big 35mm SLR
bodies with their tiny film gates were freakishly
out of proportion. A Rollei or Blad was hardly any
bigger than a Nikon F but the roll fim format size
was considerably bigger.

And I'm still participating in what I laff at. I don't
have that giant Olympus m4/3, but it took me a
while to convince myself a Lumix G9 was not so
ludicrous. So I bought it and it's amazing. I just
ignore the body-size vs format-size craziness and
see it only for its astounding capabilities. I'm sure
that would also be true for whoever makes use of
the new giant Olympus as well. It's the size it is,
and it does what it does. And costs what it costs !
For certain users, that all makes sense. I know
that deal [at MY level] thru my G9. It's an m4/3
and it's as big as my FF Sonys ! But, in use, the
Sonys seem rather crude by comparison.

.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 12:34:43   #
Chris T (a regular here)
 
wdross wrote:
It's main competitor is the EOS-1DX. What do you think that means?


WD - the EM1x is a very far cry from the EOS 1Dx II … you're comparing oranges and apples, my friend.

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 12:36:29   #
Chris T (a regular here)
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Chris! Olympus just wanted to prove that small sensor/no mirror doesn't mean small camera.


Yes, I know - but, I think they screwed up this little experiment, Bebu …

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 12:38:39   #
Chris T (a regular here)
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Too big, way too expensive for any micro 4/3rds camera. Sports shooters need better low light/high ISO performance. You won't be able to get that with this camera. Sorry nice try, but sports shooters aren't paying for this. I got a NEW FF 20fps Sony A9 and with current rebates from Sony, only paid a few hundred more than this Olympus. You make the comparison !!


There's no comparison, G … you just bought yourself a Rolls-Royce, instead of a Camaro Berlinetta …

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 12:41:57   #
Chris T (a regular here)
 
AntonioReyna wrote:
I had Olympus film cameras, but have never liked the layout of their digital cameras, or their styling. I have not checked out the new camera, but if costs close to full frame Sony or Canon cameras, why bother? You can try to convince yourself all day long, but the 4/3 sensor does not measure up to full frame in the end, although it is fine for most shooting. Pros will not be using it. Go to any big event and pretty much all you see are the big Canon white lenses, some Nikons and a few Sonys.


No, it doesn't, Antonio … doesn't measure up, at all …

Tell me - when you go to these BIG EVENTS - which Sony cameras do you see the Pros using? any a99 IIs?

| Reply
Feb 12, 2019 12:43:05   #
BebuLamar (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
Yes, I know - but, I think they screwed up this little experiment, Bebu …


They better off refine the Pen-F. The Pen-F looks nice, has good built quality but the controls suck.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.