Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

And, because YOU didn't buy it, Bebu … they BLEW it - huh? … Who made YOU the Final Arbitrator, Bebu?

Pros were given the E-M1X to try out, and at the end of their trial - they didn't want to give it back!!!

Perhaps, Oly gave them a discount off the three grand price ….

BebuLamar

Nobody would refuse a free camera no matter how bad it is. Did any of them paid to keep the cameras? And are YOU going to buy one?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Bebu .. as can be clearly seen in the other post I did on the E-M1X - if I had three grand, kicking around - which I don't … I wouldn't choose to spend it on a camera with a sensor smaller than the size of a postage stamp - no matter how good the AI is. I would choose to spend it on a MF Digital. To me, the difference in the size of the original image, more than makes up for the sacrifice of AI. Perhaps, as time goes on, AI will be adopted by other camera makers, like Panasonic (for both MFT, and their forthcoming FF MILCs) and Sony. Once those two join the bandwagon, I'm sure - Canikon and Pentax and Fuji - will surely follow … then, perhaps.

As to the other part of your question - whether Pros chose to keep the E-M1X - I'd think, probably, some did. But, that's an assumption on my part. As to how many, exactly - that would require some research.

BebuLamar

And so far I haven't heard anyone who would want to buy one yet. So I don't think it would sell well.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

I would buy one in a heartbeat if I had the bucks; don't really care if I need it or not ! I think Olympus technology is great... they are always on the edge. Of course that is just the collector part of me. Contrary to popular belief it is not their Flagship model or the next iteration of the M1.

Bipod

Please define "artificial intelligence".

Does a 1940 Oldsmobile Hydra-Matic transmission have it?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

That remains to be seen, Bebu. Since it's the first Oly with a built-in grip, doubling its battery power, and making it LOOK as Professional as the D5 or 1DX Mk. II - it COULD catch on with MFT users who like that.

But, the real breaker here, is not the way it LOOKS, but what it DOES, with AI and adaptive Focus. These are the things that matter. The fact several Pros did not want to relinquish it, I think - is very telling ...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Then, save up your pennies, Bob … in a few years - who knows?

The E-M1 Mk. III is still on the drawing board, so, I expect that WILL arrive, in due course.

As far as the E-M1X being the flagship or not - it is to the Olympus line, what the 1DX Mk. II is to the Canon line, and what the D5 is to the Nikon line. I'm pretty sure they would consider those - their flagship models.

Pentax has the K-1 II - their flagship. Sony has the a9 - their FF MILC flagship, and the a99 II - their SLT FF a-mount flagship. Fuji has the X-H1 - THEIR flagship. … I could go on, but you get the picture ….

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Having not been around in that era, I've no idea, Bipod. I remember a few models in the 50s - having push-button transmissions - which, at the time, I thought was rather neat. But, as to whether it made them easier to drive, or not - having not driven any - I really doubt it. Then, they came up with shifts on the console rather than on the wheel stem. Did it make THOSE any easier to manage? … I've had a few of those. I would say - more than making things easier, they made "other things" more complicated. Now, I have a shift lever - built INTO the dashboard. Does it make driving easier? … YES … kinda …

Bipod - there are three responses by me to your latest in the Hasselblad post - take a look - why don'tcha?

Artificial Intelligence Defined:

The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.

In the case of the Oly E-M1X - it means - for one thing - adaptive AF - which selects for you - the amount of focal points to use, depending on the subject matter. It then stores this shooting info - along with the subject matter, and how you shoot it, ready to be used - the next time you're shooting the same stuff.

If you shoot BIF, the bird and its flight - is stored in memory for the next time. If you shoot a car race, the camera will hold focus on the helmet of your preferred racer, and not let go, no matter how many obstructions interfere. If you shoot a ball-game - the camera will stay on the ball - no matter what ….

Bipod

I did respond on that other thread. Now about my question on THIS thread:

Please define "artificial intelligence".

Does a 1940 Oldsmobile Hydra-Matic transmission have it?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Actually, Bipod - I've answered those questions, three times, now … you musta missed them … go back!!!

Go UP one from this!!!!

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

So Chris, when was the last time you ever saw a pro return any freebie?

Bipod

That's a start -- but it begs the question: what is "intelligence"?

Seems like an automatic transmission is just a dumb machine--although it does replace a human
intelligence operating a stick shift. It replaces a person, but doesn't do as good a job.

That's an examples of AS: "artificial stupidity". Useful, but not really a replacement for a person.
The person knows if he's planning to hit the break or the accelerator, the automatic transmission
doesn't. Something similar applies to taking pictures.

I think you'll find it's still true that a computer is a replacement for a person when the tasks is limited
to a fixed set of possible actions, and when each outcome can easily be assigned a score.

OK, I've visualized how I want the final print to look, including what needs to be in focus
in this shot. How does the Oly E-MIX read my mind?

Statistics can predict likely behavior, but only if one measures and tracks the right independent variables.
And that's the problem with the statistical approach: somebody has to decide ahead of time what's worth
tracking.

One of my professors was hired by Uncle Sam to build a machine to find Soviet submarines.
The idea was thought if they fed enough open source intelligence into a giant "neural network", and
kept telling it whether it was right or wrong (based on sub sightings), eventually it would learn to find
subs. It didn't.

The world is full of correlations that exist purely by chance. For two weeks in a row, you garaged door
worked only on days when the price of tea went up in China. Unfortunately, correlations does not
imply causation. We use science to tell us what can and can't possibly be connected.

One of my digital camera has a face recognition algorithm. It finds faces in wall paper, tree bark, etc.
It's very amusing. We know where it is possible for a face to be--it doesn't.

Pattern recognition is something people are very good at but computers are very bad at.
A general algorithm for pattern recognition is an unsolved problem in computer science.
That's why CAPCHA checking to detect robots works. Nobody has yet come up with
an alogrithm that can "Find all the photos with <X> in them? " for any noun X.
But people can do this easily.

Now pray tell: how does it distinguish between one of a bird inflight and a shuttlecock in flight?
The former is an example of wildlife photography, the latter of sports photography--quite different.

We use all our knowledge to tell the difference -- we know that things that eat are animals, and
that things that have feathers are birds. We know that birds chirp. and make messes on cars.
But the camera just sees patterns of light.

This is the problem of "unrestricted knowledge domain". One can photograph....anything.
The camera sees only patterns of color -- in general it doesn't know what it is looking at.
If you try to write an algorithm to recognize "restaurants", you will discover that a McDonalds
looks a lot like a Jiffy Lube, and Antoine's looks nothing like either.

It helps that we've seen thousands of restaurants before, and know all he different kinds (drive-throughs
fast food, diners, cafes, pizza parlors, white tablecloth joints, etc). This vast amount of knowledge allows
us to decide which features are significant and which aren't in deciding whether something is a restaurant.

There is far too much information in 24 MP for even a super computer to record statistics on
every pixel. Some programmer has to decide what the camera will track--- limit the number of
independent variables . For a particular task --- recognizing letters of the alphabet (OCR) this is
possible (though not with far more errors than a human would make). In general, its an
unsolved problem.

So what about these amazingly smart computers?

After ten years of development and millions of dollars, IBM was finally able to build a specialized
roomful of computers that could beat one middle-aged man at a board game. Board games are a
perfect example of a limited domain: nothing matters in chess except the movement of the pieces
and the rules of the game.

In truth there has been very little progress in AI in recent years. But computers have gotten faster
and RAM and off-line storage have gotten cheaper, which looks like progress, but isn't. Board
games and quiz shows are nothing the decisions a photographer has to make.

ANY device can claim to use AI. There is no accepted definitiion of intelligence except "what
IQ tests measure". So far, no computer has completed an IQ test above idiot level.

Computers have a really difficult time answering questions such as "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"
You know, becuase you understand how English possives (genetives) work, that someone's tomb
is where they are buried, and that "Grant" is the name of a person.

You know the difference between "Time flies like an arrow" and "Fruit flies like a banana" --
but the syntax in each sentence is exactly the same. Stuff like that gives computers a headache.

"Artificial intelligence" is marketing talk-- buzz words -- like "disruptive", "innovative", "wholistic"
"paradigm shifting", "wellness", etc. Manufacturers of high-end systems that acutally use AI -- such
as automated attendant and voice-response telephone systems -- carefully avoid using the term,
since they don't want to be lumped with a bunch of sleazy hucksters and Silicon Valley stock swindles.

Remember when lawyers and doctors were supposed to be replaced by "expert systems"?
They weren't.

Would you believe in an AI paintbrush for artists? No, you'd laugh. But it is the same thing.

Don't be fooled: "AI" is just another way of saying "Buy or invest now!"

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Never saw a Pro even GET a Freebie … never mind - giving one back!!!!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I seriously doubt that you frequent m4/3 forums. If you did, you would know that there are many who have preordered it. Some ordered 2. But it isn’t available until the 25th.