« The Peeping Tom: It Wasn't that Bad | Main | Warning! Lightroom 5 has a Potentially Catastrophic Bug »

Tuesday, 20 August 2013


Is it just me, or is that a really ugly camera (the EM-1)?


That huge right-hand grip sure blows the hell out of Olympus's much-praised "retro design" strategy of recent years. Personally, I think the camera shown in Huff's images is a hideous Frankenstein monster: an OM-D E-M5 with a grip borrowed from a Nikon F5. I don't know if this thing is for real or not, but I rather hope it isn't.

Curious, how many people clicked on the link? I didn't since I'd already read the article.

Also curious to know what "new post-transition paradigm" is. Is the transition from film to digital and now we've already got good enough cameras?

But I still am using a Panasonic G2 and have been waiting for the successor to the E-M5 to see if that's where I want to go. The GX7 being smaller is interesting. Competition is good.

If your grandmother sees the video, it has gone viral.

Melded fingers? Psdisaster, maybe?

Any idea what functions are on the "film rewind spool/crank"?


It looks a bit tacky, doesn't it?

That's one ugly camera -- had to keep that big useless mirror housing didn't they? -- but I bet it feels good to use.

"Leaked" from what appears to be an office midtown New York through a gear site to one of the Internet's best-known camera gear-head bloggers? Right. It's called low-cost early marketing. And it works very well.

Interesting stage management.

"Leak" a pre-release video and still images through a third party; wait long enough for it to be mirrored on a dozen other sites; then demand that it be taken down.

The original source complies after racking up a significant number of views, creating a feeding frenzy among those who haven't yet seen it.

They then chase about the internet, seeking other sites to access the embargoed material and creating quite a commotion.

Very effective.

Isn't it aimed at pro's? Do pro's really care what it looks like? Not sure I would call A Canon 5D a handsome camera. I do believe they were able to make native 4/3 lenses focus nicely with this camera. My concern is does C-AF work and does it work while also limiting EVF blackout. I don't see how you can follow anything that turns with out limiting blackout.

The ugliest Olympus design EVER?

So perhaps it's just me, buuuut isn't that pretty much just a "new" (non-micro)4/3 camera? The headline caught my attention, and then once I thought about it and looked at the pictures, the E-M1 struck me as another SLR with retro styling, nothing "micro" about it, other than the lens mount. Anyway, that's the cynic in me talking.

Cheers Mike,

The body looks cobbled together, like a car proproduction "mule" and I'm not convinced a production edition will closely resemble this. The general shape probably reflects what we'll get and perhaps the fat grip means a bigger battery than the E-M5's so-so BLN-1

Regardless, I agree with John Krumm that if it wrings fast focus speeds from my 4/3 lenses while giving me 1/8000 and the VF4, I'll queue up no matter the looks. The additional rumor of no AA filter should make a few folks happy, as well.

This camera invokes many strong adjectives:
Terribly ugly
Terribly useful
Street photographer's nightmare
Photojournalist's holy grail
Tiny, noisy sensor
Filmaic spirit
Inadequate for professional applications
Good enough
Deep DOF
Fantastic lenses
Too small
Too large
Too expensive
Too odd
Too Olympus

Thanks for posting it. The Olympus M5 didn't do it for me, but this may save me from having to replace my wonderful, fantastic beloved Sony RX100 with a RX100/2 and that %^^&% $400 electronic viewfinder.

cfw- At first glance I thought they made something small and ruggedly handsome; closer inspection reveals they threw out classic retro curves and went for a more cutting edge look. I have no problem with modern- but make it look sleek, lean and clean (like the original OM-1). This has too many sharp angles going every which way like some badly hewn sculpture.

I'm sure it's a very capable performer- and at least... it's not BIG and ugly.

The only thing that matters to me about this camera is full compatibility with the non-micro 4/3 lenses.

I've kept all of mine, and been fantastically disappointed at the supposed compatibility when on a m4/3 body.

HOPEFULLY this will perform as advertised.

If it doesn't, I am not going to be surprised.

Love my E-3 & its lenses. Love my EM-5 and ITS lenses. But if this camera will work equally well with both lines of lenses(and focus quick), well then maybe it'll be time for the EM-1. Anybody interested in a used E-3 & EM-5 in excellent condition?....:-)

Perhaps the film rewind spool/crank is a spring-wind generator for power backup when the battery runs flat?

Bwahaha my master plan of skipping every other release of Olympus cameras is finally paying off! I shall get an OM-D used for peanuts and be king of the world.

Actually, not. I bought a second EP-2 when their prices dropped so that I could keep it in the box in case my first one died. And I feel like it is a great big fat collection of un-fired shutter potential just sitting there. So instead of being a model ahead of the curve, I am actually one whole shutter's worth of photographs behind. Now that the older cameras have depreciated to black-comedy levels, I will have to use up the pixels in TWO EP-2's before I can move on to the latest and greatest. Maybe I'll dunk 'em in the duck pond to speed things along.

Oh, be still my beating heart. It's a tool, not just a retro-style-marker. Thank the heavens.

I have an EM5 and added the accessory grip just to help it fit my hand better. The new model's grip may not meet the sensuous design ethos of Italdesign, but if it fits my hand better it would be an improvement. I have a love/hate relationship with the current Oly M4/3 flagship. It captures stunning photos more than occasionally, has amazing IS, but the menu system is a jumbled mess that feels like falling into a pit of used gear oil. I used my Canon 7D last weekend for a beach/bar birthday party, even though the Oly would have been more convenient. The next day, looking at the photos, I had a long discussion with myself about selling the Oly. (Long discussions with myself frequently leave me feeling somewhat divided on my opinion...) Then you show me this. I keep hoping someone will finally get this M4/3 thing really dialed in. It sure would be nice to carry less and feel like I won't be giving up my ability to get on the chip what I see in my mind's eye. Nighttime birthday parties at a beach bar are not conducive to frustrating menu excursions trying to get quick results. Those pretty ladies won't stand in the water forever while you spin knobs and silently swear at your camera!

It may be somewhat ugly, but then again so was the OM-D E-M5, which I currently use as my main camera. The E-P5 left me cold as it needs a separate EVF sticking out to be a complete camera. Strange that some people complain about the small hump on the OM-D while finding a comparatively huge separate EVF that monopolizes the hot shoe acceptable and even desirable. If the ergonomics and focus have been improved I'm definitely interested, I don't need my cameras to be beautiful as long as they are well built and feel right, and the E-M1 looks like a proper tool.

Pros don't care what professional gear looks like, they only care about getting the image.

I've been really very satisfied with the EM-5 as a small lightweight replacement for my Canon 5D system. My only dislikes have been the usual menu-phobia and the less than stellar auto-focus performance.

I was given as a present the RRS BOEM5 set consisting of base, L-plate and grip, and I think that that grip is a big improvement on the naked camera. Worth it if you're a tripod user.

"Freeze proof" -- the camera that all of Canada (and Lambeau Field) have been waiting for.

Ugly as home made soap.....:)

It is retro - just that it's late 80s AF SLR retro. Remember things like the Nikon F401, F601, and the early Minolta Dynaxes? Good times, good times (not).

So....when did the "bling" of a camera have anything to do with how well it shot? Sorry, folks , but all this yap about how "ugly" the camera is seems to be missing the point . It's what it can DO which intrigues me.

What are you saying, EM-1knockers: that it's how pretty a camera is that makes all the difference? Well good. Then go but yourself a Leica. It's pretty, got cachet, and people will be impressedby how much you paid for it. Yes, it'll be great fo your IMAGE as a photographer , but it won't do much to improve your photography.

Let's face it: some of the best shooting cameras inThe world were no things of beauty. The Nikon F w / a Photomic prism head comes to mind. But look what David Douglas Duncan got out of such a camera....

My E-3gas never appealed to me from an aesthetic standpoint. Yet it's a camera I'ce used over and over. Why? Because it's reliable, easy to use, and delivers great results. So" don't judge a book by its cover", etc...

It is fun that the people criticizing this (or the EM-5) for being "too big" and "not anymore a MICRO 4/3", never had one of them in hand. I have put my EM-5 with grip next to my friend E520 - and in comparison he called it TINY. The EM-1 will be a little larger, but on another planet as size even with the current CaNikon APS-C offering.

The grip, to accommodate the same amount of finger, has to be bigger relative to the body than on a bigger camera, after all. This may be what feels right.

In an industry where such monstrosities as the Nikon F are "classics", I don't see that anybody really has anything to complain about!

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007