« Thursday Open Mike: Cubs Fans Morose (OT) | Main | Photography and Procrastination »

Friday, 04 November 2016



In a way it is a good thing. With camera prices sky-rocketing and getting WAY out of my league, I can go back to the very good cameras that I do have and actually use them ... you know ... that ole fashioned idea of taking photos and making prints. What a relief. A great cure for G.A.S.

Not good value for money now. In a year or two when they have not shipped enough of them and they drop the price to $1200-$1400 in a panic it will be OK.

I'm still on an original E-M5, so I can wait. The only thing this new camera does that I might want is faster motion AF but I only want that about once a year.

The 12-100 would make me happy though. So the move is to get an E-M1 mark 1 on closeout and that lens.

I tried the EM1 for a while, in my transitioning period from DSLR to MILC. m43 is a great system to be, if the sensor is good enough for you. It was not for me, the results with long exposure photos were poorer compared to other similarly priced systems.

Maybe now folks can stop saying that Sonys are expensive:) After all, they can put a high quality FF sensor on a camera about the same size as the EM1... also, Oly lenses, the good ones, are priced at more or less the same level as Sony ZA or even Zeiss Loxia and Batis.

Oly for Pros? It will be nice for sports and wildlife photogs to shoot at 60 fps, but then, where is the pro support? Canikon have that part well sorted out, and their cameras are actually cheaper!

Another thing. It weighs more than my Fujifilm X-Pro2 which I bought used. X-Pro2: better IQ, less weight, and less cost. I think that more people are going to go for used older models.

"The Olympus OM-D E-M1 started shipping in October 2013, and officially speaking, is available body-only at a retail price of US$1,400."

From The Imaging Resource!

$2000 is an exceptional price for the new one.

I'm still somewhat in shock over the launch price of the E-M1mk2. While I'm sure it is lovely camera, and the size and weight are "just right", it is still an evolution of the series. There is the usual hyperbole and excitement over its release, but when you start to drill down into the details, and some of the earlys sample photos, it is clear that you are still making compromises with the m4/3 sensor. And for $1300 I would be fine with that. For -more- than a full-frame Sony or the class-leading D500 though? Sorry, Olympus, but no. For me, personally, I decided to return to all-in on Nikon, mixing APS-C (D7100) with my existing D610, divesting myself of all of my Olympus gear in the process. This was at least in part in anticipation that the E-M1mk2 would, in fact, be overpriced to represent a sane value for my enthusiast goals. So while I'll miss the compact size and those lovely little lenses, I'm satisfied that, for me and my own goals, I made the right move at the right time.

What does that camera offer that lower priced cameras from multiple brands (even from Olympus) don't offer? Are there any special features that would tempt users of the current model to rush to upgrade? In other words, what sets it apart to justify the price? I don't see anything that does - just some incremental improvements.

I am thinking of another new camera that came out recently at about the same price - the Nikon D500 - and it sold well, as far as I know. But D500 has several features that arguably no other sub-$2500 camera on the market (save, perhaps, for Canon's 7Dmk2) can match. And those features are very useful to wildlife and sports photographers. It also replaced an 8 year old model and did not offer merely an incremental improvement over an existing model.

Again, what features set the Olympus apart - what's its value proposition that justifies that price? Maybe someone who is planning to buy one can tell me. And imho that camera will never be a veblen good - it's, at the end of the day, still an Olympus, a big multinational brand that makes lots of common products - including many cheaper camera models that look similar to this model.

I'd be curious to see how well this camera sells.

Lot of money that's for sure ($2500 here in Canadian dollars). I don't have any doubt that the price is going to cause a lot of new users and others looking to move on to pause.

It does put a guy like me in a bit of a quandary though (old, not enough money and too much time). I've moved back to film and am currently re-building my darkroom but my digital platform is Olympus and I have quite a bit of an investment in their SHG and HG lenses. All the other bells and whistles aside, this is the camera that should have come out instead of the E-M1 with it's half-baked AF support for legacy lenses. Olympus threw me under the bus then so now I have a decision to make.

Not today though, my E-5 still works fine when I need it and I think I hear my darkroom calling.

Have a good day

Yeah, there was a collective groan over at DPR. But if it performs as advertised it isn't just slightly improved over the original EM1, it's hugely improved. I figure that Olympus is just the first of many to crank up the high-end price floor like this. Two thousand for a camera that's basically Olympus saying, "here is the best we can do" doesn't seem too much, especially if this is your primary system.

Until very recently, the E-M5 Mii and E-M1 have been touted and used successfully by the various Olympus pro group members (as well as us amateurs). I don't think those cameras have gone dark because a new "flagship" version has been introduced. The point of m43 is the size/weight/quality balance, not sensor size, cost or whatever. As the saying goes, "horses for courses".
If one needs the latest/greatest for professional or self-satisfaction, have at it. If you want to go FF with the Sony et al, and be back to the big-and-heavy world, have at it. If you want cheap, there are the Nikon 3xxx and Canon Txx cameras. Choice is wonderful. So the price is what it is- if you NEED it, there it is. I don't need what it offers (advances but not earthshaking), so am content to stay with what I have- meets my needs.

@Paulo Bizarro Olympus is introducing pro support: http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/olympus-goes-pro.html

OK. I find that m43 is enough for the vast majority of the photography I do nowadays, and of that format, I very much prefer Olympus. Bit I ain't ever gonna pay that much for another camera. The last one of that price I bought with the outstanding for its time, the Nikon D300. I could by a D500 for less than that, and a D7200 for much less. And I'd do that before I spent that much on the Oly. (Of course Olympus has a full set of good lenses for the Oly, and Nikon has very,very few for DX, but still.)

This is probably priced to match the number they expect to sell and that's all there is to it. They need this price to make it work financially. Camera sales are down and they probably would never sell as many of this one as the previous one: hence the higher price.

Compare it to the Canon 1DX ii. More than twice the price, same resolution. And the EM-1 ii adds a few special tricks - hi-res mode, incredible IBIS system ... oh and it's faster.

Build quality seems as good. AF may not be as good, and IQ probably loses out at high ISO.

Oh yeah, it also weighs a lot less. I think for some pro work it is a real alternative to the Nikon and Canon big hitters. In that context, it's value for money.

I won't buy one though as now obsolete mk.1 still does everything I need

I was hoping to get the new E-M1 to replace an ageing E-M5, but at this price and specification it is not going to happen.

I tend to associate Olympus with "cheap and cheerful" but "good enough". The older E-M1 had a history of dial failures, EVF burn and strap-lug issues, and in the absence of major sensor/IQ improvements I think that Olympus really needs a better track-record in build quality before raising prices quite so much.

While there is truth in all of your suggestions, Mike, I think points one and four are really at the heart of it all. Notice how prices of newly introduced cameras and lenses from all of the manufacturers have really been soaring over the past year or two. Almost every new lens seems to be $1200 or more. And camera bodies are steadily creeping toward the $2000 mark.

While there are some exceptions, those higher prices are generally an entire class higher than the price of the camera or lens being replaced or superceded. All I can say is, I'm quite happy that my personal camera and lens collection is fairly complete for my needs. There's just no way I'm spending more than a thousand dollars on any new camera body or lens. On the bright aide, this is an excellent antidote for GAS.

Slightly off-topic pet peeve:

[/PEEVE]I recently received a B&H paper catalogue and turned to the Olympus section. I could not tell at a glance from the camera names what their highest spec camera was. What a wasted opportunity! Camera-makers: please make it simple once again, or include the year of the "upgrade" in the camera title so the feeble minded amoung us can know whether it is better to get an Olympus OM-d e-m10 used or an OM-d e-m1 Mark II new or a OM-d e-m5 Mark-somethingorother or some other alphabet soup. Bah! Humbug! And Bah again! [/PEEVE OFF]

Nice camera. I want it. I am just not sure what to call what I want. That one . . .over there, the black plastic one. . .no other other black plastic one on the left. My left. No, MY left. Oh here. Just take all my money. . . .

Longer rant: I think, as usual, that Thom Hogan's take on this is apt.

"Dedicated" camera hardware is going up in price as the market for it shrinks so everyone is fighting for a smaller and smaller set of scraps that the iPhone leaves behind.

But the market keeps shrinking because the companies don't understand how to make a machine that anyone but the masochistic enthusiast would buy. We've had digital camera bodies for almost twenty years and the hardware companies have not done a single thing to make the post-shot workflow any better. Who here who reads this site has a way to conveniently transfer pictures from a DSLR (or point and shoot, or anything but a phone) camera to their laptop without a dedicated cable and/or card reader? My bet is nobody. Why should this be? I think it's because the camera companies don't know *how* to make this better, and perhaps because they don't *care* to make it better anyway. This is why they continue to lose.

So, Olympus et. al. are charging more and more money to people for the displeasure of using machines that are only incrementally better than the machines from 4-5 years ago w.r.t. the hardware and completely stagnant with respect to post-processing and workflow tools. That is, IMHO, machines hardly anyone really wants to buy.

I have an e m1 and was thinking to get the e m1 mkII, but not at this price. I was quicker than you Mike, I was able to move my hand from the trackpad and catch my jaw when it was falling when I saw the price. I don't need 15 and 60 frames per seconds and the overbuilt mechanics and electronics of the camera, so I'll wait for the OMD E M5 MkIII next year. Probably it'll have a better sensor.

For me, the extra 4MP's and the larger sensor, make the Fuji XT-2 the winner here. The only thing possibly important that the Oly has over the Fuji is the IBIS. This is partially compensated by numerous Fuji lenses with OIS. In my cases, my 18-55 zoom - which MUST be a superb example given that I can make excellent 24x36 inch prints from my X-Prpo 1 !!! - is stabilized. I must add, however, that I use a tripod most of the time :-)

I also like the overall size of the APS-C Fuji over the smaller m4/3 cameras, finding it easier to control.

This article (by Thom Hogan) may be of interest:


I just read Thom Hogan's "Price of Enthusiasm" article on his site. He makes some good points regarding the industry's pricing and the fact they are NOT delivering what the public wants.

This one is worth every penny for the ones who need it. Olympus has it going at the moment with this camera, the two new lenses and that incredible image stabilization. That dropped my jaw! Landmarks!
With cameras (and lenses) like this, not in my wildest imagination I can grasp why people are still considering Dino Single Lens Reflex. The price will come down in the end of course. I expect that the introduction prices of all the other brands will go up substantially as well, due to all the reasons mentioned above.
Its an ongoing process and surely Olympus puts a lot of the innovation of this model in the upcoming E-M5 III. Let's look forward to that.

Oh, the Veblen comment is off base. Look to the Hasselblad Lunar or Leica special editions for conspicuous consumption. This camera is a tool, and as already pointed out, almost a bargain compared to similar performers from other makers. Fuji and Sony can't compare in the field sports arena.

I fear that two grand is the new thousand in camera prices, as camera makers try to figure out how to sustain product development and profits in a shrinking market.

They have to offer new goodies to keep the buyers happy and sustain profits to satisfy the stockholders, all the while fighting for to keep or build market share.

While I'm in a downer mood, I suspect we consumers will also see longer product cycles with smaller discounts -- bad news for people like me who for years have relied on buying cheap at the end of the market cycle.

Here in the UK the new EM1 is priced at £1845, which at the post Brexit exchange rate comes to, hold on to something tight, $2306! In May and June this year I purchased two Panasonic GX8 bodies, with a cash-back deal, for £960. Even today, with the pound in freefall and the Empire sinking, I could still buy a third back-up GX8 for £600, leaving me with some £185 towards another lens.
The GX8 also has a 20 megapixle sensor and I would argue is the better camera for the documentary photographer who doesn't need the high frame rate and better follow focus that the Olympus offers.
I searched in vain for the Miata camera that Mike mentioned before realising that it's what we call the Mazda MX5 on this side of the Pond!

To those comparing the price to the 1DX or D5: check the sensor size differences and concurrent costs... plus battery life... plus CPS and NPS onsite support at major sports events. Etc, etc...

Just speaking for myself I have to say my em-1 mk1 serves me well. No need to spend $2k for a body that will be superseded by another in just a few years.
As others have said a full frame dslr or sony mirrorless can be had for the same or less money. If they serve your needs go for it. Spend your money on the camera that makes you money or makes you happy.
Consider- folks don't bat an eye on spending $600 or more for a "smart" phone these days. The camera in those phones keep most folks happy as well. Maybe $2K for a specialized device is not out of line. For some. Not me.

I am invested in the Olympus system and this camera is a good reason to continue investing in lenses for 4/3 cameras. I'll buy the camera in a year or two when the deals start to roll out, meanwhile saving up for a lens or 2.

I have seen some sample images taken by Jeff Keller with this camera on dpreview. Let's say I'm less than impressed. Noise levels, even at ISO 800, are awful. Compared to my now obsolete E-P1, I'd say the improvement in noise amounts to no more than 1 stop. Frankly, at this price we're entitled to expect a better performance.
In the end you're paying a lot of cash for frills. And that money gets you a full frame body like the highly desirable Pentax K-1. What were Olympus thinking about?

Olympus cameras have always had a bit of "cult" factor about them, and this one is apparently is made to feed into that. It has an accessory battery grip that gives it somewhat the aspect of a Nikon F3 with a motor drive (remember those?)

I think one thing that people may be missing is that this is a pro camera for photos to be viewed on video screens -- it's not really intended to challenge high-end Canons or Nikons for the production of art prints. But when it comes to video screens, it's every bit as good as those cameras are (because of the limitations of video screens) and smaller and lighter and cheaper. (And it'll compete on prints up to ~17x22.)

I'll stick with my GX8s, but this Olympus is a camera I could like a lot.

It seems like a really nice camera but that is a bit steep. That said I recently paid $1600 for an X Pro 2 and will....huge sigh...shell out for the X100 upgrade next year. There is a noticeable improvement in the 24 MP sensor upgrade on the X Pro2 so I can sort of justify it.... :-) I think the real selling point for the Olympus is the IBIS. However, I'm 60 years old and really have no issue with motion blur on the X Pro2 or my X100T. Since my two cameras don't have it, what are people using it for? I can easily hand hold both of those cameras down to 1/30. I'm sure there is some kind of benefit I'm not aware of.

At this price it's certainly not going to win over users from competing systems but it is going to give current M43 users a camera to aspire/upgrade to.

I not the least bit surprised.

The Verge had a good article the other day likening the pricing of the latest Macbook Pros with the camera industry:


The point being that as sales are slowing both industry are moving toward the high end where the margins are higher. Many people don't need to own a camera or a computer anymore, they are becoming specialized tools.

Watching the introductions and pricing of the X-Pro2, X-T2 or the D500 compared to their predecessors and the latest lenses from Olympus, Panasonic or Nikon anyone should be able to deduct that the E-M1 mkII was never going to be cheap. Maybe they even need to charge this price to be taken seriously by pros. Don't price your services too low as Mike has reminded us several times.

Still, entry level customers have never had it better with excellent reasonably priced cameras like the E-M10 mkII that borrows many features, including the sensor, from the models higher up.

This is the sound of the death knell of traditional photo gear. It will be interesting to see how consolidation plays out in the industry, and how all but Canon will likely have to restructure at least a little.

Still, the economic force is strong with guys who "need to have" cool lenses and dedicated cameras.

Just look at Leica transforming itself into a lifestyle brand. As with high-end audio, if you price it high enough, you'll cover your costs even if unit volume is small. Seems like an easy target for a few camera manufacturers, and you should post an article predicting the likely consolidations we're soon to see. (I like Sony buying Nikon, and private equity buying Hassy, Leica, and Ricoh/Pentax.)

And speaking of audio, from the "just sayin'" department:

Mike, I know you like audio gear. If you're not aware, there are big changes afoot in how at least some electrical and software designers understand the role of noise and power and their effect on audio. A few new products based on this knowledge results in sonic differences that are, finally(!), NOT subtle. Bass, pace, and air aplenty when the stars, I mean cables, align. Who knew our digital files had so much bass and detail? (It was there, just masked/distorted away all these 30 some years of "perfect sound forever.")

Guess what? The gear doesn't cost a fortune, and your money is better spent on that, than on glacially "improving" photo gear.

Check out:

A great time in audio, truly.

Sorry, how could I forget to mention made in the USA, super quality and fairly priced Schiit.com?

While I am sure some good quality photos can be made with it, I can't imagine a working professional photographer using Olympus as their primary system.

And I can't imagine anyone making anything other than very static photos with an Olympus because their UI is so convoluted that spontaneity is next to impossible. A thinking photographer wouldn't subject themselves to this kind of torture.

Mike, in my very humble and absolutely personal opinion, there are two basic types of people who buy photo gear. First, people who have specific needs and thus they try to find and consequently buy the gear that satisfies these needs. Second, people who buy gear for all other reasons - status, collecting, because they've read out there that this camera is better than that camera, etc.

Thus, the people in the first category would simply buy this camera sooner or later, depending on their personal financial situation. The people in the second category would, well, they would do otherwise, in the broadest meaning of the word "otherwise".

As for me, I am very happy with my EM1 and 12-40/2.8. Further, speaking of 25/1.2, my Mitakon 25/0.95 is ever so slightly faster, costs 1/3 of Olympus lens and is surely not 3 times worse in terms of results that I am able to produce with it. So I'll pass. I don't NEED the gear just because it has been recently announced and thus it is being extensively discussed on the net.

I'm looking forward to trying this with my 300 mm f2.8, 90-250mm f2.8 and my 150mm f2. I hope for improved AF with the 1.4 and 2x teleconvertors.

If I get quality af at a 1200 mm effective focal length with ibis to steady the Evf handheld, great! I'd be hard pressed to do that with any other system.

In this context, and considering the photos I will soon be taking, the price increase in certainly not a big issue.

I wish Olympus all good fortune, but my gosh two thousand plus lenses at a thousand a pop is a tough sell for anything with an M43 sensor inside it. While the E-M1 Mark II is full of amazing features, the average enthusiast has no need of them and at the end of the day we are left with the image, or print. First reports indicate that the IQ out of this camera really isn't very different from that of the E-M1. Incrementally better for sure but that is all.

To put this in perspective, I could buy the ne plus ultra of fly-fishing equipment (lifespan, 10-20 years) and a year's ample supply of fishing permits in agreeable locations where I am for far less than this. I might be doing quite a bit of fishing next year ... with my trusty E-M1 beside me for those context shots. If I ever spent two thou on a camera, I would want a larger sensor inside it and a sense of money well spent but perhaps I am old school.

Any one remember the $10K Pentax that came out a few years ago? Obviously no one at Olympus. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.

I have an EM1 and two of the Pro zooms. I won't be buying the EM2, though I had planned on it. I've heard it weighs about the same as a Nikon 750. As others have pointed out, we went to MFT for weight and size, knowingly sacrificing some image quality for the portability. Maybe I should have kept my Nikon gear.

Two Grand in the USA could well be three grand in Canada. Plus a minimum of 13 percent sales tax.Have noticed although advertising does indicate availability here, often the lesser brands including Olympus and Pentax as well as other non-main stream cameras are quite literally not found for retail here in this part of Canada. There is no profit margin to be had; then too if one were to ask a possible customer how often they use their smart phone instead of a "proper" camera how many hands would be raised?
The telephone does now what smaller cameras once did with ease.
For those of us who don't even own a cell/mobile telephone in many cases, we are screwed. All photo devices are becoming way too expensive, for the amount of pleasure returned.

I wanted one, was prepared for a shocker price but not a heart attack.
2k is just too much, it doesn't matter how long the list of specs is, it's now in the company of full frame Nikons & Sonys.
The most important spec for me is dynamic range. It seems like the new 20 meg m4/3 sensors are no better in this area than the years older 16 megs were, which is a shame, it basically says that this is as good as these sensors are capable of...
I'd consider payinf the 2k if it gave me the same DR as a Nikon D810 in the smaller package, I don't care about the megapixels...

I think it's partly aiming it at pros, like the D500 and 7DII. Some recent lenses (300/4 comes to mind) and the recently announced Olympus ProVantage program (see Thom Hogan's sansmirror.com site if you're curious) support this. And it's partly the move by all manufacturers to product more high profit margin products. $1600 for the XT2, $1800 for the D500, $1000 for the latest RX100 (!), $1400 for the A6500, the new Nikkor 105/1.4, the Panasonic G85 at $900 (remember when the G series bodies were competitors to entry level DSLRs ?) The whole market is shifting and, it seems, getting used to it. OK, there's an uproar over the price of the EM1-II right now, but people will get over it. It got over the 300/4 at $2500.

Your comment about camera cost as a depreciable cost: my accountant, back in the day, told me to stop fooling around with depreciation and just plain expense the item. Is this not the usual procedure?

Are there any professionals shooting M43, other than video professionals?

Just yesterday I bought a mint Lumix GX1 with two batteries for 165€. Hard to find more camera for less money. Is the EM1II twelve times better camera? Mmmm

To me its extra ordinary. Also its counterintuitive..... The whole point to me of m43 is small size. With Olympus there is also 5 IBIS ....

But the IBIS on the OMD EM5 is already good enough.

I lie between this and my Pentax .... K5 .... Definitely better high iso appointment ....and so for this price MUCH better iso performance ....

Yes for me the whole m43 is lightweight , small and neat. I went recently to the Lakedistrict here with an Em5 , a 12-40/2.8 a 9-18/4 , a 17/1.2 and a 60 mm macro in a tiny bag. It is fantastic for compactness ...but you would be mad I think to choose this system over FF or the APSC of fuji or Pentax for sheer quality.

To be honest given the inane complexity of the albeit nice Olympus bosies one woul be better getting eithr the Panasonic GX80 or G80 ....

Oh and if I were to spend THIS money it would be on the Pentax K1 with quality in a different league

For sure the latest Olympus is expensive. I don't, however, think it's overpriced.

Digital ILC cameras are inherently expensive in a way that film cameras never were. Looking back to a time when DSLRs were a bit niche; Canon's D60 which was one of the early 6mp enthusiast cameras launched at around $2k and the underlying camera was nothing special. DSLRs then took off and became a commodity which had huge price benefits to us enthusiast photographers. As volumes decline prices, I guess, have to head back up to those sort of levels.

I'd also like to add that I really do not buy the thought that Thom Hogan's ideas represent anything other than fiddling around the edges. Indeed unless exceptionally well implemented they risk adding further needless complexity to products which are already intimidatingly complex.

What has sort of stunned me is the amount of commenters who don't believe that micro 4/3 is good enough. Does everyone here print larger than 13x19 on a regular basis? Below that you have to get out a good loupe and go over prints to see even a tiny difference in file quality.

This is based on regular walk around photography. I don't do sports photography or birds in flight photography. In those two disciplines a fast focusing DSLR is better. I don't do low light work either.

Any camera from APS-C down to M4/3 will give me more than satisfactory results, better than my old Rollei SL66, Nikons or Canons from the film era.

Basically, if you own any of the cameras that are mentioned on TOP on a regular basis you have more than enough camera.

Very nice camera but I'm not the market.

If I actually had $2000 to spend, I'd be holding Pen F, a 17/1.8 & a 25/1.8 while saving for a 45/1.8 & 75/1.8.

After that, I'd not buy anything else till those could no longer take pictures and I looked like a little old man clutching his 1935 Leica IIIa searching for a place that sells film 8-)

Please give us an honest ISO 25 or even Tech Pan territory of ISO 3. Having to use Neutral Density filters is a real pain in the backside.

A threaded cable release socket sure would be nice. Don't really need more electronic pieces to carry around.

Those photo bloggers invited on the Olympus trip to Iceland who have shared first impressions and images (William Brawley/The Imaging Resource, Steve Huff, Kevin Raber/Luminous Landscape are the ones whose reports I've seen) have been remarkably enthusiastic about the EM1 Mark 2 and the new lenses. One has the impression that they would consider the new features worth the increased price (though they don't address the issue directly), and that the system is definitely useful professionally. If nothing else, Olympus got some great publicity out of the junket.


Like others (and the author), this seems like a higher price that is justifiable for this class of camera and sensor. There are several other cameras with better performance specs and newer sensor systems for less money.


But the marketplace be the final judge, eh?

Well, the top line "full frame" bodies with fast auto-focus and weather proofing from other makers cost a lot too. Nobody complains about their prices that I've heard. And yes they're full frame, but how many sports shooters make large prints. I don't know why photographers bother with full frame for most needs. Besides, if you add up the amount of money lost in the never-ending upgrades that people seem to buy all the time, that number probably dwarfs this body's price. If people keep it for 4 years instead of 2, it might even save them money.

And I'm getting bored of hearing people say how good phones have become. So what. Some compact point and shoots are good too, but they're never used as examples for why D-SLR cameras will die.

Nothing with an "Art" setting on the main dial deserves $2000. At the VERY least, call that setting something else!

That's a lot words where just one word would suffice.


But to me, the true outrage is that it doesn't have separate AF/AE lock buttons, which, along with a separate exposure compensation or ISO dial, are the two most directly useful features you can have on a camera body.

Personally, I found that beyond the value discussion, Olympus has maybe overlooked that the huge price might be rough with its own user base.

I'm on the market to replace my beat down e-m5, and I don't want that same 4 years old 16MP sensor in the m5 mk II (the PEN-F doesn't do it for me, too gadgetty and not sealed -I live in vietnam) so naturally I was looking for that one but can't afford it.

It looks to me like Olympus is reaching to new users, of course, and is doing so by inflating its prestige status through price while the specsheet was perhaps enough (I don't believe the production cost have risen proportionally).

Perhaps Olympus should introduce a E-M3 line at the price tag the previous E-M1 was ?

For sure, the X-T2 surely started looking *very* interesting.

Or I could buy an equally advanced, top of the line DSLR with 3x the sensor size -- wait, I already did, the Pentax K-1. But what about the 4:3 size advantage? An F4 Pentax lens gives better DOF capability than an f2.8 Oly, and then there's the handy little Pentax Limiteds. And when I saw the new Olympus 300/4, I was surprised that it was larger and heavier than my own Pentax 300/4.

Once upon a time, I was devoted with Olympus cameras. Twice, in fact, with the OM1 and again with the later E-cameras. But no more...

The iPhone 7 is selling more than 1000 dollars in Australia!

Does everyone really think that a pro level camera should cost less than a phone?

What is the purpose of discussing price? If you don't need it, don't want it, or can't afford it, don't buy it; or vice versa.

Could be priced that high so as to make you think what's below it in the range is much better value, and hope you'll buy that. Certainly makes all the Panasonic cameras look to be exceptionally good value, and I'd be far more tempted by their recent offerings... with the 16MP sensor.

I ordered it simply because I've invested so much in Olympus Micro 4/3 lenses, and have used and loved practically to death the E-M1 professionally. Otherwise... the feeling that we're experiencing the last hurrah of "hefty" cameras....

I have two Lytro Illums - one for posterity, the other for extracting depth data for WebVR. They're beautiful, flawed. Lytro will be back amongst us once Hollywood's done refining them, and will be markedly different.

I've signed numerous NDAs with parties dedicated to changing ways of seeing. Everyday image capture's about to change forever. Look at the extraordinary eyes of, say, a mantis shrimp or dragonfly.

And I bought a Pixel XL which, while I likely wouldn't make large prints with, has a phenomenal camera.

Perhaps like the autonomous car that may replace the Mazda I'm two years from paying off, the next "camera" will be nothing of the sort.

I often think of buying an Olympus, like the EM-1 MarkII with their new 300mm f/4 PRO lens. That lens, along with a good macro, and I'd have a killer wildlife kit for wilderness hikes.

Well, some of us just accept the fact that some of the gear is too dear for our wallets. And some of us (me) rejoice when something new in the line comes out, namely, the Nikon D500. It's much more than I need, but I think it caused a price drop in the D7200, to the point where it's much more palatable than before. YMMV.

With best regards,


I think they want to move it outside of the price range of the E-M5 series. With the staggered releases and tendency to discount cameras that have been out for a while, they were competing with each other with similar prices. The question is, will it have enough features over the E-M5 series to justify the price difference?

This new model costs 1/3 less than my last major camera body cost me (my D700), and shows some signs of fixing all the reasons that I've had to keep my D700 in service all these years (my E-M5 is my primary camera for everything except fast action shooting like sports and the worst of low-light situations). It also fixes quite a few of my biggest issues with video (and we released a feature-length concert video shot mainly with M43 equipment including my E-M5).

I pretty much must, logically, drop one system, Nikon or M43; I can't afford to keep both going and upgrading. This expensive body just might be the thing that made the Nikon system dispensable for me; but then again, dropping the M43 and upgrading to some modern but not pro-level Nikons might get me the same things. A big part of my thinking, though, is that flapping mirrors have no long-term future in my photography.

Admittedly, I am an Olympus fanboy. I've got an E-PL5 and an E-M5 II. I had an EM-1, but sold it a year ago.

The E-M1 II appears to be a "killer" camera. In my past life, I took studio portraits of dogs. This would have been the perfect camera--super fast continuous AF, great dynamic range, terrific viewfinder, great flip out screen, durable, wonderful ergonomics and versatile enough to handle a wide range of assignments outside of the studio.

Alas, I will not be purchasing it. As a retiree, it's more camera than I require. My E-M5 II is capable of producing excellent files, especially with the Zuiko Pro and premium lenses.

I'm willing to wait another year or two for the E-M5 III. I'm out of GAS.

Andrew Leinonen has it right, I think. The E-M1 II looks like the most capable camera in the world. The compleat camera. Calling it over-priced and under-spec'd doesn't seem correct.

Except the Olympus UI is a nightmare for me.

I much prefer the Panasonic UI, and while the just announced Lumix G80/85 gives some things away to the E-M1 II, in what I am interested in, it is every bit as good at less than half the price. Further, it has one vital thing that the Olympus is missing -- a built-in flip-up flash that can be used as a trigger for the m43 flash remote control (by light).

So while I admire the Olympus and applaud its wide range of capabilities, I'll be buying the Panasonic.

But it is not a matter of the price. I think the price is fair; possibly a bit low!

Olympus and pricing: They don´t care. About the one or two or three hundreds´ difference to whatever. And: they are doing it right this way, since some decades. Was there ever an Olympus advanced camera not labeled to be too expensive? The OM 1 was 1199 DM with 1,8/50 (now you may call it Euro)in 1972, in 1974 950 DM when I bought it aged 14 plunking nearly all my money; works still fine, so do OM2, OM 4Ti. The E1 was 2500 Euro when released; then the lenses - labeled as too expensive, bought them in those days, use them still - 50 macro, 11-22, later 14-35, work great etc. etc. I appreciate seeing this manufacturer of elegant, well thought innovative systems around, since as many years as written to be on a dead end route, no chance to survive etc. Well, they are doing some things right and they attract enough customers. E-M1 II for 2k won´t hurt anyone and won´t kill ´em now… And let me add – I have to think long and very hard about where to put my few hundreds…so won´t buy it, need a printer…
Best regards
Hans-J. Hertz-Eichenrode

The only possible justification is that it's a sports shooter's camera, for a small fraction of the price of a 1Dx II or a D5. Will we see these start to turn up at smaller newspapers? The barrier is, of course, that the papers already have Canon and Nikon lenses. For anything other than sports, you'd trade off some performance for a better sensor for the same or less money. Yes, it's very rugged, more so than any Canon, Sony or Nikon that isn't a lot more money (except the D500) - but it's not more rugged than Pentaxes that cost a lot less, and it's only arguably more rugged than Fujis that cost somewhat less and have a much better sensor/lens combination. None of those Fujis or Pentaxes will do 15 FPS, though - and none of them have quite that much stabilization... Very desirable for a few specific uses, and it would be a great all-rounder if it were priced significantly BELOW the X-T2 and the K3II (not to mention the K1 if you are OK with the weight).
The other problem Olympus has is the D500 - also pretty much a dedicated sports camera, with a completely standard mount every newspaper has been collecting for half a century. The Nikon shoots a little slower, but probably focuses faster, and it doesn't have the IBIS or 4K video, but it has a better sensor and takes that 300 f2.8 Nikkor on the lens shelf instead of forcing the paper to buy an Olympus lens that is only f4!

I have four M1's, all purchased used or International/Gray or whatever, for an average of ~$750. Haven't had any significant problems with any of them. In 24 months or so I'll be able to start upgrading to mark 2 bodies (probably improved by firmware upgrades by then) for about $1k each. If you are not a first wave buyer and you are an enthusiast these numbers are completely manageable.

In fact, compared to the total dollars many people (not talking about the wealthy here - just members of the great shrinking middle class) spend on their golf game this is completely affordable just as a hobby - it is just that the cash fork-overs come in bigger lumps.

As everyone notes, it is hard to buy a truly bad camera today; so it is just a question of what you want. My personal idiosyncrasy is that I want the most responsive camera I can buy. I want a camera that will guess what I want to do before I know I want to do it. So extremely quick responsiveness is worth a great deal to me. I used Canon RT's back in the bad old days for the same reason - anyone want one, I have a box of them?

For many/most enthusiast photographers the responsiveness of cameras is hardly even a noticeable issue - almost all available cameras are fast enough. So we can then choose the swiveling viewfinder or whatever makes photography more better.

Most of the camera companies are clearly in peril considering current trends - we all know the low end is gone and the middle market is in jeopardy. A friend of mine is taking photos with his new Google/pixel camera that would have easily won camera club awards two+ decades ago.

So I appreciate Olympus making a serious run for the high end of the market, that may be their only chance. I'm going to support them because I think Olympus does a great job of hitting the sweet spot of feature-function-form-usability trade offs and I don't want Sony Canon/Nikon to be the only survivors when the dust clears and we move on to 3D imaging or whatever.

What I most like is when I'm taking images that are so satisfying and interesting that I'm no longer thinking about the camera at all. (But I have to admit, in truth, I had those same wonderful moments 40 years ago dinking around with some little plastic Ricoh camera and cheap Kodak/Fuji film.)

A sports shooter who migrated to m4/3? I'd like to read more about your experiences! Mike, ask Phil to write a guest article!

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007