43 Rumors

Hmm your link to Kirk’s post is erroneous, currently it drives us to some rants against the e-m5

Correct link is probably http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.fr/2012/05/invitation-to-coffee-that-will-almost.html

Black EM-5 + Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 is PORN.

> 14.200 (with the Olympus setting being at 25.600

SMART, so ISO 6400 is actually 3550 in real life. That explains things

Hmm, I’m now wondering if I shouldn’t just wait for an e-p4 with built-in rangefinder-style EVF, now… With the new sensor, would be kinda perfect camera for me.

+10000, for what its worth

OAH, this shot at ISO 6400, while resized, is quite amazing for 43 http://fourthirds-user.com/sample_images/365/OMD60510.jpg

Burp. They should really stop with crappy fx and “art” filters… what most people want is raw quality, editing can and should be done in external software. Just my humble opinion though.

Art Filters === Filtered Art.

Wouldn’t be the same size methinks :/

For the records, xnConvert Mac (which is free and available in the App Store), can also open and convert these raws to PNG. I confirme the excellent results so far.

Amazing, of course!

OK finally managed to open RAWs using Raw Photo Processor, and results are great, 3200 ISO is impressive and 6400 looks to be useable for small prints. Only colors get a bit off when sensibility increase, quite normal and recoverable. Quite impressive.

As a side note, is there a way to change my vote?

Definitely too much smoothing in these JPEG for my taste.

BTW, does a software that can read these RAW files exist already?

New full size sample shots taken with OM-D!! http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1381/compact-olympus-om-d-e-m5-exemples-photos-15.html

I keep wondering how they can ship a weather sealed camera with art filters an an iAuto mode. They’re missing something obvious here. They should concentrate on driving the market, not to make such compromises trying to address it.

EXIF data say these shots have been taken using firmware 0.8, so the results are probably not the definitive ones.

Couldn’t we just keep quiet waiting for reviews made against the definitive software?

Quite good results so far (I’m *not* talking about the art filtered crap), but a bit too much smoothing for my taste… I guess it relates to the JPEG engine settings used, and that it’s tweakable…

Ah, and for the records, here are part of EXIF informations retrieved using exiftools: https://gist.github.com/1826656

I’m definitely impressed. I’ll of course wait for deeper reviews to definitely make my mind though.

As a funny side note, looks like panasony trolls are there allready http://www.amazon.de/review/R3F5TWQ0EIGP1W/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3F5TWQ0EIGP1W