5.10.2012

Why I think the Olympus OM-D, EM-5 is making so many waves.


You would think that, with the earth shattering performance numbers presented by DXO, that the Nikon D800 would be monopolizing the photographic conversation across the web-o-sphere but that's clearly not the case.  The camera of the season is the Olympus OMD.  But, in a disconnect, the cameras most existing professionals will use from now until the near future will be traditional, full frame cameras.  To be more precise, the overwhelming majority of existing professionals will buy and use the Canon 5Dmk3 and the Nikon D800 and it's because they have already bought into a commercial paradigm that is too scary for them to turn away from. And because they are not risk takers.

For the last decade the drumbeat of common knowledge has been to embrace two camera features:  One is the lure of full frame that came from not being able to buy cost effective full frame cameras from Canon until 2007 and not being able to buy any full frame camera at all from Nikon until the introduction of the D3 in 2009.  The other "must have" feature has always been massive resolution.  The more the better.  But crucially, for those with their noses pressed hardest to the paradigm, over 20 megapixels.

The reasons for this selection process are many but I suspect it goes back to the idea that being part of the pack is safer than wondering through the savanna alone. It also paid off in producing images that were high enough quality to pass the test for most clients, be they magazines, ad agencies or direct to businesses.  But part of the appeal is what always makes the Bell Curve relevant = most purchasers are not early adopters, are not on the cutting edge and seek the tried and true solution, vetted by the more adventurous. If they bought a Canon 5Dmk2 a year or two ago they would be able to tell clients that they were shooting with "an industry standard."

A current selection from the big two buys them the same cover.  So why all the noise about the Olympus?  I think that people have, for years, understood that it was possible to reduce the size, weight and costs of camera systems with new technology.  Nikon and Canon had lots of legacy lenses in the pipeline and a leadership position in large sensors so it didn't make sense for them to embrace new lens mounts and new camera sizing.  Olympus tried to compete with their four thirds cameras but their dependence on a moving mirror technology meant that the cameras couldn't be reduced in size enough to make a difference when viewed next to their competitors.

By removing the mirror altogether Olympus could now make (in the micro four thirds space) a line of cameras based around a much smaller lens mount.  That meant the cameras could be much smaller too. And the actual lenses.

The first few iterations were aimed in the right direction but issues abounded.  Especially for professionals.  The lack of a built in eye level finder meant sacrificing the hot shoe in exchange for viewfinder usability.  The focusing was too slow.  The response of the cameras was slow for professional work.  And the sensor they were using in the EP1, EP2 and even in the EP3 didn't perform at the level of the their APS-C competitors.

The demand for a small camera was clearly there.  At least for a huge number of non-professionals who didn't need big bodies to impress clients, giant lenses for sports magazine work, or the safety of the herd mentality.  The ones who would embrace a great, small camera system were the same ones who restlessly rotated between Panasonic LX-5's,  Canon G12's, Leica X1's and a series of small interchangeable lens cameras from Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Samsung.  They were all looking for the same thing:  A cost effective package that, when used well, would create the same kind of results, on paper or on screen,  they were getting from a Canon 7D or a Nikon D7000 but in a smaller package with much smaller lenses.

Last year was a turning point for the micro four thirds systems.  Part of the momentum in their direction was created by the introduction of four new lenses that the segment desperately needed.
The Olympus 12mm 2.0 and 45mm 1.8 added critical focal lengths and lens speeds the market had been asking for.  The 25mm 1.4 added the normal lens mastery (hello HCB) that had been missing and the announcement of the 70mm f1.8 by Olympus signalled that they were committed to making serious camera equipment again.  Deep breath.

When the OM-D hit it became an instant hit (back-ordered everywhere) because of three critical features:  A set of lenses people wanted, at one third the size of similar lenses for traditional digital cameras.  Very fast and sure autofocus.  And the image quality that the market had been demanding.  The camera now achieves an image quality at parity with it's similarly priced competitors. And that is it's most compelling new feature.  Parity.

The market wanted the size reduction.  The market wanted the cool lenses.  The market wanted fast and sure autofocusing.  But they were not willing to give up perceived image quality of existing cameras in exchange for the benefits of the size and weight reduction.  When Olympus removed IQ barriers all of the other features were unleashed to become market drivers.

While people can argue the relative merits of OVF versus EVF for as long as they have breath, the tipping point for the entire mirrorless catagory is the adaptation of high quality EVFs.  It is so for Sony, Panasonic and Olympus. And, as the fastest growing category of serious cameras it will drive EVFs into the other segments of the market at a much greater speed. The EVF makes all the cameras all terrain photo tools.  From high sun to no light.

The OMD is nicely designed and feels good in the hand.  The finder works well but it is not this camera per se, that is moving the market, rather it is the confluence of technology, the desire to physically downsize systems and the desire to lower costs that make the camera an important mile stone.

Another aspect that is rarely mentioned is the relatively open standard of the lens mount.  Something that is not currently lost on Canon users.  I've read statements by quite a number who would like to get into the Nikon system in order to leverage their perception that the performance of the new D800 is a must have for their market niche.  The barrier is the need to totally exchange all of their Canon lenses for Nikon lenses.  They will lose money.  And, sadly, when Canon comes out with their 54 megapixel, full frame camera in a year or two the same users will lose money switching back.  If you limit your system choices to variants in the micro four thirds segment you can freely invest in bodies from different makers and still use the lenses you've selected.  And, for the most part, they will be lenses optimized for the sensor size.

The reality as I see it is this:  Most of the cameras on the market right now, that have recent sensors of 16 megapixels and more, will do a good job creating the files we need for most of our uses.  In web advertising, most print, all newspaper, high res monitor display, etc. the 12 megapixel cameras dating back to the Nikon D2X are all perfectly capable.  The newest cameras offer lower high ISO noise.  Fees are flattening for most professional work.  It could be because people's approach to photography is pretty much homogeneously aligned.  (and that is not necessarily a dig at the capabilities of the photographers as so much work is driven by client desires, comprehensive layouts and expectations.)  It could be because of market forces.  But clients now understand, perhaps better than their suppliers, that tour de force photo tool inventory isn't nearly as important as it once was and, that by any measure  even the less expensive tools are of such high quality today that, practically, they are interchangeable.

Once professional photographers catch up they will return to the time honored marketing tradition of selling their personal vision instead of their technical inventory.  At that point they'll consider the same cameras that their hobbyist counterparts are embracing today.  And for all the same reasons.

It's good to remember that in the age of the Nikon F2 and the Canon F1 that the most popular professional photographer tool was the Nikon FM or the Canon AE-1.  Both were small, light and capable. Neither were originally aimed at professionals but were quickly adopted for many of the same reasons m4:3rds is in ascendency today:  Smaller, lighter, easier to use, cheaper and just as good image quality.

The Olympus is selling like hot cakes not because it is so good (and it is a very good camera) but because it represents a tipping point into a sea change of camera buying by most serious amateur photographers.  The fact that it has been anointed by no less than DPR is a testimony both to the camera and also to the prescience of the uber-marketers that the dam has indeed broken for a whole category and that the lines between camera types are being erased.

If you can't imagine them prying your hands off your "full sized" body or your eye from your optical viewfinder, and you can't imagine not hearing the clickty clack of your mirror banging around as you shoot photographs then you may be the newest iteration of all those people who, in the early part of this century, were still resisting any experimentation with digital imaging and  predicting that it would be years at least, and maybe decades, before digital technology would be as good as film......

The OM-D is the lighting rod.  It's the shot over the bow that says this (the sector)  is both good enough and, in many ways, better.  The real alternative?  Big ass medium format.  But that's a whole nother blog.

The traditional, big DSLR?  Quickly becoming the Firebird Trans Am of an older generation.  Wearing their Members Only jackets and revving up their engines... While the world drives by in a Prius.  Or, are you still using your Motorola Brick cellphone instead of an iPhone?

Finally, everyone I know has asked if I have an OMD, if I have one on order, if I'm getting one from somewhere.  And if not, when?  The reality is that while I like the camera just fine and would love to own one I'm intrigued by rumors of a new Panasonic GH3.  I'm still having fun with the Sony's and I'm in no rush.  It's all fun.

Additional reading: http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/01/its-new-year-im-playing-with-new-camera.html





45 comments:

John Krumm said...

Sure, make fun of the Member's Only jacket my wife bought me in the eighties. At least I didn't have a Firebird, just an old Tercel. I'm waiting just a bit on the OMD too. Might want a GH3, might want an E7 (in whatever form) and might get the old school D800. We'll see around next fall sometime.

Stefan Sorin Chiripuci said...

Just saying I don't want to live in a world that drives by in a Prius.
It is one of the most poluting cars ever made and at highway speeds it is less fuel efficient than a BMW M3.

And thank you very much, my 7 years old Motorola is still the weapon of choice if I need a phone in the wild. 5 days battery time and no signal problems vs 1.5 days of the IPhone is a no brainer.

Just want to point out that there are different tools for different jobs.

And right now, if you are willing to put up with the weight, you can pick up any top tier DSLR and tackle any job with a high degree of success. That can't be said yet about mirrorless cameras(all of them have a fault somewhere).

John Krumm said...

Stefan are you joking about the Prius? My wife has one. Consistently gets about 50mpg on our highway (at 55-60mph). Great car. But I agree about old school "dumb" phones and battery life.

kirk tuck said...

Stefan, YMMV.

Phil Service said...

As I said here when it was first announced, a crucial factor in the success of the OM-D EM-5 will be autofocus performance. The same could probably be said about the future of m4/3 as a replacement format for larger-sensor DSLRs. Well, that, and whether or not people will be willing give up their OVFs. Kirk, you had a brief flirtation with the Nikon V1. The one technology that the Nikon 1 cameras have, that I think is crucial for the future of mirrorless cameras (again, as replacements for traditional SLRs) is on-sensor phase detection AF. Despite the V1's limitations, that one feature, together will small size and small lenses, is what makes the V1 a fun camera that is easy to carry all day. I'm sure that contrast detection AF will improve, and may already be good enough for most people most of the time. But I think that on-sensor PDAF will be necessary in order to approach (perhaps equal?) the AF performance of DSLRs.

kirk tuck said...

a good point. Especially for sports photographers. There will always be niche fields that will require different tools. When I wrote the essay I was thinking about the vast rest of us who walk up to an object or person, pull the camera to our eye, compose, lock focus, shoot. I wasn't thinking about the other one percent...

Wataru Maruyama said...

Took the E-M5 this past weekend to Gilroy Gardens and it was a joy to use. The EVF was great under the bright sun, the 4fps w/af mode worked well for capturing my fast moving kids, the whole kit was compact, and the generous buffer never left me waiting (and I shot all raw too). Seems like the buffer doesn't get as much mention as the other headline features, but I think it's very noteworthy since this is a feature other manufacturers seem to be cutting back on at all price points.

Unknown said...

Insightful post Kirk. As an owner of the FF 5DmkII w/L Glass arsenol and now an OMD, I concur with your thoughts on the paradigm shift. This is a shot across the bow of the FF mindset and, while this may not the body of choice for many, there will be more to follow. the OMD does indeed meet the needs and then some. After only five days with the E-M5 and a few lenses, I feel like I've been party to blindly accepting whatever the big two provided us. The OMD's preformance confirms what I always suspected - that full features, flexible customization, fast focus and light weight can be had without compromising image quality. I may not sell the FF (...yet), but the OMD has already created a fundamental change in approach to what I use and when. The open standard for lenses is liberating to say the least. Welcome back OM - we missed you.

John Krumm said...

It's surprising, though, just how decent the AF performance is on these m43 cameras, at least with the most recent generation. And the newer lenses help a lot too. I just received my 45 1.8 in the mail today, and it's quick and quiet (unlike my 20mm 1.7). Really nice to use on my GH2, even if it looks like a mismatch.

Dennis said...

I'm almost with you on the reasons, Kirk, with just one addition (built in EVF). I think there's been pent up demand for small mirrorless systems for years; the Oly Pen was the first sign that we'd finally see what we wanted, but it's taken until now for anyone to put the pieces together. The lenses (as you said). Autofocus is important, though I think a lot of people would "settle" for the AF performance of, say, Sony NEX. The new Oly is the the first one to offer a built in VF (and the tilting LCD which is present in one of the pens). And versus Panasonic (G3) it offers better IQ, image stabilization, and better control. If I didn't already own a NEX, I'd probably have an E-M5, Pan 20/1.7, Oly 45/1.8 and a zoom lens on order right now.

Stefan Sorin Chiripuci said...

@kirk tuck:
That was selfunderstood. Also, everything I write is YMMV. And YMMV the world isn't made of 99% and 1% but of small groups of 3-4 %.

@John Krumm
I was exagerating for the sake of hyperbole but check this (alebit tong-in-cheek) video from the Brits at Top Gear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=badoMjA_rW0

Charles said...

SAF performance is already here. I agree CAF performance isn't there... yet. When Olympus came out with the E-M5 they said in interviews that CAF was really just a problem of reading and processing the data fast enough. Based on the results it seems like Oly has made some big improvements with the OM-D and if they are right it will get better as processing gets faster. Photographers that rely on CAF will have to stick with traditional PDAF systems until CDAF matches it and probably exceeds it. (There is arguably more information captured they can look at for tracking with CDAF than PDAF, just need to process it)

PDAF inherently has problems with front/back focusing, calibration, benefiting from different motor systems (maybe?) and adds additional cost and complexity to the final product. I don't see Oly or Panasonic going that direction.

kirk tuck said...

Stefan, I figured that was the case as it is for me as well.

kirk tuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Krumm said...

Thanks, watched it, funny. I also notice a 5mpg drop when my wife drives it compared to me... now back to cameras. Is the OMD a Prius anyway? Seems more like a Miata, albeit with he top on.

Steve said...

I'm loving my O-M5, in fact the second body arrived today. I've been a micro 4/3 user since the G1 (also GH1, first Pen [actually I have the first Pen film too], GH1, E-P3 and GH2 as well). Oh, and I was using my A55 yesterday (disaster, as Eye-Fi card failed a second time). I find the controls rather fiddly on the Oly's (both size and configuration), and much prefer the Panas in this respect, but the v/f and LCD on the GH2 are so poor in comparison with the E-M5 and E-P3.

kirk tuck said...

It's a Mini Cooper S.

John F. Opie said...

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Back in the 1930s, cameras were large, unwieldy things that took time to learn and master, didn't take many photos, and were extremely high quality. Then a small upstart came along, took bits and pieces from various technologies and then created something new that was fast, was fairly easy to learn and not nearly as hard to master, and took lots of photos of moderate quality, but quickly improved until there came a point where, for the vast majority of those taking pictures, there wasn't any real difference.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

4/3 is, for many committed to their legacy systems, heretical: it does not genuflect before the gods of FF and do them proper homage. Instead, it just works.

The real scare of 4/3 is standardization: Panasonic lenses work on Olympus bodies just fine, and the obverse is also true. Via an adapter you can mount, literally, anything you want on the system. Sure, it's manual, but if you are interested in this, you'll be savvy enough to work it out. As Kirk pointed out, FF is proprietary.

In this day and age, standardization is everything, proprietary is a dead-end street.

Silvertooth said...

I'll take the Mini Cooper S with an OM-D in the passenger seat.

Carlo Santin said...

Well I still shoot with a 6mp Nikon D50. I'm not sure what that makes me. I do have some decent Nikon glass for it and the images are still pretty terrific, even up to its limit of ISO 1600. I also own an Oly EP-2, a Samsung NX100, and a little Nikon P7100. Honestly, my best images still come from the D50, and it's the camera I never really tire of shooting with. I know that camera like I know the roof of my own mouth. I'm still not thrilled with EVFs but I'm keeping an open mind. I'm sure the new Olympus is a fine camera and I would probably love it if I were to buy one. The Nikon D800 seems really sweet as well. After using several small camera systems for the last little while I find the size of the camera/lens doesn't really matter to me a whole lot, it's more the overall shooting experience with the gear, and whether or not I am inspired to reach for the camera.

Unknown said...

During the 1950s they were still shooting News and Sports with 4x5 Graflex camera -- my, how things have changed.

The older I get, the less inclined I am to carry big/bulky/heavy cameras. It's the size of my talent, not the size of my camera, that counts. YMMV.

c.d.embrey

David Blanchard said...

"...the most popular professional photographer tool was the Nikon FM or the Canon AE-1..."

The Nikon FM was my first 35mm film camera -- um, my ONLY 35mm film camera. I used it from 1981 through 2010. It was replaced by a FF camera - the Nikon D700.

Looks like I'm STILL behind the curve here...

Stefan Sorin Chiripuci said...

[disclaimer] the following post is tongue-in-cheek and is writtent withouth any evil/mean intent:

I agree with the fact that the OM-D is like a Mini Cooper S.
Meaning it's something highly competent but extremely expensive for what it does, advertising a sort of legacy it doesn't really have and being desired mostly by girls and men with a serious case of mid-life crysis ;).

Unknown said...

I have both the OM-D and the V1, i took the OM-D down to the beach today to shoot some surfing and let me tell you, the Continuous AF is miserable at best. I'm going to take the V1 down tomorrow and give it a go to see if it performs any better than the OM-D i might just hang on to it for the occasional action photography.

Michael R pdx said...

I'm using all those GH3 rumors to keep from buying an OM-D. (Thanks for the help!) Don't know what rumor I'll hang on to save myself when the GH3 arrives.

Eric said...

Taking down the full frame elite is one thing, but dissing Trans Am and Member's Only Jackets at the same time...? That is bordering on sacrilege!

Joking aside, I agree with most of the points you mentioned in your commentary. There is a huge pent up demand for lighter and smaller gear. The OM-D seems pretty close to what APS-C digital slrs can do in terms of performance! Nikon and Canon would be making tons of money if they made their pro/amateur gear lighter and smaller. (Even if they kept the same lens mounts, I would imagine it should be possible for them to do so...)

Nevertheless, I think that there is an inherent schizophrenia among the photography blogging community.

On the one hand, a certain percentage of photographers (both amateur and pro) state that "The camera doesn't matter. Only the photographer matters."

The moment a new camera comes out, we all obsess about the latest and greatest advance in sensor technology. In some cases, we jump ship, sell all our lenses and move on to an entirely new system or brand.

Even among those who agree that "the camera doesn't matter", they get defensive and feel they have the need to defend what gear they are shooting.

However, the reality is that, technique and composition aside, the gear can limit what picture the photographer can or cannot take. The advances in sensor technology are gradually removing these limitations for small (micro four thirds) and full frame.

Finally, we all love buying near gear and the coolest toys. Why be defensive about that?

Marcelo Guarini said...

Excellent writing Kirk. Now, I'm enjoying my E-P3 with 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f1.8 and my E5 with 14-35 f2. I'm not in a hurry, I to will wait and see what is coming. In fact, having the money, I decided to buy the Voigtlander 17.5 f0.95 instead of the E-M5 body. I'm now getting used to it.

Condor said...

On the contrary, I think most pros use full frame because, why not? If you are at most professional shoots, you've got lighting, scrims, a studio, and all this other yadda yadda. Who cares if the camera is a little bigger, especially if it is also better. I don't think resolution is so much of an issue for most pro work these days, but noise and dynamic range are, and a larger sensor is still better as far as that goes.

The "pros" that might be interested in m4/3 are those who are involved in more candid sort of work, travel/ethnic photographers, maybe wedding photogs for the candid part of the session, maybe some photojournalists. In other words, those that used to use 35mm instead of medium format for pro work, and also those who really needed a small and portable camera system.

These remain "amateur" cameras IMO, not because the IQ is so bad, but because the attractions appeal primarily to those who value compactness most highly, which are people who are walking around with a camera 90% of the time and actually shooting only 10% of the time, namely an amateur.

Given your pro work, I don't see any particular reason to use m4/3. I think you do it just because you can -- and also because you like the little cameras for your personal use.

diforbes said...

I'd like to move to smaller cameras eventually for my pro work, however, I think patience in this sector will be rewarded, especially for those of us who have never used a mirrorless APS-C or m4/3 camera. The OM-D is just the first of more to come from Olympus. I've handled the EM-5 and I'm fine waiting for a better EVF and better handling (larger buttons and more grip w/out paying extra). Fuji needs more lenses and to fix its AF performance. Canon has yet to weigh in.

kirk tuck said...

All true. I think my blog spoke to the wave of change, not to the necessity of grabbing hold of the first well done interation of the species...

Unknown said...

I normally have enough Profoto Watt Seconds to remove the paint from a car. Noise and dynamic range are not a problem. If the camera is on a FOBA camera stand, weight is not a problem, if I have to hand-hold the camera, weight becomes a problem. YMMV

c.d.embrey

JJ Semple said...

Why not stick with the Sonys? They seem to produce excellent results...

Clay Olmstead said...

This echoes my thoughts. If you're getting the results you want and don't have to think about the gear too much, you're good to go. If there's something it won't do for you, then you think about switching.

These blogs remind me of the dropouts that used to hang out behind the high school, seeing if they could get one of the sophomores to get high. I can see Kirk hanging out in in the alley behind Precision Camera, an XZ-1 rolled up in his t-shirt sleeve, saying, "Hey kid, you wanna try something - different?"

Scott O. said...

Any thoughts on low light performance? I'm thinking back to a trip to Rome where tripods are forbidden inside churches/cathedrals, yet they offer some fantastic photo opportunities. With a D7000 and D700, I can't imagine lugging one of these (with reasonably fast lenses) around Europe in the middle of a hot summer (ok, I already swore I'm not going back in the summer, but I digress). My gear at that time was a E620, which was miserable in low light, though was nice and compact for a DSLR. Would love to find that happy medium where it's more than a travel camera, but doesn't scream "hey, look at that guy's huge camera." Does the OM-D fit the bill?

Govis said...

Olympus is making waves, as they have in the past. They have yet to be able to make any kind of system stable for the long term. Their partner, Panasonic, has started to hemorrhage money.

I know where I'd keep my money as a professional, until I saw which way the wind was blowing.

dario sartini said...

tripods forbidden inside churches of Rome ???
first time I hear such a thing.
and I live in Rome ...

qlakk said...

I think you are saying that the world is discovering they don't really need any longer DSLR but for high end / specific shooting. I agree. There is a real double shift: mass-consumers P&S have been outmoded by smartphones, and entry level / enthusiastic DSLR by mirrorless. Not so true right away, but the trend is so obvious, one can say that will be very true in less than a few quarters. Strangely, in this move, the main players are still milking cash cows, and both Nikon and Canon are faking they don't move like the others. One by trying to preserve its cash cow D3xxx / D5xxx thanks to a weird concept (Nikon and its V1/J1), the other by refusing releasing mirrorless camera but an expensive upgraded high-end compact (GX1). Olympus and Panasonic have the more mature system, and like you I am also expecting a great GH3. So no surprise here, they can lead the game of great mirrorless. Fuji's concept looks great to me too, like a Leica-killer. I don't expect Leica to really move differently, so I assume that the next questions will be the answer of Nikon and Canon to this irresistible growth or mirrorless, as, so far, their answers looks to me very temporary!

Rick Baumhauer said...

Hard to imagine a better travel camera than the OM-D right now - the files are excellent to ISO 3200, perfectly usable at 6400. I carry an E-M5, E-PM1, four lenses, two strobes, a tiny LED ringlight, extra batteries, etc. in a ThinkTank ChangeUp bag that will hold one prosumer DSLR and 2-3 lenses.

kirk tuck said...

Why not have both and choose the one you want to use at the moment?

Anonymous said...

Stating pros of old choose the Nikon FM over the F1 was because they had the same image quality is redundant. Film cameras don't have "image quality" as a feature, only the film does. Also, the entire "herd mentality" is pretty condescending.

Anonymous said...

The above comment is stupid.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous number two is correct. The comment of the first Anonymous is stupid. And useless.

Anonymous said...

Since over 1 year I was waiting to buy the Nikon D800 and had already some lenses into my head such as the Nikkor DC105mm2.0 and Zeiss 21mm. However since I saw the OM-D , I'm not sure anymore. I still own an OM-1, OM-2 and OM-4 and have 2 Zuiko's 50mm1.4, a Zuiko 70-150mm4.0 and a Vivitar 24mm2.8. The fact that I can use these lenses on the OM-D is a plus, aswell there are Panasonics, Leica's, Voightlanders and new super one's from Zuiko. I shoot landscapes,macro,space and people.Important for me : bokeh, image-quality and sharpness. So question : will the OM-D with prime lens give the same boheh & quality as a Nikon D800/700 with the DC105mm or 85mm1.4 ?

Lee Lewin said...

Interesting to read an article from the archives. A great read. Thanks.

We are now approaching 2014. I am about to get an EM5 for a song... and feel late to the party. I am not worried about being taken seriously by clients... I let my work speak for me.
Mirrorless is the future. As soon as Canon and Nikon get serious about it, all of their fanboys will join the dark side. Those big, clunky machines will go the way of Tube TVs and old PCs.

The Photography Indonesia said...

Thanks for review, it was excellent and very informative.
thank you :)