FYI, Olympus is now offering a free (via rebate) MMF-3 4/3 to m4/3 adapter, FL300R flash, or OM lens adapter with purchase of any E-M5 kit or body in the US or Canada (details at https://us.buyolympus.com/digital-cameras/om-d-system.html). While this isn't on the level of the UK offer (free grip with purchase), we don't pay nearly as much for gear here, so we still come out ahead on overall cost.

I'm assuming that there probably aren't a lot of 4/3 (or OM) lens owners here, but the Oly 70-300 4/3 lens mentioned earlier in this topic apparently auto-focuses passably on m4/3 bodies (for static shots), so I'm looking at grabbing the MMF-3 and that lens, or possibly the very small FL300R flash (already have the new FL600R on pre-order). Either of the 'free' adapters would open up other options for landscape shooters, as well.

I shot with the original 4/3 system, and the light weight part holds. The problems were the C-AF not tracking at all and the lack of a common sense long prime lens like a 300 f4 or 400 f5.6 that would play to the strength of the smaller format. Time would have corrected the sensor issues in my opinion.

When it comes to the micro system, I bought into it with the E-PL1, and it reminded me of everything I hated about point and shoot cameras. I jumped out of it almost as fast as I jumped in. To me, the thoughts I have differ from what is stated here. It would seem to be a great format for a small camera and about 5 compact primes from 7mm to 100mm, and I would love them to fit into a cigar sized box.

It would seem that Oly and Panny believe that zooms should be f5.6 or dimmer for this system??? Oly had nice f2.8-3.5 zooms for the original system. They sure don't seem willing to redesign those for the new mount, or else they are just banking to much selling consumer brightness glass at inflated prices.

To me it seems the once great optical company (Olympus Zuiko) is more than willing to play second fiddle to Panny, as that seems to be the maker of the good glass to me.

I'm content to sitting on the sideline a bit longer to see where the mirrorless systems mature. To me this one needs a 300 f4 plus teleconverters for wildlife.

Panasonic is introducing a 12-35 f/2.8 and a 35-100 f/2.8

There should be a set of F2.0 zooms for m4/3 just like there was on the original 4/3's. F2.8 is a stop gap. It's not really fast enough for the format. (Though it is better than the F5.6 trash.)

There are a number of lenses all the way down to f/0.9 from third party suppliers but no fast zooms as of yet

EJ. Why not Fuji XPro1?

Speaking of which, if I got an E-M5, I'd love something like the holster that comes with the Leica M9 titanium (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=935938908770) with a belt hoop instead of a strap. Does anyone know of something similar?

Not the type of camera I am looking for - I took a close look at it but it's not for me. I need a more fleshed out system. I want the heavier crop factor. The whole point is to get to 600 or 800mm equivalent reach with small light lenses but not giving up professional level results. APS-C still needs big lenses to do that.

I'm not really convinced that you are going to get to 600 or 800m equivalent reach lenses are suitable for professional results with m4/3 just quite yet. The E-M5 is definitely a right step in the direction body wise and the newly coming Panasonic f/2.8 zooms may get there in the short range, but I've yet to see anything that indicates we'll see that for longer lenses. I guess I'm just not convinced that Panasonic or Olympus would see a market for higher priced telephotos. Everything so far in the telephoto end has been sorely disappointing in IQ.

I wasn't talking about manual focus lenses. I was talking about something that would auto focus and do so at a reasonable speed. That's one of the reasons people don't get the 4/3's lenses, they don't focus fast enough on m4/3 to be worth it.

Robin Wong, a Malaysian photographer, has done a pretty extensive test of the E-M5, and has just posted several shots and his impressions shooting with the 75-300 f/4.8-6.7 m43 lens in a large, free-flight aviary. Honestly, for my typical tele use these days (recreational shooting, more zoos and animal parks than wild areas), his shots are quite good - I would be satisfied with the detail he captured, and the camera and lens seem to have performed quite well.

http://goo.gl/EH7RI

The one exception, unfortunately, is constant AF with tracking - he got no acceptable shots in his tests, but admits that C-AF and tracking are not his normal shooting mode, so others may have more success. This is one area where I'm not expecting much from the E-M5, so will be pleasantly surprised with any success I can achieve with it. The 75-300 is still slower and more expensive than I'd like, and I would eagerly jump on a faster zoom or a m43 300 f/4, but given the degraded performance of the Panasonic 100-300 on Olympus bodies, I could see using the 75-300 for the time being. I'll be renting both the Olympus and Panasonic long zooms for testing after the E-M5 arrives - should be interesting to see how they compare.

I used to have the 35-100 f2. It is a heck of a lens, no doubt, but light is not part of the equation.

I personally think that f2.8 makes more sense for a zoom, and even something in a constant f4 or variable aperture would be a better fit for a compact system.

Rick, do realize that Robin is a self professed Olympus fanboy and he even admits he's biased .

Speaking of which, if I got an E-M5, I'd love something like the holster that comes with the Leica M9 titanium (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=935938908770) with a belt hoop instead of a strap. Does anyone know of something similar?[/quote]

I bought a small Kata holster that fits my GH2/14-45 perfectly with a side pocket for my phone. There's also a rain cover included. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732009-REG/Kata_KT_DL_G_12_G_D_Light_Grip_12_DL_Holster.html You wouldn't need something this large with a smaller camera than the GH2. I have it on a belt.

Acknowledged, but I don't think there's anything over the top in the text of that piece, and the images speak for themselves (for my purposes, at least). Perhaps C-AF with tracking won't produce useable shots for anyone, regardless of shooting style, but like I said, I'm not counting on that for much that I do.

I was simply pleased to see somebody post shots from an E-M5 with one of the long m43 zooms - the vast majority of sample shots and previews concentrate on the 12mm f/2, 45mm f/1.8, and the kit lens. I'm still on the fence about what to do concerning anything beyond 100mm equivalent - I'll be keeping my 135 F2L regardless, since I'm keeping my 5D2 for anything that might call for it, but I'll need to test using manual focus and my 300 F4L to see if that's workable and worth carting such a (comparatively) large lens around, or if the 75-300 or 100-300 will give good enough quality in a much smaller package (much like the rest of the m43 system).

HOwever the question remains of IQ. Something like a digital rebel+24-105L can still produce better raw files than the OMD+kit? (or OMD/45mm and rebel+85/50mm.)

But it weighs more and the lenses are full sized. The question is if the image quality is good enough! I urge you to read up on the Christensen Effect: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/speeches/ag080998.htm

Also, the X-Pro1's AF system is no better than the cheapest point and shoot cameras. It's really bad. Changing focus points requires two hands and there is no histogram without putting the camera into playback mode first. Typical Fuji idiocy on the user interface!

Thanks!

Fairly comprehensive review:
http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/review-olympus-om-d-e-m5-oh-my-darling-updated

One thing that does bother me is that in the dozen or so previews and reviews I've read, not a single one even makes mention of RAW file quality. They all rave about JPEG though. Does no one in the micro 4/3 world shoot in RAW???

EJ - that is something you have to get used to in m43, especially on the Olympus side; Olympus does produce fantastic JPEGs, to the point where people who shoot RAW+JPEG often say that they have a hard time matching the out-of-camera JPEG quality when processing the RAWs. Olympus is particularly strong in nailing skin tones, blue skies, and white balance (particularly in complex lighting situations).

I think the concentration on JPEG quality in a lot of m43 coverage plays to the notion that a lot of serious m43 shooters are DSLR converts/"additional system buyers" who, in addition to wanting a smaller, lighter, less-obtrusive camera system, also wouldn't mind something that takes away the necessity to spend hours post-processing in order to get photos they'd be willing to show publicly. For my day-to-day paying work, I'm looking forward to using JPEG for the vast majority of my shots, though will probably shoot RAW+JPEG for safety's sake. The ability to see exposure in realtime in the EVF (in Olympus' shadow/highlight mode - Kirk Tuck has dubbed this "pre-chimping") will allow me to work much faster during a shoot, and those nice Oly JPEGs should dramatically cut down on (or eliminate, in a lot of cases) my post-processing time. I've already turned off shot review on my E-PM1 - it's really not needed unless you're working with flash, as you've already seen what the exposure will look like.

I'll probably still process my best shots from RAW when doing personal work, but the combination of the E-M5 (with its EVF), Olympus JPEG quality, and some recent software on the new iPad (Photoshop, iPhoto, etc), we're getting very close to a world where, for certain types of shooting, a PC will not be necessary. I could, in a pinch, shoot JPEG, download to the iPad, tweak as necessary in iPhoto, and submit the photos for client use over LTE. On top of that, it's hard to imagine a better setup for travel photography - I can pack the iPad, two m43 bodies, and a nice selection of 6-8 lenses in a small bag that was full-to-bursting with a 5D2 and three lenses.