>>1777589 (OP)
I'm gonna go with the OMD. It is the only weather sealed one out of the lot.

That obviously depends on what kind of imperfections are the least annoying to you.

File: 1352920409978.jpg-(239 KB, 630x419, 299564-panasonic-lumix-dm(...).jpg)

GH3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	762
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	66 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:09:13 12:10:35
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	4000
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	66.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 1352921570201.jpg-(550 KB, 1000x672, xe1meh.jpg)

>>1777589 (OP)
I'd pick the OM-D. My boss gave me the X-E1 for a few days and idk, besides the amazing sensor, it's a rather slow camera, at least in my view.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:11:14 20:29:23
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	672

>>1777601
I kinda miss the viewfinder like on the other X cameras. It kinda gave it something to stand out from all the other compact mirror less cameras.

>>1777605
That's true, but the X-E1's electronic viewfinder isn't bad either.

>>1777605
Sent the price through the roof, too, unfortunately.

If its going to be your only system, OM-D

If you already have a DSLR setup and want something like a rangefinder, XE-1

If you want to go full retard, NEX-6

Only an idiot would pick anything other than the X-E1.

>>1777842
>2012
>Having shitty, unreliable 2005-level autofocus

>>1778675
From what I've seen, X-E1's autofocus is perfectly manageable. Not as lightning quick as on lolympus, but shouldn't hold most people back.

>>1777842
motivate

>>1777842
Or someone who wants to use superwide, macro, telephoto lenses. Or any manual lenses. Or needs features like quality video, very fast AF, fps, wireless TTL flash, weather sealing, etc.

Generalizations are fucking stupid.

File: 1353013651589.jpg-(189 KB, 1024x683, 8103359523_f41267381d_b.jpg)

>>1778694
>no manual lenses
Lol, suddenly just because a camera doesn't have Focus Peaking it's automatically bad for manual lenses.

The X-E1 is the best from the three, unless you're really looking for something very specific.

>>1778696
Not him, but I've always been curious about using manual focus lenses with electronic viewfinders, and not the screen on the back. Is it difficult to see in the viewfinder how accurately something is in focus?

>>1778696
>suddenly just because a camera doesn't have Focus Peaking it's automatically bad for manual lenses
It's not that it's *bad*, but comparing it to a camera with peaking is like comparing a Smena 8M to a rangefinder. And even without peaking, Sony has a better EVF.

>The X-E1 is the best from the three, unless you're really looking for something very specific.
Yes, like a telephoto lens. Super specific stuff.

As I've said, broad generalizations are fucking stupid.

>>1778703

Don't the Sony and Fuji both have the same resolution EVFs (2.4million dots or whatever)?

>>1778701
Well, there are three ways to do it. You can just focus like you would with a plain SLR optical finder, in which case precise focus takes some guesswork or bracketing, since the EVF is visibly grainy (even on NEX-6). You can zoom part of the frame for very precise focusing, more precise than what is possible with any optical system, but that requires extra button presses and often throws off your framing. Finally, on NEX there's the "peaking" mode that highlights the areas of maximum contrast in red, which is the only way comparable to a split-prism screen or a rangefinder as far as speed plus accuracy go (but the red outlines can be distracting)

>>1778703
I just said out of 3 cameras 1 is the best. That's hardly a generalization.

But yes, if you want to shoot fast action, want telephoto lenses, need the quickest AF and perhaps other very specific stuff, the X-E1 is not ideal.

For pretty much everything else, including general use, street, portrait and low light, the X-E1 is the clear winner.

And the EVF from the NEX-7 (is it the same on the NEX-6) has the same resolution of the X-E1, the NEX just has a better refresh rate.

>>1778705
Dots, yes. But both NEX-7 (and by extension, 6) and OM-D have a significantly higher refresh rate, which is also very important.

>>1778707
As someone with a NEX-5n also, the peaking is far from being ideal or even comparable to a rangefinder. Just saying.

I often prefer to use the 3x magnify option to focus.

>>1778710
It's not as fast as a rangefinder, but allows you to focus off-center without re-framing. And works on telephotos and macros, though I don't see many people sticking them on NEXs.

Slightly unrelated, what's keeping companies, specially Fuji from creating a digital rangefinder/prism? With a smaller box inside the EVF with a magnified image, like a PiP TV?

>>1778707
Hm, I see. Thanks.

>>1778718

Not the same person, but leading on from that point, why do companies flat out refuse to create a digital rangefinder? It's not impossible, seeing as Leica has done it for years. And if they're worried about a lack of sales, look how popular the X100 was for its looks alone, and I mean Leica can charge the same price as a fucking car for their digital rangefinders, and they still sell.

>>1778732
Because a digital rangefinder like a Leica requires an actual rangefinder, R&D costs and it's very niche. A PiP prism-like function is all implemented by software and it's cheap as fuck to develop and implement, and will ultimately by just an extra function, like focus peaking.

>>1778718
ehm, there's one manuf that does magnification like that.. forgot which one.

>>1778718
I would cum buckets for this.

However I'm not actually sure it'd be possible without having the same disadvantages as it currently does or the same disadvantages as optical rangefinders.

If it just had a small patch that read directly off the sensor, you'd have the same problem of focusing as you do off a dSLR viewfinder without a focus screen. If it was instead achieved by a separate feed, not only would they have to produce mechanically coupled lenses but it'd also suffer from the inability to focus closer than X#cm/feet. That's with an optical viewfinder with a projected RF patch. I mean, I'd rather have this than focus peaking, but I can't see it happening any time soon

For a purely digital finder, it may actually require more mechanical precision, because the rest of the view would also need a good depth of field in order to create a good base to overlap the rf image onto. If it read directly off the sensor it'd look weird as shit

>>1778718
I saw cameras that did that. But while a smaller box with a magnified image may sound good on paper, it's distracting in practice and not really better than a full-screen magnified view.

And if you meant a faithful reproduction of an optical rangefinder - that is, aligning two images produced through different optical paths - then you obviously need a second sensor and lens, precisely aligned, which is bullshit.

>>1778732
Because it's not worth it, the market is too limited to spend so much on designing and producing a completely new and very mechanically complex camera, plus a new line-up of similarly complex lenses to go with it.

>>1778742
> If it was instead achieved by a separate feed, not only would they have to produce mechanically coupled lenses but it'd also suffer from the inability to focus closer than X#cm/feet.

The lenses can be electronically coupled. Contax had that many years ago.

A bigger problem would be scale and parallax, as if one of the feeds is TTL and the other non-TTL and you don't know the precise geometry of the mounted lens, it would be near-impossible to correct for it. Filters would be impossible to use. Oh, and overall this kind of camera would combine most drawbacks of a traditional RF, especially regarding the choice of lenses, with most drawbacks of digital mirrorless, while offering very little of the advantages.

Brain says Nex or OMD. My heart says x-e1 (Dat sensor, bokeh, styling).

>>1778796
Go by heart.

>>1778796
Xpro 1 owner - go by heart. You'll pick the camera up *that* much more often when it's as fun to shoot as it is

>>1778796

Depends on what you shoot. If youre not planning to use it for something specific like sports, macro, nature or shoot any decent video then go with the XE-1.

>>1778817
>>1778819
Funny how this argument is never applied on /p/ to Leica gear and such

>>1778824
Sure it is!

P.s. the NEX7 is so fucking fun to use

>>1778824
It's because digital Leica's aren't as affordable as X-series cameras. It's also the reason I shoot Canon over Nikon/Pentax/Sony etal - I prefer the way the controls are arrayed, the way zoom/focus rings orient, etc and I'm therefore more likely to shoot with a camera if I'm more likely to pick the thing up.

Starting to disturb myself how often I take the Xpro over the 5DII these days

Gonna have to go with the OMD. That weather sealing makes me feel secure about taking it to the beach and not worry about splashes and dust getting in.

>>1778858

I know that feel.

>Shooting at a surf contest this weekend
>OM-D + Panasonic 35-100mm
>50% chance of rain
>0 fucks given

>>1778858
Actually, salt water is just as bad for a 'weather proof' camera as it is for a non weather proof camera. I have a D7000 (not fully weather proof, I know) and took it to a harbour after this big storm blew in, the salt spray alone got on the hotshoe and caused major corrosion because I didn't know it was there and never cleaned it off. Ended up having to send the camera to Nikon to have it replaced. So, any camera you purchase no matter it be a K-5, OM-D, D7000, or T3i remember to purchase a rain cover if you're gonna be getting wet and it's salt water.

>>1778858
Enjoy your shit decision.

>>1778923
Enjoy your red box

>If you want to go full retard, NEX-6

Explain.

>>1779044
>NEX-6
>Smallest Size
>Best Image Quality

Only faggots buy the stuff that makes sense. What kind of hipster are you?

OM-D is probably altogether more useful, with its sealing, ridiculous in-body IS and absolutely God-tier lenses. That said, you're probably best off going to the camera shop and picking them all up. You'll know which is your favourite once you feel it

>>1779059
M43 has lots of lenses. some great, some affordable and lots of accessories. Fuji has fewer but great lenses. Nex system got few lenses and most are meh. If you consider it a one time purchase then sure, nex is good value but if you're buying into a system that you want to expand later on, it's a bit of a dead end.

>>1779093

What are some good m43 lens?

What I hear mostly is "BUY THE 20MM PANCAKE!".

I expect most of the primes are good, or at least usable. What about the zooms?

>>1779098
Most m4/3 zooms are built for compactness and/or video use and thus are pretty unremarkable optically, though none of them can be considered bad.

Panasonic 7-14mm, 12-35mm and the upcoming 35-100mm are the only ones built for quality, but they're pretty expensive. Lolympus 9-18mm is also supposedly very good.

You can also slap any of the god tier 4/3 pro zooms like 12-60, 50-200, 14-35 etc. on a m4/3 camera with an adapter, but the resulting combo will be quite unbalanced and slow to focus (or manual focus only on Panasonic cameras).

File: 1353058093030.gif-(46 KB, 757x1120, fuji-lens-resolution.gif)

>>1779093
>Fuji has fewer but great lenses.
Only the 60mm is worth buying.The other two primes are, well, mediocre. Pic related. Fuji also relies a lot on in-built software for distortion correction. Plus Fuji's AF is primitive.

Really, much as I like Fuji, I don't understand the buzz about its latest offerings.

>>1779108
The trick is, Fuji lenses are serious-looking primes for a serious-looking camera from a company known for quality, so people naturally assume they're top quality.

But I would say that performance is perfectly acceptable given the $500 price (few lenses of that speed are sharp wide open; for example, photozone's chart for 25/1.4 Leica for m4/3 looks better than the 35mm but not by that much)

>God tier u4/3 lenses.
- Panasonic 7-14mm f4 ASPH
- M.Zuiko 12mm f2 ED MSC
- Panasonic-Leica DG Summilux 25mm f1.4
- M.Zuiko 75mm f1.8 ED MSC

>Steal tier lenses (as in "must have for good quality and little money")
- Panasonic 20mm f1.7 Pancake
- Panasonic 14mm f2.5 Pancake
- M.Zuiko 45mm f1.8 ED MSC

>Useful tier lenses:
- Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 and 35-100 f2.8 zooms.
- M.Zuiko 60mm f2.8 Macro

>Slow-ass kitlens tier lenses:
- All the rest.

>>1779098
dem Olympus primes are a lot more than usable

>>1779117
>Steal tier:
- Samyang 7.5mm fisheye

>Useful tier:
- M.Zuiko 9-18mm f4-5.6
- Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f0.95
- Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f0.95

>Overpriced tier:
- Panasonic-Leica 45mm f2.8 Macro
- Panasonic 8mm fisheye

>Oh god what the fuck tier:
- 15mm f8 Body Cap Lens
- 12.5mm f12 3D Lens

>>1779128
Oh crap, I forgot about the manual lenses like the samyang and the voigtlanders. I concur on your adittions to the list.

>>1779128
The Nokton is great for filming.

But from my experience the stills aren't as good as the 25mm 1.4 from Panasonic. The corner sharpness is simply terrible until you hit f/2. That and lack of autofocus really bugs me out when shooting on a GH2. I imagine when GH3 get's focus peaking I'll use it much more for stills.

on the note of rangefinder limtations, what is the reason rfs can't focus on nearer objects? what's different on their lens mechanism than slrs? i'm not technically knowledgeable so pardon my ignorance.

>>1779166
On a SLR, you look through the lens, so you see exactly what the lens sees.

On a RF, you look through a separate small window on top, and when an object is very close, the error in framing due to you looking from a different point becomes too big.

>>1779166
The design of the lenses is different. There's no emphasis given in close focusing (closer than 0,7m usually), as from there on, the parallax error gets very big and cannot be corrected.

So, even if you put an RF lens on an SLR, it will still be incapable of close focusing.

>>1779183
Actually, if you put a RF lens on a SLR, close focusing is the *only* thing it will be capable of due to the difference in flange focal distance.

>>1779184
Indeed.
Let me rephrase then.
I meant, if you put an RF lens on a camera with no parallax limitations (a mirrorless for instance), you still won't get close focusing, as minimum focusing distance is "built into" the lens by design,