Talk:Olympus OM-D E-M10

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Olympus OM-D E-M10 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Reads like an advert.

Looking at the note placed by Mschamberlain. I'm of mixed feelings. Well, yes, there are limitations in the article, but all I did was copy and paste the material we had for the similar Olympus OM-D E-M1 and alter the specs as necessary.

Dunno about "reads like an advertisement". The photography ads I've seen read very different, so perhaps MsChamberlain was referring to the sparse structure. Just a list of specs, really.

I haven't been much into writing or editing camera articles. I saw the need to fill the gap here when the new MFT model was introduced, and I got into that when I bought an EM5 - an older model in the same range, which I'm very happy with.

So what sorts of things do we put in camera articles? This model hasn't been out long enough to have much history. No famous users or anything. I see a lot of bloggers being very happy with it, praising the small size and low weight, the IQ and so on. The official site and DPReview have all the specs we quote, so it's well sourced.

Any good camera articles I can use as a model - as opposed to the one I copied, which I note has no corresponding tags? I'm really not sure what else I can put in - extracts from a camera blogger's post saying "Gee this is a swell camera"? Paraphrase the DPReview summary? I could talk about the MFT system, CSC in general and where this fits into the OMx range, I guess, but realistically existing articles do that job far better. Open to suggestions for improvement. --Pete (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got rid of the worst bit. [1] --wintonian ^talk 01:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]