whtchocla7e: What serious photographer posts their images to google's search engine?
Any photographer, or other person, with an online presence.
yabokkie: > Another bokeh-less fast lens for m4/3.
like it or not, at the same angle of view (forget focal length), more bokeh means faster and less bokeh means slower. this is physics that no one can break.
this is because both bokeh and light collecting capability are controlled by a single factor, the aperture size (diameter or area). they just change accordingly as the aperture changes so we cannot separate them. they change exactly the same way regardless of whatever format we use.
at the same angle of view, the lens cannot be fast if there is no bokeh.
look at all the cameras from 645 to mobile phones, you can see all of them line up straight, that the depth of field is hard-wired with image quality (resulted from light collecting capability).
more depth of field, less light/more noise collected.
"the size of sensor has no say here.the angle of view and aperture do. "
And that's why you are wrong. It's the sensor that changes the field of view, not the lens. That's why a 50mm lens has a different field of view on a crop sensor.
There is no flaw in my crop comparison. The crop sensor does the cropping in the camera instead of post. I have done it. The fact is aperture remains the same for exposure regardless of camera format. The same was true for medium format film vs. 135 film.
Wrong. accroding to you, if I put a FF lens on my E-30, I will get a faster shutter speed for the same aperture, focal length and iso. before buying the Olympus 50mm f2.0 lens, I used a 50mm f1.8 FF ens via a simple metal adapter. I did a comparison between the two lenses. Amazingly, there was no difference. Both lenses at 50mm, set to f2.0 and iso400 provided the same shutter speed. Where did all that extra light go?
The difference in field of view and depth of Field is not a function of the lens. Rather it is the crop sensor of the camera. Take a picture on a FF camera using a 50mm f2.0 lens at iso 400. Now, take that picture and crop it to the same field of view a crop sensor would give. The depth of field now matches perfectly. What you just did manually cropping the image is what a crop sensor does automatically. As a result, the depth of field difference has nothing to do with the lens, it's the crop sensors. That's why a f2.0 is constant no matter what camera you use.
Otto Fabricius2: I would like to see the numbers of the voting. Both to see the number of voters and the differences between the top cameras.
That's easily found by looking at the numbers for the poll on the DPreview website. Just take a look.
IrishhAndy: Has any one noticed that the big cameras are straight on while the om-d is at an angle. Are they trying to make them look bigger?
@Josh152, "Yeah the comments about this and the other article really shows how insecure many m 4/3 users are." Really? It seems to me there are far more people against m4/3 than for it. What do all those comments show? Perhaps how insecure others are and how threatened they feel by m4/3.
Stefano Messi: The Omd is just a miniature Of a professional DSLR.Certainly the 16 mp micro 4/3 cannot compete wit the 24 mp aps-c of a Sony Nex 7, but the Nex 7 just like all the Aps- C mirrorless cameras all around, has bulky lenses, ( and a ridiculous lenses offer yet).Micro four thirds cameras, are for obvious reasons smaller in body, but mostly in lenses size, and the variety of lenses available is right now far far beyond the aps-c mirrorless cameras. if A giant as Panasonic is investing in lenses like a 12-35 f 2.8, and 35-100 F2.8, it means the micro four third system is going to achieve a significant part of the market in the nearest future.I don't love Olympus Omd because it's an Olympus, but because they have been able to fulfill a small camera with all the features needed by exacting users. For street photography, moreover it can easily outperform any camera of any brand, thanks to it's lightning fast touch screen stealth capture.
My Sigma 30mm f1.4 auto-focuses on my m4/3 cameras just fine for me. And since I am not a pro, I don't need FF gear, just like the majority camera buyers.
thejohnnerparty: If the quality is there, it is a bargin. Consider the equivalent for a FF (Nikon or Canon) - $2,000+.
@kevindar,I looked at the D600 and EM-5. The EM-5 at 3200 has less noise, a better comparison would be at 6400. And that still does not change the fact that you are wrong. It's not the lens, it's the camera sensor. A f2 lens is a f2 lens regardless of format. If the sensor doesn't allow it to take low light images, don't blame the lens.
ChrisPee: Can somebody tell me where to find that (assumed) firmware update?
That is the link to the camera updater. You download this and instal it. when you run this, it will update your camera and lenses. Olympus doesn't let you download the firmware directly.
Promit: If you think that the Oly 12-35 f/2 should weigh and cost the same as a full frame 24-70 f/4 because the depth of field is the same, you don't even deserve to own a camera.
Actually I was able to comapre the images on the computer and several printed 8x10s. It was less than a full stop difference at iso6400. You are trying to be overly technical and it doesn't work, the actual images and prints are proof of that.
ThomasSwitzerland: Interesting corporate story
I sold all my Olympus digital cameras a year ago, but kept the Pro lenses in the shelf. The color, sharpness and contrast in total is - in my view - even better than Leica lenses I also own. I do not rate by lab charts, but in the field work.
As soon as Olympus offers something like an E-7 four thirds – I will return and buy. I find the MFT some different class – for holidays=ok, or making snapshots. Serious work with MFT – no way. Just by the tiny dimensions, and a high class optical viewfinder cannot be matched. Direct light passed thru glass in the finder will always be better than converted light by sensors and electronic circuits.
Today’s technology will enable FT to have much improved noise and dynamic range behavior. The gap between FT and APS-C will narrow. Olympus will make a smart move by serving the FT market. Because their treasures are the optics.
The future of Olympus continues to unfold. I wish them best of luck and courage.
:Direct light passed thru glass in the finder will always be better than converted light by sensors and electronic circuits." You do understand that "converted light by sensors and electronic circuits" is how digital cameras capture images?
I just looked at some iso6400 images from the E-m5 and the Nikon D800. I don't see a 2stop advantage at all. I don't even see a 1 stop advantage, it looks like about a 2\3 stop advantage for the FF D800. I guess some people just can't accept the advancement made by Oly.
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom: no built in flash? :-(
JackM, it does appear to have manual settings and an onboard flash has always been disappointing.
supeyugin1: Sony 16-50/2.8 has the same equivalent focal length, same aperture and better DOF, and costs $620. It can be also used on NEX via adapter. Panasonic wants to charge twice. They are out of their mind! The rough equivalent of this lens in terms of production costs is $200.
supeyugin1, wrong again. This lens is an f2.8 lens and they cost significantly more to manufacture. Do you realize that aperture does 2 things, it affects Brightness and depth of Field. This lens will be a bright (fast) lens regardless of format allowing faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO settings. Most people don't buy zoom lenses for shallow DoF, they buy prime lenses for that. You also miss the point that this is a Super High Grade lens, which costs more to manufacture versus the Standard Grade you present.
supeyugin1, Using adapters, I can use all my 4/3 glass on my m4/3 cameras. Like my sigma 18-55mm f2.8 which I picked up used for $380. There are drawbacks to using adapters. Using adapters, m4/3 still a better deal. Thanks for pointing that out. And the production cost of a dedicated lens with weather sealing and higher quality is not going to be $200.
Jefftan: Do you guys know it cost $1300not so excited any more?
just yesterday I see attack on NEX lens line up, at least no single lens is price at this ridiculous price
peevee1, Using adapters, I can use all my 4/3 glass on my m4/3 cameras. Like my sigma 18-55mm f2.8 which I picked up used for $380. There are drawbacks to using adapters. Using adapters, m4/3 still a better deal. Thanks for pointing that out.
James70094: I love all the people posting that this is the same sensor as the GX1 or even the GH2. The GH2 sensor is a bit oversized and the E-M5 sensor is not. That's a known fact at this point. The E-M5 sensor also has a different amount of sensor sites and pixel count that both those sensors. That means it physically can not be the same sensor as the GX1 or the GH2. Some other sites already have confirmation that it is not.
As the for the performance. It's a major leap forward for Olympus. I only care abot comparing it to my current cameras. I don't care how it stacks up to another system because I won't be changing anytime soon. And the RAW results put this camera on par with the NEX5n. To get a real feel for it, several of us got together, printed out the test images. We marked the back of the images with a sticker containing which camera and setting was used. Then we took turns picking out the best and laying the images in order on the table. That produced some startling rtesults.
R Butler, how can they be the same? They are physically different and have a different number of photosites and pixels. Saying they are the same is like saying a 6 cylinder engine is the same as a 4 cylinder engine. The GX1 and E-M5 sensors are physically different. It's physically impossible for them to be the same.
marike6: This whole comment board has lost it's collective mind. lol. I'm reading people selling their D7000s, comparing the OM-D to the X-Pro1, 5D Mk II and 645D!!! Wow. It's a decent body, but when the DXOMark ratings come out, you'll see that like the GX1, whose sensor it shares, it has limited DR, and color depth. Over-sharpened JPEGs are meaningless, RAW is what you need to look at. And compared to the best APS-C, it's not as good in low-light and has poor DR. Full-frame like the 5D and D800, forget it. I shoot m43, and love it. But with these larger sensor bodies, it's absolutely no contest. In real world images you'll see the difference in performance between a top APS-C or FF and the OM-D.
I get that you like this body as fans, but dropping your D7000s and K-5? You are in for a real shock when real images come back. Is it a nicely specified camera that is "good enough"? That's a different story. Is it better than the best of other formats? No way.
Really? I have a 30x20 poster on my wall taken with a E-P1 that looks great. Several people asked me where I bought it. That's the only real world result I care about.
I love all the people posting that this is the same sensor as the GX1 or even the GH2. The GH2 sensor is a bit oversized and the E-M5 sensor is not. That's a known fact at this point. The E-M5 sensor also has a different amount of sensor sites and pixel count that both those sensors. That means it physically can not be the same sensor as the GX1 or the GH2. Some other sites already have confirmation that it is not.