LJ - Eljot: I like to have this for Contax/Yashica-Mount to m4/3.
Novoflex makes one, it costs €119 without shipping costs. It is a manual adapter (but the one above is too) and you don't get an increase in f-stop. Focal length is doubled and depth of field becomes more shallow. It is far from ideal, but I have used my old Contax/Yashica lenses with Olympus MFT bodies when I've felt nostalgic about shooting on film. Not practical for professional work, though.
oselimg: Since it's meaningless to pass premature comments on these two lenses I think that it's equally meaningless to call lenses of this type full frame. Are the other sensor formats half/quarter frame. Aren't there bigger formats than 35mm format then, what should we call them? I know this term's found it's way in everyday photographic language but many people who own cameras of any kind don't even know what it stands for. It's non-descriptive. At least, when 35mm film ruled everybody(almost) knew what it was and how big it was. What now called full frame is same size as single 35mm film frame. Can you guys at the Dpreview at least start to challenge the current misleading and non-descriptive trend, may I kindly ask?
Actually, there is a term for sensors larger than 35mm - medium format (most frequently 4x6cm or 6x6cm) and large format (no common format, but something like 10x15cm). The term "full frame" came when there were no larger sensors, implying that this was a "true" sensor, like what people were used when shooting on film. Back then, no one believed that digital backs for medium format were possible, and that 35mm digital sensors were the maximum technology could reach.
It may be not the best term that has been devised, but it has stuck, so there isn't really much point in trying to re-invent the wheel. Of course, this is only my opinion, and it is hardly gospel.
thejohnnerparty: If the quality is there, it is a bargin. Consider the equivalent for a FF (Nikon or Canon) - $2,000+.
There is one more argument to consider - in order to get the better FOV control, you still need a FF body. Even if you believe that you can get a lens as fast as the 17mm f/1.8 for one fifth of the price (I am being generous), the difference in the price of bodies would eat the money you saved from the lens many times over. The argument against the lens is only valid if you could use it on a FF body, or Canon/Nikon produced the same lens for m4/3.
When you complain of the price point, you need to consider the entire system, not only the lens itself, since you obviously can't use Olympus m4/3 lenses on a FF body at the moment. Yes, FF systems are superior than m4/3 - but for a price to match. So is the lens that expensive - not really, if you factor the body that goes with it.
And as pdelux very correctly said, it would be never apples to apples when you compare systems with different sensors. After all, the m4/3 system has always been aimed at enthusiasts, rather than professionals.
Klarno: Not to say this bag isn't excellent on its own merits, but, can this hold a modest number of non-photo related accessories, like water (preferably in a camelbak bladder), food, flashlight, clothing for inclement weather? If not, how can this bag truly give you the ability to carry your gear for hours?
I second that. In my view, the biggest deficiency of photo backpacks is that they almost always pay no attention to weather issues. I mean, it's fine that you can carry a lot of equipment, but I'd like to see some degree of weather proofness as well. For example, a rain cover for the back pack would be appreciated, as well as some option to store water, food and additional clothes.
As I see this backpack, it's mostly for driving yourself to a point, hiking for a couple of hours (in fairly good weather), then hike back, and continue to the next point. I wouldn't use this if I have to hike all day, say 5-6 hours at least.
Spectacle99: My second question:
2) Bokeh and shallow depth of field: I am considering getting this camera instead of an enthusiast DSLR, given its small size. But the one thing that concerns me is the sensor size here. I've seen all of the details and examples above, and it is clear that the OM-D does just as well as or better than its mirrorless and APS-C rivals all the way up through high ISOs. But what about depth of field? Amongst many other things, I want to be able to shoot nice flower and insect macros with a very shallow DOF, and a smooth, creamy bokeh background. Same thing, but less extreme, with portraits. How possible is this with this camera? And do you have any lens suggestions?
There is actually another option, though a little bit unorthodox. A German company, Novoflex, producers adapters for various film camera lenses, including for MFT. Thus, if you have a fast 50mm lens from a film camera, you can get the adapter and receive a 100mm lens with perfect bokeh. Of course, you won't have auto focus and you will have to use it only in manual mode, but light metering works just fine, as well as everything else.
I myself have attached a Yashica 50mm 1.7 lens to my PEN camera, and it works flawless, not to mention that nostalgic feel from having to set the aperture manually on the lens :)