abolit66: 2.8 is not fast enough for 4/3 format. it's 24-80 f 5.6 equivalent on FF
AND that sumbitch wont fit in my pocket!
StevenE: It's micro 4/3, so you can forget about shallow DOF.If that doesn't bother you, then this format could work.Non starter for me, unless it can fit in my pocket.
Yeah, I keep forgetting about all those cameras that go in your pocket and have shallow DOF.
Juck: I thought the whole point of MILC systems was to reduce size? This behemoth is practically the same size as a Canon T5i,,, it's also double the price and has less resolution than the T5i. Heck,,, you could pick up a 70D for less than this thing.
Definitely one for the fanboys.
So the Canon T5i is you lust camera?Also small does not have to mean pocketable.Pockets are for phones.
justmeMN: Hmmm. AF speed not as good as a DSLR. Sensor not as good as a DSLR. Priced higher than many DSLRs...
Maybe you should actually shoot with an Olympus and see what is making all their owners happy.
The experience that allows you to take great photos is far more important than the cold numbers of specification fantasy.
Michael Jardine: Looks great! But my entire reason for adding M43 to my stable is portability. I can't put my D800 into my jacket pocket. I can with my Pen(s), plus a lens or two. So the Pen lives with me, the D800 lives in the backpack. The EM1 would live in the backpack.
Yes, but you would really appreciate the EM-1 over the D800 after a day of shooting a wedding.
whyamihere: Dear Olympus,
Remind me again: Why am I paying $1400 for the image performance of a 3+ year old APS-C camera? ('Portability' isn't really an excuse. Don't forget, you are in a joint venture with Sony, a purveyor of tiny APS-C M-ILC cameras.)
Everyone Confused By Your Price Tag (which should be just about everyone)
You may note the performance of three year old APS-C sensors are exactly that of today and this actually comes from a smaller sensor. In addition, you are getting very high performance handling, control and construction.
Snarky, spec based commentary inspired by your recent web education hardly qualifies as an informed criticism of a very sophisticated photographic instrument.
yabokkie: it says "fast and wide" in the title.
I'd say moderately fast and moderately wide for a 35/2.1 equiv. that's the work it can do, no more, no less.
Boy, It sure is amazing how much misunderstanding there is about aperture. Ever since the discovery of DOF differences between FF, APS, m43 and on, so many would be "experts" make condescending remarks about "effective aperture". Do we ever hear of it in the other direction? The effective aperture of an 80f2.8 on a MF camera? Or maybe a 360mm f5.6 on 8x10? No, I did not think so. That is because you actually do not seem to remember that this phenomenon actually existed since the invention of lenses and that only since the recent obsession with the fashion of shallow DOF that we can adopt, yet again another pose that marks us as "effective cognoscenti".
AngryCorgi: $500 with no raw support? No thanks.
@rpm40, It is hard to tell isn't it? One knows the world is topsy-turvy when so many comments seem to be real responses despite their foolishness.
And for this money I would have expected FF. And just what sort of video are they giving us? They are completely ignoring pros and advanced amateurs. I predict their exit from the camera business anytime. :)
OBI656: They should scan to .TIFF format that will complete my satisfaction ...
It is probably available on request.
This is a good move by Ilford. Swan has a great rack record of quality. However one can also get true B&W processing and printing on real B&W paper at Fromex in Long Beach and possibly a few other places.
Just what we need; another metric to debate.
"The VAA on the Nikon is waaaay better than Canon's" or "Unless Canon gets some newer tech on their VAA I am jumping to Sony"
Mssimo: This is a kick in the balls for current owners of this new system.
You can always switch to Sony. They seem to be looking for folks like you.
samhain: If they had added weather sealing to them, they may have enticed current owners to upgrade. I can't see many users upgrading because of a new coating, except for maybe the few diehard pentaxians who have to have the new stuff.
Should've added weather-sealing.
Leica M are not weathersealed either.
kaiser soze: There are two ways to look at it. It is a cheap camera that seems intended to offer showroom appeal to people who aren't very sophisticated in their knowledge of cameras. But it also is a camera thay will produce outstanding image quality, even without consideration of the very low price. Unquestionably, it is a great value for the people to whom it is intended to appeal. It is difficult to guess whether a camera of this sort will sell, but given that it is a great value notwithstanding the many corners that were cut, it deserves to be a very popular model. If it does prove to be a popular camera, it will increase the owner base for E-mount lenses, which will be a very positive thing for all owners of E-mount cameras. This is a very, very smart move by Sony. Compare it to what Canon and especially Nikon have done in mirrorless, and you can't help but sense that Sony has the brightest future in camera manufacturing.
It is a ton of camera for the money. Condescending comments about the target customers being ignorant about cameras is a bit arrogant. Price and feature combinations like this are inflection points in the market much as the Canon AE-1 was in its time. Every generation of enthusiasts have sneered at the new developments in the field only to see them become the standard soon after.
Gurki82: I'm a little in trouble with "nature photography" and HDR (and likes). In the end I allways think, HDR is more something like an artistic work, to show a subject that never really existed like this in nature. "Nature photography" (as I suspect this sample could be) is more about showing, what the world out there (beyond the reach of everyone) is. To share the beauty of our planet we where able to see with others, so we can take care of it.This is some kind of contract a photographer has with its audience, that he doesn't "fool" them with some kind of "cool" foto editing trick into something that never existed like this. Like I'd say, perhabs some nice art but nothing more. Maybe this is the reason, why there are only so less great and real "nature photographers" around.
The efforts of photographers to mimic the scene as perceived by the eye is as old as photography. All the great photographers in our pantheon of photo gods labored enormously in the darkroom to create images that do what Erez's do. The notion that somehow there is some sort of "purity" to the straight photo completely misses the point of the art. As the saying goes " you don't take a photo, you make a photo.
Much stinky snark about today. SO.... everyone feeling better now that they have paraded their photo guru pretensions?Always great to see people reaching for the same old tools of derision to mock a device that have not seen nor used.Bonus for the insights as to what the manufacturer should be doing and how they are mucking it up.Perhaps you could forward a few prototypes of your genius device along with your certificates of rigorous internet forum training.
The internet has proven that there are wizards among us that can divine the quality and utility of a lens from a press release and further infer the future of the industry and the priorities the manufacturers should be embracing.
I am sure the industry gives thanks every day for these voices raised in omniscient guidance lest they be led astray by economics, physics and market forces.
Vadimka: DoF, DoF, its not about DoF, people please stop. Thin DoF was actually the biggest challenge for Kubrick when using this lens.
The reason he used his f0.7 lens was to be able to film a candle light scene without using any other light source. But that said, I still think this is not very practical today.
Kubrick shot that scene with F/0.7 using ISO-200 on Mitchell camera if I remember correctly. So today we can simply use excellent ISO-1600 or ISO-3200 on ARRI or SONY or RED etc... and easily shot that same scene with F/2.0 (and don't have to worry that much about thin DoF)
Light gathering ability was ALL we worried about when shooting available light in the 60's and 70's. Thin DOF is a fashion of the last couple of years that some believe confers quality on their photo turds.
yabokkie: this is an "old era" lens compared with the new 18-35/1.8 and I'm looking forward to seeing a little brother of 18-35/1.8 (smaller, darker, with wider zoom range). I'm thinking about 15-55/1.8-2.8 (APS-C version of 24-85/2.8-4, a popular lens for film SLRs)
This just what you asked for.... slightly slower with a wider range. They do note that it is a new optical formula (necessary for OS) and is slightly lighter and smaller than the older lens.