Bokeh hounds are drooling already.
Of course the bokeh trolls are lying in wait to declare the bokeh busy.
Edgar_in_Indy: Samyang certainly makes some interesting lenses that are good values, but I don't understand why they don't put autofocus in them, even if it's just screw-drive. I think it would certainly broaden their appeal.
I mean, it's not like cheap AF lenses haven't been done before. I'm thinking of lenses like the Quantaray 28-80mm I have in the back of my closet somewhere.
By not adding AF keeps the price down and allows them to offer them in all the mounts with only minimal engineering effort.
We all like shiny stuff
Most of us suffer from GAS and thus a preoccupation with the attributes (real or imagined) of gear in the hope that somehow the new gear will make better images or be more enjoyable to use.
I don't really care if someones fantasy makes them spend money on what I view as an unrealistic endeavor. What is annoying is the huge noise created in defending or attacking the various opinions of photographic orthodoxy.
OK, so people who were never going to even lay a finger on this lens have spoken out.1. No OIS, wah,wah,wah.2. Big and heavy. Physics and metal construction at work.3. F2.8 is not the same as something else that I also don't own.
Hooray, we have heard you. Now hurry off to FB and gloat about how you set us straight.
BeaverTerror: Perplexed about the lack of OIS, given that the wide angle 10-24mm has it. There is now one less compelling reason to purchase this lens over the much faster primes.
OIS most likely requires IQ compromises. A moving element is unlikely to be stable even when the feature is disabled.Note that Canon and Nikon did not add this to this FL in their line as these are standards of the industry.
makofoto: Forgot to ask him about the Sony A7S. It would be amazing to see what he could do with it!
He uses his gear to great advantage but many cameras would do just fine. What is important is his eye.
DaveE1: Come on Sony, bring out something that makes these guys re-price their $$,$$$ cameras.
The Pentax is huge value given the history of MF digital. Nikon D4 and Canon 1Dx are at similar list prices but don't have the same sensor yet people seem to justify that arm candy just fine.
iAPX: I still don't understand how someone could spend so much into a camera and then use a non-calibrated iPhone display on it. Non-sense!
Can you tell us what camera has a calibrated display? Moreover, what fine control would anyone think of doing in the field in uncontrolled lighting environment? Most pro and prosumer cameras can send a JPG to a connected monitor or laptop that has a "calibrated" display. But again, this is for the benefit of the client that needs to be assured that the shot is not completely whacked or out of focus. They know that post will yield the final look.
shauravraj: Too freaking expensive for a student enthusiast like me .... why can't they make something cheap and affordable. Do any of you guys know any cheap photography drone?
@badi and shauravraj, DIY is perfectly fine. The problem with your understanding of my statement is that you are complaining about what people are selling after they got paid. Expecting people to sell anything for the price of components is the insulting part. Criticizing them for creating something you or anyone might want to buy AND getting paid for it is insulting. You may also want to examine going the DIY route if it is to only save money. DIY is fun for some but not for all. Those people pay others for their time and expertise.
@badi, Of course you can build one for less. Particularly if your time is worthless.
If you are that passionate about drone imagery AND you are creative, figure out how to get it done at YOUR price point. Why be a hostage to a business model created by someone else?
extraone: images are fine to me, IQ is just ****. soft, and low contrast and horrible colors and no sharpness and crap bokeh. this is a joke, right?
damn that D810 is looking even better right now. bravo Nikon!
Clearly they are trying to mimic the hobbyists that will be buying it. I am astonished there were no cat pictures. ;)
NAwlins Contrarian: Just when DPReview was getting good at giving us charts with equivalents, I think this one falls down, especially when comparing the GM5 and the RX100 Mk. III.
The review notes the GM5's "tiny viewfinder", but the specifications say it has 0.92x magnification, which sounds large. Presumably reconciling these statements requires adjusting for sensor size, and the GM5's viewfinder has 0.46x-'equivalent to 35mm / full frame' viewfinder magnification. The RX100 III specs list the magnification as 0.59x, which I suspect is already an 'equivalent' figure.
And of course, it's fine to say the GM5 has a larger sensor than the RX100 Mk. III, but with the GM5's compact kit lens, the real comparison is the GM5's equivalent of 24-64mm f/7-11 with the RX100 Mk. III's equivalent of 24-70mm f/4.9-7.6. So when adjusting for both sensor size and aperture, the effective light-gathering puts the RX100 Mk. III 1 stop brighter at the wide end and a little more than 1 stop brighter at the long end.
"If getting enough depth of field on M43 requires f/4, then to get the same depth of field on FF requires f/8."
Yes, I am way ahead of you on that. The DOF issue is not what I am commenting on. You are actually agreeing with me WRT the advantages of M43. My comment was about those who claim "equivalence" in criticizing the deeper DOF available with smaller sensors. Frankly, the whole discussion about equivalence seems to be the province of newbies or number geeks who never get on with taking pictures. We disposed of these issues back in the 70's when choosing between sheet film, MF or 35 without any of this handwringing.
So you are trying to argue that 1/125 at f8 on an M43 is not the same as 1/125 at f8 on a FF? Yes, I get that the total amount of light is not the same but the light per square mm is the same at given exposure on any format.The DOF does change thus making 4x5 nearly useless for a portrait at f5.6 while M43 has miles. But the light is the same per square mm.This equivalence issue is quite useless except for DOF and THAT only occurs because of the preoccupation by the newbies for a new metric and love of a newly fashionable look with only light applicability in the universe of imaging opportunities.
Serious Sam: In Australia
$900 Panasonic Lumix GM5 Kit
$1000 Nikon D7100 Kit
$798 Sony A6000 Digital SLR with 2 Lenses
You serious asking that much for a m43 when the other choice is that much better?? Someone need to give Panasonic a wake up call.
Maybe DPR should show a price per pound figure for all you guys for whom this seems to be important.
I can see all the debates now. "This camera has to be the best, its price per pound beats the closest competitor by 25%!!"
In terms of equivalence the apertures dictate the DOF not the light gathering. f8 is f8 in terms of exposure.Comments about "light gathering" make it sound like a given camera needs to use a longer shutter speed to compensate for its "equivalently slow" lens.
Photomonkey: While there may be some carping about the details, it seems that Panasonic has delivered a decathlete in camera form. Strong in almost every area and weak in none. A category champ that deserves the accolades.
I would submit that its use of 12MP is a testament to their confidence in the IQ that they don't have to market with MP specs. Their target market has been asking for just such camera.
Photomonkey: Here is the FF Olympus we've been waiting for. ;)
Do I have to explain the joke?
Here is the FF Olympus we've been waiting for. ;)