luxborealis: Wow - reading through the comments, I am surprised at the vehemence surrounding jpeg vs raw files. It's quite simple: people who take pictures shoot jpegs...people who make photographs shoot raw. There is a world of difference between taking and making.
And I always thought it's all about going out there, seeing this special moment or landscape or animal or machine or whatever, adapting your camera and pressing the shutter. I really didn't know that PP has anything to do with taking pictures or making photographs. Thanks for having me enlighted.
But to get serious: no, you're wrong. Anyone with sufficient knowledge of the respective software can execute a good to splendid PP job. Taking/making a good picture, however, is a completely different affair. You need the eye and the feel - and if you haven't got it, you arguably never will succeed. Yes, you can take techcnically perfect pictures and PP them to an even higher level of technical perfection, but there are millions of these pictures out there in the World Wide Web. So no - PP most definitely doesn't represent the difference between taking a picture and making a photograph.
c76: Just wondering if Olympus come out a full frame interchangeable lenses, MLC, little bigger than OMD EM-5, what will happen?
Well...To be honest, I don't see Olympus creating a bigger-sensor system - I don't see a market chance and think they would lose more money than they did with FT - but if they did and would opt for a 35mm-size sensor but in a 4:3-format, the lenses still would be significantly smaller than the ones you would need to create the same IQ for a 3:2-format sensor as the latter format means that the pircture circle is significantly bigger.
kev777zero: no offense to oly, but wow that ugly new zoom is probably the worst lens ever invented. f6.3 at 50mm is probably the slowest aperture made for a lens at that focal length.
and at that price point & size the oly 14-150mm looks much, much better
I seriously don’t know how anything positive can be said about this lens. they should’ve just added fast CDAF on 4/3 14-54mm MKII 2.8-3.5 & released it instead, saving R&D and make everyone happy
I seriously don’t know how anything positive can be said about this lens. they should’ve just added fast CDAF on 4/3 14-54mm MKII 2.8-3.5 & released it instead, saving R&D and make everyone happy----
Exactly what I think, Kev. It's appaling.
JonSr: oh come on.. one of the best lense maker keep making crappy lense what is with this? i swear that made a pact with Panny to never make a high end lense to lure them into m43. I just can't understand this spec. f2.8-4 of previous excellent 43 lenes than this lense would have been the best lense on the market.. They intentionally refused to make it that. Both Panny and Oly can go to hell. This is intentional sabotaging of their own platfrom from within.
Sorry, but you have got to pay just €140 more for the FT 14-54 II 2.8-3.5, in Germany. This lens is a slap in the face for anybody who made a full switch from FT to µFT and is waiting for the µFT versions of the wonderful FT Zuikos. The only plus is the weather sealing that makes us hope for a sealed µFT body in the near future.
IcyVeins: As soon as the 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2 zooms come out, M4/3 will have a full lens system that can compete with DSLRs
"The only question is "When?"m4/3 suffer from high noise level at high ISO, a well as lack of DOF control, and it seems, that it takes years, before Olympus, Panasonic and other lens manufacturer understand it."
Is there? I never experienced DOF control issues with my FT and µFT gear - you just have to know how to use it - and while it's true that the high-ISO performance is slightly inferior to the APS-C/DX cameras equipped with the latest Sony 16MP sensors, claiming that they suffer from high-ISO noise isn't appropriate, IMHO. But yes, if I would be a pro having to shoot sport in dimly lit halls I arguably would go for a D7000 or K5. But then, every systems has its pros and cons, hasn't it?
justmeMN: Whatever it's other flaws, a snapshot camera that can actually capture moving kids and pets is a Good Thing.
Ehat I'd really like to know is if the liveview works in the 10FPS mode.
DonParrot: In your test, you write that the camera doresn't offer live view when using the C-AF mode. After having talked to several people who own the E-P3 (inter alia Reinhard Wagner who writes the E-system and PEN books for Olympus Germany and knows his cameras very well), I must say that you got this wrong. You have to switch off the picture rendition and the camera display/view finder provides live view pictures in the C-AF mode.
Forgot to mention: the Lite 3 does so too, even when you opt for 5.5 FPS.
In your test, you write that the camera doresn't offer live view when using the C-AF mode. After having talked to several people who own the E-P3 (inter alia Reinhard Wagner who writes the E-system and PEN books for Olympus Germany and knows his cameras very well), I must say that you got this wrong. You have to switch off the picture rendition and the camera display/view finder provides live view pictures in the C-AF mode.
Cy Cheze: Let's see if I get this straight: the E-P3 default mode yields crummy pictures, but the camera has redeeming qualities if one supresses all default settings. That requirement should tickle "pro photographers" to ecstacy: a camera only they can use right. Let them pray no firmware patch improves the default mode!
I am perplexed that a camera with a superior AF somehow has everything else wrong or deficient. If the sensor is about the same, why should the low light performance (video or still) be any worse than another m4/3 with the same lens?
Would you please take a look here:http://fourthirds-user.com/2011/07/micro_four_thirds_high_iso_noise_compared_g1_ep2_ep3.php