Everdog: bradleyg5, you owe eveyone an apology. Even the very old GH1 rates higher than the T2i for Dynamic Range on DxO and the T2i is not rated by "over 10 points compared" to that Micro Four Thirds camera (contrary to your statement).
I am sure this new lens will drive even more people from APS-C DSLRs to Micro Four Thirds.
Techradar tested the E-M5 with DxO software: http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/olympus-om-d-1075717/review/page:5#articleContent
So, the E-M5 seems to do better than the NEX-7 and X-Pro 1 in terms of DR and SNR when using RAW. Unfortunately, Techradar didn't have a Canon in the test but does the T2i-T4i have better IQ than the X-Pro 1 and NEX-7?
Even looking at Dpreview's studio scene comparison, it is easy to see the high IQ that the E-M5 possesses.
MattBrisVegas: One more reason to think of switching to a m4/3 system EXCEPT why are m4/3 lenses so expensive? I can't help but compare this 75mm f/1.8 for $900 to the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for $430 (both today's prices at B&H). The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?
"could anyone explain the converse mystery: why is the 12mm f/2 NOT more expensive than what I'd expect based on 35mm full frame optics"
Has to do with the shorter flange distance of mirrorless cameras, which allows lenses with shorter focal lengths to be simpler/smaller (e.g. non-retro-focus wide angle lenses).
I was thinking of the newer Nikon 85/1.8G, which is mostly plastic except for the mount. The older D has more metal (filter, hood mount) but the barrel is still plastic.
Correction to previous post: the 75/1.8 has 10 elements in 9 groups.
" The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?"
Does it really? The Olympus has 1 more element (for a total of 9) than the Nikon, while 5/9 of those elements are fairly exotic: 3x Extra-low dispersion and 2x High Refractive. Also, even if it produces a much smaller image circle, the 75/1.8 lets in roughly the same amount of light as the 85/1.8 through an aperture that is only about 4mm smaller in diameter.
Not only that, the barrel is all metal, while the Nikon is plastic. The metal Voigtlander 75/1.8 and Leica 75/2 are $715 and $3795, respectively. Neither of which have AF obviously. So, the price isn't bad in comparison to those lenses.
The 75/1.8 is indeed pricey, but so far it seems like it is worth it.
Thought this came out a few months ago (as Rokinon) see: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/02/13/review-rokinon-8mm-f2-8-fisheye-sony-nex/
Anyway, good to see more lenses for the NEX, even if it's a somewhat specialized fisheye lens.
malcolm82: I think its misleading to call lenses such as this 40mm f/2.8 'pancake' designs. It suggests they have a special optical design somehow while actually these are just small lenses of normal proportions stuck in oversized barrels for no good reason.
@armandino: a Panasonic 20/1.7 on E-M5, GX1, G3, etc. doesn't look so silly and would actually be small. It has the same FoV (as this one onf FF) but is brighter.
Interesting approach of bringing some mirrorless tech (or at least features that were on mirrorless and P&S first) to DSLR before releasing a mirrorless camera. I wouldn't buy this but can certainly understand that many would. I mean it has some of the benefits of mirrorless, like fast liveview, while retaining DSLR form factor and compatibility to existing lenses.
weput: I've allways had a position on the mirror/no mirror thing.... as an engineer i tougth about putting the sensor directly to feed the liveview screen as a doable thing.... even removing the shutter as the image could be captured electronically
virtually no moving parts inside the camaravirtually unlimited time of service for the device... and given the speed and capabilities of chips nowdays.. (imagine a quadcore qualcom inside one of this things)...
however... sometimes i'm just an idiot dreaming...
What you're dreaming about is a mirrorless with a global (electronic) shutter, which already exists - e.g. Nikon 1 and basically all P&S in existence. Well, global shutter is not on bigger sensors yet though but some cameras larger sensor (than Nikon 1), like the NEX-7, do have a first curtain electronic shutter so it's kind of half way there I guess. So you're not an idiot, just misinformed I suppose.
Seems like a good P&S, looks more apealing than the G1X or Nikon 1 if you don't to buy more lenses.Good screen, fast AF, high burst rate, good zoom range, bright lens (at the wide end), relatively compact (much smaller/lighter than G1X, and etc.
ybizzle: Near Leica quality without the Leica price! ;)
@Norm - Waterloo: maybe you should read the review of the E-M5 before making misinformed assumptions like m4/3 "is only slightly better than higher quality P&S compacts".
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.
Watch it guys, supeyugin1 is apparently an expert who knows how much it is to manufacture a product just by looking at it and things like performance and quality don't amount to anything.
No, it doesn't matter that this lens has a metal barrel and the 16-50mm is only plastic. Disregard the fact that it has 4 aspherical lenses and stabilization where as the Sony only has 2 aspherical and no stabilization. Ignore the soft corners, complex distortion and chromatic aberration of the 16-50mm because the 12-35mm must be cheaper to produce since it is smaller. The 16-50mm is awesome for it can mount on a NEX via a $400 mirrored adapter with a f/3.5 max limit in video mode.
peevee1: Sony DT 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM costs $700-$800. Panasonic wants $1300 for the equivalent 12-35, which also costs less to make (less glass, less surfaces to polish)? I am very disappointed they decided to go this high-margin/low-volume way. Especially given the fact that it allows to extract higher profits (compared to high-volume/low-margin way) only for "status" goods, and the X brand lens certainly does not carry any status. Incompetent marketoids.
I also think a price of $1300 is on the high side, but the Sony 16-50mm doesn't have OIS and has 2 less aspherical lenses than the Pany 12-35mm (it has 4) so can't really assume that the 12-35mm is cheaper to make. If you look at the Canon 17-55mm IS, it costs $1100 now but listed much higher 10 years ago.
supeyugin1: This lens is equivalent to 24-70/5.6 on FF. How much such lens costs for FF? Maybe $200. Panasonic is going to sell those for at least $500, if not more.You do the math.
Another equivalent post, really?
Yes, this 12-35/2.8 has as much DoF as FF 24-70/5.6, but in terms of light gathering ability (i.e. exposure), it's still F/2.8.
This will sell for $1000-1200, which is still cheaper than a Nikon 17-55/2.8 or a Nikon/Canon 24-70/2.8
jackgreen: One differentiator for M43 is short flange distance, allowing to make small cameras with still large sensor. This zoom eliminates all that and does not make sense. I strongly prefer set of fix focus prime lens. Going to street-shooting, I pick 14mm F2,5 wide or 20mm F1,7 normal. Portraits are done with either 20mm or 45mm Leica glass.Portability and discreet form factor is very important for me.l
You like a set of bright primes, while some may like to have a zoom like this; it's good we have options on m4/3.
peevee1: Sorry, but $1300 is WAY too much.
Actually, we're not sure what the US price will be yet.
That said, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 is $1500+ and as I recall, the Canon one listed at $1900 but with current street price of $1100 because it's been around for more than 10 years.
neo_nights: If Pentax is (and always has been) able to design this handsome camera, how come with the K-01 they asked a furniture designer to do the job?
A momentary lapse in judgement like that one time my buddy thought that chick at the bar was hot but turned out to be a dude when it was too late?
A bigger body (to improve handling), built-in popup flash, better video (w/ 1080p60) and other tweaks all seem like a decent update. Plus it's slightly cheaper than before. Nice! Only complain is there still isn't a hotshoe; maybe on the 5N's replacement. This + Sigma 30/2.8 would be awesome. Still need more NEX lenses though.
Riprap: More expensive than a X1-pro, all for a red dot.
Actually, the x-pro 1 w/ lens is more expensive but point taken. Well, the X100 is cheaper.
The Silver Fox: Ideas on what flash to pair with this bad boy? I know it's all the rage nowadays to shoot without flash, but it *does* have its uses!
Metz AF-1 50; cheaper than the Olympus FL-600R but with similar features (TTL, RC, high speed sync, etc) and more power. The FL-600R has a video light though. Then again, you can get a decent LED panel for video use fairly cheaply.
A nice flash is useful indeed. I have the Metz and like using it particularly off-camera for some soft, even lighting. Actually, I've been thinking of getting a second one. Good thing Olympus bodies have built-in feature to wireless control multiple flash guns.
Interesting that quite a few here dismises the E-M5 base on...1. sensor size - smaller than APS-C but IQ is actually on par2. price - $1000 is not cheap but you get a lot of features, some can't be had from other brands
Also, it's funny seing comparison with cameras like the NEX-5N and D3200, which don't even have similar feature set, let alone target market. More logical competition are advanced cameras like the NEX-7, K-5, D7000, 7D, GH2 and X-Pro1, all of which had higher MSRPs.
When looking at cameras, consider lenses too - this is where the m4/3 system is better than other mirrorless. Not only are there more lenses, they are generally smaller and better optically. Actually, Olympus/Panasonic makes more F2.8 (or brighter) m4/3 lenses than Nikon or Canon makes specifically for their APS-C DSLRs - 4 Nikon DX and 2 Canon EF-F. To fill the gaps, you need to buy bigger and more expensive FX/EF lenses, e.g. 35/1.4 to get a fairly bright normal.
Anyway, hopefully I get an E-M5 soon.
ybizzle: Great effort but with less expensive models like the Sony NEX-5N, Samsung NX-20, and Pentax K-01, it will harder to justify this more expensive model from Oly. Not to mention that all these have a 50% larger sensor to boot and great image quality.
Actually, the NEX-3C and NX-200 are cheaper still. If cheap APS-C mirrorless is what you need, then go for those.If you want a mirrorless with EVF (NEX-5N and K-01 doesn't have it), standard hotshoe (not on NEX-5N), weather sealing (none from the 3 you mentioned), IBIS (only K-01 has it but not 5-axis), etc., the E-M5 is the only option. Smaller sensor, yes, but still great image quality, which is on par with the 5N and probably better than the NX-20 (if the NX-200 is any indication).As for price, don't know how much the NX-20 is but it will certainly be closer $1000 (since it's £900). The K-01 is $900 with the lens and you want that lens because it is the only CDAF optimized K-mount lens; others will have slower AF. Also, add the optional EVF to the 5N, and it'll cost as much as an E-M5, if not more.