Edmond Leung: This just reflects how poor is the development of the lenses for M43. The reality is lens selection for M43 is very limited, especially the high-end tele lenses.It's a shame to those camera manufacturers who just know assembling cameras but without satisfying the needs of their customers in the demand of lenses.That is the reason why do Canon and Nikon can be so successful in acquiring the majority of the camera market. Because they care their customers' needs; they are not just camera makers, they also produce a complete line of lenses for their customers.Who will buy a camera without the support of lenses? A fool may!
Edmond Leung & itsastickup:Canon and Nikon are great in producing lenses... good if you have an FF body.
Want a fast (f/1.4) normal for your Rebel? Pay $1500 for the 35/1.4 or go to Sigma. But m4/3 has a 25/1.4 and 25/0.95. The slower Canon 28/1.8 is cheaper, but not as cheap or small as the Panasonic 20/1.7.
How about WA lenses for your Rebel? Only choice is the 10-22mm unless you go third party. But m4/3 has 12/1.6, 12/2, 14/2.8, 7-18/4, and 9-18mm.
Need a fast (at least f/1.8) short tele to do portraits with your Rebel? Get a crappy 50/1.8 or spend more for a 50/1.4. But m4/3 has a sharp 45/1.8.
Nikon is better but still makes only 4 f/2.8 or faster DX lenses; Canon only make 2 EF-S f/2.8 lenses and none faster than f/2.8. Even Sony makes more NEX lenses that are f/2.8 or faster than Canon does for EF-S.
Canon's first mirrorless - an entry level with minimal physical controls, no EVF, not even an option for one, no built-in flash and may not even be bundled with one. On top of that, it costs $800 with the pancake, more with the zoom, which isn't small BTW. Doesn't seem appealing especially considering the competition in this price range: G5, E-PM1, NEX-F3, NEX-5N, GF5, etc.
That said, it'll probably sell well because of the brand recognition and the fact that there are so many Canon users out there that can use their lenses on this.
Also, where is this lens for your APS-C DSLR, Canon? How many years has it been and yet there still isn't a relatively fast and affordable primes in the normal range, i.e 35mm to 50mm equiv.
qwertyasdf: This is a living proof that m43 lenses are way overpriced.
"If people insist that the new Oly 75mm 1.8 is the same category as Canon's 135L. I don't see why the lens on EX2 is not comparable to Canon's 24mm 1.4L"
I know you're joking, but that's not even remotely funny.
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.