Wish m43 had a body that went to 1/8000 sec. shutter. Wide open aperture to get small DoF in broad daylight often blows the highlights. An OM with a truly pro shutter would be the next step.
carlosdelbianco: It's funny to follow discussions going on here and on the previous story (Fujifilm launches M-mount adapter for X-Pro1's X-mount). Seems to me that M-mount owners have more to discuss than pricing and size of their equipment than these MFT people. Just saying...
Wouldn't put M glass on less than full frame sensor.If you're starting fresh, then m43 and the Fuji are not far apart, particularly if you shoot for RAW files. Don't rely on the techno-babble at sites like DXOMark. Use your eyes on the files.
W.C. Green: Wow... I was set to get the OM-D and this lens this summer as my new portrait setup. This might be a deal breaker. They estimated $700-800 for this lens and I was willing to suffer, not without some griping, for 800... but that was the max. This will break it for me. I can go back to my D7000 and the 85mm 1.8 instead. Oh well... I really wanted to return to OLY. The 45mm won't cut it as I need 120 to 150 for my portraits.
APS-C is dead. Go small. And also big.Full frame is the qualitative jump.
Ivanaker: I just cant understand the pricing of m43, or any mirrorless gear, it is way to much.75 f/1.8 - $899.99om-d - $1,299.00
on the other handnikon d7000 - $1,199.00very new 85 f1.8 - $499.00
And that lens is an investment as you can venture to FX format with it.
Im glad m43 exists, some nice cameras and lenses from them, and they are pushing tech forward, and forcing Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax.... to make even better DSLR. But i cant see how anyone can choose om-d + 75 1.8 when for the same money you can get d7000, 85 1.8(FX), 50 1.8(FX) and 35 1.8(DX).And im not going even to venture into benefits of one system or another, ill give you that m43 is smaller.
I migrated not long ago from the Canon system. Had the 40D, the T2i and a raft of lenses, including several L's. Why switch to m43? Because I was tired of hiking with a backpack full of gear. Because the price of flying with high weight equipment is increasing. Because m43 finally has a sensor as good as APS-C to go with a variety of small and sharp lenses. For me, APS-C is dead. The real qualitative jump is to full frame. M4/3 and full frame complement each other very well.
Ben Raven: The RAW MATERIALS cost of glass, materials, mechanics and electronics is merely the STARTING point.
The MAJOR cost of any high quality optics, photo or otherwise, really starts piling up with:1. The creation, design, testing and optical engineering of a new lens formula that can achieve top levels in all the areas of optical image performance.
2. The expense of producing each element to the high tolerances and exotic shapes necessary, and precise application of multi layers of advanced anti-reflective coatings
3. Final assembly to, again, extremely high tolerances, alignment, centering and maintaining necessary super quality control.
As we go up and up in quality and performance so, PROPORTIONALLY, do the time and COST of all the above !
NOTE: The format is not a directly proportional factor in these
To think otherwise is like saying a Bugatti Veyron costs $3million just because the delivered metal, carbon fiber,and tires cost so much.
The Moral: You get what you pay for.
The value of the lens will not be in the brand name or price. It will be in quality of the images produced. We won't know that for a while until after the lens comes on the market, after real world photos exist. Some people are willing to make due with ok quality; others are not, insist on the best. The market price (instead of MSRP price) will be decided by the calculations of those consumers.
Breen: Comparing this lens to Canon 85 1.8 is stupid because these are not the same quality!
Also it is stupid to compare this lens to FF. It is not Full Frame like it is not medium format, it is m4/3!
I hope price will be lower because 900 bucks is too much. Propably the price will be about 800$
The Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 runs about a thousand bucks for APS-C sensor cameras. People are using L primes on those cameras, too, which are in the $1000+ range. The new sensor in M43 gets just as good quality as APS-C. The RAW files are equal to what I used to get out of Canons. Where m43 excels is in the lenses: small and light and capable of superb images. Quality has its price. To me, APS-C is now dead. The next qualitative jump would be to full frame.
MikeNeufeld30: Damn, M43's is just banging out High End Optics for their system. Im loving this new release. Fantastic Focal Length.
Not really. I paid about that price years ago for the Canon 135L, one of their best primes. And a good, fast Leica M will run you more. Don't cheap out on quality lenses. The camera itself is just a box to catch the light from those lenses.
qwertyasdf: You people! Stop comparing m43 with full frame!Go compare Pentax Q with full frame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Absolutely. Compare it to APS-C sensors. The new 16 mp m43 sensor is just as good as the one I used for years on the Canon 40D, even in low light. The RAW files are excellent. The only thing I'd say to qualify that is that one has to pay close attention to the exposure, just as in the old days we had to take a bit more care with transparency film over the wider latitude of print. The real advantage to m43 is in the lenses, which are small and excellent. I have the P-L 25 1.4 and the Oly 45 1.8 and would put them up there with the best of any company.