alexandis: Look at this full-size picture:http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS5472x3648~sample_galleries/5539195489/4968385202.jpg?v=3333
Do you see this gouache on cranes?And it's called super quality?! Gold award? For what?There are other photos with the same loose of details.
What a disappointment! Compare this to great pictures by Nikon Coolpix P7800, that is represented on this site, too. It's a far cry.
LOL, comment of the month.
So I guess now cameras are expected to defy physics and fix atmospheric distortions in-camera. Now that would be something worth Platinum award :)
LJ - Eljot: This is nice, but nothing realy impotant. Live view hdmi out would have been nice. For a future E-M1 II this would be a nice thing. A second SD-card slot would be nice as well.
Hm, let me think! ...
Oh, yes! Histogram an level gauge at the same time is something many users are missing. Auto expose to the right,..
Actually, it's probably more important than some previous updates. 24/25 fps video was a BIG omission when E-M1 launched and it's finally here. I guess it's personal what's important and what's not, but in this case, the list is long enough that a lot of people will find some of the stuff very important to them.
Astrotripper: About time. But I wonder why did then not go for lossless compression? I'm pretty sure that pushing much larger (by about 75%) files will not remain without impact on general performance.
Anyway, at least now those $2000-$3000 cameras might actually be worth the asking price.
You're probably right. In worst case, it's going to take longer to flush the buffer to the card, since there's more data to save.
About time. But I wonder why did then not go for lossless compression? I'm pretty sure that pushing much larger (by about 75%) files will not remain without impact on general performance.
Roland Karlsson: 25 mm F0.95 sounds impressive, but it has the same DOF as a 50 mm F2 for FF and a 35 mm F1.4 for APS-C. Not all that fantastic.
I'm sorry Richard, but you are just making up terminology at this point. Or rather, you're redefining the meaning of terms that have been used to mean certain things for very long time now (since 19th century at least).
A lens with a lower f-number is faster than a lens with higher f-number, as it exposes the underlying recording medium to more light (illumination). Why do you bring sensor into the equation is beyond me. Sensor is not the property of the lens, you know.
And there's no place for better/worse statements here. We're talking physical properties of optical instrument. And you're suggesting that your 50/1.8 FF lens will somehow change its physical properties when you attach it to a crop sensor body (Canon or Nikon, whatever). It makes no sense.
But "fast" has nothing to do with DOF. f/0.95 is fast because it's f/0.95. So when someone says it's not really all that fast because it's not for FF, than don't be surprised people to point it out as BS. (Note that this is not what Roland said, just some of the comments that followed).
So yeah, it might not be all that impressive in terms of DOF for an FF user, but it will be for M4/3 user. And the lens is still impressively fast, especially considering its size and price. Now, if it only were any good.
It's really amazing that so many people can't get over the fact that Micro 4/3 is still around and getting new lenses.
@zxaarIf spending $1500 (Canon 6D + 50/1.8) to get a soapy looking photo at 50mm FOV is your definition of cheap, than I can only be jealous of your wealth. I'd rather spend $400 on a lens for my camera to get then same thing. Not that I actually would, mind you, it's not my thing.
Glad to hear that.
Actually, that's not what he pointed out. Total light equivalence has nothing to do with lens speed, and I would expect Roland knows that (unlike you it seems).
Of course, lately it's been fashionable to make up new meanings for photographic terminology that has been used since at least 19th century, and I have a feeling we'll hear some of it from you.
timo: Is it really going to be that much more useful than the recently announced Panasonic 25mm f/1.7? Even if the optical performance is equivalent at comparable apertures, which it may or may not be.
At that price, it might just get picked up as a "for fun" lens. 700 EUR for a Nokton is just too expensive to even consider if you don't have a specific use for it. But at half that price some people may be willing to get this Mitakon just to satisfy their curiosity and have some fun with a new toy.
Nah, Captain Obvious here was actually beaten to the punch by another commenter below. But I guess the urge was irresistible. He couldn't even be bothered to get his math straight. Oh well, what can you do.
Now, hopefully at least Zhongyi got their math right this time. Their last f/0.95 lens (35mm) turned out to really be f/1. And rather crappy. Hopefully this one will be worth the money they charge for it.
Martin.au: I wonder why only those lenses. It can't be weight, as the 45mm for example weighs less than the 12mm, and the body cap lenses are very light.Perhaps it can only stabilise a field of view up to a certain focal length.
Ahh, there we go.To ensure that the 3-axis gimbal’s movements are unrestricted, the lenses are required to fit the gimbal in terms of weight and size. Not all existing lenses fit these requirements, which is why not all MFT lenses are compatible with the ZENMUSE X5 Series.
That means there's quite a few lenses that will work. The bodycaps for starters.
Hopefully this will result in someone finally making a nice UWA prime for MFT. A 9mm f/1.7 would be nice for example.
Marty4650: "paid firmware upgrade"
I hope this isn't the wave of the future.
You are mixing up two things. The time limit is a completely separate issue to V-Log update. First of all, this paid update will not remove the time limit. If it does and tax authorities get wind of it, Panasonic will be in a world of hurt. Maybe if Panasonic predicted how popular GH4 would become for serious uses, they would have released more expensive limit-free version in EU together with the "normal" GH4.
The V-Log on the other hand, is not a simple fix or minor feature update. It had to be developed first. It had to be extensively tested as well. Do note that this is a feature normally available in way, way more expensive Panasonic broadcast cameras. It's not exactly the same (hence the L), but from the information available it's fully compatible (probably a big deal for multi-cam shoots).
Exactly my point. The ones complaining the most about this are on the most part people that don't even have a GH4, and maybe some GH4 users that wouldn't really make use of V-Log anyway.
D 503: This is the end for the camera industry. Soon you will be buying cameras with drm and with half the features missing at release. You can of course purchase upgrades at £100 a pop.
End for the camera industry? Hyperbole much?
It only shows that Panasonic aims this feature at professional shooters. You know, those that will actually know what to do with this V-Log. Those that are aware that you usually pay big bucks for major features like that.
So no, it's not the end. It's business as usual as far as I can tell.
Not that I would not like this to be a free update. That'd be nice.
It's not uncommon in the pro video world. Both Canon and Sony did it as far as I know.
The thing is that Panasonic had the audacity to do this for a product aimed at consumer market. Most consumers probably won't need this V-Log feature and will have no idea how to properly use it. On the other hand, GH4 is often used by pros who know how big of a deal this is. And most of them will gladly pay only $100 for this. I mean, Sony charges $1000 for a firmware update that adds 4K recording to their F5 (but this is a $16k camera).
The problem here is with perception among consumers and the expectation that all firmware updates should be free. If that GH4 was a strictly professional camera that costs $10k, there would be no complaints. But since pretty much anybody can get a GH4, it is viewed in the same way as as any other consumer grade camera.
Maybe Panasonic should have set those expectations straight in some earlier communication?
Astrotripper: Seeing how Canon came up with the 11-22mm and 22mm lenses, it's actually a shame EOS M is what it is.
The lens line up is extremely limited, but if Canon could offer more lenses like that, and actually release a decent body to mount them on, they would give the likes of Olympus, Panasonic and Sony a run for their money.
*rant mode on* E-M10 II might be a superior camera in every single way, but once you realize that the cheapest wide angle zoom is a plastic toyish looking collapsible that Olympus prices at $700 and doesn't even bundle a lens hood with, it kinda stops looking like a good deal. Sure, Olympus will throw discounts at you from time to time, so that you feel it's a bargain at $500. But it's really not. It's about time they did a cosmetic redesign of that and released it at a lower price point. *rant mode off*
In case you hadn't notice yet, I'm jealous of EOS M users having such an affordable (and actually good I hear) wide angle option. I want that too.
No such problems with Canon, though. All EF-M lenses are very affordable here, and I don't have to look at foreign retailers to see if I'm getting ripped off.
Oh, I know about all the nice MFT lenses, I have and love some of them, and I crave for some more. However, some are so ridiculously priced that it's not even funny.
It actually gets pretty weird sometimes. For example, Oly 40-150 R is a bargain at its asking price of $200, and a real steal at $100 when on sale. But on the other hand, you have 9-18 for $700 ($500 when on sale) which is pretty ridiculous. Especially considering that 7-14/2.8, a lens ten times better, is only twice as expensive. Their 12mm f/2 prime is not exactly a great deal when other systems have similarly priced 24mm-e lenses, but at f/1.4.
And don't get me started on their regional pricing shenanigans. While Americans get to buy the 40-150 R for $100, Olympus is charging $400 for the same lens here, where I live. But thankfully, retailers are not as stupid as to try to sell at this silly price. Hell, even when Olympus comes up with a promotion, it's usually still cheaper to buy on Amazon in a neighboring country.
Seeing how Canon came up with the 11-22mm and 22mm lenses, it's actually a shame EOS M is what it is.
Very nice overhaul. Looks and works great.