Why is it always near impossible to find out the sensor size and focal length on these things?
Advent1sam: Seeing as the Panasonic 35-100 2.8 set the trend for a real 2.8 70-200 equivalent in this area and the fact it weighs only 350g and will outperforms the Fuji when mounted on the GH4/Gx7/em1/em5 this is a very biased piece and you should be embarassed DPR! APS and m43 are now neck and neck in performance and to add the comment as a bit of an afterthought/aside is all a bit biased. Samsung Nx1 is unproven in any respect and the Fuji is a little suspect too.
I'd like to think that with 3 cameras and six lenses, which are my main system now, it counts as a bit more than "some" gear.
JoEick: This article is very misleading.
If the point of the article is to tell the reader how a 50-150 works similar on APS-C to 70-200 on full frame, then there needs to be more thought put into equivalent apertures.
You need f2.8 on crop to roughly equal f4 on full frame. The Fuji f2.8 zoom has no meaningful size or weight savings over a Canon 70-200 f4.
Until we see more f1.8 and f2.0 zooms for APS-C, there is nothing that compares in light gathering for full frame f2.8.
There is no free lunch when it comes to light, physics, and lenses.
wolfloid: This is getting repetitive -- seems you haven't bothered to read the full article either. That's when he's comparing both lenses on APS-C. The next sentence says:"If you've already got a full frame camera, then a 70-200mm F4 offers a very similar set of capabilities to a 50-150mm F2.8 on APS-C (same zoom range, similar light capture and depth-of-field)."
moimoi: you don't seem to have read the article either... See my previous comment.
That's made very clear in the article, which you don't seem to have read. First part is about using a 50-150/2.8 vs. a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C; second part is about using a 50-150/2.8 on APS-C vs. 70-200/4 on FF.
The mention is perfectly clear, fair, and visible. I have plenty of Panasonic m43 gear, but chill out, you're not getting paid by Panasonic (I hope...)
ryan2007: Did I miss the Panasonic 35-100 mm 2.8, that is a 70-200 equivalent. They were, to my knowledge, the first to do this.
Yes, you missed it.
Prairie Pal: Comparing to Nikon 70-200 f/4 (because I own it and I also shoot Oly MFT).The Oly 40-150 is:1mm wider / 18mm longer / 30grams heavier (although I assume that includes weight of its tripod collar which the Nikon spec does not).So if (IF) Oly's IQ through the entire zoom range is as good as the impeccable Nikon 70-200 then we're getting one heck of a good zoom lens with 100mm extra reach in only slightly bigger footprint.The list price is less than Nikon's list (Nikon's list does not include tripod collar).For me, Olympus's two 2.8 zooms now are all I need for back packing, hiking and traveling (and the primes can be added to the bag if necessary). DOF between the two lenses would be equal (I may stand corrected), but after all I think a lens like this is appealing to landscapers who are rarely looking for sliver slim DOF.It looks like a rugged lens too.EDIT: I forgot to mention: retractable lens hood! Function button on lens barrel!
Two good ideas you had there. There's nothing I can do about your limitations.
No I didn't, but you seem to have missed mine. When someone starts off by making a direct comparison with a lens in another sensor format, it should be expected that someone else will reply that such a direct comparisons is not valid (and that reply is in fact a needed and constructive contribution).
deep7: it's not theory for me: I shoot with both 5DIII (plus several L lenses) and GX7+GM1 (mostly with the small fast primes). I find myself using the micro 4/3 system more and more, but use "equivalence" all the time, and it very much bears out in practice. F/2.8 in FF and f/2.8 in mft are very different things (a 2-stop different thing...) No need to feel threatened: each system is a different set of compromises, which is best for you is your call. I'm finding more and more that mft is, most of the time, the best compromise for me.
And a sensor with the same technology and twice the area has the same signal-to-noise ratio at one stop ISO higher. By definition. (So you can shoot both with same depth-of-field, same shutter speed, and same image quality - assuming the lenses are equally good wide open, of course.)
iudex: Man it´s huge: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/E-M1_SLV_leftside_M4015F28_BLK_LH76_BLK_HLD7.jpgBut I guess it is not possible to make a 300mm eq. lens with f2,8 any smaller and it is perfectly within the competition of fast CSC telezooms:Fuji 50-140/2,8: 995g 72mm filter threadOly 40-150/2,8: 880g, 72 mm filterSamsung 50-150/2,8: 920g, 72mm filtee.
Haven't tried myself (I'm always skeptical of such claims until I try first hand), but many say that for tele range OIS works better than sensor shift.
John C Tharp: It's hard to directly compare MFT lenses to those of larger formats, so bear with me- we should really be comparing this new Olympus to Sigma's 120-300/2.8.
While I agree that a comparison with Canon's 70-300L results in a similar field of view and a similar level of DoF control, what really matters is shutter speed. And for the sake of calculating exposure this lens is f/2.8, like the larger Sigma.
John: No, increase ISO in the larger sensor for equivalent images (same dof, same shuter speed, same-ish signal-to-noise ratio). Please do make the effort to read the article. I have both a 5DIII and a GX7 (plus GF1 and GM1), and use more and more the micro 4/3 gear. The equivalence arguments are correct, but it shouldn't make you feel threatened - it's just a different set of compromises, better for some (including, most of the time, for me).
nopicleftbehind: When I look at the survey 0 own it and several people had it. It makes me wonder out of those 8 people, none of them kept it.
No need to insult people, nothing devious about this: it just happens that it's rather easy to click on the 'I own it' button by mistake, and then when you try to correct the mistake you can get yourself listed as 'I had it'.
burnin: I'm still waiting for a feature that will eliminate all those horribly lame vertical videos you see everywhere nowadays.
Ideally we'd get an oversized sensor but that would add cost, so I'd vote for the camera app automatically cropping to square when the phone is vertical in video mode.
Tempting, but 1.2 kg... Would need to factor in the cost of a gym membership.
Darren Lee: this would be great...if im on vacation and just finished a full day taking pics or video...i can dump the files to this while relaxing at the hotel and then insert the card back into my camera ready for the next day....USB 3.0 is fast enough even...only need to bring a couple of 64gb cards and i'm set...never need to bring my laptop anymore.
Mario G: that's equally true if you're only storing the photos to your laptop while traveling (i.e. without taking along a backup drive), as most casual photographers do. Even if you do take along a backup drive, unless you have a fast and affordable data connection, you can't do off-site backups, so there is still a risk (e.g. if all your gear gets somehow lost or stolen). I guess you could take two of these drives and do two rounds of saving for each card before wiping. Or take enough cards for the whole trip and keep that as a second copy in addition to the drive. I usually take a MacBook Air plus external drive, and upload a selection of my best images so far to Zenfolio as I go along whenever I have a good connection. But no solution is risk-free: you have to figure out your own tradeoff between safety and cost/weight/hassle, and this is going to be different for everyone.
Re. crossing fingers, should be able to check from smartphone before wiping the card.
b534202: Backup and reader in one. Very nice. Weight?
350 g (0.77 lb), from WD's website.
D1N0: Great and how were the German's supposed to know they were leaving a zone?
I believe that the point of the signs was to avoid conflicts between the troops of the different occupying countries, especially Military Police. At this point, Germans were free to move about between zones without any restriction, the signs were not for them (hence only small print in German).