misolo: The engineer in me is puzzled. It's odd that they give zero details of their key technology: how the "digital rangefinder" would work "without the need for calibration". The secondary digital image has to be (digitally) shifted laterally as the focus ring is turned. Somehow this digital shift will have to be calibrated to the mechanical action of the focus ring on the lens.
NetMage: even if that's the case, one of the images needs to somehow be moved horizontally, either optically or digitally (from what they say it seems to be digitally, since they say they have no rotating prism). The camera needs to somehow calibrate this horizontal translation of the digital image to the mechanical rotation of the focus ring, so even if the camera doesn't have any settings for calibration, the lenses still need to be calibrated to the camera. Actually, they'd make users happier if they implemented electronic lens-specific calibration in the camera -- then people could do it at home and save themselves a lot of hassle and cost.
The engineer in me is puzzled. It's odd that they give zero details of their key technology: how the "digital rangefinder" would work "without the need for calibration". The secondary digital image has to be (digitally) shifted laterally as the focus ring is turned. Somehow this digital shift will have to be calibrated to the mechanical action of the focus ring on the lens.
ryan2007: In the micro four thirds class, Panasonic has always been innovative and first to the market place with great products. They were the first with the 12-35 & 35-100 mm 2.8 zooms.
Good for micro four thirds and Panasonic. I knew from the start they were a better product than Olympus in this MFT's niche.
Jorginho: it's great that it's coming out, but to go from that (one scheduled tele for Olympus vs. no information from Panasonic when they never give advance notice anyway) to saying "you are deadwrong: Oly does a much better job" at "addressing the needs of all its users" you need an enormous dose of hyperbole... And, in any case, there actually are needs that Panasonic covers natively in micro 4/3 and Olympus "leaves out in the cold", e.g. fast portrait and fisheye. Look, I have lenses from both, and both have great virtues, and the nice thing about the system is the diversity and complementarity (not just Olympus and Panasonic, but also Sigma, Samyang, etc.), no need for dramatic accusations of anyone of "leaving users in the cold".
misolo: Full specs here:http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-g-lenses.html
30/2.8 -- 180g, 1x magnification (2x equiv.)42.5/1.7 -- 130g
ithinkihaveacat: that's not supposed to be a sample, it's the generic illustration for the description of the high-speed auto-focus mechanism.
JOrmsby: Does it say anywhere if these are metal-bodied, or are they the same cheap plastic like Oly has in their 45 and 25 1.8's?
Modern engineering plastics are much better materials for a lens than metal (at any weight point and at any price point). The only reason left to use metal is public perception and marketing, not performance or durability.
Jorginho: not sure what you mean, Olympus hasn't introduced any long-focal-length prime for micro 4/3 yet. There's been roadmaps and rumors, but that's it. Panasonic may also have one in the works, they're just more tight-lipped about their development (no one saw these two coming, for instance...)
I have far more Panasonic gear, but Olympus has its own virtues, just different ones. It's great for the system to have two companies with such different design philosophies.
brumd: Somehow, the Panasonic m4/3 lenses never look even half as sexy as the ones from Olympus. Yes, it's important! :)
I also have the 20/17 but, to be fair and judging from the image quality of compact lenses for 35mm-equivalent ("full-frame") sensors, 35mm-equivalent seems to be significantly harder to design for than 40mm-equivalent.
The fact that the Panasonic lenses are so discrete and understated while producing such great image quality is exactly what I love about them.
And the 42.5 has very good max. magnification, equiv. 0.4x (or 1:2.5).
Full specs here:http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-g-lenses.html
GrayC: 30mm macro is the same price...
Good to see them drop the Leica branding and associated pointless extra cost.
Depends on what turns you on... I find Panasonic's modern-minimalist styling much sexier.
SmilerGrogan: Publishing photos of that small girl with food plastered all around her mouth is tantamount to child abuse. Girls have very fragile self esteem as it is, there is no need to feed it into the internet for further punishment. Internet content never goes away and those pictures will condemn the poor child to a lifetime of shame, obloquy, and ridicule.One imagines that the person who took them thinks of them as innocent documents of a life stage, or humorous examples of a childish lack of self awareness. But they are neither, what they are is cruel.
You have a sick mind, go away please.
Just a Photographer: More resolution at the cost of image sharpness of everything over f8.0 due to diffraction. People will soon find out that the more megapixels doesn't automatically imply more sharpness and detail.
To start learning about physics and the laws of nature and why diffraction kicks in with this camera. Read this:
FYI. The Canon 5Ds sensor pixel density is 4.1uM.
I occasionally use the 9-18 and the 12-32 but, like you, mostly small primes -- which is what the system is really perfect for. Just the 20/1.7 probably accounts for over 80% of my images from the GX7...
MichaelIsGreat4: A black and white picture in 2015? I never fail to be highly disappointed when someone posts such a black and white picture, no matter how good it is! Obviously, this picture would have been way much better in color!!!For this reason alone, this picture should not get a 1st place even though it is a good picture.
I have dived with giant mantas, and I feel that a B&W image is probably a better representation of my memory of the experience that a color image would be. The sheer size and shape of it is so striking that that's all that you process, and B&W is good to isolate shape from the distraction of color (which your brain also does in a situation like that). Plus, in a night dive (as you usually do to see mantas) with dim light, your eyes don't perceive much color to begin with (the light from the surface in the picture seems to be a spotlight aimed at the water, but I could be wrong).
That is in fact why I'm pretty sure of what I'm saying: I have both a 5DIII and a GX7, and fast lenses for both.
I believe that the reason why Panasonic and Olympus haven't gone above 16MP is because, even though that would be useful for people with primes and fast zooms, images would no longer be pixel-level sharp with the f/5.6 bundled kit zooms, which reviewers use. Fairly or not, this would likely lead to headlines about image quality in most reviews that could be disastrous for the reputation and sales of the system...
Can you tell me one thing I've said which is wrong? Always willing to learn. Most of it is based on fairly simple analysis and, yes, tested (hint: there are plenty of sensors smaller than 35mm-format with comparable pixel pitch to what the 5Ds will have). If you can't point out anything that's wrong, you really are playing the part of the useless I'm-above-everyone-else sarcastic poseur.
Photomonkey: It's a gear forum, in a gear announcement post, in a gear web site. People will talk based on what they know, and hopefully learn from each other. If you don't like discussions of gear, what the heck are you doing here playing the hipster I'm-above-everyone-else sarcastic poseur?
Then don't own it. You are very confused if you think this is a generalist camera. It's a specialist camera for studio with controlled lighting (product, fashion), and for landscape on a tripod. The reason why many landscapes were shot at f/16 is because that's where lenses used to be sharpest, especially corners. There's been enormous progress in optics, in case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of lenses now that are super sharp at f/5.6, and even at f/2.8 (so we might see a 200MP camera sooner than you think). You don't need 50MP, I don't need 50MP, but I'm very happy that those who can make use of 50MP have it available without paying tens of thousands for a medium-format system.