photomedium: I actually appreciate very much Sony a7 series vs, for example, the OlyEM 1 EM 5 EM10 or the fuji XT1 XT10 and all the other docked down model series intended to fill up catalogs and rake in the DPR silver awards. Really an old business model that has no place in the current market IMO.I think Sony should be the model for all other camera makers to follow: put the best know-how in each camera toward a specific goal and let people pick what they need.
@stevo23 Stupid me, I thought the photographer made the photos.
Everlast66: I think it is laughable to call anything associated with the M4/3 system "PRO"!!
Surely there would be one or two enthusiasts, but no normal professional will rely on a M4/3 sensor for their professional work.
Mike99999: I can't believe Sony beat Olympus in bringing a professional mirrorless wide angle zoom to the market. Olympus is taking a really long time on this one.
I'd like to see a real-world comparison between the Olympus PRO zoom trinity and the Sony Zeiss/G FE zooms trinity, analyzing sharpness and bokeh. I already kind of know the answer, but it would be good to see it in the flesh.
I've been using my Pana 7-14 on my Olympus bodies for some years now.
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!
"Just another Canon shooter"s FF images become two stops slower when cropped in PS! Woha! Magic!
Rooru S: Excellent range. Hopefully it will perform great. Now I'm questioning myself why buy again E-mount APS-C cameras...
Looks like it event performs better than the little tuna 150/2.(keeping in mind MTF 2.0 vs. 2.8, so the little tuna could outperform the new lens at 2.8)
yslee1: Does the TC work with other lenses?
Not with existing it seems, but will work with the coming 300/4.
Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: It it lighter and cheaper than I thought (based on the past lenses). It will be interesting to see price and weight of Olympus's 300mm f4 lens (planned to release next year). Also, if this 1.4x tele converter will work with that 300mm f4 lens or not?
Olympus says yes, works with the 300/4.
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.
Followers of the cult of equivalence will not read your comments just repeat their rahrahrah.
Jogger: The 12-40 was shown to be all plastic inside with a thin metal casing... pretty sneaky if you ask me. The best built m43 lens so far is the Sigma made 75/1.8.. amazing internals.
My 12-40 makes nices photos, I'm sad yours is not to your satisfaction.
RichRMA: The laws of physics haven't changed, and no one has made a really good zoom lens with a zoom range over over 5x.
Not the physics, but the tools with better glass material.
Juandante: The next format Sony is going to take down. A10 in MF ?
Why should they take down anything? They sell all the sensors to everyone.
nicolaiecostel: Pentax is slowly fading due to the fact that they boxed themselves into a corner they can't escape. Olympus faded on the SLR market but jumped at the right time in the m43 boat, Samsung and Panasonic gave up on their SLR dreams for the better. Not Pentax. They keep selling "hey, look at me, I'm slightly better than that entry level/mid level canon/nikon, for less $$".
At least Sony took a different road to Canon and Nikon when they saw they cannot compete.
The SLR market is shrinking considerably and Pentax is still banging the same old drum, making a better Rebel/D5100 and a slightly worst but cheaper 7D, paired with the ubiquitous 18-55, in all it's itterations. The fact of the matter is, most Pentax users I know still use the kit lenses, and with Pentax glass getting that much more expensive lately, it's really hard to justify adding quality glass to a body that wants to sell itself as a performance bargain in comparrison to C/N. Time for Pentax to step up their game.
"For your information, Pentax is the company that defined the SLR look."
And this is which way relevant to nicolaiecostels comment?
PhotoPoet: Using a Sony RX 100, Nikon D7000 and of course iPhone5. I think I will pass. I am even with all the reading I am doing still confused as to "why" I want to switch. For me the D7000 (any DSLR) is speed. I will have to read a bit more to see if these four thirds cameras perform in such as way as to dump my D7000. Any one that is a user of this equipment, not just a "mine is bigger so its better" shooter, feel free to provide insight
@whyamihere: What would help you most is learning to read forum threads I guess.
Kimchiflower did not compare his G3 to a D7000 but a D90. chris96326 compared a D7100 to his E-M5 in picture quality.
Hope I could help you.
Noogy: Olympus Camedia was my first digital camera ever :) It sucked battery life like there's no tomorrow, would wipe out two Alkaline double As after about 20 shots without flash, but hey - it bought me from film to digital! Also with technology limitations then, I sometimes feel people were actually compelled to take better photos, hence they produced better photographers than the crappy ones who live and die on post-processing today.
My first camera was also a Camedia, an C-800L :-)
webrunner5: Hmm, looks pretty impressive.
@Iceman1973: That's the reason I only buy old bodies and got an new EPL5 for EUR 300 last week. Is the P5/GX7 better? Sure. Is it 700 EUR better? Hmm. Is it better with the kit lens compared to a EPL5/75/1.8 or 45 (if you're into primes)? Surely not.
peevee1: I don;t understand why would you prefer $1100 Nikon A or $800 Ricoh GR over, say, $200 GX1+$170 14/2.5 (you are getting the same IQ plus faster focusing plus touchscreen plus optional EVF plus ability to change lenses when needed plus ability to keep this 14mm for your next body vs just throwing out everything), or E-PL5+14mm (even better IQ, stabilization, tilting screen in addition to what GX1 gets you) or $600 RX100 (zoom, stabilization). Must be some irrational weirdo thing with getting less for more, like with Leicas.
Not sure what everyone has with this GX1, a two generations behind camera.
marike6: GR RAW files are noisier than Coolpix A files, both in the RAW Comparison tool and on DxOMark sensor ratings scores (GR's 972 ISO vs Coolpix A's 1164 ISO), while colors from the DNG files aren't as good by DPR's own admission (see Con #2) and in the sample images. Yet DPR has RAW IQ between the GR and Coolpix A as the same?
It's can't be lens difference as both lenses scored identically on DxOMark Lens Test (see DxOMark front page for GR lens test).
It's seems fairly obvious that the GR has better ergonomics along with the superb GR menu system. But the A has the class leading Sony Exmor sensor, and seems to produce a better looking files / images (See review samples).
Why is everyone always feeding the Marike troll?
I'm sure the Ricoh is an excellent camera.
Some remarks though:
1. As shown by Canon using an old APSC sensor for the 700d, sensor size is relative to the benefit of image quality. The E-M5 has better image quality than the 700d (low and high iso).
2. Not sure where you did get the 2X larger sensor, it's 1.64x for Nikon and 1.46x for Canon. Quite a difference to 2x.
Sergey Borachev: Trying to make it look like a vintage "F"Nikon is a mistake because those early Nikons are well know for being big, solid and heavy, and this 1-series cameras are small cameras. It does not work. The extra large viewfinder/flash block on top of a small camera just makes it look odd, and also awkward/inconvenient when put into a bag or jacket pocket. The Olympus PEN or the OMD look better, at least to those who remember their earlier cameras, because their sizes and silver/metal looks resemble the older cameras much btter.
This stunt only takes away any size and weight advantage that the V2 should have when compared to the APS-C NEX-6 or M43 E-PL5. Have a look at their sizes, side by side here:
I don't think Nikon can compete in miniaturising cameras with Sony or Olympus.
By a strange coincidence, I have an EPM1/14mm right in my jacket pocket.
Everdog: bradleyg5, nice try. The E-M5 runs circles around the old T2i. I can say this since I have used both. Also, the Olympus 75mm clearly performs better than the Canon 85mm lens (one of my favorite Canon lenses). The Canon also suffers from some pretty bad CA wide open, but still a good lens for the price...just not as good as the Olympus it seems.
@DarkShift: You're not discussing things with Marike6 the homepage comment troll, are you?