Has anyone noticed that this lens is thinner than all existing M43 lenses? It may seem longer than it is, just as the pancakes may seem flat because they are fat.
tkbslc: You guys know this is really f4.9 on Medium format, right?
Light per unit sensor area is the same for all f1.7 lenses. Light per sensor is not the same if the sensor area is different. More total light would have contributed to produce the final photo in the case of the larger sensor. If you enlarge by the same ratio, then in the final displayed pictures, both pictures would have the same light per area, but one picture is larger than the other. If you enlarge to the same display size, the larger sensor would need a smaller enlargement ratio resulting in higher light per display area. It's all besides the point if you don't make efficient use of the more light you get, of course.
bluevellet: I don't need something in that focal range. But I do appreciate it has an aperture ring, hopefully something other modern lenses will have more often.
It's helpful to get an extra ring to control anything when used on an ultra-compact like the GM1. Maybe less relevant on a fuller body.
Jeff Greenberg: No image stablization.Why? Shame.Need fast zoom, too.
The NEX body is thin between the mount and the sensor, probably not enough space to house sensor IS.
Plastek: But... erm... what for? Looks fugly, doesn't bring any benefits to the user, and only takes more space in pocket/bag than a regular phone.
Makes it more comfortable to put into a trouser pocket?
KariIceland: That fool me into thinking they are paintings? Eh.... no just NO. Non of them look like a painting AT ALL! My photographs on instagram look more like a painting than this and even I'm not trying to make them look that way.
Link to your instagram pictures so everyone could go and appreciate them?
mpgxsvcd: It is interesting that dpreview is posting rumors now.
Otherwise what's the purpose of the news section? News items not accompanied by a preview article are usually just confirmations of weeks old rumours...
What's the point of DPR news items when not coupled with previews? By the time something makes to this news section, it would have had a long life in various leak/rumour environments and become stale.
Music playing and scripting/user programming have been re-discovered for cameras in the form of mobile phones...
One day there will no longer be a camera that cannot make a call.
Those who think that lenses last longer than camera bodies, think again ...
emircruz: I wonder how much better this is compared to the 45 1.8..
It's a lot better at wider apertures than 1.8. It's also unlikely to be noticeably better from 1.8 onwards, with the Olympus being so good already, perhaps on the border of possibility.
I'm stopping my plan of getting the 1.8, until the price of this forces me to return to that plan ...
Naveed Akhtar: What was wrong with G5 sensor? why Pany like using GX1 sensor? if not GH3's. No doubt controls, size, featureset and ergonomics are perfect!!
The GX1 sensor is cheap. Plus they'd like to use the different sensors as a method of organizing the different model levels.
gl2k: With regard to D800 vs D800E this is hilarious !!Nice evidence that D800E is the ultimate rip-off for would-be pros. Much reminds me of "Emperors New Clothes".
With stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
Almost all tests have revealed improvements with the E version in sharpness in optimal conditions. You buy this several percent mostly unobservable improvement with a large money difference, but when you do need the improvement it would be there.
Greynerd: This is not like a Samsung NX roadmap is it? I presume there is a chance these lenses will actually exist one day unlike the NX 16-80, 55mm and anything hinted at over 200mm.
But at what price? It seems encouraging that these have not been named Leicas, but...
TimK5: The 150 F2.8 sounds great, but I'd rather see Olympus develop those type of lenses.
What about a m.Zuiko 300f4?
My dream would be an 8-18f4 that takes filters and a 100-400f4.
ND, GND, etc. can be useful, regardless of angle of view. Polarizers will be tricky, but do provide the only way of cutting through reflections at select locations in the frame, if this is what one wants. A filter mount is not always a necessity, but is nice to have.
ASHKAN OLADZAD: nice but f7.1 with this dreamy lens???!!!
DoF is just about right, with a bit of reserve. A wider aperture could result in parts of the subject and water drops out of DoF. I wonder how fill flash is done at 1/1250.
Jorginho: You have many European customers on this site. So price in Euro would be nice too (or do the differ too much per country?).
but dpr was started in the UK so is retaining some of its original flavour...
Rage Joe: Awful colors, can't remember when I have seen worse. Very unimpressive camera altogether. Who wants one of these uglies when there is so much good stuff on the shelves?
If you think the saturation, vibrancy, or vividness is lacking this can easily be added in PP. So long as the colour space is properly recorded it's fine, and it is not possible to determine whether colour bits have been lost or whether the colour rendition of the lens is lacking in some way from sample shots done by someone else at a venue and time not experienced by oneself. You don't like the colour presentation of these photos, which could be down to a lot of reasons including the photographer setting the camera options in a certain way rather than the camera itself being unimpressive.
The only conclusion one can surely draw from samples like these is when one likes them, then one knows for sure that it's possible to achieve results with a camera that one likes. If one dislikes them, in many cases no conclusion can be drawn.
Exactly how are the colours awful? Were you there when the shots were taken? The original scenes may have looked exactly like the photos for all we know.
This camera is uber desirable for me, but how can a camera be a single invention?