mferencz: Fuji makes great stuff, but i'm thinking they need to differentiate themselves a little more from Nikon and Canon. Big heavy lenses are the bread of butter of the big two. A slightly more sensitive sensor is not enough in my book. They should compete with M43 not with FF and APSC. Find a niche and preferably not in the wheelhouse of the bully on the block. Otherwise damn yourself to getting the scraps.
Oh I forgot about the huge market share and profits Fuji has developed with it's mirrorless cameras. It's substantially less than M43 let alone Canon or Nikon. Lets create a camera that nullifies half the advantages mirroless provides and make lenses the size of FF telephoto zooms. Being a 'cult' camera only works if the masses see it as such, if they see it as more of the same, it's an extinct camera line and you sir sound as if your a camera paleontoligst
Fuji makes great stuff, but i'm thinking they need to differentiate themselves a little more from Nikon and Canon. Big heavy lenses are the bread of butter of the big two. A slightly more sensitive sensor is not enough in my book. They should compete with M43 not with FF and APSC. Find a niche and preferably not in the wheelhouse of the bully on the block. Otherwise damn yourself to getting the scraps.
justmeMN: The Canon SL1/100D is 10% narrower, 3% shorter, and weights 18% less than the Olympus E-M1.
How about the huge electronic viewfinder with crisp clear images and great refresh rate vs the tiny finder in the mini Canon.
Can't help but think of a giant hat on a tiny man every time I put something other than a pancake on it. The mount is too big but the idea is great.
Hubertus Bigend: Fuji seems to do everything right, as of now. The whole X sytem makes the impression of a completely different (higher) level of perfection than the other mirrorless systems, better thought-out and much more consistent. Why do Olympus or Sony fail to design such lenses? They have nothing comparable, and what they have sometimes is still even more expensive.
On the other hand, the X system bodies do feel slightly plasticky in hand, and while the X system lenses look nice and solid, their internal mechanical parts are completely made of plastic (i've seen several cut-in-half lenses on display), so we don't know yet whether the stuff will be as durable as it looks.
Shigzeo? that has to be the most absurd thing i've read in a while 'unless X is gonna stay around for 30 years, it's a bit of a leap of faith in order to invest'. Put it this way, if your around in 30 years you are NOT going to be using what your using now. Unless you have some fascination with using relics or giant lenses from the past. That I know for sure. What I don't know is if Fuji or M43 or FF is going to be around in the next 10 years, and if so how.
steven_k: I purchased 2 of them hoping the first one I got was a dud, but it wasn't.I shot the lens at F4 optimal setting for this lens at infinity focus for landscapes on my OMD and I can tell you hands down this is not a good lens for landscapes.No where near as good as the 12, 25, 45 or 75mm lenses. My opinion is that this lens is probably a good street shooter lens. Not what I has hoping for.I guess the problem is at the end of the day it is a 17mm lens, and to make a tack sharp 17mm lens for 500.00 is probably almost impossible.Though the Oly 12 which is by far not perfect, I feel does perform better over all yet again a 700.00 lens.
Marik6 do you work for Fuji? Seriously... The topic is of no importance. Work in a little Fuji her a little Fuji there all with the utmost endearment.
itsastickup: Another bokeh-less fast lens for m4/3.
And paying a lot of money for it too.
No bokeh no buy.
Why would you want lots of Bokeh in Contextual Portraits???? I am of the opinion having the backround in focus is traditional in terms of this discipline. If you blur the backround there is no context? This lens is perfect for what you do.