What is the aperture at 200mm equivalent? EDIT: just saw chart in preview. So it's @ f4 already at 200mm equivalent.
Richard, are you guys intentionally delaying the RX100 III review so you can do a 1" sensor camera shootout that includes the Panasonic LX8 and the new Fuji camera (and the new Nikon?)???? It's OK to let us know!
Phil Askey: Nice job peeps.
Phil, I was just thinking during the live broadcast that dpreview should have had you there and interviewed you, to get your thoughts on the cameras today and the future trends.
I'm not sure what you're up to nowadays, but I am sure all of the old timers would have loved to see you.
Philly: @ Andy Westlake
Andy, do you have any opinion of the 12-40mm vs. the 12-60mm SWD? I just got the E-M1 and will be trying it out with my 12-60mm. Do you think 12-60mm owners gain much by going to the 12-40mm (other than the smaller size and the faster focus)? Thanks, if you can offer any comments.
Thanks, Andy. As much as I would love to buy the 12-40mm, it would be very difficult for me to justify that without selling the 12-60mm. And it is hard for me to let go of the 12-60mm at current market prices. Your comments help in the decision process. I held on to my 12-60mm because I never thought Oly could match it--at least at the same price level. Maybe Oly can surprise again and even improve the PDAF in the next generation camera--probably more for continuous CAF reasons than for 4/3 lens support. But it does appear to me that they have the potential for significant PDAF improvement through addition of cross hair sensor and some firmware improvements.
Thanks again for your comments. I enjoyed reading your take on the E-M1 and all your other reviews through the years.
EDIT: BTW, for anyone interested, one slight advantage for the 12-60mm is that the DOF is a little thinner at 60mm f4.0 vs. 40mm f2.8 for head and shoulders shots, which may be useful in some situations.
@ Andy Westlake
Philly: This is a very surprising recommendation from the same reviewer who wrote the "First Impression" on GM1. If you look at that "First Impression", it was very negative:
with only the camera's negatives highlighted. What changed?
Hi Andy: yes, I did read the last paragraph. It even starts off by saying that "we don't want to be too negative". But I do acknowledge the positive comments about the camera being "cute" and a "feat of engineering". To me, the overall message was that the camera may be cute and a feat of engineering, but to what end? The "positive" points served as a foil to highlight the negatives, I thought.
I'm somewhat agnostic towards the GM1, but I just thought the "gear of the year" recommendation seemed much at odds with what was written in the "first impression", that's all. Thanks.
This is a very surprising recommendation from the same reviewer who wrote the "First Impression" on GM1. If you look at that "First Impression", it was very negative:
Oly72: Seems very odd that 'What digital Camera' gave the E-P5 a rating of 90% and a 'Gold Award' and with absolutely no mention of blurred images at shutter speeds of 1/160. Olympus has the best image stabilisation system around - bar none. Are you sure that the sample used for the test wasn't just a faulty unit as I just cannot believe that Olympus would release a camera with such an issue.
'Camera labs' also gave the E-P5 a score rating of 86% and again with out any mention of blurred images at the fore mentioned speeds.
'Techradar.com' Gave the E-P5 a 5 out of 5 star rating and guess what? No mention again of blurred images at the stated shutter speeds?!!
To Andy Westlake: the shutter shock on the E-P5 does not sound very encouraging for the E-M1. Based on the specs (1/8000 sec, 1/320 flash sync), and common sense, I would have believe that the E-M1 and E-P5 use the same shutter. I hope that dpreview will address this explicitly on the E-M1 review. I would like to buy the E-M1 and am hoping that it does not have the problem.
Philly: Amazing that he doesn't wear any gloves while doing this. Isn't there a risk of getting oil from the finger tips onto the components? It doesn't seem like a very good practice.
Roger, thanks for your comments. I just thought wearing gloves would be a standard practice, as I believed it was at the factories and service centers. But maybe they don't as well.
Amazing that he doesn't wear any gloves while doing this. Isn't there a risk of getting oil from the finger tips onto the components? It doesn't seem like a very good practice.
Any info on the diopter adjustment range? I'm wondering if the LF's EVF diopter also goes down to -4, as it does on my G3.
Philly: backfocus? Was focus on face? The face looks soft, but the orange "350" sign in the back left side looks sharper. For a f4.0 1/80 shot, I would have expected a better technical performance from this lens. I'm not sure why dpreview would post this shot unless it is a representative shot--in which case, it is rather disappointing, in my opinion.
Thanks, Richard. That makes sense. With that in mind, and your note that the "eyes shut" photo was sharper, I think your comment on overall sharpness of this lens is consistent with what all the review sample photos show. It's not bad--particularly after you apply a bit of sharpening. To me, it's not quite as sharp as the 45mm 1.8 and 20mm 1.7.
Well, I looked all around the frame for a sharp focus point, and really didn't find one. You're probably right in that the orange 350 just look sharper. On second look, maybe the round red object to the left is the focus point? I think this lens (maybe just this lens sample?) just doesn't have the micro contrast pop.
If the focus is on the face, it is not very impressive, in my opinion. Just look at the hair. I would have expected more details.
EDIT: forgot to mention, Richard Butler implied that there could be operator error in this photo. That would make much more sense to me. Maybe there was just a little camera shake--even at 1/80 sec?
backfocus? Was focus on face? The face looks soft, but the orange "350" sign in the back left side looks sharper. For a f4.0 1/80 shot, I would have expected a better technical performance from this lens. I'm not sure why dpreview would post this shot unless it is a representative shot--in which case, it is rather disappointing, in my opinion.
Marty4650: "Body cap lens"..... where have I heard that before?
Raist3d -- actually, Olympus probably had more turmoil than Pentax during this period: Oly CEO fired, financial scandal, near bankruptcy, financial infusion by Sony. And still Oly ships at least 6 months before Pentax.
I guess my point is, it seemed as if you were presenting a Pentax development announcement in Feb 2012 as an indication that Pentax led Oly on this type of product. It just doesn't seem likely to me. But who knows.
(reply to Raist3d's comment)
Since Oly shipped their body cap lens in late 2012, I would think Oly had their lens in development before Pentax's Feb 2012 "announcement". Not sure if Oly thought of this idea before Pentax, though. But Pentax is now saying they won't ship this until Summer 2013. Could they have started development before Oly and then end up shipping 6 months after Oly?