tonytonytony: Usually, I only read your posts here. On the account of Canon's debut into mirror-less, I thought I'd join in on the brouhaha.
Canon is smart. Canon is testing the market on their terms, design and all. I imagine that both the advancements in EVF technology and Sensor technology will alter the course of this model. It may even become a vanguard for their product-line: Compact, EVF, DSLR.
In the next five-years, I want this camera to be THE travel-camera. I imagine Fuji to hold the highest competition --looks and other things. (I am a digital Fuji-patron, despite only having a GW690II.) Yet if this Canon is endowed with an EVF in future models, along with improved sensor capabilities (given Canon's impressive algorithms), tack on a silk-nightie and she can go with me anywhere.
I respectfully disagree, Canon has had plenty of time to see what's happening in the market and release a product that would compete. They could have, and I feel should have, come out strong, but they decided to protect their DSLR sales, similar to Nikon.
Their main rivals are Olympus and Panasonic who have no DSLR sales to protect and are going after Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al, in the majority of the DSLR markets (beginner, enthusiast, etc.).
I don't doubt that Canon will produce a more enthusiast version of the EOS-M, but it would have been nice to see them go for it straight out of the blocks. Maybe releasing two versions like Nikon. They have the engineering expertise and user base, they just needed to use it.
Regardless, there's some very interesting times ahead...
Lee Jay: And I thought lenses for small sensors were supposed to be smaller and cheaper than lenses for full-frame. The Canon 85/1.8 (an excellent lens optically with very fast ring USM focusing and good build quality) goes for $389 at B&H right now.
Shouldn't this lens, with shorter focal length and thus a smaller aperture, designed for a 1/4 sized sensor go for around $250 or so?
@viking79: No, the 75mm f1.8 is the equivalent of the 135 f2.0. Unless you're under the impression that with a m43 lens when you meter with an external lightmeter and it tells you to set the 1/60th at f2.0 you would set 1/60th at f4.0?? I mean you could, but you'd be underexposing, you know that, right?
ithinkthatsme: For DOF maniacs, some sample photos are here: http://olympus-imaging.jp/product/dslr/mlens/75_18/sample/index.html
So, to resume it, you have a lens that gives you the Effective Focal Length of 150mm lens wich you can expose as an F1.8 lens and have shallow DOF of an 150mm/F4 lens ... i think people doesn't realise how shallow an 150mm/F4 lens will give you. Oh yeah and it weight a lot less and also much smaller.
Yep, but that won't stop people complaining about it, unfortunately. But for the rest of us, its going to be a great lens at a decent price.
Thanks for the link.
mhike: It's almost as if 4/3 and u4/3 is a scam for the lenses.
The lenses are much slower than they advertise, but then the push with mirrorless is to make ever-slower lenses, particularly zooms, but make them look a bit expensive and now people froth all over them and pay ridiculous prices.
And no lens hood at the prices they charge? Really?
@mhike: This has been explained many, many times before. Just take a look at the 12-35 thread from a few days back, with regards to aperture and DoF.
donthasslethehoff: This deflates my interest in m43. Pricing isn't sensible for non-pro's here, so I'm wondering with this lens at $900 and the Panasonic 12-35mm priced at $1200, does the m43 system lose it's luster?
For me, it is, and I really like the OM-D.
Sure, I can still buy the 45mm prime for a decent price and the Pana 20mm, but comparing these lenses to their CaNikon equivalents, I'm trying to see the value proposition.
Maybe there isn't one. Glad I didn't sell some of the Canon glass I kept.
I don't think it is that expensive, nor do I believe its just pro's who buy the expensive lenses. The 12-35 seems to be a little cheaper than the other OEM f2.8 standard zooms. The 75mm seems to be priced lower than the Canon 135 f2 and lots of non-pro's seem to have that lens.
The m43 lens line-up is starting to get more interesting for a lot of people. Me included!
The lens cap is optional??? I'm hoping that it comes with a plastic lens cap and the metallic lens cap is an option.
draculavn: From compared photos shown here, it's easy to see 5D Mark III clearly beats d800 in the fields of white balance, color tone and contrast. That's what I need and I will purchase a new 5D Mark III soon
dpreview just focus the issue of visible noise reduction which we never see. Some issue that we face just a few times in photography.
This review from techradar is much more impressive and fairhttp://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-1074186/review
@draculavn: you're taking this way too seriously. It's just a camera.
plasnu: 82%. Ok, this scoring system is nothing but embarrasing for all of us, C or N fanboys, the sponsors and the reviewer himself. Dpreview should just stop this scoring system which is completely meaningless.
What should it have got?
RStyga: I believe what photoshutter was trying to point out is the difference not only in focal length but also in DoF (and he also made a mistake in the calculation). It is true that the same lenses (whenever possible by the lens manufacturer) on 4/3 sensor bodies (m4/3 are 4/3 in terms of sensor size) are one F-stop darker than on APS-C sensor bodies and two stops darker than on FF bodies; this affects the DoF value. So, in order to obtain the same DoF on a 4/3-sensor camera you need one F-stop brighter lens (all other lens parameters unchanged). Practically speaking, in this case, the lens by Panasonic is 24-70mm F5.6 (35mm equivalent) and 16-47mm F4 (APS-C equivalent).
The thing is, I'd imagine for the majority of people, having the extra DoF is preferred to not having it. I certainly appreciate i, especially in low light where there's always a trade of between stopping blur and DoF.
Also, f2.8 is f2.8, whether on m43, APS-C, 35mm FF, 120, 5x4 or 10x8. To say the lens, purely due to the DoF, is f4.0 is not very helpful to people who don't know better. It just spreads confusion, like seen in this whole thread.
topstuff: All very lovely, but this is'nt really an F2.8 lens is it, compared to APSC or FF?
What would be the equivalent APSC lens? A 17-50 I guess? And if my understanding is correct, would this 4/3 lens have to be a F1.4 to have the same light gathering as a F2.8 in larger sensors?
As said somewhere below, I don't think it is a simple as simply doubling the focal length to get a "FF equivalent" and keeping the max aperture the same.
I am not sure if this really a f2.8 as we know it. I am sure the people at DPR can clarify !
A lovely thing though I am sure, especially with an OMD EM5.
No, you're getting aperture mixed up with depth of field (doF). 1/60th sec @ f2.8 is the same regardless of format. If you had a handheld light meter telling you to set 1/60th @ f2.8 its the same on m43, 35mm or medium format. To get the same depth of field on m43 as 35mm FF then yes, it would need to have a larger aperture.
Personally, I've had more difficulty in getting more DoF than shallow DoF for low light shots, m43 really helps here. But that's me.
All the pictures deem to be missing from this article. Any chance we could get the links fixed?