Learned a lot from comments today:-Pro Photographer don't use wide angles-Pro Photographer don't use less than full frame-M43 is dead-People misses non micro 4/3 for some reason-You don't F4 if you can F2. NEVER
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.
Everybody knows PRO photographers only use large format film cameras with film plates the size of a baby's blanket. Digital is for sissies!
Jogger: Slight correction:
"...which delivers a similar angle of view to an 85mm focal length and a DOF of f2.4 on full frame cameras."
Really, why don't? Degrees and centimeters, so easy to understand! Why should you assume a reader have prior experience on shooting fast full frame lenses?
lcf80: Dear Olympus. Please start producing lens like this (F/1.2 primes), priced like this or slightly higher (NOT like the Leica), with AF.
Olympus already makes a wonderful 45 1.8 you can buy for nuts (got mine new for 220€), don't you think you are asking too much?
Shiranai: I don't get why they're releasing their interesting lenses just for uncommon systems like Sony and Fuji X. Makes no sense...
Flange back distance: I suppose there is no enought room between sensor and rear lens element to house a mirror assembly. So they are releasing for every major mirrorless system, not that uncommon...
"Beams of sunlight spontaneously generate cats"Nitpicking doesn't.
It's like I'm missing something... to remove a little wobble, that only affect big heavy lens strapped to the most compact full frame camera in the market that you supposely bought for its portability; that does not affect image quality in any way; and that never caused breakage or other kind of problems (in my knowledge), you are supposed to:-spend 40$?-void your warranty?-perform a dangerous operation close to the sensor?-give up water proofing?Looks like a very good deal...
joe6pack: Why is the lady in the picture holding the camera as if it has a viewfinder?
(Edit: okay, she is using a different camera)
looks like a Fuji instax...
Linus M: "The only working unit is a prototype with an F2.0 lens that's much bulkier than the anticipated final product, and held together with duck tape"
Sorry, but your "duck" tape made me smile.Its called duct tape....and then again, in the picture its not even that.
Looking at words and tape...just shows how little interest this device triggered in me....
Duck tape is correct too, make your searches there is a funny story behind. And that in the pictures is electrical tape, not duck/duct. You can see I'm also very interested in the product...
marcio_napoli: Yeah, right.
Just right, Sony, keep them coming, those bizarre, freakish gadgets you're trying to sell.
If one is serious enough for APS-C, yeah, go ahead... show you're tremendously serious about your photography, and plug it to your cell phone, to have the largest sensor-that-makes-zero-sense-plugged-to-your-pocketable-telephone.
Yeah, makes tons of sense.
btw an APS-C webcam might be pointless if you are just chattin with your mom, but on a business teleconference it would make you look so good that old man from Singapore will buy your stuff for an higher price!
Why? Because you say so? While not my weapon of choice, I can see dozens of good uses for this little toy:-If you are not a compulsive shooter but want to just take few high quality shots when needed, this is the most compact setup possible.-If you are a pro using a Nex body, this is a super small and light backup/second body.-Paired with a tablet this would be a great compact setup for a videographer or a great proof camera for a studio photographer to check composition.-With a fast lens and an ipad you can pretend to be one of the assholes who take front row at theater just to blind who's behid during the kid's dance show, then blow their mind when comparing pictures taken.
If is not your cup of tea, don't judge the taste of the one's drinking it.
I'd rather like to see other companies trying to innovate so bad like Sony is doing! Yeah but of course every product that is not tailor-made to your use case is a nonsense, right?
I wonder if someone already paired this with Google Glass (or if is it even possible)...
I can only say wow! Expecially number 1, if I wasn't so out of money now I'd instantly buy it on canvas!
mpgxsvcd: The single biggest thing to remember here is that Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus all depend on revenue from something other than Digital Cameras to keep their businesses going. Canon and Nikon are Camera companies first and foremost.
Slumping camera sales will hurt Nikon and Canon way more than it would for Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic. If Nikon and Canon stopped selling DSLRs and compact cameras tomorrow those companies wouldn’t be around for long.
Cameras like this are the best bet at continuing to sell cameras to the mass market. Canon and Nikon have abandoned this market almost entirely.
Having a big company to cover your back means that company like Sony can take the risk of bringing new, innovative and exciting products to the market, something that a company like Nikon can't. Sometimes they miss, sometimes they change the world. Cameras like this may be aimed to mass market (so are many Canikon products), but when I think to A7 or R1 I'm really happy that Sony is not Nikon.
koolbreez: The photographer did not willingly give the camera to the monkey with the intention of the monkey taking the pictures.
The monkey took the pictures on its own, with no instruction, or payment from the photographer to do so. This might have been a different case if the photographer had paid the monkey, with maybe fruit, for the monkey's work in taking the pictures, but as no form of payment took place, from the accounts of what happened, the monkey owns the copy-write, and with not contesting the creative commons designation by the monkey, the copy-write is lost, except for commercial purposes.
Also I doubt that under US, UK, EU or whatever law, giving a banana to a monkey is a legal binding work-for-hire contract...
Eddy M: The locals eat this poor monkeys., they call them 'daging yaki' (yaki meat). They're even widely sold at the market.
If you eat the copyright holder than the copyright belongs to you. Maybe.
GaryJP: The ape may have pressed the shutter. But there is more to taking a photograph than pressing the shutter. I doubt that the ape set the aperture, focal length or time, chose the lens, or took the camera to the location, or cropped the image. I am surprised more photographers don't seem to know this.
The photographer travelled to a place with monkeys, followed those monkeys for days, saw saind monkeys knoking out his expensive equipments, let them play with such equipment, avoid scaring or interfering with those monkeys while the where taking hundreds of pictures, checked all those pictures until found this particular one, processed it, and yet there is no "creative act"?
Kim Letkeman: IP law is complex and no doubt Wikimedia has checked this out thoroughly and has the photographer by the (monkey's) stones ... but they're still scum bags for putting it in the public domain "on behalf of a monkey" for their own benefit.
Just had another thought. Since the photographer handed the camera to the monkey (prove that he did not), does that not mean that the monkey was shooting selfies while acting as his assistant? Technicalities might just cut both ways ...
Wikimedia just reject any request for content takedown (304 so far) as you can see in its "transparancy report"
JapanCanon: Does this mean i dont have copyright in images I took on self timer?
From a legal standpoint, it doesnt matter what people think is right, or how they think the law should apply based on a few snippets that they understand, or a feeling for what is right and wrong. The only way to consider this situation from a legal standpoint is to sit down, read the words of the law, consider the facts and how those words apply to those facts. Probably Wikipedia did this and believe they have a strong legal argument.
No intentions? The photographer went to Indonesia, followed the monkeys for day, set up a camera, saw the monkey playing with his expensive equipment and choose to not interfere with what was happening... this looks quite intentional to me! Claiming he didn't own the copyright on the photo because there is imprevedible behaviours involved, is like saying that Pollock doesn't own copyright to his painting because he cannot predict where the paint he sent flying will land on the canvas!