Pete_CSCS: I have the same, exact Anker battery I bought a year and a half ago mainly to recharge my smart phone when I'm away from AC. The battery is nicely made and gives me about 6 (near dead to full) recharges on my phone! It also holds a charge well for long periods of time.
My Oly E-M1 uses a BLN-1 battery rated at 7.6-Volt and 1220 mAh. Has anyone tried building one of these for an E-M5/1?
These camera have external grips with batteries, so it certainly would be possible to construct an external pack with yet more power.
Chaitanya S: distance scale on that 60mm macro is insane, also price is just right. cant wait to get one.
Robin Wong, in a preview, describes the new 60mm as being optically as good as the 50mm in the 4/3 line and maybe a bit better. Plus it has fast A/F, the magnification/distance scale, weatherproof, reaches 1:1 without an extension tube. I'm looking forward to Robin's full review as well as that from DPreview and others :-)
I noticed in a photo of the 60mm f2.8 lens posted elsewhere an interesting switch. On the left side of the lens barrel is a rotary switch with the following settings:
* 1/1* 0.18 - 0.4 m* 0.4 m - infinity* 0.18 m - infinity
This rather obviously helps with autofocus be selecting the distance range to be checked :-)
We obviously already can use our OM mount lenses on the 4/3 and m4/3 bodies (as well as on other compact interchangeable lens cameras) with suitable adapters. I fully expect that any new model from Olympus would be a m4/3 camera (possibly a regular 4/3). I think it is extremely unlikely that they would introduce a third digital mount arrangement, requiring yet another line of digital lenses.
tilariths: What a bunch of idiots commenting on the lens size.
Look at Nex. Look at zooms on Nikon, with its tiny sensor. There is no way around physics. You want a bright, weather sealed lens - here it is. As good as ANYTHING in the industry, and most likely with better optical quality then most.
Re the Olympus weather sealing, they have been doing that for several of their 4/3 SHG lenses for a few years now and they work well. I've been caught by sudden showers several times and have not had any problems with moisture in either the camera body or the lens. It's not for submersion but has no problems with rain or snow. The introduction of a weather-sealed m4/3 lens is a strong hint that a weather-sealed m4/3 body is coming :-)
dave92029: Apparently Olympus has Not been listening to what their customer's really want. FAST GLASS!
A 12-50mm or 12-60mm f2.8-4 is what we want with a camera body that has new sensor that improves low light performance.
How many slow Kit lens does Olympus think we want or need? 14-42, 14-42 II; 14-42 II R; and now a 12-50mm... Duh!
Make a fast zoom lens...Please!
Panasonic and Olympus are both revising/refining their zooms in this focal range rather frequently. Pany has had at least 3 versions themselves. I think that the production runs must be rather short :-) Oly has also stated that the 14-42 II [MSC] is equivalent to the 14-42 II R when the lens firmware is updated, which is easy to do.
wetsleet: "Investment losses"? I'm no corporate guru, but surely Olympus was in the business of making things. It was not an investment house. I understand that any business might choose to invest surplus cash if it does not think it can get a better return investing in its own enterprise, or as some kind of a hedge, but surely what is being spoken of here as "investment losses" over several decades is a euphemism for corrupt payments to directors, over several decades.
The news reports are that Olympus was investing in derivatives and made quite a few bad choices. Also, apparently their favored investment brokers also made bad choices and gave bad advice and itself failed. There are a large number of business news articles available. This is not a case of having some cash and only risking that amount, but rather using that cash to leverage for a possible much larger gain, or in this case, loss. Just look at what happened with US real-estate derivatives. Financial gambling...
amscmu: power zoom and power focus are crap esp power focus.
They cannot match with the precision from mechanical focus.
powerzoom is another story, if you don't mind with precision, PZ is ok. However, PF is unacceptable.
Long ago when I first bought my first AF SLR, the minolta 3xi was on my top list. however, when I tried power focus. I just put it down. Unacceptable.
However, if you mean to use AF all the time, i think this lens is great (for its size).
This lens has just been announced. Do you have access to pre-production samples as DPReview does? Or are your comments based on other lenses of much earlier vintage, as you suggest?
Eugene Powers: Sigma is not going to be $1150. more like $799-899 Canon is $999.And Sigma would be better. Hell, old 150mm is sharper than Canon 100mm L I have them both. Both new Sigmas are going to wipe .....with Canon.
Up front, I've not used the Sigma lenses. But I have watched the reviews and comments. The issue with Sigma appears to be in the consistency. When they are good, they are very good, but lens-to-lens variability appears to quite a bit higher compared to other brands.
Kiting Free: When comparing lenses, price and quality are to be considered... as long as there is something to compare to! If this baby exists in 4/3 mounts, it would be a gem on my friends' Panasonic (he is jaleous of my Canon 135mm F2, I can't blame him), while there is very little alternative for such a lens on 4/3.So the question is: would the Sigma 105mm exist on 4/3 mount?
The Sigma website does not show this for the 4/3 mount, but the older 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro (at less than half the MSRP) with no optical stabilization, is available in the 4/3 mount.