This is a very exciting lens. However, this lens has a lens focal range less than a 24-70 f/2.8, and it weighs just as much. As weight savings is one of the main benefits of APS over FF, this lens only makes sense to those heavily invested in APS.
12-40mm/2.8 seems sweet, especially the push-pull AF/MF. Too bad it's bulkier than the Pana 12-35mm/2.8; I would've guessed otherwise, considering the Pana has O.I.S.
FocusBogus: OM-D E-M1 sounds messy. Why not simply OM-D2? And then cheaper models OM-D20, OM-D200...
PEN is a weird choice for a camera name... it sounds like what I have in my pants.
I like the PEN name. I often thought they should emphasize the in-body image stabilization, and call it the PEN-IS. Then lazy forum posters can eliminate the hyphen like they do with the OM-D.
"This new package will set you back $120 per year, which seems like a good deal, considering how often Adobe updates their products."
Adobe will have far less incentive to update their products frequently once everyone is on subscription.
Additionally, many like myself, did not upgrade to each and every new version. For the most part, I was perfectly happy skipping versions of Photoshop and upgrading to every other version.
"Prior to Creative Cloud, a copy of Photoshop and Lightroom would've set you back around $400."
I didn't see any mention of a tripod mount. If I'm going to be carrying around another device so I could take better pictures, I might as well carry a tripod for even better pictures.
It's obvious to anyone who understands HK politics that this is their way of making a point to mainland China about their pollution. What better way than to show the snap-happy mainland Chinese tourists what their country is doing to neighboring lands.
Snowboarders can stay in the parks and stick to the rails and other silly stuff.
wootpile: Where is t-h-e f-l-i-p-s-c-r-e-e-n !?
still, they should have included a flip screen.
"And now you know that."
I already knew that. Please don't talk down to your audience.
Roland Karlsson: Number 1 is very nice and so is also number 4, IMHO. No 2 and 3 I can live without.
Lots of people here are very fast to call photos cr@p. I think they shall reconsider, and at least agree on that they think it is cr@p. Its not the same thing as saying it is cr@p.
#3 is perspective corrected (either that or he shot really wide and cropped the bottom). He shot from a level equal to that near the bottom of the photo.
robjons: Having grown up in the area, you take the bridges for granted. I wonder why the new east span doesn't maintain the double-deck design of the original?
Because the double deck design results in quite a depressing roadway when traveling eastbound on the lower deck, which was originally used for a trolley. People traveling in both directions should be able to experience the open sky and views of the suspension tower.
Ummm... no print button? C'mon Canon, you can do better than that!!!
Wishlist for the 80D: TWO print buttons.
acidic: I just noticed the weight. 810g for APS-C lens? Holy Shatner!
Okay, I know it's super fast and all that, but if it's seriously supposed to convince FF shooters to go APS-C, it's measly 2x zoom range isn't helping any, considering that it's FF counterparts don't weigh much more and have closer to 3x zoom range. Of course if it's significantly cheaper, say in the $900 range, it could be a winner.
Yeah, I know that they can't be small with such (relatively) large apertures. But honestly, if this lens costs $2K and weighs as much as it does, why would someone choose a crop body and this lens over a FF body and a 24-70mm/2.8?
I acknowledge that this lens has more light gathering ability at a given FOV (than 24-70/2.8 on FF), but given that a FF body is easily 2 stops better (with regards to noise), the advantage goes to FF. Not to mention that this lens damn will need to resolve more lpm due to smaller pixels than it's FF counterpart.
Of course, if it's in the $900 range, this lens makes total sense.
I just noticed the weight. 810g for APS-C lens? Holy Shatner!
Time to play guess the price.
justinwonnacott: I really want to see an option to customize the interface so that instead of drop down (scroll down forever . . . ) tabs it was possible to use horizontally tabbed menus or to "tear off" the RAW develop module so that it operates on a separate screen by itself.
When I use ACR module the layout is easier to use and does not require constant downward navigation and the annoying opening and closing of arrowed drop down tabs.
There is much that is good about LR's interface but this issue drives me nuts, slows me down and has me using ACR standalone quite often instead of the fiddly, small interface components provided in LR for the same task.
..... and another thing I really want is the ability to not just import to two drives but to see the changes I make, keywords, processing instructions and so on be writable to both of the copies I imported in the first place. I would love that.
Try solo mode:http://help.adobe.com/en_US/lightroom/using/WSD7BD0F8A-12B6-4064-99BA-2D844172C124.html
If you're drives are dedicated image drives, and you keep all of your changes withing LR (not sidecar xmp files), you can point LR to either of those drives and I believe the changes will apply, as long as the file names are the same across both drives.
Otherwise, configuring a RAID mirror will ensure that both drives are identical (changes, new files, deleting files, etc). Still not substitute for a real backup drive though.
hexxthalion: another forgettable gray plastic box from Canon - why do they bother?
because they make money from such gray plastic boxes.
itsastickup: I'm seriously not understanding why people are comparing this APS-C camera to m4/3.
m4/3 still has serious bokeh issues: too much depth of field even with large apertures. Unless you go off-piste, you can't get a normal lens with any kind of decent ability to obliterate the background. And no, I don't want t a Nokton 25/.95, or whatever it's called. APS-C isn;t as great as FF of course, but it's still workable.
You also don't get Canon's bokeh king zooms. I looked at other systems and either they have not enough OOF bokeh or like Sony and Nikon they have have poor bokeh zooms.
There is no system out there that does what Canon APS-C cameras do.
Of course, if you don't care for such a thing as very limited bokeh then it's a non-issue, but it's still an issue for the rest of us and so it's not correct to directly compare this system to m4/3. There is no direct comparison (yet).
You don't understand what bokeh means. Bokeh is subjective quality, not something there is too much of or too little of.
You're obviously referring to depth of field, which bokeh is NOT inversely related to.
It's even lighter than the OM-D! If they could only make some small pancake primes in EF-S mount to go with this...