Petrogel: How come Apple have missed this patent ???
It wouldn't fit in an iPhone anyway :))
MikeF4Black: Same question as for the Pen F: Why would anyone buy this over an X-E2?
@LassoniBUT the nikon 70-200/4 is a FULL STOP BRIGHTER lens than your 35-100/2.8!m43 shouldn't be just a little bit cheaper. it should be a lot cheaper!
They don't cost equally. That's the whole point!"F4 or F5.6" - full stop difference is a big deal. It's like if Canon made a m43 camera and 12-40/2.0 that is $50 cheaper than Olympus 12-40/2.8!70-200/4 is like 35-100/2.0! not F2.8! Big difference there. It's like FF 70-200/4 vs FF 70-200/2.8 - same 1 full stop freaking difference!
@LassoniYou still don't get it?There are NO 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 equivalent optics for m43! If there were, they would be just as big, just heavy and would cost even more!You don't have to use those gigantic work- horses! F4 lenses on FF act like F2 lenses on m43!There is no free lunch in photography gear!FF 24-70/2.8 ISO 1600 = m43 12-35/1.4 ISO 400!FF 50/1.4 ISO 100 = m43 IMAGINARY 25/0.7 ISO 25! You just can't go there with m43!For low light m43 needs expensive lenses, while FF can do without them!
@nzmacro"And yet when we look at some FF users gallery at DPR or their website, we tend to wonder why they use FF."
- Because it's cheaper.
Still can't see the difference? 2-stop difference in ISO?http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos6d&attr13_1=panasonic_dmcgx8&attr13_2=sony_a7rii&attr13_3=panasonic_dmcgx8&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=3200&attr126_3=normal&attr171_1=off&attr171_2=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.38546019151327743&y=-0.960424090694302
@LassoniWho told you that I don't like m43 cameras? I do like them. I just don't like their prices. Also I don't like the propaganda, BS and lies from evangelists like you. I wouldn't be arguing, if you were honest and critical about your camera instead of worshiping anything m43 throws at you.And there's the difference. I do care about the result, the final image, the differences, the processing, viewing in large format, etc. - You don't. It seems like for you it's about pushing the button and collecting lenses with certain numbers.You know about lenses as much as you know about sensors or quantum physics.
@LassoniThat's not how it works. FF is a win-win.Better in low light, better in good light. It's the m43 that needs flash more.
@Lassoni"What are the FF users doing in a m43 article .. ?"- Reading.What are m43 users doing in a m43 article?- Bashing everything that has larger sensor.:))
@AndrooleWell, 24-70/4L is not $1000 these days, it's $850 (down from $999). While 12-40/2.8 is $900, so I think the price is close enough to compare those two. The L gives a full stop more light and DoF control. Last I've checked, those F4L zooms are considered kit-lenses, but even the EF28firstname.lastname@example.org should put your 12-40 to shame, for what it costs.
Favorable Exponynt: Camera of the year!
... of the year 2006!
...or the 5D2, if you want the cheapest camera. (sorry, I ran out of characters :D)
Why you people just can't learn how to compare different formats correctly? It's not that hard.17-40L is well known to have soft FF corners. It's an old lens and that is what I see in that silly comparison. I'm talking about m43 "kit-lenses" vs Canon EF kit-lenses (from 18-55 to 24-70/4L basically). You are comparing a new(ish) 12-40/2.8 standard zoom vs an old UWA 17-40/4L, which wrong in itself. The apertures should be F4 vs F8 (not F10) and the ISO should be 100 vs 400.Despite its age (20 years), 135L is a fine lens, but the comparison is done incorrectly. It should be F1.8 vs F3.5 and then they look equally good. However, 135L offers more DoF control and more light in F2-3.5 range. Basically it's a winner.24-105/3.5-5.6 is just as stupidly expensive kit-lens as all the m43 are, can't imagine why would anyone buy it except for half the price in a bundle with the camera. There are 6D deals for $999 now. EM5II is $900 (down from $1100) and guess how much is the classic 5D on ebay..
ecka84: How is this better than a6000 for $500?
Sony takes EF lenses too :)
How is this better than a6000 for $500?
peeyaj: I'd rather get a Sony a5100 at that price.
You mean Sony a6000? It's $500 now.
The thing is, I don't care much about what the dxo says. I just compare real images, RAW. There are so many silly errors in DxOmark, I simply don't trust their measurements. For example, some lenses are well known for their blurry corners, but dxo didn't detect it. Or that some higher res cameras produce less details than lower res cameras while both using the same lens. Nonsense like that ...Larger sensor ISO advantages cannot be negated. There's always a 2-stop difference. You've got ibis? - I've got a monopod! :) Problem solved. Sony A7II and A7RII got IBIS too. You've got clean ISO 100 - I've got just as clean ISO 400 + ISO 200 and 100 even cleaner (great for cropping).You can use F5.6 kit lens on FF to get the same image produced by your F2.8 m43. Same details, same noise, same shutter speed, same DoF, same perspective, same size and weight, ... only much much cheaper than m43. And that's the whole point.
Well, did you ever try comparing images? I mean, just to see what you'd get with a lesser lens on your FF camera? They are not all good lenses and you have to find the right compromise, which could make you happy, but you don't have to use only the best, the heaviest and the most expensive optics available for you camera. With m43 you are mostly getting overpriced kit lenses. They may be great quality kit lenses, but they cannot be compared with professional gear.Why not Nikon 1" mirrorless? Why do you need two entirely unrelated systems? 300pf on 2.7x crop should reach the moon :).Personally, I don't use any zooms at all, big, small, huge, doesn't matter. I can crop and stitch when I want. Zooms are a pointless waste of money for what I do with my camera. One of the reasons I didn't go Nikon, is that all of their good stuff was/is freaking expensive. But, the m43 and Fuji is even more expensive than Nikon. Prices are just mad, $800 this, $900 that, $1000, $1200, $1400, $2500, crazy.
Jeez, you can just crop the high res FF image ... and still get the same quality details.Man, you have no idea what you're talking about. More light = more information = better quality. 50/1.4 ... 50/1.8 bad performance? Try 25/0.7 or 25/0.95 performance on your MFT. There is no exposure value called "wide open", it's just aperture and its values are not universal, because they do not describe the size of it, only the ratio.If you can't see the difference by looking at the images, for whatever reason, it doesn't mean that nobody can see it.
35-100/2.8 - 360g ~ $900 new ~ blah blah blah ... There is FF Tamron 28-200/3.5-5.6 - 354g ~ $200 new, which is equivalent to 14-100/1.8-2.8 on MFT. It may be old and not great, but there is the new 28-300mm Tamron. More range, more light (at shorter FLs), weights only 540g and costs $750.
@Lassoni"Oh yeah sure 'it's not the same thing' or 'they gather less light', but does it matter if the overall performance (IQ) doesn't suffer from this?"- Yes, it does suffer, because of less light. You can BS yourself to believe that it's the same thing, fine. Just stop preaching nonsense, please.
"the 12-35/40 and 35-100 do the same to m43 (performance wise) than their FF or aps-c counterparts. They're just a lot smaller, a lot."- Nobody makes Pro level FF 24-70 and 70-200 with F5.6 or F8 apertures, that's why there are no small equivalent lenses to your expensive F2.8 and F4 toys. You can't beat physics with BS.
"Other example is olympus 300 f4"- You just use a 2xTC with 300/4 on FF.Olympus 300/4 ~ $2500 ~ 1.5kgCanon 300/4L + 2xTC ~ $1300+400 ~ 1.2kg+0.3kg + you get an "option" to shoot without the TC, or you can use 400/5.6L with 1.4xTC, or the 100-400/4.5-5.6L ($2100) zoom with any TC or none.