brumd: "On first use the filter needs about four hours of sunlight to create the hydrophilic characteristic"
What does that mean exactly? 4 hours of bright light on a sunny day? How long would it take on a cloudy day, for example in Iceland?And how long does it take on second and third use?
Giklab: it says that the filter stays active for 48 hours, so they need to be "charged with UV light" everytime you intend to use them, not only before first use.
"On first use the filter needs about four hours of sunlight to create the hydrophilic characteristic"
nerd2: 85mm f3.5 portrait prime? Not interested at all.Oh and it's priced $399... you can get the excellent nikkor 85mm 1.8G at only $50 more.
nerd2: again, you are simply not able to look beyond your own priorities. You don't HAVE to use a M4/3 system, you don't even have to like it.But that doesn't mean that for others the M4/3 has more advantages than disadvantages to use either as their only system or as their secondary system.
It's so useless to keep screaming in every M4/3 topic how much you don't like it. We know you don't like it. You have different priorities. That's ok. Try a little open-mindedness to see why others have different priorities.I wouldn't be able to do 80% of my shots with a FF system, simple as that.
First: it is not only a portrait lens. Personally, I use a 45mm lens for events/ theatre shoots. If you want to have enough DOF on a FF camera you need to stop down to 2.8 or 3.5Second: you can shoot excellent portraits with a FF eq DOF of 3.5. Just because your style is different doesn't mean it is the only way to shoot a portrait.
Again: you have an inability to look beyond what ÝOUR priority is. M4/3 users KNOW they gain extra DOF when using their lens wide open (it's a feature not a disadvantage, for others).
If m4/3 is not your thing: that's fine. But try to have an open-minded for people with different priorities. m4/3 users KNOW this is not the system to achieve the shallowest DOF. You need Medium Format for that.
well, the "excellent nikkor 85mm" doesn't fit on a m43 camera. Your comment doesn't say anything about the quality of the lens, nor anything about the m43. Your comment only shows your inability to look beyond your own priorities in what you are looking for in a lens. You like the shallowest DOF? Fine, buy a MF camera, or a FF if that is shallow enough for you.
People that buy M4/3 systems KNOW that they don't offer the shallowest DOF, so obviously that is not the top priority if you choose m43. It is completely pointless to keep on repeating your same mantra that their DOF is less shallow than when using FF. We KNOW that. YOU find that the most important, others don't
You don't go on a car forum, commenting on every pick-up truck model saying "but it isn't half as fast as my Porsche". People that buy pick-up trucks don't care about that.
duckling: A bit of conspiracy theory:The 42.5/1.7 was obviously designed to kill the Olympus 45/1.8, one of the few M4/3 classics. Perhaps a revenge for Oly's 40-150/2.8 which buried Pana's 150/2.8 project.
@duckling:\similar price? The 45mm is €250 in Europa, the 42.5 is set at $400 (which usually means €400 in EU).The 45mm is an amazing lens for that price. What would the incentive be to choose the 42.5, other than the included IOS (which is only needed for cameras without IBIS).Edit: in Sweden the 45mm is even cheaper: 2200 SEK = ~€225
The 42.5/1.7 has IOS, the 45/1.8 hasn't. Obviously it is a nice addition for those who shoot a M4/3 camera without IBIS.Since my E-M5 has IBIS I am going to stick with my Olympus 45mm (which I use to my full satisfaction), but that doesn't go for everybody. One won't kill the other.
ogl: 42.5/1.7 = 85/3.4 for 35 mm system.....It's slow lens.
again, the word 'slow' refers to speed, not DOF. There is no such thing as a slow DOF. It's simply wrong to say this lens is 'slow'.
Having a wider DOF at maximum speed is an advantage for some people.If the narrowest DOF is your priority, then m4/3 is not your system of choice. Simple as that. That is regardless of the lens, that is regarding the sensor size.
Since this same false argument comes up on EVERY crop sensor lens thread, wouldn't it be a good idea to dedicate a special page on DPreview where this issue is explained, so this pointless discussion can be avoided by referring to this page?
*sigh*DOF is NOT speed. You are referring to it as a 'slow lens'.It is NOT slower than a F1.7 35mm equivalent.
Is it really really necessary to have this old boring discussion in every thread?
For you a small DOF may be an advantage, for others like me it is actually an advantage to have more DOF at the same speed.
*sigh* how many times do we have to read this?In terms of speed 1.7 = 1.7.Educate yourself!
brumd: Somehow, the Panasonic m4/3 lenses never look even half as sexy as the ones from Olympus. Yes, it's important! :)
Sure, it's a matter of taste, and it's good to have the choice.I recently bought a 25mm, and I would have chosen the Panasonic F1.4 over the Olympus F1.8 to gain the extra 2/3 stop if only I thought it looked good on my OM-D E-M5.Somehow, the quality of the Panasonic lenses (my 20mm/F1.7 is definitely sharper than the 17mm/F1.8) isn't really reflected in their appearance.
Somehow, the Panasonic m4/3 lenses never look even half as sexy as the ones from Olympus. Yes, it's important! :)
Iloveaircraftnoise: The article misses the mark.........Until a manufacturer can make a mirrorless camera which can shoot over 900 frames on one battery charge ( weddings anyone?) and whose electronic viewfinder doesn't turn into a slow motion replay in poor light, forget about it...
"Until a manufacturer can make a mirrorless camera which can shoot over 900 frames on one battery charge"
Yesterday night I shot 891 pictures in a theater with my OM-D E-M5. The battery was ~70-80% drained, and this is a $5 chinese copy, not the "official" Olympus one.
brumd: I am particularly happy about the silent electronic shutter. That was a feature that I really missed on the original EM5, after I sold my Fujifilm X100. All those opportunities where the sound of a click spoiled the moment.
But.. could someone explain to me what is the actual advantage of a mechanical shutter? Why is it there when apparently it can be done (even faster) without mechanical parts?
"With a mechanical shutter the slit cannot be as narrow as with an electronic one, but it moves much faster."Aha! I get it! Thanks for your answer.
I am particularly happy about the silent electronic shutter. That was a feature that I really missed on the original EM5, after I sold my Fujifilm X100. All those opportunities where the sound of a click spoiled the moment.
AngryCorgi: This selfie nonsense is getting out of control. First off, people don't act the same way with legitimate cameras like they do with idiotic cell phones. Second, the average consumer of these products is NOT a 13 year old girl.
Camera industry: knock it off! Your market analysis is lying to you!
I just got back from Iceland. Where on previous visits you would see a busload of people busy taking pictures of a waterfall, this time half of them stood with their backs against the same waterfall, taking selfies, making duck faces. The difference was really noticeable.
I guess there is a market for selfie nonsense..
Spectro: this should sell like hot cake, since everybody on dpreview wants 4k video or else, who shoot still photos these days. yes thunderbolt too..
I agree with BorisAkunin.
I own a DP1 Merrill. I bought it over 18 months ago, intending to use it as a 2nd camera, even though from reviews it was perfectly clear to me that "it is a crap camera that takes great pictures" (that was actually written somewhere).
And indeed, I was impressed by the capabilities of the foveon sensor. But, really, this camera is so bad that vey soon I was using it less and less. I mean this thing is slow, really sllooowww, and because the camera can only be used at low ISO, this meant a lot of long exposure shots, resulting I could even take less pictures with a battery than I imagined, at the most 70-75.
Especially since I use it with a tripod mostly, the last issue I have with this is grip. I really hope with this new design they use the extra room for 1. a battery with at least 3x capacity, and 2. a processor that speeds up the process by at least 4 times.Without, this thing is going to be a pain, an even less pocketable pain.
brumd: "File format: JPEG"..and that's where I stop reading. Will there ever be a small rugged camera that gives access to RAW? I'd buy it immediately. Everytime a new shockproof camera is announced I'm hoping: maybe this time..:/
The AW1 is way too bulky/heavy for my purpose. I really would like a small, pocketable camera that I can use while hiking/trekking when circumstances are too wet to take out my 'real' camera.I don't mind a small sensor, automated controls, etc, but I'm just not willing to settle for 8-bit jpg quality when I know the quality could have been better if only I had access to the raw-file.