tkbslc: Or you could put a $100 Takumar 50mm f1.4 on a NEX......
tkbslc: That statement is only true the premise of identical sensor technology.The sensor technology between FF and M43 cameras is not identical.Thus the statement is invalid.
Clear now? ISO 1600 output on an E-M5 is not, for example, identical to ISO 6400 on a Canon 5D Mark II - it is superior. So there is no equivalence to be had there...
Terry Breedlove: Perfect portrait lens for me. Fast aperture to keep shutter speeds up and iso numbers down. Perfect DOF at my favorite f2 FF eq for the fine art black and white portraits I do. I am buying the OMD em5 next week with the 17 f1.8 and I can't wait to join the four three crowd. :)
Yabokkie: Low light at low ISO. It can do that a lot better, especially if you're happy to risk a little motion blur and use the built-in optical stabilization on an Olympus model.
Thanks for playing.
timedrun: I dont know how much a yen is worth precisely, hopfully not a lot. but only a muppet would pay more than 200 quid for this.
I think EssexAsh was actually complaining about his free healthcare, unless I'm mistaken. It's a favourite pastime here in Britain, knocking one of the best things our nation still has going for it.
alatchin: So between the 17.5mm the 25mm and this new 43mm all at f0.95 there is very little a FF camera can do that m43rds can do :)
Yabokkie, you're only about 90% of the way there. f2.8 on M43 will get you the same SNR as 5.6 on FF *for the same sensor technology*. Given that the sensor technologies are often manifestly *not* the same, that simplification is just as useless as all the other ones being made.
FF is not magical and larger sensors have their own inherent disadvantages.
epo001: All this endless whining. Adobe don't want to sell me any upgrades? Fine, I'll continue to use CS3 until the competition improves. If you have CS it will continue to work, what's the problem?
Most non-commerical users don't NEED Photoshop, it is just a name they've heard or they are fetishising the most polished toy, rather like people who buy a sports car and just use it to drive to the shops.
"All this endless whining"
Yes, it's almost like people have a genuine reason to be irritated by a change that doesn't benefit them in the slightest.
thx1138: Just amazed at how bad these cameras are and they are the state of the art, Apple excepted. It's pretty sad to see P&S sales plummeting for this slop as it's not even close. Good enough for the crap posted on Facebook I guess. I see my smart phone camera as as use in case of emergency.
Thanks for framing your opinion as fact, that's always appreciated and doesn't make you at all sound smug or self-important. ;)
Ouch. Would love to know who was responsible out of STMicro and HTC for that balls-up...
This cannot be good news for HTC at all. :(
3dreal: f1.8 APSC=the same lightgathering like f2.7 on FF.so comparing both formats at iso 100 and 1/30 apsc-lens at 2.7 shows darker image than ff-lens at 2.7? i dont get it. discussed here endlessly.that would mean an external lightmeter must be recalibrated whe switching from FF to aps-c? very strange. fstops- no matter on which formats are all the same in relation to Evs.
Dennis, not entirely true re: ISO. This part depends on the capabilities of the sensor. Not all FF sensors are capable of making use of all the light hitting them; some in turn use the surface area for smaller pixels which (combined with the heftier electronics required for readout) can actually lead to higher noise at high ISOs than some smaller sensors. If you do't believe me, look at what happens when you go to Medium Format.
Upshot: What you say is broadly true /for sensors with equivalent levels of technological development and equal pixel size/.
In reality, making generalisations like that doesn't really help much.
marcio_napoli: Just a couple of days ago, I suggested that a f1.8 zoom should exist in M4/3 format, and should be completely doable, given its smaller sensor size.
The replies I've got: "are you a lens designer??" and all sort of disbeliefs.
Last time I suggested in DPreview forums a f2.0 APS zoom, I got the same replies: "it would be impossible. Too bulky, weight tons, cost a house, etc".
I'm not a lens designer, but Sigma is, and Sigma just proved how wrong these forums experts are.
There it is, the f1.8 zoom.
As far as I see it, it doesn't weight a ton. Oh wait, 810 grams? A girl can hold it all day long.
Yes... we're seeing impossible things.
810g really is quite heavy for an everyday lens... I think the point the M4/3 people are making is that it's odd to combine small and light cameras with something as large and heavy as this. I doubt you could shave much off the weight for an M4/3 version, if any at all.
That said, don't see any reason why it'd be *impossible* to make one.
pancromat: i'm referring to the press text here. i do understand the term: "depth-of-field equivalent of a constant F2.7 on full-frame". more (sometimes unwanted) depth of field because of the smaller sensor. but "light-gathering equivalent of a constant F2.7 on full-frame", that's new (or nonsense) for me. a f1.8 on FF does not "gather" more light then the same f1.8 on APS-C. if my meter tells me i need f5,6/ 1/30s @ 100ISO to get the right exposure, it is the same on every lens/camera-combination, from 8x10" via 4x5", 4,5x6cm, 35mm, APS-C, 4/3, 1" etc. or will you tell me that i have to step down if i change from an APS-C body to a FF body retaining the lens and the scene.
It's still an f1.8 lens. The amount of actual photons gathered is utterly irrelevant to the end user, which is why "equivalency" is of no use whatsoever for anything other than estimating DoF.
"The lens will offer the light-gathering and depth-of-field equivalent of a constant F2.7 on full-frame"
Aaaaaaaarrrgh who wrote this?! Wrong wrong wrong.
Vetteran: Many, many photographers never intervene when any "normal" person would think that they should. Photographers who do not intervene or act think they have a higher calling to "bear witness" and spread the truth; which is B.S. I've seen it for myself at car accidents, a drowning, and at other situations where any person would feel morally and ethically compelled to do something. Instead the "photographer" just takes pictures instead of helping.
Owning a camera does not obviate the responsibility to do the right thing at the right time. Photographers are not exempt or special, although, in many cases, they think they are. A disgrace; really.
"She could have put here camera down and helped without losing any of the impact of her total body of work."
Helped how? I do not think this man would listen to reason and I certainly do not think he would have responded well to physical intimidation, either. You made a reasonable case at first but I'm not sure it applies well in this specific instance.
stevo23: He's eating up the camera folks! Totally getting into the performance.
This whole sequence is very disturbing. My response? Put down my camera and get a big stick. I can't justify the hand's off approach. Coming to someone's rescue implies risk to one's self, so the argument that you would only be endangering yourself or others is very weak. I personally feel that the camera was part of the cause in this situation. I feel that he's performing for the camera.
There is one aspect where it might be important to document events for later needs like a trial. But that doesn't excuse not trying to help.
And there are times when there's a larger crowd and a photographer is just one more body out of many, so I get that one. But not this one.
Oh - and do we need to document this thing? We're all already aware of and disgusted by it. This is nothing more than voyeurism to me.
"I personally feel that the camera was part of the cause in this situation. I feel that he's performing for the camera."
"Feelings" are useful, because they are unaccountable and don't have to make any sense. I *think* that you're talking complete nonsense. There's no evidence here to support your assertions - you are projecting your opinions into a place where they do not belong.
"it has a real pressure-sensitive professional pen, smooth multi-touch, an HD display, and other valuable features that you haven’t seen in other tablets"
Given that this is a list of traits seen already in other tablets (most notably the Surface Pro) I am not eagerly anticipating this being a market-changing device.
dark goob: Please don't say this lens is "equivalent" to a 34mm lens. It's not. It has much greater depth of field than a 34mm lens, and substantially different distortion characteristics. Simply put it's a 17mm lens. It's equivalent to a 17mm lens, having been cropped by 50% on 135-format, or by 31% on 6x4.5 120-format, etc.
It gives a 53.9-degree horizontal angle. Why not just say that instead of making false equivalencies? Buck convention and "standard practice." They're stupid and just plain factually wrong!
Please can we move on from the year, 2002? We aren't 135-format film camera owners searching for their first DSLR anymore. Drop the "equivalency" mentions finally, it really feels anachronistic and tacky at this point. Not to mention being wrong.
Stu 5, if it's easy, then why do I see people like yabokkie up there getting it wrong when talking about light-capturing ability? That can be avoided if you talk about angle of view primarily and then add in the "equivalencies" as backup for people who like doing unnecessary calculations.
ijustloveshooting: the shot of the guy, at iso640,,,looks like a canon G15 iso 400 shot...i thought IQ on e-pm2 and e-pl5 is similar to Nex series...no, not even close,,,at iso1600 on nex you still can get much better sharpness, details...thank god, i choosen nex over m43...i just bought sel 50mm f1.8 and sharpness at 1.8 is phenomenal.... bokeh is another heaven on this lens...
i didn't like samples of this 50mm f1.8 and iq of the e-pm2...
Thanks for justifying your purchase to uninterested bystanders. We really appreciated that.
HarrieD7000: After seeing these pictures I'm glad I don't own the best camera of 2012. My old thing does not need a 30 ft long gangway to create some DOF.
It's a 17mm lens, what are you expecting? If you want narrow DoF then you use the lens for the job. Go and troll elsewhere please.
Lee Jay: Almost up to 1/4 the resolution of a low-end APS-c pentamirror OVF, with only infinitely more lag and infinitely more battery consumption along with 1/64th the dynamic range and color gamut.
Not infinitely more on either account... especially not battery consumption. Flipping that mirror doesn't come for free!
Yes, I'm being facetious, but so are you. ;)
sethmarshall: There goes DPReview's reputation for understanding what the word"best" means -- or at least it's readers.
Jolyon Gray: I sold all my Nikon gear, D7000, f2.8 zooms (including the 17-55 Nikon), prime lenses, flashes, etc. It was a risk going for the OM-D but really happy with the choice. Considered getting a FF Nikon but it didn't really make sense to me.
Things the OM-D does better (or equally as well).-Image stabilisation! Not only good for low light but also for creative low shutter speeds, blurring water, moving people, etc! Transforms manual focus lenses, stabilised when focusing! Brilliant! Handheld video is super smooth, close to steadycam, something I could never get handheld with the Nikon.
-Articulated LCD, great for creative shots.
-Marmite but the EVF - thought I would hate it but...:--Bright Light - can actually see my photo playback.--Zooming in on the EVF for manual focus - brilliant--Highlight and shadow clipping - great for the shooting I do--Loads of other things, info views, etc.
-Size! Works best with the battery grip, gives you 3 options in one depending on what you fancy that day.
-Lenses. I've got the 12mm, 25mm f0.95 Nokton, 45mm, & 75mm.... and this all fits in a small shoulder bag + filters.
-Competition : Great to have two manufacturers that have compatable products. Panasonic make great pancakes.
-ISO; to my eye as good as the D7000, but I'm not a pixel peeper.
-f0.95.. Ok you get it.
-Focus. I found my D7000 a bit temperamental, sometimes spot on, sometimes less so, needed loads of AF tweaking, drove me nuts. I don't need C-AF but it seemed good enough shooting my nephew at Christmas. No missed shots.
-No need to clean oil off the sensor from the mirror slapping around.
-Asthetics, not the most important thing but it is a pretty camera :).
Don't mistake this as Nikon bashing - I had Nikons for about 5 years and have some brilliant shots. Maybe I'll get a FF Nikon in the future to take advantage of true focal length, bokeh, etc. For me it was a risky purchase, I sold 4-5k of gear, OM-D and lenses seemed overpriced, but just enjoy photography more with the OM-D. It goes everywhere with me :).
If I could only have one camera & lens it would be the OM-D & 25mm Nokton (might change my mind one the 17mm Nokton is delivered!). Racing car drivers don't drive automatics ;).
"Marmite. A yeast based spread for putting on bread. It tastes delicious but some people (presumably with defective taste buds) absolutely hate it. Famous in the UK for an advertising campaign showing people nearly vomiting when they accidentally taste it, a rather unique way to market your food!
Marmite = You either love it or you hate it."
Just ran some minor corrections there. ;D