JackM: What is the point? If you're going to carry lenses this big, you may as well have a DSLR! m4/3 needs more small, fast, pancake primes!! Take a hint from the Fuji X-Pro 1!!
No one's mentioned the 100-300, which served me well on a trip to Africa. No one's mentioned the total weigh(and bulk) differential between M4/3 and pretty much every other system. After a lot of analysis and comparison, I decided the minimal loss in quality was a small price to pay for GH2 video capability and total system size/weight advantage.
mark power: Far as I can see this firmware is not supported on the GH2 - anyone loaded the firmware with a GH2 body and one of the mentioned lenses?
It worked flawlessly with my GH2 body and my iMac.
dobeonguard: This case is a joke and it is because of cases like this that make us the laughing stock of the world. I hope this case doesn't get much further, but by following this judges opinion porn would be the utmost of copyright infringement.....
As a matter of fact (and I speak as a recently retired publishing lawyer), European copyright law is even more restrictive about one person using another's work than ours is. In any case, the underlying themes and the striking similarity of detail between the original and the copy provide plenty of evidence to support the trial judge's verdict. I doubt an appeal will succeed, and there's very little reason to think the US Supreme Court will find anything worth its time.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review