lajka: What real shallow DOF? Remember that because of the format MTF lenses have DOF two stops down compared with FF. Thus 1.8 on MTF is 3.5 on FF. You would be better of with FF Zuiko 100/2.
on m4/3? that's a 200/4 without AF.
REDred Photo: My favorite street lens has always been the 35mm. I really would love to see a 17mm f1.4 in a fairly small form factor for micro 4/3.
20/1.7 is tiny, though
weput: I've allways had a position on the mirror/no mirror thing.... as an engineer i tougth about putting the sensor directly to feed the liveview screen as a doable thing.... even removing the shutter as the image could be captured electronically
virtually no moving parts inside the camaravirtually unlimited time of service for the device... and given the speed and capabilities of chips nowdays.. (imagine a quadcore qualcom inside one of this things)...
however... sometimes i'm just an idiot dreaming...
flipmac - Nikon 1 has a rolling electronic shutter. Most P&S cameras use in-lens leaf shutters.
ericsan: Canon slow innovation makes me keep my 550D/T2i still for a while and rather invest in the coming Canon mirrorless body if it's worth or Olympus EM-5 which is so far the best mirorrless product ever !!
They don't expect users to upgrade every iteration.
semorg: 20MP? I'll pass!
If sony built this for the enthusiast market, then they missed the mark. Put the same sensor on a 10-12mp camera with much better iso performance, and I'll be talking with my wallet
Note that this is a BSI sensor, where pixel pitch has a much smaller impact on the overall image quality. From the samples we see, it's about 1 stop noisier than the best APSc sensors. Consider the size of sensor and lens aperture, it actually performs quite a bit above the equivalence line.
Wait... why did I get E-M5 with 12-50 again?
waxwaine: If I remember the idea of m43 was "Go compact", and this is not a very good example. No point on this compared to any APS-C camera.
Not bad. At least a bit smaller and lighter than the EF 135/2.8
Mssimo: My 2 cents
75mm F1.8 has the same DOF no matter what format camera its mounted on.
DOF of this lens is perfect for portraits.
No need to stop it down.
Lots of special glass reduces the need for post corrections.
You get what you pay for and this lens is worth every penny and it will not drop in price for a long time.
DoF is based on the entire image - two pictures need to have the same perspective and field of view to be comparable.
love_them_all: 150/3.5 eq isn't exactly attractive. Lenses just sound more exotic in the smaller sensors. 75/1.8 sounds so much more interesting. :) Although given a real 135/3.5 on the ff or this lens, I may get this lens because of the faster shutter speed. Noise and everything else put aside.
Sorry for being unclear - the 2 stops refer to matching the DoF under even brighter conditions, instead of the parameters I was using. 5D2 does have ISO 100 for that. I recall reading it somewhere in the forums that E-M5 requires 1/200 to be clear of any shutter shadows.
Still - I am seriously considering getting the E-M5 for the size, weight and AF speed.
Faster shutter speed isn't always favorable though. Say, for example, strobist work often requires working under the x-sync speed. I shot an outdoor portrait session using 70-200/2.8 @ ISO 200, F/2.8, 1/160s on my 5D2 a couple of weeks ago. Although this 75/1.8 should give similar DoF, the shutter speed will exceed sync speed by two stops. Having to work with ND filters can be troublesome.
Peiasdf: Very very bad per pixel sharpness. I still think Foveon or other 3D sensor idea is the future of small sensor photography.
Foveon needs some serious improvement in SNR, though.
Looks like the dynamic range hasn't really improved. Noise reduction is more heavy-handed but shadow quality is still behind those using Sony sensors.
So the standard mode is hyperfocal as expected and advanced mode is the sloppy auto-focus mode.
ogl: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/R-1 had 24-120/2.8-4.8 with sensor size 21.5 x 14.4 mmG1X has 28-112/2.8-5.8 with sensor size 18.7 x 14 mm
G1X is rather compact camera...but lens is not fast and not wide.
And it doesn't have a leaf shutter!
jorepuusa: Lots of cameras, lots of comments about those cameras.But the main thing is missing. The visual quality of pictures taken by dpreview staffers is bad! Pictures are sadly amateurish, composition is nonexistence and there is no story in the pics.World leading site should have pleasing pictures of people holding cameras but it does not.But neither do other sites. It is a saddening truth that sites writing about cameras use pictures that are of very low visual standard.Now what does this mean?It means that people who write these laughable comments about how wrong tests or roundups are, do not understand about pictures at all cause never are the pictures estimated in these sites. So the only thing that matters are the knobs and pixels and those have nothing to do with pictures.Photography is really dying. This article and its comments are one proof about it.
This site is focused on helping photographers to find the suitable tool, not to teach or inspire photographic work. Pictures without much substance in photographic sense is actually preferred, since interesting photo content will bias the opinion on equipment.
I wonder how much a 13mm F/0.75 will cost.
Prices aren't cheap... Are they going to announce some sub-F/1 primes?
Tim in upstate NY: Somebody tell me why the 45/1.8 is almost as small as the 12/2? The 45/1.8 has a much longer focal length and is faster but not significantly larger - I don't get it.
On SLR: 24/1.4 is larger than 50/1.4
Alex Panoiu: From page 60 of the thesis (http://www.lytro.com/renng-thesis.pdf) I understand that if each microlens covers m x m pixels and the image was taken at f/N then the image can be refocused anywhere in the depth of field of f/(N x m). For example, the image taken at f/4 and each microlens covers 8x8 pixels then the image can be refocused anywhere in the depth of field of f/32. This also means that spatial resolution is reduced by a factor of 256, say from 256 megapixels to 1 megapixel.
The tradeoff is that for each factor of 2 of loss in spatial resolution the "potential" depth of field increase corresponds with one step of aperture.
256? or 64?
are these dead hamsters?