qwertyasdf: This might be the first and last time that I say this to a M43 lens:
It's priced reasonably. Given it's longer range than 70-200 FF lens, it is way way more versatile, and I have confidence in the IQ of a Oly HG lens. Oh....also, the 0.21x magnification, taking into account of the crop factor of M43 sensor, is class-leading.
I am not using heavy and large lenses. But that is besides the point. My objection is to people that insist propagating incorrect information. If I'm not mistaken, this is a discussion forum... "troll" is a good term for a person with a troll-affiliated mentality and "field of view"; are you one, wolfie?
Yeah, no clue. You clue, lens F2.8. Well done.
RStyga: Have a look here:http://camerasize.com/compact/#569,382.409,491.397,ha,tThis thing is a 400g brick and a bit larger than a PL5 with a 14-42 EZ lens.
And priced as high with a mere 12.7MP sensor??? Sincerely yours, from the marketing dept...
A conspiracy theory??? Are you on anything? People ARE dragged by marketeers every day and twice on the weekends by their nose rings. Do you think companies spent millions on TV commercials and internet ads just to inform the consumers? Wake up...
Maybe, just maybe, some of these "many" will prefer to spend much less on a DSLM. This is neither compact nor large sensor, anymore. Like I said, the marketing dept worked overtime on this one.
Have a look here:http://camerasize.com/compact/#569,382.409,491.397,ha,tThis thing is a 400g brick and a bit larger than a PL5 with a 14-42 EZ lens.
You can jump up and down all day long but it won't change the fact that this lens (M.Zuiko ED 40-150mm F2.8 Pro) does NOT have the DoF of an F2.8 lens. So, it is NOT a true F2.8 lens because if it were then it would offer an F2.8 DoF. Continue jumping now..
@WACONimages Canon/Nikon might not have a 300 F2.8 lens (I doubt it, but I'll agree for the sake of the argument) but neither has Olympus! Light gathering is technically important for the small 4/3 sensor that cannot go at very high ISOs but the DoF control is important in photography, in general. 880g is not light for this lens, because it is NOT a F2.8 lens; would you say that Pentax Q lenses are such and such in F-stops and only such and such in weight? Please... You are comparing apples and oranges here to support your view. FL & DoF are VERY relevant aspects of a lens specs, that's why.
We have an 80-300mm F5.6 (35mm equiv.) at 880gr at $1500 (yes, yes, it still has the brightness of F2.8 but *not* that DoF)
I'm not sure that the point made here is very strong. The FF Tamron VC USD 70-300 F4-5.6, 765g, for instance, costs $450. Not WR but at 1/3 of the price one can afford to water damage at least couple before equating the cost. Different system, yes, but exactly because m4/3 is compact, the lens should reflect that.
Sigma, your move...
phazelag: All these criticisms from people who havent used a sigma DP or held this one in their hand used it. I know several people I trust that say after an hour they love the camera ergonomics. Usually a radical design like this has some smart thinking behind it, but very few are open to even trying to understand it.
I think you don't know what you are typing here. Chris Niccols reviewed this "thing" and could not find a way of being positive about the ergonomics of Quattro:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7ktvDUyTyUI have to take his word for it (and what my eyes register!)
As much as I like Sigma, they need to drop this Quattro-design fiasco A-S-A-P before they surpass the SD1 original release-price fiasco. WHAT ON EARTH did the designers think when creating the Quattro??? IT IS ugly, IT IS grossly not ergonomic, IT IS not compact in any conceivable way!!! There is nothing positive to this design at all. Sigma wake up...
Bamboojled: 5DIII and 6D R.I.P
@ Suhas:6D is smaller in volume and 80g lighter. Yes, it matters.
The Canon 6D street price is almost half of D750. 6D has a smaller, better designed, and lighter body, class-leading high ISO performance, and, frankly, I would not buy Nikon after the oil-shutter fiasco of the D600 DSLR...
At almost double the price? I don't think so...
Does it come with free oil replacement in the first 2000 shots?
RStyga: I can't imagine how much it would cost, if released by Leica. Ooops, I forgot, Leica doesn't have the know how to do this.. they specialise in sapphire-glass LCD covers, aluminium polishing, and high-lag LV technology...
Just Leica-bashing humour... don't read anything serious into it... :-)
RStyga: Nice design but still mediocre IQ and below average lenses. There was nothing wrong with the original Q design, by the way; all subsequent ones were much inferior in built quality. An updated sensor and a few high quality, pancake, very bright primes might do the trick.
I agree, Miles, it's a wonderful design!! I, too, love the miniaturisation marvel Pentax managed to create but, alas, the AF accuracy/resolution/lens resolution, whatever the matter is, it is detracting greatly from the overall effect. If only, the sensor was larger and at least one very slim pancake high-res enough...
I can't imagine how much it would cost, if released by Leica. Ooops, I forgot, Leica doesn't have the know how to do this.. they specialise in sapphire-glass LCD covers, aluminium polishing, and high-lag LV technology...
Boss of Sony: Half-hearted upgrade. The 35mm equivalent lens is what kills this camera. 28mm would be more useful. Ricoh GR wins. Thinner and cheaper too.
Personally, I prefer the Ricoh's sensor output and size, and an OVF on Ricoh works fine, plus Ricoh GR is way cheaper. But the 28mm FL is a bit non committing.
I completely agree with Richard. A 35mm FL does not kill a camera. On the contrary, it is, generally, a more diverse FL. I took on an overseas holiday a 28mm FF equiv. lens mounted on a MFT camera and found it too wide for general use.