Infared: The thing I just can't figure out is WHY the champagne color of the Olympus 17mm lens perfectly compliments my Austin-Martin Silver Panasonic GX1 camera body...but matches nothing Olympus??? :-)
I know perfectly what an ASTON Martin is, thank you.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: People criticize this lens for not being razor-sharp. Well, that's one of the reasons I like Olympus lenses: they're sharp, but not clinically so. People tend to like exaggerated sharpness nowadays, but Olympus has struck the right balance with this lens.However, tone has a somewhat recessed quality that reminds me a lot of the 17mm-f/2.8 Pancake lens. Colours are pleasing and accurate - just like the Pancake -, but not deliriously vivid as the OM primes I use. These pictures are inconclusive when it comes to chromatic aberrations, which is the Pancake's Achilles' heel, but I read at lenstip it has high levels of geometric distortion.Speed and build aside, I don't see much to differentiate this from the Pancake lens in terms of image quality. Of course I must qualify it by saying I could think differently if I actually tried it on my camera, but that's the impression I get from these samples. (n. b. I'm one of those who believe "bokeh" isn't so important with wide-angle lenses...)
Not "less sharp". I like "sharp". I just don't like "über-sharp", the kind of sharpness that renders the images unnatural. I didn't think I could be misinterpreted, but I seek sharpness as much as any other amateur. Just not *too* sharp.
It's not champagne - it's silver -, and what's an "Austin-Martin"?
People criticize this lens for not being razor-sharp. Well, that's one of the reasons I like Olympus lenses: they're sharp, but not clinically so. People tend to like exaggerated sharpness nowadays, but Olympus has struck the right balance with this lens.However, tone has a somewhat recessed quality that reminds me a lot of the 17mm-f/2.8 Pancake lens. Colours are pleasing and accurate - just like the Pancake -, but not deliriously vivid as the OM primes I use. These pictures are inconclusive when it comes to chromatic aberrations, which is the Pancake's Achilles' heel, but I read at lenstip it has high levels of geometric distortion.Speed and build aside, I don't see much to differentiate this from the Pancake lens in terms of image quality. Of course I must qualify it by saying I could think differently if I actually tried it on my camera, but that's the impression I get from these samples. (n. b. I'm one of those who believe "bokeh" isn't so important with wide-angle lenses...)
Scott Mac: Olympus has dropped the ball with this one. They have packaged average-quality optics into a premium-quality casing. The result is an average lens at a premium $500 price. They should have housed it in plastic, like the optically superior 45/1.8, which can be had for $330, and they should have sold it for the same price as that lens. That would leave room for an f1.4 version with metal body, snap focus ring, etc, which they could have sold for a similar price to the 12/2.0, which goes for $700 or so.
You can have a 17mm micro 4/3 lens from Olympus for roughly $300: it's the 17mm f/2.8 Pancake lens. Much better value than this one, and IMHO unfairly underrated. It wouldn't make much sense if the f/1.8 version cost the same as the Pancake lens.
Marty4650: Is the lens hood standard, or do you have to pay extra to get one?
The lens is supplied by Olympus and the hood will cost $99.
StanRogers: I'll see your voice-activated coffee machine and raise you one: a coffee machine that understands ASL!!!
Seriously, beyond the obvious (remote surveillance/security, merely adding webcam-type applications to a pocketable student computer, semi-autonomous robotics), I'm seeing cool new bootstrapped approaches to assistive technologies. That may be somewhat idealistic, but then the kids who are gaining access to amazingly powerful tech at laughably small prices these days tend to be somewhat idealistic as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see something literally world-changing for a lot of people coming out of science fair projects over the next couple of years.
Sorry but the coffee machine was programmed by a bulgarian engineer and it only understands bulgarian. And the display information comes in bulgarian too, in cyrillic characters to boot.
sportyaccordy: Will be funny to hear the purists tear this down. I think it's a great idea.
As a purist I must say my brain has swollen while reading the "voice-activated coffee machine" part of this article, so I'm waiting until the swell disappears before I comment. However, I'd say I generally agree with Trollshavethebestcandy's comment. When I fully recover I'm also going to do the maths in order to calculate the "equivalent aperture" of this camera, so I can understand how it measures against full frame in terms of field of view - a problem that has been consuming me since Olympus announced the OM-D E-M5. And also the equivalent bokeh. And the equivalent ISO, too. And the equivalent shutter lag and battery life as well.
Baxter Bad: Stop worrying about selling image quality and F-numbers and make something sexy. Your cameras are for old people.
Timmbits, my current camera (a silver Olympus E-P1) completely fulfills my design ideals. Its design is head and shoulders above anything else bar Fuji's CSCs and the Leica Ms. The Panasonic CSCs aren't slightly retro, they're either shrunk DSLRs or inflated point-and-shoots. They'll never win design accolades.
migus: Refreshingly candid, thank you!Indeed, selling IQ to consumers who never print big and have low res 2k / low quality (non-AdobeRGB) screens is tough. The 4K AMOLEDs and PJs are not even near the 1K$ threshold to make a difference yet. However, people notice the noise in low light shots and don't like it...
P.S. Please kindly use standard batteries and also allow cheap 3rd parties in your ecosystem. This, not the sensor size, is the #1 ethical reason why i still refuse to buy your otherwise attractive cameras.
Yes, plevyadophy. Now you need to tell that to ALL relevant studios because they still use those Chevrolet El Camiños of cameras such as Phase One and Hasselblad.
There's a blatant contradiction between the extremely poor test results and the score. 67% is above average, and this... er, camera is nowhere near such status. This is just a failed attempt from Nikon to look very up to date and modern, trying to appeal to both gadget freaks and occasional photographers who believe "the best camera is the one with you". They failed in both fields: OS is obsolete and image quality is mediocre at best. If Nikon is trying to raise the bar and put up a fight against mobile phone cameras' momentum in order to keep point and shoots alive,they must try harder. Even the most die-hard Nikon fanboy will find this camera risible.
Great, ISO 12800. Wow. I'm excited.Now I'm wondering why MF cameras don't go beyond 6400. Is it because the sensor is too small...?
Yes. Hello Kitty cameras for everyone, please.
Hugo808: I bet my photo's will still be crap...
Crap with incredibly accurate colours. I'm in.
Alex Hubenov: All I want is a new 4/3 body !!!I don't get this obsession with smaller camera bodies! Why would one sacrifice so many good things just for a smaller body? And who is it good for? Snappers and tourists? The 4/3 gear is still more compact than NiCanon DSLR's and the Oly lenses are unmatched!Come on Olympus, give us a good new 4/3 body this year!!!
Rocco, that's a very nice blog you've got there. Your photographs are quite impressive. Congrats.
FranKois: APS-C has been developped because FF cameras where to expensive for consumers market.But even APS-C cameras are still very heavy and big. 4/3 or m4/3 cameras offered reduced size and weight and in addition the possibility to purchase cheap long-focus lenses because of crop facror. But at the end of the day, even with fast lenses, DOF with 4/3 lenses is always to much and it is impossible to get a nice bokeh.I regret my OM1, OM2 and all 24x46 zuiko lenses.The day you will put on the market a FF camera of same quality and compactness of OM film series and zuiko lenses, I will immediatly resale my Canon D6 for the new OM, no doubt!
Thank you, FranKois. You've just taught me this picture is impossible:http://www.flickr.com/photos/manuelvilardemacedo/6902274507/in/set-72157629383979281/lightbox/Now I need to tell my E-P1 and my OM 50mm-f/1.4 that they'll have to go because the depth of field they provide is not shallow enough.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Oh no, the "equivalent aperture" brigade again. Sheesh...!
No, it's several of them. It's like John Carpenter's movie: "THEY LIVE...!"
slncezgsi: Way to go, Olympus.
I believe that both of these lenses will be much appreciated by the users. And no - none of these are sub $500 lenses.
I guess it is going to be a LOT easier to carry around a 150/2.8 than 300/2.8 (for FX). And probably cheaper too. Also much lighter tripod will be needed to hold the combo (should it be needed).
Releasing these lenses tells me that Olympus is confident that m4/3 will keep growing and attracting pro shooters - these are not lenses an average mirrorless shooter (no offense to anybody) would need/buy. There must be enough of those who would consider m4/3 over DSRL (APSc or FX) for serious work.
m4/3 is on the right track and in my opinion a very welcomed alternative to FX DSLRs (please notice: I am saying alternative, not a replacement)
Fantastic comment, shame the lenses are from Panasonic, not Olympus.
Thorgrem: I see that the DoF-Gestapo really takes m4/3 as a serious threat now. Al this deliberately wrong calculations are just so funny.http://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/
What puzzles me is why they've only discovered these theories after micro 4/3 became a steady format. Crop sensors have been there for quite a while and no one seemed to care about equivalent aperture BS then. I wonder why.
Oh no, the "equivalent aperture" brigade again. Sheesh...!