thought you meant the lens haha (Cosina 100mm f/3.5 macro)
how were you able to catch a picture of this? thanks
MPA1: Why anyone buys such slow glass I have no idea.
Why some people carry f/2.8 dumbbell zooms & still take crappy pictures, I have no idea too!
while other manufacturers usually roll out 55-200mm f/4-5.6, this fuji zoom is actually considered fast for it's class.
so since 17mm was allowed on m4/3, may I use 24mm on APS-C? they give similar FOV
kev777zero: most comments below go on the line of:A: "what?! such a slow lens for such an expensive price!"B: "what do you want then? anything faster would've made it HUGE!"A: "but look at those FF lenses, they are faster! and not much bigger"B: "no, smaller sensor size does no necessary make the lens smaller"
THEN WHAT THE HELL DO I WANT A SMALL SENSOR CAMERA FOR?!
I understand where you guys are coming from, and you guys are right. But I think Olympus hasn't completely utilized the advantages of a small sensor ILC yet, that is to make smaller/faster lenses. Obviously they've come a long way since the 4/3 days.
Everyone takes the equivalence thing into account, but keep in mind that making a good 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens to cover FF is still more labor than making a good 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens for a 4/3 sized sensor, let alone a f/4.8-6.7 one. The 150-600mm equiv just becomes a marketing trick for Olympus to throw the price towards an 150-600mm equiv lens on APS-C or FF, when in fact it requires less work to produce than a 75-300mm equiv lens on FF. That's why they charged so much for the MKI version. But the MKII price is still an unfair pricing IMHO
So given it's large size for covering a small sensor, slow aperture, and high price, that thing better produce leica or zeiss like quality. Otherwise it's just another ripoff for m4/3 users.
comparing equivalence is a whole other story. a 75-300mm lens is still a 75-300mm lens, regardless what sensor it fits in front of.what I am saying here is that since the optics of Oly 75-300mm can only cover a smaller sensor, the lens should either be made smaller, or equally large with larger apertures.
The new 14-150mm Tamron looks nice, hopefully it won't be too much heavier than the Oly 14-150mm given the fact that is has in-lens stabilization.
as for the new 75-300mm...at least the MSRP is more reasonable than the previous version
Tamron 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 435g for FULL FRAME
that goes back to the point of many people's concern then in this thread - if one could make a 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens 20 years ago in full frame with the same weight/size, shouldn't they AT LEAST make an m4/3 one f/4.5-5.6? More like they should be able to make it half the weight, or 1 more aperture stop.
I think Sony NEX, Samsung NX, Canon M, Fuji X did a better job then; they made the camera just as small, yet retained sensor size of most DSLRs. m4/3 leads in lenses now, but 5yrs down the road when all these large sensor mirrorless cameras have a full system of lenses to choose from, m4/3 better pull something new out of their hats!
most comments below go on the line of:A: "what?! such a slow lens for such an expensive price!"B: "what do you want then? anything faster would've made it HUGE!"A: "but look at those FF lenses, they are faster! and not much bigger"B: "no, smaller sensor size does no necessary make the lens smaller"
Valentinian: Trying to guess what Nikon's trying to do, maybe...(maybe) I got it: they would like to kill the m43 by attracting customer from p&s who might be willing to upgrade.That's because a more and more successfull m43 risks becoming a threat for the big Nikon's (and Canon's) DSRL...
kev777zero: the build is nice, but for a smaller size I can get the NEX, NX, or m4/3 with a larger sensor. I don't see any appeal to Nikon 1 system so far other than its successful hybrid AF system (which might also be because of its smaller sensor, giving everything in focus).
but still, it manages to sell well. why? because it's Nikon, which will appeal to the average consumer that doesn't know better. In the same sense, expect the Canon mirrorless to be the next king of mirrorless because it not only has a big camera name, but also a large sensor too
true. but I highly doubt the average consumer buying into this mirrorless system is even aware of the benefits (AF) & losses (image quality). they're just buying it because it's Nikon. Big props to Nikon's marketing sector for their part.
the build is nice, but for a smaller size I can get the NEX, NX, or m4/3 with a larger sensor. I don't see any appeal to Nikon 1 system so far other than its successful hybrid AF system (which might also be because of its smaller sensor, giving everything in focus).
as a sony NEX user I'm quite surprised at the negative response from dpreview users. Yes it's not the most innovative invention ever in the camera industry, but it ticks most boxes for me, esp. that 22mm prime & hybrid AF at least on paper. much smaller size than my rather large Zeiss 24mm lens + NEX-7 combo, & MUCH cheaper (although this is sort of an apple to oranges comparison).
but for those who think small built in flashes are crap, you must have never used the manually tilt-able built in flashes on NEX-7 or F3! It'll do just as good of a job as the big flash guns unless you're trying to light up a church!
ah, brings back good old memories for me mate, spent a year there for studies. love Newcastle & the Geordies!
Kodachrome200: I wanna love these mirrorless camera's but they always seem to miss the mark by a bit. With an aps-c sensor physics is going to require that the lenses are essentially dslr sized. this makes the camera only marginally more portable.
The micro 4/3rds seems to be the right balance. but there are still some wierd issues. Like the fact that you can't get a thin profile standard prime for it. witch oddly enough you can for the large 4/3rds cameras. And dont say use an adapter, the is too big. Also the only 4/3rds camera that is reasonably small and acceptably powerfull is the olympus e-pl3. witch comes with a kit zoom that is not pocket sized. and you CANT buy it without it. (witch makes me ask what about upgraders?). I like that panasonic pancake zoom lens. combined with a small standard prime that was also pocket sized you could have a lot of photo power in your pocket.
This new sony is massive in the world of camera thats only justification is they are more portable though.
at least NEX has a top of the line sensor unlike m4/3's pathetic sensors.
new Sony superzoom = rebranded Tamron superzoom?
13% for Americans haha. It's the stubborn mindset of "bigger the better" from the past. soon, DSLRs will be viewed as Hummers