rufusrm44: This statement is false:
"Quite simply, the smaller sensor will receive less light at matched exposures (same shutter speed and aperture) and this means more noise."
It's only true if the pixel pitch is lower (meaning the pixel density is greater.) But if the number and size of the pixels are identical, that less light received on the m43 sensor is equivalent to the 'more' light gathered by full frame because the full frame requires more light to cover the larger sensor.
Imagine if you had a sensor that was cut 1/4 the size of the full frame sensor. That means it only needs the same shutter speed and aperture to produce the same quality of image, but that image would be only 1/4 the pixels of the ff sensor, and would therefore only need 1/4 the light.
Qyuote: "My statement: "an infinitesimally small sensor would need no light to produce a perfectly fine image" follows from your logic, so I'm glad you agree it's completely illogical."
You could not have such a small sensor, because the concentrated light would burn through the sensor. Hence your example neglects what is going on.
If the small sensor could work as well as the big sensor, quality would be defined by the lens. As m43 improves, the lens quality increasingly becomes the issue. And quality can be depth of field, lens size and weight too ...
atoz: This trend of 'publishing' how-to books (for nearly every micro-update) for digital photography is quite the scam. There's more than enough free or nearly free training and instruction online to dive into these applications. If you want serious in-depth training, use a video training series (as others have mentioned).
Looked for the iPad at iPhoto, which costs around $5. The reviews for it were not good, but the advice manuals almost all over $5. I bought it, and found its help system excellent. The help guides are extortion IMO. And I suspect this publication is in the same category.
But ... why the heck doesn't Adobe publish a proper manual?Or don't they know about publishing?
airedalemd: Thank you for the review, BUT, no one has tested this with existing Olympus lenses. I've tried to sell my E-620 and $4K in lenses because I didn't think Olympus was going to advance. I took my Olympus lenses to the store to try with the OM-D and it seemed slow to AF. Has anyone done this? I need to know so I can divest of Olympus and cross over to Sony (?) or Nikon. Thanks for any help.
Which 43 lenses do you have? I have used the 11-22 on an EP-2, and it focused quite quickly. It depends on the lens, what you are trying to focus, the conditions, and also the camera settings. ie vivid increases contrast and hence increases focus speed. I have not got the adapter yet, and by then, it won't matter. The 14-54 mkII lens focuses at the speed of the original 14-42 kit lens for m43, some say faster. And you can always manually focus, which works, and the camera can be told to zoom right in when you rotate the dial on the lens. And now, IBIS can work on a half shutter press, so that makes focusing manually much easier.
And you know, some of the 43 lenses are extremely special. But they are a lot bigger than m43 ones.
You have a kangaroo, so just some advise: Olympus provide for Australian purchases of he OM-D EM-4 camera a free MM-3 adapter, which allows most 43 lenses to autofocus.
Speed of focus depends on which lens you use, plus which camera,
Weather-proof fast pancake lens -- not now but in the future? AF speed with Pana 20mm F1.7?
How many pics with the battery pack?
Typical fine JPEG and Raw sizes?
Should be able to pick up the sweat of the seven Oly board members at sentencing.
They say 350 without the pack, so 700 with.
Jonathan McGee: For those of us with a non-micro 4/3'rds investment, I wonder how well the larger 4/3'rds lenses will balance on it. Is the 12-60 simply going to be an unwieldy beast?
I think forget the 12-60mm. Maybe with the grip ... but IMO wait for the new Panasonic lenses. They have a 12-35mm coming. Also a 35-100mm coming. They will cost I suspect somewhere around $,1000 to $1,500 (I read $1,300) each. But they'll be at least F/2.8, some claim F/2.0. And they'll focus fast and be video friendly. But importantly, compact and light, especially the 12-35mm, which sounds like an essential lens to me. Although I'd have preferred 11-33.
I think your twilight shot is artistically brilliant, on several levels.
Worth the article just for that shot.
By the way, which lens was that taken with?
ryansholl: and I hope they meet a blue-collar prison.
If it was hidden nest eggs, the company would not be threatened.
The one third commission for almost a billion dollar purchase, was a way for Olympus to put 300 million back into the company. So, by paying 300 million more for a company, and giving that $300 million to as a commission, and then getting that money into the company, the company could then use that cash to show profits.
If it was mere theft, it would not be an issue. The problem is, that such tricks hide financial losses.
Earthlight: I hope that Sony will buy the Camera business, make the OM-D a little bigger, a proper size camera, slap a full frame sensor in it and sell sell sell those in huge numbers.
Nikon and Canon need even more competition. Instead of Canikon we would have Casonykon.
Earthlight, its unlikely Sony would buy Olympus.
If people think Olympus is in trouble, their issues are peanuts compared to the forest that is engulfing Sony.
Olympus's share price has fallen a lot, certainly. And mostly due to the political ramnifications of previously hidden losses.
But Sony's radical share price downgrade is due to massive losses. Sony's net capital worth was over $US100 billion two years ago. It is now worth $US18 billion. Sony predicted profits this year have now become losses. The group has lost, in the past three years, over $US 5 billion. It it getting out of TV screen manufacture entirely, having sold its half LCD ownership with Samsung (to Samsung). Its TV business has been killing it, despite closing factories around the world. Its Playstation business caused credit card damage to many loyal customers, hence Sony has hurt a major franchise with credit risk that could last for years.
I'd be surprised if Sony bought Olympus.
love_them_all: I knew sooner or later they will have to liquidate. Anybody knows if they supply the sensors for the hassy as well?
I am bemused by many of the comments here.
The facts about Kodak's core business are obscured by their R&D with sensors. And their core business has always been manufacturing high quality papers. The cameras have been an end to allow their paper (& film) operations to succeed.
The sensor involvement attempted to aid their customers, but their strategy was not clear. The copy / print house business was core, but it too has perhaps not been a winner. Meanwhile, printers have gotten cheap, and they can use any old paper. Rather than lovely Kodak high tech papers.
So Kodak is off loading its sensor business. A good thing in actuality. A bit like IBM off loaded their PCs, to Lenovo. Although I think Lenovo is mostly owned by IBM. The reality though is that Kodak haven't won the big users of sensors over. They seem to have become a niche provider. And that's understandable, because sensors never were core to their business.
I cannot read this page; there are graphics and tables over lapping the text based (I think) right hand side of the screen. The HTML is corrupted or buggy - for me at least.
I'm looking forward to this site/area of DPReview being viewable.