Stanny1: Wow, just think how bad a little 4:3 sensor is!
Right - which, speaking in terms of EV stops, doesn't even quite amount to a 2/3 stop difference, though.
Actually, the size difference between between Four Thirds and APS-C is rather small, compared to the size difference between APS-C and Full Frame. Which is why current Four-Thirds-based cameras are almost indistinguishable from current APS-C cameras when it comes to noise, even though current Four Thirds sensors have been on the market for some time and will probably be replaced with a newer generation any time soon.
Juck: Can we assume it performs as well as their 50mm 1.8 clone? i.e. crap.
As far as I remember, tests showed that their 50mm f1.8 clone performed as well as or even slightly better than the original.
Hubertus Bigend: One of the more interesting news for Micro Four Thirds users. Hope for fast AF will probably be reserved for E-M1 users, though, I guess. And then there's the issue of Canon using thinner glass filter stacks on their sensors, so that even lenses which have been designed with that glass in mind will probably be a bit more soft at large apertures than when used on a Canon camera. Nonetheless, this will offer a whole lot of possibilities, especially in the telephoto and macro areas. And who knows, maybe some day there will be such an adapter with focal reducer optics, too, that would possibly add corrections for the thicker MFT filter stack, too.
You mistake AA-filter strength, often (and somewhat mistakably) referred to as 'thickness', with the physical size of the complete filter stack, which not only contains (or, more often now, doesn't contain) the AA filter, but also IR and UV filters. The physical thickness of the complete filter stack is usually kept the same throughout a whole camera system, and it is usually an integral part of the optical formula when lenses are designed. And the thicker the filter stack is in the first place, the more important it is to incorporate it into each lens design, and to keep it roughly as it always used to be.
@QuarryCat: The filter-stack thickness is part of the Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds system design; changing it would make all existing system lenses perform worse than they used to, because their optics have been calculated with the filter-stack glass factored in...
AshMills: Wish they would figure out how to get Nikkors working too..
A-Mount would be nice, too. I'd like to have that 500mm f/8 mirror lens on my E-M1, for example, which is the only catadioptric telephoto lens with AF to date. Until Olympus makes that 250mm f/5 reflex lens they've already filed a patent for, that is.
One of the more interesting news for Micro Four Thirds users. Hope for fast AF will probably be reserved for E-M1 users, though, I guess. And then there's the issue of Canon using thinner glass filter stacks on their sensors, so that even lenses which have been designed with that glass in mind will probably be a bit more soft at large apertures than when used on a Canon camera. Nonetheless, this will offer a whole lot of possibilities, especially in the telephoto and macro areas. And who knows, maybe some day there will be such an adapter with focal reducer optics, too, that would possibly add corrections for the thicker MFT filter stack, too.
Greg VdB: I'd really like to know if I could use my Sigma 400mm f/5.6 HSM APO Macro on a M4/3 body like this. Though optically brilliant, it's an older lens that doesn't work on newer Canon dslr bodies, and to have it working on a potentially sensor-stabilized body would be great. How usable it would be for sports/wildlife depends of course on how fast and accurate focus would be.
@Greg VDB: did you contact Sigma about your lens? All I know is that Sigma Europe used to be able and willing to modify some of their incompatible Canon-mount lenses from the analog era to work with modern DSLRs, a couple of years ago.
@neil holmes: while AF will have to be slow on most MFT bodies, the question remains how fast it might be on the E-M1, which has a really decent AF with existing Four Thirds DSLR lenses through dedicated phase detection elements on the sensor.
It's a sensible guess, though, that AF problems with third-party lenses probably won't become less when used with an adapter on a completely different mount...
Bernard Carns: It's about time somebody else got in this business.
Hopefully they won't jam on the camera body or lens or be loose like so many of the Metabones adapters have done.
If they deliver quality at the suggested price, good for them.
I have used fully-mechanic Kipon adapters which always were good quality, much better than those no-name China adapters you get on eBay.
pkvman13: There is a promo video linked to on photorumors.com of these being used on a A7 series body. Why does all the specs, including on B&H/Adorama listings, plus the images of the lens itself clearly say E-mount?
Probably because the A7 has exactly that – E-Mount. It's exactly the same as that of the APS-C bodies. "FE" is not the name of the mount, it's the name of Sony's lenses which fit E-Mount but have a full-frame image circle.
The funny thing is, that grip, if it is anything like the Lunar's grip which I had the opportunity to try out at Photokina 2012, will be really good, as a grip. The Lunar's grip was very ergonomic and felt as if the camera was custom-built to fit in your hand (well, my hand, at least), making such a camera more comfortable and safer to handle. Nothing that would make anyone in their right mind pay the price for a Lunar or Stellar, but if I had an RX100, I'd be ordering that new grip right away. And I'm not kidding!
G1Houston: Like many have said, RAW files are the concerns here. It does not recognize RAWs from Olympics and Panasonic so this impacts those m4/3 users.
Why should anyone in his right mind want to convert every image to DNG when they're perfectly fine with ORF for every other purpose?
piratejabez: If DNG is fully supported (and may proprietary RAW formats not), might be one reason to consider DNG conversion as part of one's standard workflow...
Before I'd add a file conversion step for every image I keep to my workflow, I'd rather look elsewhere for cloud storage. Amazon doesn't belong to those companies which I have enough confidence in to entrust them with my photos, anyway...
Andreas Balko: I am very astonished, that the discussion about megapixel and fullframe is so hyped from dpreview.It seem, that high megapixel is a question of image quality, but it is a question of print width.And how often do you need a print with of 70 cm?Also it seem, that there is a big difference between 16 megapixel and 24 megapixel, but in reality, this makes only a few centimetres.Please stop to kid us.Andreas
PS: With a Sony A7 fullframe 24 MP I have a print width of 50,8 centimetres at 300 dpi.And with my OM-D E-M5 I mft and "only" 16 MP I have a print width of 39,01 centimetres.What a huge benefit in terms of print width ;-)But the standard zoom of the Sony A7 has only f4. And my Olympus 12-40 has f 2,8 at nearly the same size!
@BarnET: "A7 [...] still nearly the same size" – correct, and it's not even significantly more expensive. The Olympus has other advantages, though.
@Andreas: resolution is and has always been a central aspect of image quality, regardless of whether it's lens resolution, film resolution or sensor resolution, aka megapixel count. Whether a specific resolution is or is not enough is simply a matter of individual demands. It's true, though, that there are less and less applications which would really demand even more MP than what we now have.
LukeDuciel: thumb up for adding 5 axis stabilization on a travel zoom, big competitive edge over all other in the same niche.
big thumb down for the proprietary port. I HATE this kind of design. I have a tg-2, you have to charge via that port, such a shitty thing. I have to taken care of the precious special cable, carry it and find it when needed.
If I remember correctly, it's been nine years that Olympus introduced their proprietary combined USB/AV socket. I've bought quite a few spare cables since then! ;-)
The stupidest thing was that it coincided with the introduction of the E-330, the first LiveView DSLR on the market, and, without buying a special, obscure and rare splitter cable, you couldn't get video-out for a remote TV screen and USB for tethering at the same time...
Regarding the SH-2, I give thumbs down, though, for the lack of any option to use a viewfinder, which is a must at 600mm (equiv.), for the lack of a hotshoe and for the tiny 1/2.33" sensor, a sensor size that has produced not a single camera with descent image quality yet.
RichRMA: I don't know. Olympus makes a high-end 12mm f/2.0 with AF and much smaller and cheaper than the Kowa so apart from some kind of video application, why buy the Kowa?
Not for all, but for some, the comparison can make sense. I, for one, am looking for wide angle options beyond what I have, which is a ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 with MMF-2 adapter, and any existing option except the ZD 7-14/4 will be smaller and lighter than that ;-) I'm not yet sure, though, whether I want to lose AF, even though the E-M1 is quite good for manual focus.
In the end I'll probably add either the Panasonic 7-14/4 or the announced M.Zuiko 7-14/2.8, depending on the price tag. If not too expensive, the 7-14/2.8 might well become the be-all-end-all of ultra wide angle for Micro Four Thirds, except maybe specifically for video...
This is the most straightforward version of how capitalism has, in the end, always worked: profits privatized, losses socialized. In the so-called 'social web' of the 21st century, socializing losses is just much quicker and much more obvious than it used to be. While Ada backers now pay for what would have been Triggertrap's own enterprise risk in the economy of the 20th century, Triggertrap continues to make profits with their existing products. Nice.
Why the heck do I have to click through eleven pages of images and (however short) text until I finally know what that "pricing" actually is?! This publishing style is a nuisance for the reader, especially on smaller screens. Ever heard the word 'usability' in the context of web publishing?
The Samyang/Rokinon/Walimex 12mm f/2 already has better IQ than the Olympus, which, for all I know, is not at all as good as the hype around it would suggest. It actually seems quite easy to make a sharper lens with less distortion, and the Samyang is cheaper to boot. Given that the Samyang is fully manual, too, though, that's probably the most obvious competition for the Kowa.