Hubertus Bigend: The cameras are still missing the ability to use exposure compensation in Manual mode with Auto ISO on (which Fuji just added to their X-T1 by firmware update), and configurable factors for acceptable shutter speeds in Auto ISO, too.
Right, some manufacturers label that mode "TAv", some label it "M". Olympus and Panasonic are two examples of those who label it "M", which is what I was referring to. I could have made that clearer. (They call it M for Manual because it refers to aperture and speed only. It comes from an era that didn't have Auto ISO, by the way.)
Hubertus Bigend: I wish Olympus would at least add exposure compensation in Manual mode when Auto ISO is active (and a configurable focal length factor for shutter speeds to be deemed hand-holdable by Auto ISO, if they're at it)...
Exposure compensation in Manual mode has exactly the same purpose as it has in Aperture priority or Shutter speed priority mode – to save me from the need to change ISO, aperture, or shutter speed manually, explicitly. If you don't see the point in having it, you could just as well say "why do you need exposure compensation in Aperture priority mode? You can set the wanted shutter speed manually". Not having to set it manually and thereby being able to react much quicker is the purpose and the reason. At least for someone who's been used to adjust built-in light metering with 'exposure compensation' feature of his cameras for something like 35 years. No, I'm not going to use spot metering to hunt and seek spots that may perchance have just the right brightness to give me the exposure I need, while my object is already leaving the place.
The flash speed limit kludge may give me faster shutter speeds, but what I often need is slower shutter speeds than those I get with Auto ISO.
The cameras are still missing the ability to use exposure compensation in Manual mode with Auto ISO on (which Fuji just added to their X-T1 by firmware update), and configurable factors for acceptable shutter speeds in Auto ISO, too.
I wish Olympus would at least add exposure compensation in Manual mode when Auto ISO is active (and a configurable focal length factor for shutter speeds to be deemed hand-holdable by Auto ISO, if they're at it)...
Koray: Capitalism at its best. After benefiting from decades long hot cash flow from "thrifty fifty" plastic junk, Canon decides to release an updated version. Only because a Chinese manufacturer copied the older version and released it at half price. Not that they care about the customer base, or thrive technological development.
Just cash, my friend, hot cash.
Of course, but the STM stuff will probably be a real benefit, especially when used in Live View mode or on an existing or future mirrorless body.
What we don't know, by the way, is whether Yongnuo might even be selling their replica lenses with Canon's approval - and, who knows, Canon might even receive a small amount for each lens sold. If the lenses were not just very similar, but really identical, I would even suggest maybe Yongnuo had been producing all those Mark II Canon lenses in the first place ;-) (Then again, making them slightly different now may have even been part of the deal...)
photo perzon: Still too largeSome cameras bounce their buit in flash Pana GM1 Fuji X-A1, M1, Sony RX100, etc.
Right, but they're not as powerful and they cannot be used as a macro flash, either. The Metz flash is supposed to be more than just a built-in (or, in some cases, separate, but included) flash.
I'd rather critcize camera manufacturers if their built-in/included flash units don't tilt. Olympus, finally, has done it right with the new flash they include with the E-M5 II. Too bad it doesn't work with any earlier camera.
Two more cons, as far as I can see:
* Remote TTL only as slave, not as master* No high-speed sync
Nonetheless very nice, if one can live with the few disadvantages. And now that Metz' flash and plastics division is being acquisited by German electronics company Daum (and the TV division by Chinese TV manufacturer Skyworth), after having filed for bancruptcy In November, I'd expect their business to go on, too...
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?