ivey3721: Canon, Nikon chose to have in-lenses stabilization system, while Sony has its IBIS. And like Canikon, Panasonic chose to have in-lenses stabilization system,too. Since when the lack of IBIS (or not efficient enough) prevent a camera from owning Gold Award?And lack of in-camera raw process? Seriously?
You are right. DP did not critizise the lack of in-body stabilisation on other panasonic 4/3 cameras either...but this has become a big point for the olympus om-d..
No in-body stabilisation means no stabilisation of video without OIS lenses.For me this is a real downer because there are some very good lenses without OIS, especially wide angles, which are NOT stabilized in video mode...I have to agree with DP here...
martin0reg: The 2,5/14 and the 1,7/20 are both missing OIS..this new lens too!IMO there should be a good stabilization also for wide angles like these, for photo AND for video. To compete with good and fast compacts like sony rx100.
I've just read that the GX-7 has in-body stabilization ONLY for photo NOT for video. So it seems to be one more lens from pana best suitable for olympus om-d...
The 2,5/14 and the 1,7/20 are both missing OIS..this new lens too!IMO there should be a good stabilization also for wide angles like these, for photo AND for video. To compete with good and fast compacts like sony rx100.
What about the video mode?Especially image stabilisation while shooting handheld videos - and also audio recording quality? On dpreview there should be at least some samples to judge this..
For the price of a om-d the new IS should be as good as the five-axis IS from olympus, especially on video. Dear DP, please make a comparison in the forthcoming test.Why is the grip so big? It seems to be very near to the lens...
dark goob: WANT!!
The slow, loud focusing speed of the existing 20 is its only real drawback. I'll probably keep it and use the other one on dual GH3's to do 3D video.
The old version moves the whole lens tube for focusing.
The 2,5/14 has IF which means only some inner lenses are moving, not the whole tube. Like all zooms.
Where did you read about IF?
Beside this I really want an IS in this lens!
DON'T WANTbecause the AF is not changed. For video it is not usable because of noisy and pumping AF. And what a nice lens it would be without that! Instead of changing the exterior design (which is good enough on the old version), they should have made an inner focusing (IF) like on the 2,5/14. And OIS stabilisation would be helpful too!
pictureAngst: I'm hoping the MFT version uses different optics to this adapter, so that the focal length is retained on the smaller MFT sensor - i.e. a FF 50mm provides more or less the same angle of view on an MFT camera. Given the different aspect ratios (3:2 versus 4:3) I guess in practice this would actually mean an equivalent vertical focal length and some cropping to the horizontal focal length, but I'm not sure.
IMO the biggest advantage of this adaptor isn't the increased light gathering (although that's very nice), it's the retained shallow depth of field. There's some really nice older fast lenses out there (Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS, Nikon 105mm f2.5 AIS, etc.) that are, for their performance, quite light and small, and very affordable.
I suspect though that the demands on the optics to shrink the image to such a degree might significantly increase the corner falloff and CA evident in the APS-C version, to an extent where it can be seen in real world images.
Time will tell.
Yes - a speed booster specially for FF on mFT would be VERY nice. With 0.5 reduction (instead of 0.7). And on the other hand with 2 f-stops more light and DOF (instead of 1 f-stop).A dream?
joepix: Hmm.. how many stops could be gained if they made one of these to convert medium format lenses to Micro 4/3s or even to use medium format on full frame? I'd love to use my old Hassy lenses again.
I hope they can make a version with a higher "compression" of 0.5 (instead of 0.7) and with gain of 2 stops (instead of 1). This would fit the "shrink" ratio of mFT to FX.I would love to put my old nikkors on my pana GH without any crop factor - 1.4/35 would become 0.7/35 equivalent ... sounds crazy, ridicoulos FOV, ND filter are needed...
There are tele converters 1.4x and 2.0x.What about a booster 0.5x - for FX lenses on mFT?
Peter Heckert2: Set a magnifying lens in front of the sensor, and you get a bigger sensor.Set a stray lens in front of the sensor and you get a smaller sensor.Its that easy ;-)
Ok it is not so easy to maintain the focus distances, but it is possible.
Hopefully the ridiculous urban legend about sensor size and DOF will die now.
Yes ist seems to be so easy - but vice versa:- stray lens in a conventional tele-converter- magnifying lens in the speed boosterOr did I get it wrong?
The studio test sample shows a green cast at all iso's and at iso 1600 additionally a magenta cast at the right side.What about this, is it no "con"?? Does anybody see it?
And regarding the "pro": "Excellent video quality (and sound)" - agreed for the quality of image and sound - but I am missing a good video stabilisation while moving (like sony's "active steadyshot")! Also the AF and zooming in video could be smoother.
I am willing to order a pureview (having a 5800 and being happy with symbian + nokia navigation) , but...see above...
"to give an impression of what rich recording does for audio"
Look and hear minute 2:00, there's a comparison with a "normal" smartphone...
I still can't believe the sound quality coming out of this small device:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRCl7I_XFRMIt would be the definite camera gear for concerts - if it only had better video stabilisation .. nokia please..
zoranT: Actually, video IQ is not the 808s strength, it is rather average there. It s strength ist still image photography (easily comparable to enthusiast/prosumer compact cameras) and sound recording. There is nothing comparable out there in that regard, a quantum leap as the N8 has been. Still today, the N8 remains one of the best camera phones, topped only by the 808.
Sound is the best I ever heard from such a device.Still image the best I ever seen.But for video it definiteky needs a better stabilisatioon
TrojMacReady: For those who complain about missing vocals, here's a more vocal example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OB0n-xkvY7A#!
Sound quality is incredible!
Zafar Kazmi: col·lage [kuh-lahzh, koh-] Show IPA noun, verb, col·laged, col·lag·ing.noun1.a technique of composing a work of art by pasting on a single surface various materials not normally associated with one another, as newspaper clippings, parts of photographs, theater tickets, and fragments of an envelope.
What is described here is image stitching/panorama, not collage.
@blackzeroI have just tried picasa for collaging. Seems to be easy arranging and rotating. But I see no option for sizing!?
It is not about definitions, it is about the" look" and an appropriate description for it.Yes it is the 21st century - but I want to have this imperfection and look of a pin board for this special purpose.But what about the software (arranging, rotating, sizing)? PS CS, elements or free editor?
True these are different thhings. Someone who wants to make collages doesn't stitch.
Which version of photoshop elemants is recommended? CS is much too expensive for me.....or is there other software (perhaps free) which can do easily "collaging"? With easy operation of the main thing: arranging sizing and rotating the imageges