Aaron Sur: one of these with a EFS 55-250 will reach out to 400mm optical ,stabilized as well , at very little cost in price and weight . Perfect for the amateur enthusiast.
Optical stabilised - 2 stops slower than the best IBIS systems. This is a feature?
malcolm82: Does this camera allow you to choose between 50fps and 60fps or are they forcing 50fps on the PAL country users like sony does?No 60fps support is a deal breaker for me.
I believe even the nokia 808 allows you to choose from 24, 25, and 30fps? Hopefully i wont have to buy a cell phone to get 60fps video in this country.
CaNikon are being left behind in the 'small but powerful' race - pure and simple. Mirrorless will be 'no good' - until they also have it, then it will be 'wonderful'.
Selling cameras, I WELL remember Compact Olympus cameras were 'too small' until CaNikon could get close. TTL OTF flash metering was a 'gimmick' - until they also had it. It made Macro bug stalking much faster.
They WILL catch up.
Some guy told me that Sony invented mirrorless compacts the other day. What can you say to such a lack of knowledge ? :)
GirinoFumetto: If, taking a portrait, I like better to focus on a shoulder, a good camera must let me do it. In any of my photos, if the shoulder is in focus and the eyes are not, I think "my fault' or "too difficult with that short DOF" and discard the photo. The same if in a bouquet the only flower in focus is in the left low corner.It's difficult for me believe that OM-D or any lens (not broken) could make this kind of errors.
Yes I agree. Someone who has the time to do compose more carefully and who holds a camera just a little steady will get fantastic results out of this lens.
Flawless update process. Nice, simple. Love this camera too ... so small, so capable
Canon advises owners of affected cameras to 'thoroughly wash your hands with water if they have come in contact with the rubber grip'.
Where's the bias, I ask?Good they admit and warn people!
Tap the screen where the shoulder is - it works ...
Aaron MC: To those hatin' on the lens, y'all be crazy. I'm totally happy to plunk down the cash on a lens like this. Olympus is finally giving me what I've been wanting for THREE YEARS. Good lenses FTW!
I am upset by the lack of a lens hood, though. That's pretty cheap on Olympus' part.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1521/cat/14 makes up for it?
danaceb: I love big beautiful lenses, specially when they are not made from brass like a dumbell around ones neck. Aluminium for these sizes please. This beautiful Olympus lens makes me want to buy a m43, lets see how the IQ turns out.
I see sharper than any competing lens and nice bokeh
ogl: FA 77/1.8 LimitedMaximum Diameter 64 mmLength 48 mmWeight 270 g
M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.863.5mm diameter x 69.5mm lengthWeight 304 g
why the lens for 4/3 bigger and heavier than for FF?
two words AFQuality
dark goob: Can we please stop referring to 135-format as "full-frame"? It's factually wrong because 135-format cameras are not always full-frame. It's actually a fact that the Nikon FX-format sensors are the only known cameras to support a crop-sensor mode. Not to mention the fact that Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds are both full-frame formats -- despite having a smaller sensor.
Quit using language wrongly!!!!
'full' is marketing speak to imply inferiority in other's choices. It has no true value beyond that.
My RB67 was 'full' frame, but a 5x4 shooter might disagree.
Fact is ... the quality obtainable from smaller sensors is remarkable and way beyond what 35mm could ever do.
PioneerPhoto: And I thought white lenses looked bad...
love_them_all: 150/3.5 eq isn't exactly attractive. Lenses just sound more exotic in the smaller sensors. 75/1.8 sounds so much more interesting. :) Although given a real 135/3.5 on the ff or this lens, I may get this lens because of the faster shutter speed. Noise and everything else put aside.
What 135/3,5 has a front lens element that big? or performance like this? http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1521/cat/14
85/1.2 or 1.8 or 1.4 can't match that sharpness at any aperture they can all do.
I was considering a Canon 85mm 1.2L lens with an adapter (or a second hand body) for night work, so I followed the SLRgear lens test links below.
While some say it is the "ideal portrait" lens, that 85 1.2 cannot match the Zuiko 75 1.8 at ANY aperture that both are capable of. Softer at twice the price (even on a MUCH lower resolution body - the 20D). The 1.8 version is worse.
Now I am aware that some cherish that extra stop, and if you want it, you want it.
For me, that speed comes at a bulk, weight and softness price I will not accept.
So, I checked the Nikkor lenses. Slightly better (at 1.4, 1.8), but no point getting any of them if you are not already locked into Canon or Nikon.
Interesting, too to see the effects of diffraction, not as "limiting" as the "full" frame fan boys would have you believe.
If want detail and wide-open sharpness, very low vignetting, lightness and compactness, the Zuiko seems not to have any equal right now. Pity they skimp on the hood :(
clear glass: For a rough guide to sharpness, I look at eyelashes in a portrait where the head occupies a quarter of the field or less, but the eyelashes of the women in..04 (two women, left one in focus) are enlarged by mascara which obscures lens performance.
Don't think C G was suggesting no make-up, just his observation (which an actual portrait shooter would know well) that MASCARA bunches eyelashes together.
That means it is harder to judge sharpness because there's simply less detail.
No point knocking the lens if you are not interested in one. Or worse if you feel a need to knock users of another system.
I will find this lens excellent for many uses face and detail shots some landscape detail shots, street pics.
It looks very well suited to actual picture taking without pointing a BAZOOKA at the subject ...
I spend NO time knocking others on the CaNikSon forums - because it would be immature and irrelevant as I do not use that gear much..
How obscure - focus manually...
Looks great for face shots (at 2m) or closer for detail shots.For street photography, it would be excellent and for landscape details too.
2 metres is easy enough to do inside.If you wanted more subject the 45mm will serve very well, it weighs less than many phones, too.
The manufacturers would do better to CATCH up than to populate these forums with their negative fan drivel.
I remember the CaNikon anti OM-size cameras jibes in the 1970s and their TTL OTF arguments in the 1980's only TOO well- until they all caught up.
I was in the business of selling cameras at the time, financing my gear with portraits and weddings. I used an RB 67 to good effect, too.
We DO need a few more images (something with controlled lighting, so that the LENS becomes the limiting factor).
The results so far have put this lens on my short list.
Neodp: I am not impressed with these samples. Most of them look washed-out, slightly. The colors are weird, and the shadows tend to have the digital, ugly noise. I recognize, many things have improved, and are of high quality; but without a sensor, that can do better than the current "best", I see little point. I am all for a better carry package, but not, with these cons. A slightly bigger camera, which can be older, and costs far less, can overall beat this. A trailing quality, 4/3rd sized sensor will never make it. It simply has to lead, in new sensor IQ quality, due to the smaller (for carry, and telephoto) size disadvantages. Now, if these were bargain basement priced, *and* you were then OK, with the "quality" (which I still would not be), then I could understand better, the compromise. A good camera, is not about compromises. It is about balances (lenses first), and needs to get out of your way. This is also not to say, I am for, or against mirror-less.
"and" you actually spent a few days with one yourself, adjusting it yo YOUR taste ...
wkay: True. contrast and color stink but is it the lens or the camera? No way to tell. Note highlights tend to be blown out too. No way to make any sort of subjective decision from these images.
Spoken like someone who wants to find fault rather than the quality of a picture. These STREET SNAPS look just fine. Who knows what lights there were around?
The results look 'human;, sharp where in focus with delightful OOF Bokeh.
Ropo16: Robin Wong review part two:
Excellent results Robin, Now 24/2 or 75/1,8 next? THAT is the question :)
Amateurbob: Investigating an original size Dpreview sample image is no different than looking at the image as if it was taken by the person doing the investigating. That said, the samples presented do not encourage one to go out and buy the lens. It is not clear if it is the lens or the camera that is taking away from the quality of the pictures. One hint may be that the samples taken with the Lumix DMC-GH2 look better than those taken with the Olympus OM-D. The images do not say much for the OM-D, which appears to not have the dynamic range Dpreview claimed it had in its review. Dpreview, I think rightly, does not enhance sample images. They show what comes out of the camera. There are few digital images as they come out of the camera that cannot be enhanced. To properly judge a camera or lens one has to download the sample in original size and play with it.
Not the photographer. The OMD EM-5 has very good DR. I am constantly surprised by the quality