Can users who do not use lightroom upload photos as they once could or are we now frozen out of DPreview?
Can we still link yo other online content?
justmeMN: So they made a silver non-weather-sealed lens to go on their black weather-sealed camera?
Olympus are still developing their weatherproof gear. One body and one lens so far. That's a start and all good systems start somewhere.
The other compact mirror-less cameras have how many weatherproof system camera options?
Oh yes ... zero.
Cyril Reif: Interesting....all the emotion over price points and price comparisons, don't get me wrong, cost can always be a factor.....but I moved to M4/3 for the reduced weight and form factor....I was tired of hauling around SLR's and DSLR's for many years.
And you sacrifice nothing when it comes to quality - in real terms - unless you need a billboard or looking like a retro shoe is important.
My EM-5 comes with me a L:OT more places than the E1/3/5 used to ...
There are plenty of lower cost lenses that are good too. The fast glass is always at the top of the price list in ANY brand or format.
tkbslc: Now Panasonic needs to make a cheaper built 50mm f2 for $250 to round out the "regular joe" kit of 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7
I am sure this lens is very, very good. But most people only need one very and would rather keep half their money.
+1 for the 100mm f/2.8 macro, and affordable 300mm f/4.0, Marty!
Ben Raven: The RAW MATERIALS cost of glass, materials, mechanics and electronics is merely the STARTING point.
The MAJOR cost of any high quality optics, photo or otherwise, really starts piling up with:1. The creation, design, testing and optical engineering of a new lens formula that can achieve top levels in all the areas of optical image performance.
2. The expense of producing each element to the high tolerances and exotic shapes necessary, and precise application of multi layers of advanced anti-reflective coatings
3. Final assembly to, again, extremely high tolerances, alignment, centering and maintaining necessary super quality control.
As we go up and up in quality and performance so, PROPORTIONALLY, do the time and COST of all the above !
NOTE: The format is not a directly proportional factor in these
To think otherwise is like saying a Bugatti Veyron costs $3million just because the delivered metal, carbon fiber,and tires cost so much.
The Moral: You get what you pay for.
The cheap cameras and lenses referred to (harped on about) are often not as good.
If you are not that keen on quality WITH compactness, go for cheaper and or bigger.
It's your money and both alternatives can produce good results. In the case of a 3kG outfit costing $10,000 superb results, but only the lens cap and strap fit in your pocket.
Even with modern tools, quality lenses are still not cheaply designed in people's back yards.
How many different lens coatings and inter-element glues do you think there are?
I want an m4/3 extension tube :)
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I'm tired of this "equivalent" BS. People should do a little thinking - if they did, they'd realize this notion of "equivalent aperture" is utterly nonsensical. If such equivalence existed, f22 on this lens would translate to a mammoth f44 in 35mm terms! Besides, it would be akin to say a person's visual acuity depended on the volume of the brain. Think about it.It is curious that no one mentions "aperture equivalence" when it comes to APS-C (in that case f1.8 would be f2.7). Strange, isn't it?I would also like to see where they learned all that stuff about "equivalent aperture". Because until now I've found nothing to sustain that bizarre theory by which the size of the sensor determines the position of the iris blades... because it's the latter we're talking about when we refer to aperture.Oh, and let's not forget those who write long reports on "equivalent aperture" and, when we browse their galleries, all there is is photos of their cats!!!Sorry, no patience for trolls.
There IS no "depth of field issue" except for trolls and people intent on arguing equipment instead of making quality pictures.
Measurebators someone called them.
Compactness is a BIG (pun intended) advantage.My EM-5 sits in the coat pocket easily with that new 14-42. The 40-150 in the other pocket. The little flash attached to my bum-bag strap.
If I need more, I carry other lenses and even third party ones are stabilised!
It means I can be '[prepared' without looking like a pack mule and STILL come away with good pics.
NOT so the "brick with a lens" owners. Their cameras are left behind quite often.
I am often the ONLY person in groups I'm part of, with something better than a P&S or a phone "camera". Say ... on a walk, on a hike, on a cycling trip. The EM-5 is fantastic at the theatre, or at dinner. The pattern repeats every week.
This lens will make the EM-5 formidable in the theatre + hardly noticed. I usually leave the Metz 60s behind too :)
Poweruser: Estimated STREET Price: $899.99.
Wow, MFT is doing everything to remain in its niche.
Suggest you heck the sales figures. THis system addresses needs beyond my pixels are bigger than your pixels or weightlifting accessories.
m4/3 id "only" about producing quality pictures without arguing about pointless rubbish.
Here: is a http://blog.giuliosciorio.com/?p=550 light read for those easily scared by marketing ...
If a hundred bucks is a deal breaker, that's the value you place on your portraits and is entirely your business.
Sergey Borachev: Many have complained about the high price of Olympus E-M5 and this 75mm f/1.8. I found these prices painful too, but I will say this. I would rather that Olympus produce top quality products like these (and they are top quality I believe), than lowering their standards and make products that are soon forgotten.
Many have also complained that this E-M5 is not a real OM camera or that it does not deserve to be recognised as the digital version of the OM series. They do not understand that it is more than just the retro look. The E-M5 carries on from the the Olympus OM1 and other great OM cameras in this regard, i.e. exceeding expectations. This lens iis pretty unique as a 150mm equivalent lens. Let's hope its performance is, like the E-M5, also at the top of its class.
I believe that there is a price to pay for that extra level of performance in lenses, and that the extra bit in design, workmanship and material are worth it. Otherwise, just buy NeX lenses. :)
Ad infinitum and ad nauseum, maths trolls regurgitate info irrelevant to actually taking pictures.
As far as shutter speed and flash are concerned the lens _IS F1.8_. Sharp isolated candid portraits in just about anyone's hands. With skill, superb candid portraits, hard to match with larger, heavier (or inferior, smaller) systems for fear of scaring subjects.
The 75/f1.8 weighs little, is easily pocketed (like your 9-18 etc.) and is lightning quick to focus. If you prefer to be a conspicuous weightlifter with wafer thin DOF (for those "disappearing ears" face shots at 1.2) that's your business
With the EM-5's eye recognition you get a versatile, compact, quality possibility that is unmatched elsewhere.In the studio it will hold its own unless you need a billboard print, in which case get a d800e.
The lens hood IS too much $$, alternatives?
We seeFOUR THIRDS is maturing as a blend of portability, unobtrusiveness and quality with an unmatched system!BRAVO, scary for others?
Kjeld Olesen: Being a user of both a m43 system and a 24x36 mm system, I'd say this is certainly a nice lens and an improvement to the m43 lens array, but surely there will always be reason for m43 users to "envy full frame L glass" - at least until they bring out a 12-35 f/1.4 lens - and if they do, then what will be the point of using m43 anyways? It would likely be larger than a "full frame" 24-70 f/2.8.So lets enjoy what m43 offers in terms of small size and not pretend that it is a replacement for larger apperture lenses.
Faster shutter speeds or MORE DOF are often good reasons for such lenses.
Macro for instance - never heard a macro photographer positively rabbet on that HIS pics had 'too much' DOF ... what a joke.
Go an take your 'portrait head shots at f1.2. Then try to sell them to someone with an IQ greater than that of a dead plant..
ThePhilips: The church of equivalency has many followers this days.
Correlates well with poor math scores in US.
At least I see no other explanation why many people here can't grasp meaning of the simple math term like "ratio."
The church of measurebators is also alive and well ...
Mssimo: Just to get a idea of the size/weight
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 ----------------------------------- 900g NO IS FFCanon 24-70mm f2.8----------------------------------- 950g NO IS FFTamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 DI --------------------------825g (has IS/VC) FFCanon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II ------------------200g APSSony E 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS------------------------194g APSSigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM------------------ 565g APSPanasonic 14-42mm f3.5-5.6 Power Zoom pancake- 95g u4/3Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-42mm f3.5 -5.6---------- 165g u4/3---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8----------------------------------305g u4/3
Is light, is small, is sharp, is GOOD :)
photoshutter: To be real 24-70mm f2.8 equivalent, this lens must be f1.4, or at least f1.8
Not a post about making pictures. A post about arguing a case for something else - something you like. Enjoy!
RStyga: I believe what photoshutter was trying to point out is the difference not only in focal length but also in DoF (and he also made a mistake in the calculation). It is true that the same lenses (whenever possible by the lens manufacturer) on 4/3 sensor bodies (m4/3 are 4/3 in terms of sensor size) are one F-stop darker than on APS-C sensor bodies and two stops darker than on FF bodies; this affects the DoF value. So, in order to obtain the same DoF on a 4/3-sensor camera you need one F-stop brighter lens (all other lens parameters unchanged). Practically speaking, in this case, the lens by Panasonic is 24-70mm F5.6 (35mm equivalent) and 16-47mm F4 (APS-C equivalent).
Yet, with flash, it IS f2,8
Jefftan: Do you guys know it cost $1300not so excited any more?
just yesterday I see attack on NEX lens line up, at least no single lens is price at this ridiculous price
Those nex lenses are almost universally soft at the corners - no NEED for effects filters.
pedroboe100: I could buy a brand new OMD-5 with that money... difficult choice, especially since I own GH2
Get the OMD EM-5. In a short time, you won't look back ...
qwertyasdf: on the grounds of the never ending equivalence debate, really interested in knowing how many photographers use large aperture to gain shutter speed? and how many to control DOF?
I personally think that high shutter speed is only crucial to sports photography, and that the m43 system is not a good sports photography tool to start with.
Depends on what sports you photograph. Sports isn't the only use for faster shutter speeds. Low light maybe?
There m43 can shine without carrying 3 kg of camera gear.
CNY_AP: A pinhole has the same size no matter what camera it is on. A F2.8 full frame lens has a larger "hole" than a F2.8 on a micro 4/3rds camera. F stops are RATIOS of the distance versus aperture size to measure the intensity of light. If the length is longer, the sensor gets less light than a shorter lens having the same PHYSICAL aperture size. Even thought the "hole" is the same, the longer lens would perhaps be F4 and the shorter lens a F2.8, for example (F stop is length / aperture size, which is why the numbers get smaller as aperture gets larger). To get the area of the hole, you of course need to square the aperture (times pi), wich is why F2.8 is 2x brighter than f4. 2.8*2.8 = 8 whereas 4*4 = 16. An example using the 8/16 numbers above: if the f2.8 and F4 lens are the same length, the F2.8 lens allows 2x more light since the hole/aperture is 2x larger and the light is "spreading" out over the same length. Nnow you should understand why a 2x larger F-stop is 4x "slower".
The COST of the GLASS is a minor part of the the design and cost of a lens (except for maybe VERY ecotic mices).
We should perhaps, be more concerned with the QUALITY of the glass than the QUANTITY the of glass ...
jennajenna: would this work on full frame?
You mean 6x7cm?
Skipper494: Why do we have to click three times to get to this stupid review? A 150mm equivalent is NOT a portrait lens anyway, 85 is quite enough, any more and you're stopping down too far to get depth of focus, into the diffraction range.
Tight face shots at a little over a metre from subject.Waist-up at about 2 metres. What problem?
Gives the model a bit of space without a camera up her nose. Doesn't intimidate inexperienced amateurs either.
The 75mm should almost guaranteed high quality output and more stress-free sessions.
I compared the EM-5 output to my RB76 slides/negs of old. Micro 4/3 leaves it in the dust for all BUT stupidly and unsalable wafer thin DOF. Also film latitude in negs still wins.
Usually you had to stop down RB67 to F8 to get acceptable DOF - more for landscapes (portraits were OK at F4.5).
RB-67 lenses closed down to f/45 when needed, (occasionally).This is why large format cameras can be had for a dime on eBay - no need for dinosaurs any more and 35mm is next. History has proven it, and the oldies whined when roll film went out of fashion as "full" frame adherents do right now.
That 75/1.8 looks brilliant and is available now in OZ. Want to sell some lenses first, though.
u4/3 helps to reduce clutter very well without real (as opposed to imagined) loss in quality.
Every few decades the film (sensor) has halved (with a 1960's blip, rejecting"movie frame' cameras like the old pen range because still film wasn't good enough. Ancient history!