"Sony does not have good lens selection" is code for "Sony doesn't have exotic 600mm telephoto lens or exotic tilt shift lens or 26 thousand versions of a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom"
I don't get the point of GPS anyway. Just to automatically mark the location of your photos? What is the point of that? Wifi seems much more useful.
Are these travel zoom compacts ever going to have good IQ?
Flickr is great for people who care about photographs just slightly more than those who limit their posting to facebook. Unfortunately that type of photographer far outnumbers the enthusiast and professional photographers that find Flickr underwhelming for their needs. So I just don't see a whole lot changing at Flickr unless they add a higher tier of membership that is targeted specifically for pros and high end enthusiasts.
I always use a wrist strap because I sure as hell don't want to drop a $200 camera, let alone a $650 camera
The weight is listed as 380g. That can't be right because that's how much the 45-200 weighs.
I like that Panasonic decided to stop allowing preorders until 30 days before availability. It's silly to force people to commit months in advance to a camera.I think it's reasonable for them to announce it early so they can have all their announcements on the same day.
$300 for this is absurd when the 45-200 costs $236 and the silver 45-175 costs $290.
Dabbler: 1/2.3 sensor? not interested.
Can't change the lenses? Not interested. No f/0.95? Not interested. Costs over $100? Not interested. Longer than 0.1 second autofocus? Not interested. And finally:
Didn't get a gold star from DPR? Not interested.
What is currently the best pocketable superzoom camera (at least 10x zoom) in terms of IQ and features? The "top of the line" cameras I know about are:
Canon SX260Sony HX30VFuji F770Panasonic ZS20Olympus SZ12And of course this Nikon which doesn't seem to be very popular with DPR.
Pancake lenses are pretty pointless for DSLRs. The handgrip and hump on most of them are going to obscure a lot of the markings on this lens as well.
Just wondering but why would you need f/2.8 for doing macro? Don't you usually want as much DOf as possible since you are focusing so close?
Sony...TAKE GOOD NOTES!
Great job Canon. You've made your final Rebel DSLR and now you're killing off your customers so that they don't switch over to Sony and Nikon once you've closed up shot on Rebels for good.
IcyVeins: This is, quite simply, a godly lens. A lens of this quality normally costs $2000 or more, and is of course much larger and heavier. The corners are razor sharp wide open, there is no light falloff or CA, there's really just about nothing to complain about here. Anyone who is a m/43 enthusiast should be racing to get this lens, based on these samples and the test results from SLRGear.
The Canon and Nikon lenses aren't designed to be used on m4/3, you have to use an adapter and there is no autofocus and they are larger because they cover a larger image circle. The only reasonable comparison is to compare each lens on the cameras for which they are intended to be used.
intruder61: nice and all, if your into head shots....otherwise a useless FL.
Just like 24mm is a useless FL if you're not into landscapes and 400mm is a useless FL if you're not into wildlife, right?
T3 you're being ridiculous arguing semantics, it's plainly obvious that the lens will simulate a longer focal length and nobody cares about how long the physical lens is, only what kind of image it produces. I think you're letting your love of Canon cloud your judgment here, this lens is clearly better
tkbslc: Images 8 and 16 are most telling to me. Purple fringe is readily apparent and softness is pretty average for a fast prime used at max aperture.
Image 8 is a shot of obscenely glaring light reflection that they took probably on purpose just to see how the lens would respond, and there's very little purple and easily correctible. There are only a tiny amount of lenses that wouldn't show any purple on a shot like that. and they are all much pricier and heavier than this lens.
16 may look soft in the corners but it's because the wall is close enough so that the narrow DOF put the corners out of focus, it has nothing to do with corner sharpness. Also it's kind of funny that you are using a photo of a brick wall, a test subject that nobody shoots in real life, to attack the lens.
Wow you found one tiny bit of purple on a single image, in which they shot the most absurd light reflection probably on purpose just to see what kind of aberation they would get. There's not a lens in the world short of maybe an exotic supertelephoto that won't show some purple from a shot like that, and as for the focus there is no way to tell exactly how sharp it is because the surface is totally flat and there is no texture detail, it is completely smooth. That image does however show what extremely shallow depth of field is possible, something the trolls have been constantly whining about.