kingal: Many thanks... one last question.Any advice as to Panasonic GH3 or Olimpus EM1 for shooting portraits? I would use the Olimpus 75mm 1,8.Thanks in advance for any advice
I would say that yes, it depends on how big your studio is, but in fact, really it's more a question of how far back you want the backdrop to be in case you do not want light spill from the strobes. If your subject has to be 2-3m (or 10-12ft) forward from the backdrop, then yes, it can be tight to frame the 75mm prime in a small-ish studio, for a half-length portrait.
The 45mm is really a stellar performer, you can't go wrong with it for all the right reasons, and the next step up I probably prefer from a FL point of view, is the 60mm Oly macro lens if you ever need to consider it. This is a brilliantly sharp and color/distortion free lens. A perfect 120mm equivalent FL lens for studio portraiture.
monographix: i still dont get in reality terms the "pocket" factor when a camera has interchangeable lenses ... When a "compactish" camera is fitted with a lens that cannot fold then the differences in size you gain from making the body thinner are truly negligible. The size depth of any interchangeable lens camera i believe in reality cancels any pocket size notion.
Yes, true to a certain extent, and this is certainly ONE perspective and ONE set of factors that may or may not suit a user (like you maybe), however, there are also a lot of users who would like the form factor of a tiny body, but who will not accept the compromises that a non-removable zoom lens makes in overall IQ terms. So this GM1 is aimed at them.
OTOH, Olympus is rumored to be designing & releasing the other type of pocketable m4/3 compact camera, and it may be similar in size but with a non-removable collapsible zoom lens. This may then appeal to that other group of users who want a larger sensor than the 1" Sony RX100, in a compact camera form-factor, but don't mind too much with the IQ compromises that a non-removable zoom lens incurs.
It's all a matter of trade-offs... and it's the range of choices that the m4/3 system offers that makes it so compelling. I am glad that the system is really developing and maturing so nicely.
maxola67: It looks like non-sense camera in terms of size.Lens size would be half and more of a whole camera volume.It's not casual that Pentax provided Q-series with a special designed bayonet, lenses and ,yes, small sensor.So what did panas want to say releasing that?
LOL, if the size is too small for you, you have the option to get a Panny GF, GX, GH, G, or Oly PEN EP-M, EP-L, EP, or OM-D body. All with increasing size and feature set. This camera was built so that Panny could stop producing its lower end compact cameras, but yet with essentially the same-sized form-factor, but with much higher quality and specs.
This represents great choice & and freedom for photographers who really want a very compact but very high quality compact camera.
So it makes TREMENDOUS sense in terms of size. The Pentax Q series is now severely challenged, why would you need Panny to say anything? The entire range of m4/3 lenses can be used with this camera... duh!
fibonacci1618: Errm, I think a photo is a photo is a photo... it doesn't matter which camera took the shot. If it is a good photo, captures the moment beautifully, proved useful as a photographic tool to the person taking the shot, it does not matter one bit whether it was a Nikon D4 or an iPhone 5s that took the shot.
Colour, contrast, noise reduction, etc. that are done in post-processing, equally apply to any digital photo, taken by any camera, even in medium format cameras!
BUT... there are limitations to a phone cam, and some pretty severe ones at that, but as always, use the tool to suit the job at hand. If it gets the job done, despite the limitations, well then good on you!
It's great to see phone cams advancing so quickly - I, for one, don't feel insecure with that! Heck, put a 1" sensor in it, and have the option to change lenses too (whopee!), but please.... keep it first a phone, then a camera.
Yes trivial to you and me, but you'd be forgiven for thinking that the opposite is true when reading the many comments on here...
My comment was on photos *taken* and displayed in this article, therefore, a photo is a photo is a photo. Missed opportunities because the phone cam didn't or couldn't capture the shot is a usability issue, and therefore if it can't get the job done, well then it doesn't quite suit the purpose.
Am certain that in the very near future, even the usability issue will fade away as hardware and software technology for phone cams advance.
Errm, I think a photo is a photo is a photo... it doesn't matter which camera took the shot. If it is a good photo, captures the moment beautifully, proved useful as a photographic tool to the person taking the shot, it does not matter one bit whether it was a Nikon D4 or an iPhone 5s that took the shot.
As usual, the m4/3 haters hv come out to bash the new E-M1 with the same old tired & irrelevant comparisons with FF cams. I see it as a compliment that some folks r so jealously flinging mud at the E-M1 by pitting it against the FF cams. It's like comparing a BMW M3 vs M5... each has it's merits & if you're in the market for one, it comes down to your personal preferences. Do you NEED one? Who CARES? That's your privilege! Just stop being so bitchy about everything, ESPECIALLY if you're not interested in one.
What really matters to Oly, Canon, Nikon et. el. is whe consumers adopt their products. If the numbers coming from Amazon US r anything to go by, then it's highly promising so far!
"12 hours after the announcement the Olympus E-M1 is the most sold (orders+ preorders) digital camera at Amazon US. The ranking includes all camera like compact cameras, Sony QX, DSRL and Mirrorless cameras... And the 12-40mm lens is on second place of the Lens ranking..." according to 43rumours.
Yesss... I see this asa serious threat to Canon & Nikon, challenging them to finally re-think their reluctance of not wanting to seriously go down the APS-C and FF mirrorless route. The EOS M and Nikon 1 were feeble attempts at skinny dipping in the pool of MILC without taking the plunge.
Now that Sony is really putting pressure on the Rebels and D3xxx series, me thinks Canon & Nikon can no longer hold back. The price difference between this A3000 and the entry-level DSLRs is substantial and cannot be ignored. If they do, Sony is likely to put a serious dent in their market share.
I'm curious to see if they introduce an "A5000" series that competes directly with the Nikon D5200, but priced at the D3200 level. Now THAT would really be something.
fibonacci1618: I have the Olympus TG-2 & am amazed that DPreview omitted a v impt feature it has over all the other cameras, & perhaps any other camera in the world: an ultra macro mode that is unbelievable. It can take ultra macro shots of in excess of 14:1 ratio (to me it appears more like 25x magnification) in digital enhanced mode or 5:1 in optical mode. The digital enhanced mode is v good & really works well. It's truly a digital microscope camera. This blew me away & I admit this was the one feature that sold me on the camera.
Also not mentioned is the fact that you can use the on board LED lamp to not only focus assist, but to illuminate & capture the subject (stills or video), & this is a real plus if you have ever tried to shoot macro.
But the icing on the cake is that the TG-2 also can shoot using the Olympus wireless TTL flash system where the TG-2 acts as the commander for one or more remote slave flashes. This is a high end feature not found on compacts. Again great for macro shots!
Thanks, I stand corrected about the LED feature, and the wireless flash was mentioned but I did not mean to say that you omitted it. Given these highly unusual & advanced features, I can't help but wonder if the camera deserved better, but no biggie as it is already your top 2 choice. For me, I look forward to the TG-3 if they improve the LCD screen and add RAW capability. Oh, and a 1/1.7" sensor would really help...
bbfolgart: For me it was ergonomics. I loved the V1 and still use it extensively however the V2 design was too far away from the V1 that it was evident they were going in a different direction.
For a camera that purportedly sold very well in Asia and Europe I wondered why the big design change. If they took the V3 back to a camera similar to the V1 I would probably upgrade.
Perhaps they thought the V line was too close to the Coolpix A and in terms of design. they seem like first cousins. But in terms of performance there is no comparison. I remain astonished by the shutter performance of the V1 and it has allowed me to capture pictures that to this point I haven't figured out how to with a 'normal' dslr.
Yes bbfolgart, and it is only a photographer who has actually used a Nikon 1 camera who can then truly appreciate it for it's excellent photographic qualities. Non-users who snipe it and deride it have no idea what they're talking about...
Let's hope Nikon takes a leap forward with the Nikon 1 system in future. Get the basics such as body design and features right, give it a price tag that is within the same range as other comparable ILC cameras, and it will slowly but surely gain a footing.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I’m fed up with reading completely uninformed comments about the micro 4/3 format’s handicaps. Although I’m mostly reluctant to show my photographs, I’m publishing the links below to show how wrong those comments are.They say it has too much depth of field and no bokeh; well, just look at this:http://www.flickr.com/photos/manuelvilardemacedo/6613108457/They also say it’s impossible to photograph subjects in motion with a micro 4/3 camera:http://www.flickr.com/photos/manuelvilardemacedo/7709292096/And I read below that it has low image quality (though this particular picture does actually showcase the sensor’s difficulty with highlights):http://www.flickr.com/photos/manuelvilardemacedo/9469031425/All these pictures were taken with a now obsolete Olympus E-P1. You can confirm it by checking the EXIF data.So please stop commenting BS!
@Manuel, it's ok, folks who shoot down any camera brand or format will always be the same - they are blind, and are in love with photography for equipment sake, and not for the art. It always makes me laugh to think that poor Ansel Adams must be, to them, a really horrible photographer or had really bad cameras since they were not digital SLRs with FF 24 to 36 Mp sensors, and worse - were in black & white! And he didn't have Photoshop CC or Lightroom 5!
I'm happy with any camera so long as it gets the job done with results that inspire me... and others!
Nikon has a fantastic feature set & image processing engine in the Nikon 1 system. For what it is, it has fantastic focus speed that is still class-leading in the ILC world (with on-sensor PDAF), good video, great OOC color that beats their DSLRs (I have used Nikon's DSLRs so I know what I'm talking about), image noise that is tolerable bec it appears film-like, great FPS speed, etc.
But they blundered on pricing, on the ugly design of the V2, incomprehensible launch of the J2 followed closely by the J3, slow release of good primes, for starters. So many mis-steps. And now, they choose to delude themselves that the ILC market is not growing.
"But people who like cameras tend to just go for SLRs, even though they're very heavy." Oh my gosh... what a terrible mistake to take this view. It's obviously a case of internal politicking between two camps within Nikon.
It's funny how Oly blames their under-performance on a delayed launch of the EP-5, but chooses to ignore the ridiculous high price it launched it at, i.e. more expensive than the OM-D E-M5. And now that the Panny GX7 is out, are they going to blame their continued under-performance on the GX7 too?
Features-wise, the EP-5 appears to lose-out to the GX7, and now that Panny has implemented IBIS, many Oly m4/3 users may not hesitate to go with Panny.
Oly needs to step up its game if it wants to maintain its apparent lead. With the GH3 and now the GX7, Panny's finally shaking off it's mistake with the GF series post GF1 (at least from the more-advanced enthusiasts' point of view).
I have the Olympus TG-2 & am amazed that DPreview omitted a v impt feature it has over all the other cameras, & perhaps any other camera in the world: an ultra macro mode that is unbelievable. It can take ultra macro shots of in excess of 14:1 ratio (to me it appears more like 25x magnification) in digital enhanced mode or 5:1 in optical mode. The digital enhanced mode is v good & really works well. It's truly a digital microscope camera. This blew me away & I admit this was the one feature that sold me on the camera.
The most important unknown at the moment is the IQ of the lens, although I'm sure the price is going to be too high for many. But it is what it is, i.e. a Leica design, f/1.2 lens. If the price is too high for, then go get the Oly 45 f/1.8. There is now a niche for both types of user, those who are happy with the Oly and its price, and those whose needs (or pockets) justify the Panny 42.5mm.
There's also the Voigtlander 42.5mm f/0.95 to boot.
There's no other lens system in the world that offers such a fantastic range in just this focal length - not even Leica has a Noctilux lens in this 85 to 90mm focal length.
So, I'm just glad m4/3 is maturing nicely. Now, let's see what the price will be.
This is frankly almost too good to be true, in that it offers ultra wide angle at one end, and ultra tele at the other end. Really wonder if the lens ends up making too much of a compromise at the wide end, or at the long end.. Will have to wait & see the sample results.
16mp on a 1/2.3" really is pushing it. If the sensor has been further optimized so that the photosites more effectively capture light, & it ends up achieving the same quality results as an existing 12mp sensor, then fine. But I'm already sensing (pun intended) that 12mp is already pushing it in current sensors & ideally it should be 10mp for this small sensor size. Oh well.
I'm hoping that 16mp is an indication that Panny has designed the 1200mm end of the zoom to have high enough resolving power & quality... That would be an amazing feat in itself. And at f/5.9 to boot. Really not bad...
This is not a rear-element focusing lens and remains the same as the old 20mm f/1.7 (i.e. front-element focusing). It's sad they did not take the trouble to improve on that aspect from the old lens. I suppose changing the AF method to REF would have required a radical change to the lens design and it would no longer be the same lens... But so what?
itsastickup: Nice, but seriously folks, AF is crucial. And I speak as an manual focus shooter of the last 6 years.
If you have enough light, AF is really great & I can't live without it... However, try focusing in very dim lighting using AF, in conditions where you need the f/0.95 aperture, & you will greatly appreciate the excellent manual focusing quality of these Voigt lenses. No AF system can focus well in very very low light conditions without some AF-assist feature, & even then, it can be hit or miss. And for video, I have always found manual focusing more reliable than full time AF, again especially in low light. So the reasons for not having AF on a f/0.95 lens where it is intended for extreme low light applications makes sense to me, and actually works for me. This did not occur to me until I actually used it in very poor lighting where my AF lenses just could not focus-lock and I had to manually focus them anyway. Trust me, focus-by-wire on an AF lens is a far cry from the manual focus on these Voigtlander lenses.
white shadow: Cosina Voigtlander seems to be obsess with making f/0.95 lenses for micro 4/3 which may not be a bad thing.
The 25mm f/0.95 introduced about three years ago was ground breaking. By f/2.0, it is very sharp with little vignetting and very low CA. It reach its peak performance at f/2.8. The beauty is it manage to do it without in-camera correction. The built quality is impecable, not surprising as they also make Carl Zeiss and M mount compatible lenses for Leica. The good thing is it has an infinity stop for low light photography and landscape. Close focusing capability is also excellent.
However, the 17.5mm fell a bit short on expectation. Optically, it is not as good as the 25mm. Its bigger, heavier and cost about USD350 more. Let's hope this 42.5mm does not disappoint.
For this focal length I would prefer to use the Oly 45mm f/1.8 which has faster focusing. It is also lighter, smaller and cheaper. Unless this lens prove to be optically superior, it may not be worth it.
I own the 17.5mm f/0.95 lens & I can say without reservation that it is sharp even at f/0.95. Photos may appear a little "soft" to many, but that's not the same thing as lens sharpness. Also, the consensus seems to be that the 17.5mm is sharper than the 25mm wide open. When you are shooting at f/0.95, you can get a nice soft glow quality to the "feel" of the photo (esp for close subjects), but that's typical of ultra-wide aperture lenses. This is arguably a desirable trait & quality. Areas that are in focus are sharp, and if you want it sharper, a little USM in PP achieves all the sharpness I need without destroying the overall feel of the shot. The real benefit of shooting f/0.95 on m4/3 is that you have more DOF & therefore the lens can be used for more regular shooting applications, esp in v dim lighting. f/0.95 on FF has such a razor thin DOF that it can be v tricky to work with. That's the trade off. In this case, for my shooting styles, I prefer f/0.95 on m4/3.
I have used the Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 on my O-MD for a year now & I can say that it is an astounding lens! It is sharp even at f/0.95. Many complain about the lack of v shallow depth of field at f/0.95 from the 17.5 compared to what it would be on a full-frame sensor, but I can tell you that this complaint is only one side to the coin.. bec it is more useful to me that the greater depth of field at f/0.95 is what I need in very low light situations where I'm not shooting portraits and DON'T want very shallow depth of field. This is simply not possible at f/0.95 on a full-frame camera where the depth of field is so razor thin that it is only really useful for portraits or special applications, & even then, I doubt many will shoot portraits at f/0.95 on FF. I have shot 1/3 & even 1/2 sec handheld photos in very very low light situations with the 17.5 & am astounded! And shooting video with a manual focus lens is a dream, esp in low light. I look forward to this new 42.5mm lens!
mediasorcerer: The cheapest i can find this camera for as a "pre-order" in australia is $1300 for BODY ONLY!!
Thats just disgracefully greedy, that will buy you an xe-1 with lens and uv filter or leather case, you have to be kidding olympus???
I'm sure it's good, but not that good, youd have to be barmy to buy this body only over the xe-1, how could it compete?[im asking, not describing], other than possibly being easier to fit in some pockets and having a few extra gimmicky features more?
I'm not doubting it's a superb camera.Isn't it about image quality, first and foremost for price paid?
The PENs are quite pocketable with the pancake lenses, including the Panny G X Vario 14-42mm pancake zoom lens. This lens is often overlooked and forgotten, and whilst the IQ may not be stellar, it is no slouch either and perfectly acceptable. Small size & weight will always be a compromise on image quality in almost all photographic systems, the question is "to what extent?". And in this vein, it's a perfectly acceptable compromise.