This could be an amusingly sneaky "camera of the year".
Can we have an M4/3s version for LOLs. :D
Docmartin: No doubt, the EM-1 is a great camera! However, for those (like me) who want to continue working with the gorgeous FT Pro lenses, the EM-1 will still no replacement for the outdated E-5. I truly believe that FT lenses cannot be used on ANY MFT body without serious IQ loss until a better adapter than the current MMF2/3 is available. The material/build-quality of the MMF3 will for sure cause misalignment, flex and movement. Just have a look at Roger Cicala's findings and their discussion here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3553373
Tele centric lenses, as I mentioned. And, of course, the thousands of user reports and examples.
Or you could look at the results of people doing just that.4/3s lenses are telecentric. There's little reason to assume that Cicala's findings apply to that adaptor and lenses.
Jogger: Id like to see a continuous series of photos with the 75/1.8 at 1.8 of a runner running towards the camera.. .or maybe the 35-100/2.8 at 2.8 and 100mm. Just spot focus on the bib number and fire away.
The CAF samples so far have not proven anything. Also, what is the point of 9fps without focus.. .when would you ever use that?
I use 9fps regularly. You need some imagination.
maxola67: Am I only to notice bigger dimensions of this device comparing to Olympus OM-D E-M5?130 x 94 x 63 mm against 122 x 89 x 43 mm.I mean it's has a size which is comparable to APS-C DSLR and that's said having 4/3 sensor.What's all about?
So you don't use lenses with your camera, maxola67?
yabokkie: no matter who makes the lens how much does it worth if it can have similar resolution and aberrations as say Canon 135/2L?
135/2L got a 1.4 stops larger aperture (the difference of focal lengths also considered), more elements thus costs more to make. but if we ignore the internal formula issue, the lens should worth 1.4 stops less than 135/2L thus 989 * 2 ^ (-1.4) = 375 US.
Sure he can. I found a Canon equivalent lens (or near enough). It's L glass, 180mm f3.5, so pretty close to the Oly. It's a macro, but unfortunately, but that doesn't factor into Yabokkie's calcs, so we can ignore that. Therefore the cost of the 75mm f1.8 should be around about $1500-$1600 dollars.
CollBaxter: Ieeeeesh I thought I was on a rumors site.
This happens all the time with all brands. Olympus has done it before with the ZD 70-300 and a few others . Its a optical copy of the Sigma 70-300. But that's about where it stops you can't really compare the two . Things like glass quality , components, materials , QC , manufacturing processes etc. give you the final product. There are different grades of optical glass at massively varying prices and quality also coatings etc.
It not does mean because you can design it you can build . Although Sigma seem to have upped their game and have excellent lenses. They may even have built it. (75mm) who knows and no one is telling.
Given that Oly is still making SHG and HG lenses, all of which are badged "made in Japan", and given that the 12mm f2.0, and the 75mm (unless built by Sigma) are badged "made in Japan", it seems very unlikely to me that Oly has no factories making lenses in Japan.
Where is your information coming from Yabokkie?
Canon 135mm f2DXOmark 26 on FF, 19 on APS-C.
Oly 75mm F1.8DXOmark 27 on OM-D.
I think I'll go with the cheaper lens thanks. What kind of idiot assumes that lens prices can be calculated by leaving out most of the factors?
Well damn. I've got a Panasonic fisheye and an Olympus M4/3s body.
Straight out of camera? Looks a bit processed to me.
I've no idea where to begin.
Martin.au: The good news: birds are dinosaurs.The bad news: lizards, crocodiles, goannas, turtles, etc are not. They branched off before dinosaurs.
Now, as for your new complaint, I believe that:1) I don't think anyone will take our discussion very seriously as the basis for their voting.2) There is a "Flag as Inappropriate" link with each post, which would be a more appropriate solution.3) If we were to take the challenge seriously, then surely I would be in my right to request disqualification of everything that's not a dinosaur? (I"m obviously not going to, as I think the spirit of the competition is fine and more important than semantics over the rules, and I don't think it's worth getting worked up over.)4) Does this mean you're worried about people being informed prior to voting? If so why? Did you post a non-dinosaur perchance?
Well, it's nice to see that you're now agreeing with me in that crocs, etc aren't dinosaurs.
Birds however, are still classified as Dinosaurs."In biology, "living dinosaurs" are modern birds, the designation arising from the generally-accepted evolutionary lineage of birds as the only clade of dinosaurs to have survived the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. More specifically, they are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods that includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_dinosaur
Dinosaurs:Kingdom: AnimaliaPhylum: ChordataClass: ReptiliaClade: DinosauriformesClade: Dinosauria
Crocodilia:Kingdom: AnimaliaPhylum: ChordataClass: ReptiliaClade: CrocodylomorphaClade: EusuchiaOrder: Crocodylia
Sarchosuchus:Kingdom: AnimaliaPhylum: ChordataClass: ReptiliaClade: CrocodylomorphaFamily: †PholidosauridaeGenus: †Sarcosuchus
Can you spot the difference?
Are you actually going to put forth an argument or just attempt to insult me?
I did.Crocodilia (and Sarchosuchus) are the wrong clade. You should be looking for the Dinosauria clade.Crocodillia evolved from Archosaurs, as did the dinosaurs, but they are not the same.
You should read the pages you linked.
The good news: birds are dinosaurs.The bad news: lizards, crocodiles, goannas, turtles, etc are not. They branched off before dinosaurs.