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.
I found you some living Dinos.
BSweeney: With an Olympus product, wait a year for a 40% price drop. 2 years, 70% price drop. They need to price the camera at a reasonable price, recover NRE over more sales, and lower product turn-over rate. My lesson learned with the EP2.
If you have money to burn, love u43, go for it.
That worked so well with the EM-5
Jorginho: I think what we see here (Or me at least) is that with any zoom and this is not a telezoom, just a midrange zoom, the lenses get really big. It is bigger than the 100-300 mm m43 which is only half a stop slower.
The nice thing with Fuji is that you can bet it is a very good optic and it will give a very nice IQ with those cams. But to me, this is the clear downside with APS-c mirrorless.
No it wouldn't, because it would have to be a 150-400mm lens to be equivalent. These two lenses only overlap by the tiniest of margins. The correct lens to compare it to is the Oly 40-150 f4-f5.6, which is 80-300mm in FF terms, but slower than the Fuji.
Rosember: Do - nice, but nothing more - photos justify cultural disrespect and breaking protective laws? How many people will follow these guys and put damage to these monuments of mankind? To me, this resembles more a teenage ego trip than an adventure, sorry.
Or, perhaps now that photos are available people will have less interest in climbing the pyramids to capture photos. Any photos taken in the future wouldn't be so unique, would they?
Martin.au: Love the equivalence moron's logic.
The 150f2.8 is equivalent to a 300f5.6 and should therefore cost the same.
Ok, lets continue with that logic. (I'm only guessing prices here, but that won't be an issue for a little logical fun)
A m4/3 lens 150mm f2.8 is $1500Is equivalent to a FF300 f 5.6, worth $500Therefore, the price of the m4/3 lens should be $500.
However, the lens is still a 150mm f2.8, with similar design, glass cost, etc to a FF 150mm f2.8. Therefore, the FF150mm f2.8 should also only cost $500
What you clowns are saying is that the lens design, etc doesn't matter and that the camera that the lens is mounted on should determine the price.
A 150mm f2.8 lens is a 150mm f2.8 lens and should cost around the same, regardless of format. It just has different results depending on which camera it's mounted on.
Well, I think that was the most civilised end to a discussion on this comments thread.
Sanpaku: The 150mm f/2.8 will be tempting for hiking/travelling/weight conscious wildlife photographers, especially if Panasonic also make a sharp 2x teleconverter (preferably with integrated tripod mount). Alas, still not DSLR competitive for sports til Olympus or Panasonic does on sensor phase detection focusing.
The 42.5 f/1.2 would have been interesting to me before I discovered how nicely the 75 f/1.8 simplifies portrait backgrounds, if you have enough space.
Wow Wakaba. I'm going to give up my m4/3s immediately.
We're only used to seeing a pretty low quality of wildlife photos in the m4/3 forums, such as in these links.http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3376360http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3378511http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3377525
As you can see, the m4/3s are definitely no match for your Nikon FF.
PS. ISO100? That's not exactly severe lighting conditions.
forpetessake: People with small sensors seem to suffer from inferiority complex, otherwise how can one explain inability to understanding the simple laws of physics behind the equivalence (http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#1)
Would that be the same inferiority complex that drives you to regularly troll the m4/3 forums with "Nyah, I'm better than you...equivalence, equivalence, equivalence. Your system is rubbish" style posts?
Work harder on your photography if you want to feel better about yourself. Don't go and troll others just for choosing a different format than you.
Maybe they just don't respond well to assholes.
I concede your point.
I knew that at some stage (looks like over 150mm) the front element becomes the limiting feature. eg: for a 300/2.8 you cannot have a front element smaller than 107mm. I thought that may also play at 150mm, but apparently not, (now I've gone and had a look at some 150mm FF lenses.) I grant the m4/3 150mm f2.8 may be a bit smaller than an FF variant.
However, I do not agree that it will be "much easier to design" and the idea of basing prices of m4/3 lenses on their "equivalent lenses" is still a retarded idea.
No Jan. I don't think you get it.There is no 4.5-108mm lens for FF. You have nothing to compare it to.
Aaron MC - Oly 300, f2.8 - 3.28kg, 28.5x12.7cm. Canon 300, f2.8 - 2.55kg, 25.5x12.8cmNikon 33, f2.8 - 2.9kg, 26.8cm x 12.4cm
The 4/3s gear does have a weight advantage for two reasons. 1) There is usually some weight and size saving in the smaller imaging circle, but not much, especially as you go telephoto. 2) To match the FoV of that 300mm, you need a 600mm on FF. There's your weight and cost savings.
As a system, 4/3s is a lot cheaper and lighter, however a particular lens, such as this 150/f2.8, is still going have a generally similar cost, regardless of the system.
Yabokkie, so you think that a FF 150mm f2.8 should cost $500 or so?The market appears not to have caught up with your forward thinking attitude. Would you like to imagine some prices for other things too?
Wrong. This is why an Oly 70-300 will be about the same size as a FF70-300, or an Oly 300/2.8 will be about the same size as an FF 300/2.8. You can save a tiny bit with the smaller circle but in general the lenses will be the similar size and complexity (You do see some size advantages in wide angle on m4/3).
Ergo, the Panasonic 150/2.8 will be about the same size and cost as a FF150/2.8
Love the equivalence moron's logic.