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.
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.