Panasonic is doing some pretty awesome work with the m4/3 lenses.
MikeFairbanks: I've been involved in photography now since 2007, all digital. I take better pictures than someone new at it, but am a long way from being consistent in a variety of lighting situations. I am an intermediate.
As an amateur who shoots almost daily, I quit using point and shoots and video cameras. Done. I use my Iphone 4s for snapshots/video, and for quality I use a Nikon D7000. (I had some Rebels, which are just as good, but I happened to get a great deal on a Nikon).
My opinion is that manufacturers should focus on two things:
* Shift from APS-C to FF models at various price points/features.* Smart phone cameras.
Everything else, to me, is a no-go. I won't buy them. I tried them (4/3, etc. Mirrorless), but it's too much of a compromise. I want a quality DSLR and a quality smart phone. I won't walk around with a P&S in one pocket and a phone in the other. The P&S days are numbered, and a mirrorless with a large sensor can't fit in pockets.
FF DSLR + Phone = Future
Bet you aren't taking the long glass then.What lenses are you taking?
What does m4/3s do that FF can't?
It goes places. :P
NZ Scott: An interesting stragegy by Olympus to re-issue the lens with a US $350 price drop.
Here are my thoughts:
1) They're worried about the new Tamron 75-300 for m43, which has almost identical specs.
2) People simply weren't buying the old 75-300 because it was too expensive, and everyone knows what happens when supply exceeds demand.
3) Lots of people were buying the old 75-300, so they cranked up their production lines and economies of scale allowed them to drop the price.
4) They are planning to release a high-grade telephoto lens soon, and want to make room for it at a higher price point.
Myself, I'm hoping that number 4 is the main reason.
I suspect it's more due to Panasonic taking the majority of the superzoom market with their 100-300.
avbee: additional of glasses will degrade some quality. even the best coating and best material of UV will degrade the quality of the picture........
So, following this logic - each addition of glass results in a negative net result, the very best lenses should have a minimum number of elements in them.
Oh wait, that's not right. Want to try again.
ThomasSwitzerland: As I am doing photography since more than 40 years, I have many first rate classic lenses left (from Nikon, Zeiss to Leica). I tried them by adapters (with lens, without lens) fixed to many: Canon FF, Nikon FF, Oly MFT, Pana FT, Digital Crops Nikon etc. I am not a scientific lab because it’s my hobby. But none of those adapted lenses matched digital sensor requirements. Center might be ok, but that’s it.
If you have an amount of material (your lense) and put another material (lenses by adapter system) in addition between, the output compared to the input is less. Some specifications may be lifted, others will suffer more. The net result is negative. Save your $$$ and buy for the USD 600 savings (from this funny adapter) a good lens for digital to enjoy. There are excellent quality offers.
Digital is the future, adapters are out. Don’t fall in love with things which cannot deliver.
So, following this logic - each addition of material results in a negative net result, the very best lenses should have a minimum number of elements in them.
Lets also not forget that this technology has been used in the past on both Nikon E series and apparently Olympus SHG zooms.
Francis Carver: Well, it sounds like optical magic -- or hocus-pocus, depending how we are looking at it. But US$599 is definitely too much for it, and I suspect even US$59.99 is a bit too much.
Considering that for instance Rainbow Imaging M4/3 lens mount adapters go from $4 to about $35 a pop, I think 40 bucks for the MetaBones adapter would be much more like it. At that price, I would give it a try.
So, it's optical magic but the price is too high.
Damn, I always considered good engineering and design worth paying for. I have never tried to place a price on magic, but I'd have thought it would be quite high.
I suppose you also consider teleconverters to be worth only $40 or so. A reality check may be in order.
bobbarber: To all the, ahem..., rocket scientists who continue to argue that this device improves the resolution of the native lens, because it projects the information captured onto a smaller area, so there are more lines of resolution per unit area:
I had no idea that the lens on my crappy Canon SX230 HS "Out-resolved" a Nikon D800, because my tiny, fingernail-sized sensor has more information per unit area than the Nikon.
I had no idea that a wider field of view put "more information" into the scene. I thought it just meant that you were taking a different picture. What's amazing to me is that I can take a closeup of a house, then make that house tiny in another picture, and the same amount of information about the house is in both pictures! I don't take away information from the house in the first picture, and replace it with other information in the secon, no, I just keep on adding information!
The alternative is to think that you guys are rather slow, but that's obviously not so.
"That is exactly what people are saying. Please read the thread. People have posted that this adapter will increase the resolution of the lenses that it is attached to." - bob
Really. Got any examples. If so, why not correct them accurately, rather than this mishmash of confusion you've been demonstrating so far. Seems to me that the person who's been most ambiguous with the terms "resolution" and "information" is you
Bob, no one is saying it will capture more than the FF sensor. That's your own dumb arise misconception.
Maybe lay off the snide commentary until you know what you're talking about. Right now you look like an imbecile.
Well. Numerous people have tried explaining this to you, sometimes using very simple concepts. I'm not sure it can be dumbed down any further.
Keep up the good fight. It's always fun watching headstrong idiots failing to grasp a concept and then rationalizing away any attempt to correct their ignorance.
bobbarber: Wow! A resolution advantage!
That means I can take a picture of my T.V. screen, and the information which comes out the back image of the lens, the T.V. screen in real life, IS NOT THE LIMIT OF DETAIL WHICH I CAN HOPE TO CAPTURE!
I just put this handy-dandy little thing on the back of a lens, and DETAILS WHICH WERE NOT CAPTURED FROM REAL LIFE BY THE LENS BECOME APPARENT! THE T.V. SCREEN SHOWS MORE DETAILS IN THE PICTURE USING THIS ADAPTER, THAN IT DOES IN REAL LIFE! AMAZING!
I thought this adapter was a neat idea even when it appeared that the laws of physics would limit it to increasing effective aperture at the (slight) expense of detail. But this thing actually conjures up MORE detail than the lens itself captures! Wow! Gee-whillikers! I'm so excited, I just whacked my knee and my falsies fell out!
Please stop mixing up the resolving power of the lens with the resolution of the sensor bobbarber.
As I said, understand first, then criticise.
It's really quite simple.
Lens on a crop camera = photograph of your TV.Lens on the adapter = photograph of your TV + the surrounding area that is usually cropped out.
Basically you're using the entire 35mm image circle, rather than just the section that falls on the crop camera's sensor.
No one is making the claim that it will collect more detail than a FF camera. That's your own misinterpretation. It will collect almost the same detail as a FF camera, but on a smaller sensor.
As for resolution, consider this thought exercise.You have a lens that can resolve to 1mm.You photograph a ruler with a FF camera and get a photo of 0-30cm, with 1mm resolution visible - a resolution of 300 lines across the photo.Now you photograph the same ruler with a crop camera and get a photo from (approx) 8-22cm - giving you a resolution of 240 lines.Add the adaptor and get almost the same photo as from the full frame. 0-30cm with 300 lines.There's the increase in resolution 240 -> 300.
Understand first. Then criticise.
lpv: back to the post: Olympus OM-D - nail sized sensor; electronic viewfinder inferior to OLED displays in Sony's NEX-7 and SLTs which are inferior to real viewfinders anyway;not enough highlight range leaving you with washed out highlights with no details
not enough highlight range to handle "digital ring" around the sun and that can be easily seen in second picture made with this Olympus
overall: good camera for taking snaps of your feet, markers, muesli, cereal etc :)
Ahh, I see, so if you give any random person a "real camera" like a D800, you will never get shots with blown highlights, or other such issues. By this logic, photographic skill is all about the tool, and nothing about the photographer.
Get a clue.
soaked-in-color: I have simple curiosity. Please pardon my ignorance. If we trust DPREVIEW (lets keep the user poll, brand loyalty, fan club etc. aside for a moment) then I wonder whether we have faith in their review method.
Dynamic range:Isn't the wider range in the Gray Bar says better DR? I chose Pentax K-5, Nikon D800 and Canon 5D Mark-III for comparison. I chose OM-D for Gradation Auto, K-5 Highlight DR On, D800 ADL auto and 5D HTP on.
Which one is better? Sorry I am not so familiar with this tool. Just curious to compare these products following the DPREVIEW lab test after seeing this interesting forum.
Also I compared the RAW image resolution with these three cameras on the test page:
I could not see any significant difference till ISO 1600. As a matter of fact OM-D looks better to me in some cases. Are these cameras technically so close to each other that not worth fighting with each other?
I've seen a few blind tests between the OMD and various FF cameras on these forums Most people will not be able to identify which camera is which from crops of the photos.
A FF camera will be able to take better photos in a wider range of conditions simply because it's sensor has 4x the area of the 4/3 cameras, which can be splurged on larger photosites or more of them. However for the vast majority of photos taken these days, it really doesn't matter.
It's like the argument for medium format cameras - Yes they take better photos, however most people were happy with 35mm.
Now it's FF vs 4/3. Yes, FF technically take better photos, however, most people would be happy with 4/3 (and as mentioned, most people will have trouble telling the difference).
IMO, it's now at the stage where the camera is irrelevant and it's the photographer's skill that makes a good photo, as opposed to a few years back where good photos could well be ruined by simply not having a good camera.
Canadian Eagle: Eight months with the OM-D and I still revel in the ease of use, the terrific 5-way stabilization – and the great low-light rendition. Eleven days of shooting all over Cuba gave me, and the OM-D, a workout. It's not a big luggable beast –- not that size really matters – only to sore shoulders. It was just fun to shoot with such a sturdy, but light weight machine. The viewfinder is so very sharp. I've even put some old half-frame Pen-F lenses on it and used it in aperture mode. God, I hope this doesn't sound like a commercial. It's not. It IS a fan letter to the folks at Olympus who have put together a GEM of a camera! Bravo for a deserving win!!!http://www.flickr.com/photos/89996031@N04/8179999315/in/photostream/
Have you actually had a look at those two images you just posted? There is a pretty obvious quality difference.
TCs eat light. Are you still comparing like with like? I doubt it.
Errr, you need something more like a D7000 to better the OMD in image quality. As for your claim of "not that much more weight".
Well, I think CE took lenses to cover from 12-300 so we'll use DX lenses to cover that range from 16-400 with a Nikon D7000.
OMD+12-50+Pana 100-300 = 1.13kgD7000, 16-85 and Sigma 120-400 = 2.76kg(both have a gap in the focal length between long and short lenses. If you want you can come up with your own lens combo to fill the gap)
Not so cheap or lightweight anymore is it?
Lol. Bye bye Player2.
Not surprised the OM-D won. It's a nice combination of image quality, size, weight and features. Being the biggest, baddest camera on the block (D800), doesn't always mean that's the most versatile camera.
Disclaimer: I own an OM-D. :D
Michael S.: Actually it does look like as
a) almost all posters here are too young to remember or
b) have already forgotten what Olympus claimed as the introduced the 4/3 system long time ago.
I have been there - as Olympus EUROPE introduced, marketed the at that time new and 100% digital 4/3 system with the upcoming E1.
The two sentences that fell and have always been repeated by the presenters have been:
1) "5 Megapixels are enough..."2) "We will have smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses than our competitors".
Without a doubt - both clamis have failed.
Well that's wrong. If I'm looking for a camera, then I need to look at exactly what aspects benefit my agenda. Your requirements would be different to mine.
Here you go. I wanted a general purpose camera, with the capability to shoot very long telephotos of birds, etc, generally in good light.
I chose an E520, 12-60 and 70-300.Was I wrong? Please, educate me on what I should have bought.
mapgraphs: The story of the comments sections:
"Example: 14-35 f/2 ($2300, 2lbs) vs Canon 24-105 f/4 ($950, 1.5lbs); 35-100 f/2 ($2500, 3.6 lbs) vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS ($1200, 1.7 lbs)."
Lets compare an f2 lens to an f4 lens and claim parity of value.
Everyone who uses SHG or HG glass and undersands what it is, raise your hands.
Yeah, sorry Ppastoris. I don't have an issue with what you're saying. I do find the claim that, for example, an Oly 300/2.8, should only be as expensive as a 300/5.6 FF lens as ridiculous. That is what my comments were directed at, though not very clearly methinks.