highwave: Nokia has this small Phone with a 41 MP camera
So just some calculation for fun:
To achieve 50 Gigapixels using pureview Nokia phones you would need about 1220 of them.
that would be about 73 meters (240 feet) wide and 146 meters (480 feet) high of Nokia Phones duct taped together.
That's about as wide as the empire state building and about one third as high.
I don't think I would want to take up the job of wiring them up for remote shutter release and then go grab the shots from each phone.
Oh for those still waiting for me to type down the relevance of the OP to the thread, I couldn't figure anything out.
did an awful mistake in my calculations
Falconeyes calculations are the correct ones
please ignore my original post
Nokia has this small Phone with a 41 MP camera
highwave: I really don't like SLRs
But if I were ever to buy an SLR today, the D800E would be the only one to sway me.
If you're going to burden yourself might as well go all the way.
Not that I'm saying the only worthy replacement is the D800, I'm just saying the only worthy replacement for me is the D800.
I just don't like Optical View Finders. They're not for me.
I really don't like SLRs
Sdaniella: m43: 75mm F/1.8 = 75/1.8 = 41.67mm aperture diameter (DOF equivalency)FF FOV+DOF equivalency: 150mm F/3.6
F-value 'light value' being all the same for... just 'light value' alone (applies to any system; a given)(duh, of course)
nice... slowly, but surely, lenses are coming along, better late, than never.i'm sure every new combination of faster Xmm f/x.x is welcome, prime or zoom.
meanwhile, still waiting for a m43 12mm f/0.7... flat prime
f/2.0 is 'okay', so, why not f/0.7? (and compact too?)
or a m43 12-35mm f/1.4... compact zoom
f/2.8 is 'okay', so, why not f/1.4? (and compact too?)
still... waiting... (before i celebrate m43 'arriving'...)
unless someone offers a integrated digicam prime or zoom with the same FOV + aperture diameter specs first... (or just as unlikely?)
and at such high prices... as limited spec so far, an indulgence for those with money to burn...
must be nice to have an income (a well paid job):D
I really want to be as kind as possible to you and I am looking for your best interest. Please hear my words. People don't appreciate you making posts like these on this news thread and multiple other news threads. You're becoming very infamous for such posts that spam and annoy.
I see that you're a lady and I do mind my manors, but you're strongly tempting even people like me to set aside their principles and have a whack at it with a flame torch.
So please, from my heart with all sincerity, could you please please stop posting like this?
Sample pictures next please Dpreview
Ones with wide open Bokeh with as beautiful renderings as you could possibly get thank you
bradleyg5: This is getting absurd dpreview you should be ashamed.
This listing the focal length "equivalence" right next to unadjusted aperture is border line disingenuous.
It is not a f1.8 150mm "equivalent" lens, it is and forever will be a 75mm lens, it doesn't magically become a 150mm lens just because you put it on a camera with a small sensor.
If you insist on listing "equivalent" figures, list the equivalent aperture right next to it so people don't get the wrong impression.
This lens at f1.8 75mm will produce an image on a micro four thirds camera that will look identical to a F3.5 150mm on a full frame camera, for you to imply it will look like f1.8 150mm is flat out wrong and shameful.
The only thing wrong and shameful is your post. Dpreview is following industry standard practice and you're in no position to criticize them.
Honestly if people read more than they write I would be spared reading comments like yours
highwave: It looks so good on the black OM-D
Both looks and spec wise, it's more fittingly the kit lens for the OM-D than the 12-50mm ever will be
Well at least this stupid, stubborn, argumentative, and in denial poster doesn't respond to arguments with a flurry of insults.
ogl: 24-70/f5.6 - 35 mm equivalent
On both arguments you presented you ignored the fact that that a FF sensor is 4X bigger than a m43 sensor
so for your first argument the f number of the m43 12-35mm is 12/4.28=f2.8 and same for the long end. For a focal length of 12mm used on a m43 sensor it would be cropped by a factor of 2X. Hence the equivalency to 24mm. So again yes in terms of exposure m43 12-35mm/f2.8 is equivalent to 24-70/f2.8 FF once the cropping factor is taken into account.
for your second argument, sure the FF 24-70/f2.8 gathers 4 times more light than the m43 12-35/f2.8 but then again it really needs to. It's exposing 4 times the sensor area the m43 lens needs to expose. So in the end again taking into consideration that you will use m43 lenses on m43 sensors and you will use FF lenses on FF sensors then this claimed 2 stop advantage doesn't exist.
Now if you were to use FF lenses on m43 sensors then that's a different story but it would be out of context here.
I just checked amazon right now
Olympus E-pl1 body only: 149.95$
Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 lens only: 249.00$
Olympus E-PL1 with 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6: 270.00$
why do people like making generalizations?
you mean depth of field equivalence?
I think your statement is true in the case of depth of field equivalence but in terms of expose it's still a 24-70/f2.8 - 35mm equivalent.
And not everyone is a fan of shallow depth of field. For those seeking shallow depth of field they would be better served with the 45mm f1.8 or the upcoming 75mm f1.8.
I really don't think full frame users would pick up a 24-70/f2.8 for its shallow depth of field capabilities either.
It looks so good on the black OM-D
I'm just amazed at how well Panasonic kept the release date so secret
Most speculated it would be released months from now
This is pretty much out of the blue
highwave: So much for the claimed extra sharp images due to lack of an AA filter. Images don't look any sharper than other 16 MP comparable cameras.
ISO performance is stunning on the other hand. But there is something fishy about how the images look. It's as though noise reduction is being applied to RAW regardless of settings. If not than that is really FF rivaling performance on the ISO front.
I don't disagree with either of you PG Thomas & harold1968
I'm just saying, there are clear indications of processed RAWs
Both sharpness and noise performance are not what's expected
So much for the claimed extra sharp images due to lack of an AA filter. Images don't look any sharper than other 16 MP comparable cameras.
ybizzle: Great effort but with less expensive models like the Sony NEX-5N, Samsung NX-20, and Pentax K-01, it will harder to justify this more expensive model from Oly. Not to mention that all these have a 50% larger sensor to boot and great image quality.
The OM-D is meant to compete against the NEX-7 which is ,body for body, 200$ more expensive than the OM-D. Both cameras are magnesium alloy with built in EVF. OM-D is weather sealed and has IBIS to boot. No built in flash though.
Soon, Olympus will likely release an update to its E-PL3 which will be a closer competitor to the NEX-5N again being cheaper.
Hey DPR team or anyone.
what do you mean by the following statement in your review?
"The noise and dynamic range levels are a fraction behind the very latest APS-C sensors, if you analyze the images at a 1:1 level"
while the noise is behind the very latest APS-C (insert SONY sensors here), I don't understand how the OM-D lags in dynamic range. From what I understood in your dynamic range test, it had a wider dynamic range than any modern APS-C sensor. Am I missing something here?
Thanks all in advance.
highwave: Raw files from Nikon D3200 and Sony NEX-7 look pretty much identical to my eyes. D3200 just slightly less exposed but same everything else. (IMHP)
More to do with different image processors than different sensors.
My point is that they're using the same sensor.
sharpness might be due to different AA filter or different lens. AA filter is usually not a part of the sensor. Color signature is no indication of sensor. More due to image processor or raw converter characteristics.
The noise characteristics and level are the same except for a slightly lower exposure.I really believe this is the same sensor as the NEX-7.
Raw files from Nikon D3200 and Sony NEX-7 look pretty much identical to my eyes. D3200 just slightly less exposed but same everything else. (IMHP)