E-520, L114-42, 25/1.4, 50/2, 14-50/2.8-3.5, 70-300Hexanon 57/1.4FL-36R
dopravopat: Needs a solid HQ lens line-up, better battery perforance and two dials instead of one.
A nice toy. But I need two dials to operate in M mode, too bad that the top is not a real dial, just looks like one. Also the battery performance is poor and the system needs way more small but high quality lenses. The slow f2 pancake is nothing for me. However a set of dedicated EF-M lenses 10 f2.8, 15 f2, 20 f1.8 (ok this is close to the 22 f2), 30 f1.4,50 f1.8, 85 f 2 and 135 f2.8 would be appealing. Throw in zooms 17-50 f2.8 50-150 f4, both stabilized and you have a highly attractive system.
Do you write the bit on how you need two dials on every single camera launched which has only one dial and is clearly not aimed at you as a user? Must take a lot of time!
Damo83: Let's hit 1000 wonderful comments.
Well, there are always some, but if varies whether they come from existing customers or not. I think a lot of people were happy about the E-M5, I certainly was.
There's a lot of pent up anger venting right now. That's what you get for not buying a product you have wanted for four years because it was made by the "wrong" company.
I can't figure out why so many photography people are so overly negative and depressing. They are always unhappy with new products, and if their current hang up is somehow satisfied, there's immediately some new one that's standing between them and photography bliss. Harden up, people.
gingerbaker: More than one - (but now 9!) cross-type sensors is a first for a Rebel. Well-done Canon!
18MP, low noise at ISO 12,000. We have come a long way. This was a what, a $7000+ camera just a few years ago, and that was without an articulated touchscreen or live-view.
The 5D2 is something like a 500D with a freakishly expensive sensor in it, itsn't it?
Fatality: Dear Canon,
Where is my fricken mirrorless?
Well, the combined Canon Fanboy Choir sang the tune for years that mirrorless cameras were lame, because they were not built by Canon. So why would they spend time and money developing and marketing them?
Cax: Thank you for sticking your necks out with regards to the f-number equivalents, Richard and Barnaby. No doubt you have made yourselves some angry forum enemies, which are certain the only equivalent that can be calculated is focal length.
Cross-format comparisons like these are very useful.
Just remember that it's not just for depth of field, but also general noise and image quality, since those two can not be separated, and are really just different results of the aperture size.
Next time you might consider doing a column on base ISO equivalent, to give an impression of the maximum image quality.
Yes, ofcourse, but it still helps you see that buying a D7000 for the low light image quality really isn't going to give you much over an RX100 if you stick a 16-85 on there. People have been going on about sensor sizes alone for so many years now, I can hardly believe the day has come when DPReview actually compares different formats by the only reasonable metric: equivalent ƒ-numbers. At the wide end, the difference between an RX100 and a 5D with the 24-105 is less than one stop.Think about that.
Thank you for sticking your necks out with regards to the f-number equivalents, Richard and Barnaby. No doubt you have made yourselves some angry forum enemies, which are certain the only equivalent that can be calculated is focal length.
Cax: Which is cheaper, a $900 lens with a $400 camera body, or a $400 lens with a $3000 camera body? And what retains its value better?
A 75/1.8 is equivalent to a 150/3.5 in photographic terms, but it severely outperforms it in one aspect: Rendering the image on 1/4 of the area and 4 times brighter means you can use a smaller and cheaper camera. The lens itself will also be smaller. This has always been the strength of the 4/3 system. It was true for an E-520 with the 50/2 macro, and it is true for µ4/3 today.
You can buy a 150/2 for Canon EF, but you can not buy a 75/1 for µ4/3. That is the strength of the Canon EF system.
Choose the strength that fits your needs better. It is as easy as that.
No, it does not. It gathers the same light as a 150/3.6 on 36x24mm. That's why we say it's equivalent.
Also, ISO 400 on 4/3 is equivalent to ISO 1600 on 36x24mm. You really need to understand that part as well.
Mssimo: Must see!! What a 150mm f1.8 full frame lens looks like. At least I think its a full frame lens.
This is a magic behind u4/3 and yes, i understand this is a 75mm lens and not a 150mm.
Yes, a large portion of the "full frame" proponents believe that they are buying themselves a general "two stop advantage" on any lens. They think it's the sensor that's collecting the light, not the lens.
Well, you are going to have to wait for a long time. A 12/0.7 is probably not practical. This is where a larger sensor makes sense. By the way, what percentage of photographs taken with a 24/1.4 do you believe to be taken at ƒ/1.4?
Comparison is still easy though, and will help you decide which camera system is right for your use. Just do the math, and you know what's what. I'm just sick of the "focal length is focal length, ƒ-numbers are ƒ-numbers, ISO is ISO and full frame has a two stop advantage" braindeadness propagated by people who really don't understand anything and enjoy repeating tautologies.
Mssimo: OK, one last time for the people that still don't get it:
This is a 75mm f1.8. It has the DOF of a 75mm f1.8. Its NOT a 150mm lens (Duh) Let me say it again. Its not a 150mm lens. This lens will produce the SAME DOF of a 75mm on a Pentax Q, u4/3, full frame, MF, LF or your kitchen wall. A 75mm will always be a 75mm. Do you get the picture? The image circle of this lens will over a u4/3 full frame.Don't compare it to a 150mm because its not one. This is not that advanced...
Focal length is not an angle of view and an ƒ-number is not a depth of field. The same lens has different depths of field on different formats, because depth of field relates to the scale, which is a result of the angle of view, which is clearly different on different format.
75/1.8 on 4/3 has the same angle of view and depth of field (and therefore image noise) as 150/3.6 on a 36x24mm sensor. It is really simple. Same angle of view, same aperture (not ƒ-number), and same shutter speed always gives the same image. You just don't understand it, stop confusing other people.
Which is cheaper, a $900 lens with a $400 camera body, or a $400 lens with a $3000 camera body? And what retains its value better?
sorinx: So, we have a lens that is equivalent to about 100mm F2.4 for APSC sensors and 150mm F3.5 for a full frame sensor. And this is a premium lens with premium price?And I don't need to hear that it is F1.8. Because even if for exposure time it is F1.8, it only covers 1/4 of FF image. So, it only gathers 1/4 of light that a FF lens is gathering.
Shockingly, a Leica 50/2 costs MORE than a Canon 50/1.8! Moron.
W.C. Green: Wow... I was set to get the OM-D and this lens this summer as my new portrait setup. This might be a deal breaker. They estimated $700-800 for this lens and I was willing to suffer, not without some griping, for 800... but that was the max. This will break it for me. I can go back to my D7000 and the 85mm 1.8 instead. Oh well... I really wanted to return to OLY. The 45mm won't cut it as I need 120 to 150 for my portraits.
There's always Nikon 1
Bernd M: I still don't understand, why this lens has to be that big. The Canon FD 85mm f1,8 was considerably smaller and had a 52mm filter thread. - and it was (is!) a very fine lens. Probably I'll try to buy one to use it with an FD adapter. Autofocus isn't really important for me. I'm already using the Canon FD 85mm f1,2 L on my 4/3 camera, but sometimes I'd like to have something a little smaller/lighter in my bag.
For one, it has to be 1cm longer, because the flange-back distance on µ4/3 is cm shorter. Other than that, it is a more advanced construction, with 10 lens elements rather than 6. There's a autofocus motor and an electric aperture mechanism, and control computers for those.
Just to clear things up for some people: The focal length of a lens has no impact whatsoever regarding "flattening" of a photo or anything related to that. What makes a portrait "flat" is the distance to the subject. People equate focal length to subject distance, and that's the source of this common misconception.
So yes, 75mm on 4/3 IS THE SAME AS 150mm on a 36x24mm camera in terms of anything relating to the photographic result. Focal length in itself means nothing. Please stop saying "75mm is 75mm" like we are all morons. 75mm is not an angle of view.
don_van_vliet: Let the equivalence arguments begin... again....!
Some function based on angle of view an aperture, yes. Quantifying depth of field is difficult, but some type of Light Capture Factor or something like that would be sufficient. After all, our understanding of how a certain ƒ-number looks at a certain focal length for a certain sensor format is just something we learn to quantify for ourselves, ƒ/whatever doesn't really say anything. Probably you would use a specification based on radians. Someone will work out a good standard for this.
The strengths of a new set of camera system specifications is also the weakness though: A camera manufacturer that sells lenses to be used on several formats need to have two sets of values for a lens.
Your method of calculating from 135 is also workable, though legacy-based. Just like one uses T-stop for cine lenses, you might use b-stop or a-stop or e-stop for non-135-systems, just to have a legitimate name for it.
ebosch: it's almost feels like olympus deliberately doesn't offer black ver of this lens (and the 12mm & 45mm) to crank sales of silver bodies. It worked rather well, the silver om-d sells as well as the black ver, something even olympus did not expect.
Are they making more money on the silver bodies? Why would they try to manipulate people into buying one over the other?