Tarheelnga: As a close to intermediate level enthusiast, can someone please help with recommending a mid-level or semi-professional camera? I am looking to upgrade from my entry level. My focus is on wildlife and landscape. Thanks in advance..
@Scottelly: Actually, I think you mean a "Panasonic GX7" instead of Pentax.
mrmiguel: I don't know. Those flickr pics are nice, but they seem to lack 'presence.' (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
You see?? ;)
icexe: Love the smaller focus are setting, but wow, talk about hard to find! After a half hour of searching in the menus I finally had to ask the Googles. It's buried in the focus area options in the Super Control Panel.
I found it, but it was accidentally. So when you are adjusting the focus point, you have to press "info", and then you can choose it from the menu appears in the left.
Vlastik: Small focus points are good but it was possible very simply even before...just try it, Menu B/Button Function/3rd row (video recording button)/Magnify...
Then pressing recording button you could get smaller focus point, if not so small press recording button again and set magnify to 14x. Next time you do not ned it change it will be remembered.
No, it is not the same. The new focus point is even smaller, and the 5x7 matrix layout is also very useful.
Peiasdf: RX100 / RX100 II is just too much camera in such small size that it renders small mirrorless / EVIL camera like GM1 and Pantax Q pointless. Unless the intent is to use 20 f/1.7 or 17 f/1.8 with the GM1, everyone is better served by a RX.
I don't get the point of his camera either. You can put the RX100 in your pocket. You can't really do that with the GM1, or just in a very unconvenient way. 'But you can put other lenses on the GM1!' - and you can put them on other similar bodies like the GX1, GX7, E-P5, E-PM2 etc. You can't really profit from a little smaller body, because finally you will put them into the same bag. But you will give up a better layout and user experience compared to a little bigger body.
I would not say that the GM1 makes sense just because it sells very well. I would not say the opposite too, based on selling.
I would say, it attracts people, but that's a different thing.
Loga: This DOF comparsion (if it is intended to be) is simply a lie. To get the same framing with the 25mm you should step back a little (or more, depending on the subject distance). But if you do this, the DOF changes because the subject distance changes.
With the same framing the DOF difference will be noticable, but quite small despite the slightly wider aperture and the slightly longer focal length.
I understand the intention of Dpreview to show the difference in field of view, but they should have been so ambitious to make a correct comparsion in terms of DOF.
Dpreview, please take some photos with the same framing, with short subject distance to see the _real_ difference in DOF. Thanks :)
I found a test with the correct comparsion of DOF. With the same framing the DOF is _almost the same_. For anyone who wants to replace his 20mm because of shallower DOF: DON'T! You will get nothing.
The real difference: different FOV, 25mm is a slightly faster lens (0.5 EV), has faster and quiet AF, is better for closer portrait, but 20mm is smaller, and cheaper.
Okay, this lens is good, but BIG. I want this for m4/3:
This is an 50mm eqv pencake. If it had f2.0 that would be the ultimate lens for me.
ginsbu: Thanks for the update to add the comparison shots with the same framing. Not to be too demanding, but could we see the wall shot from the 25/1.4 at f/1.8 in addition to wide open? That would provide the most direct comparison between them.
If the wall is normal to the field (or: parallel the lens, and it is I suppose) then every brick or none of them should be in focus or out of focus - at least at this subject distance. Just my 2 cents.
Anyway, IMHO in this case someone should choose rather based on FOV, taste of image (color, contrast), size, AF or price issues, not on DOF control - simply because the difference in this dimension is almost non-existant. This Leica 25mm seems to be a good performer, however, not a real portrait lens (and I don't think it has been intended to be). You can take environmental portrait with the 20mm too, and take a little closer with 25mm, but I suppose (maybe I'm wrong) you can't take head portrait with the 25mm either due to perspective distorsion (at least 45mm needed).
And one more thing with DOF: don't be disappointed because the new oly is 1.8 and not 1.4. It seems almost the same DOF. But in terms of shutter speed (and therefore ISO settings) it does matter.
This DOF comparsion (if it is intended to be) is simply a lie. To get the same framing with the 25mm you should step back a little (or more, depending on the subject distance). But if you do this, the DOF changes because the subject distance changes.