d2f: Camera technology issues aside, it will be interesting to see how end users this device will interface with the local laws of privacy, especially with businesses where video and still photography of their interior is prohibited. Here in the united states where the number of teen driver deaths are on the rise, due to distractions like their operating their cell phones while driving, I wonder how many teens will lose their lives to this device, before law makers pass a law prohibiting its use while driving. That has to be a morale booster for Google engineers where their motto is, do no evil.
Why do you think Google is making a car that can drive itself??
Some people just don't get it.
xlynx9: This device will be excellent for getting combat footage from soldiers.
And getting combat footage on the streets of Portland when people attack idiots who wear these for filming girl's asses.
If I see anyone point that Google camera at me, I'm going to ask them to remove it. If they don't then I will shine my 1-watt laser in their face and melt its lens!
Don't blame the marketer, blame the market.
Folks, they already have all the molds and equipment to start up a production line making something based on the E-5, E-30, and E-6xx series bodies, if they so desire. The E-5 body is perhaps the very finest compact DSLR body frame ever made, in terms of build quality and ergonomics.
The problem is how can you make an E-7 in this chassis that's an SLR yet somehow allows compatibility with all the new micro 4/3 lenses? :D
dark goob: Please don't say this lens is "equivalent" to a 34mm lens. It's not. It has much greater depth of field than a 34mm lens, and substantially different distortion characteristics. Simply put it's a 17mm lens. It's equivalent to a 17mm lens, having been cropped by 50% on 135-format, or by 31% on 6x4.5 120-format, etc.
It gives a 53.9-degree horizontal angle. Why not just say that instead of making false equivalencies? Buck convention and "standard practice." They're stupid and just plain factually wrong!
Please can we move on from the year, 2002? We aren't 135-format film camera owners searching for their first DSLR anymore. Drop the "equivalency" mentions finally, it really feels anachronistic and tacky at this point. Not to mention being wrong.
I should have said "cropped to 31%" not "by 31%." See? Self-correction. We must admit when we're wrong and change our ways.
Please don't say this lens is "equivalent" to a 34mm lens. It's not. It has much greater depth of field than a 34mm lens, and substantially different distortion characteristics. Simply put it's a 17mm lens. It's equivalent to a 17mm lens, having been cropped by 50% on 135-format, or by 31% on 6x4.5 120-format, etc.
It sets a terrible precedent to have this review as part of DPReview Connect instead of standard DPReview. ALL cameras in the future will have WiFi built-in, along with some form of an operating system (whether it be Android or something else).
You should review this with other digital cameras in the main site. IT'S A CAMERA.
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.
You people are all acting like morons.
m4/3 is a full-frame format because the lenses that are made for it are engineered to be full-frame relative to its native sensor size.
WHO CARES what it's "equivalent to" on some other, bigger or smaller format!?
I mean we could remind you that it's about a 138mm f/5.6 on a 6x4.5 on 120-format, but what difference does it make? Nobody cares anymore about 120-format, just like nobody cares anymore about 135-format. It's largely irrelevant to the marketplace. Less than 5% of all cameras sold are 135-format. GET OVER IT.
Because at the end of the day a 1.2 lens will ALWAYS have the SAME light intensity per unit area no matter what format it's on, meaning you'll get to use a lower ISO. And no, ISO is not related to sensor size purely, it's related to sensor size over time. Every year it gets cleaner and cleaner, such that a 135-format camera from 2008 gets outperformed by a m43 camera from 2012.
A brighter lens is always brighter. These arguments about frames being full are just bull. m43 does not crop its lenses, it's full frame by the precise and original meaning of that term, before marketing idiots got ahold of it and ruined it, creating legions of ditto-heads who parrot jargon terms without even knowing what it means.
AliRoust: You 'll get killed by vignetting wide open and you won't get the background blur cause a 1.2 is really a 2.8 on m 4/3. I had a real bad experience with the Panasonic leica 50 m 1.4. Plus it looks cheap.
LOL at people who think 135-format is king of bokeh.
Now back to my Hasselblad.
dark goob: Anyone who says the OM-D is not full frame is retarded. It is full frame, by definition.
retarded: slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress
Let me say that your understanding of the industry is retarded if you think "full frame" is a relevant term. And yes, there are formats that are smaller than Micro Four Thirds. Note: Nikon 1 series, Pentax Q.
Technically it would be possible to adapt a Four Thirds lens to a Nikon 1 body, in which case, the field of view of the Four Thirds lens would be cropped. However if the Four Thirds lens is on a Four Thirds body, this is a full frame relationship.
You are all idiots.
Actually, 135 format is the proper name for 135 format. Calling it "full frame" no longer serves a relevant purpose. If you cannot revise your use of language to reflect reality then you are indeed retarded, intellectually. That's not meant to insult people who are actually mentally handicapped. It's just meant to state a fact, using language in the way it is meant to be used: in accordance with the actual meaning of the words, instead of speaking in colloquialisms, slang, and jargon, as you would that we do.
Anyone who says the OM-D is not full frame is retarded. It is full frame, by definition.
This guy obviously thinks he's "cool"
Just because you argue a point, doesn't mean you're right, or even close to right.
Starting off with an ad hominem attack (calling the people who disagree with you snobs) does not start your argument off well, either.
Could it be that crappy, low resolution phone pictures are never as good as the same exact picture if taken with a better camera?
Anyone remember the Fisher Price audio-cassette-based toy video camera craze from a few years back, which was another one of these hipster-fueled manias where crappy quality somehow became cool? Why not go ahead and argue that 10FPS 320x200 bad video from these phones is also an art form.
really needs a video
LOL that looks terrible
Conveniently did not mention price. haha
I'm guessing six figures for all components in that picture?
Goodbye Canon. It was nice to know you.
Hammer. Officially. Thrown. Down.