Allen Yang: I used to like Panasonic, but the skintone of indoor portraits and high ISO noise were hideous! I took a picture of my aunt in a restaurant and showed her the pic. What a horrible mistake, she almost killed me! Her face looked sort of purple in that picture. By the way, the camera I used back then was a Panasonic LX3.
I had the same experience with my LX5, but the latest 16MP sensors from Panasonic have gorgeous skin tone. I came to a GX7 from Canon and I thin they are as good or better than on the Canon.
I don't know why, but I find this camera hideous looking, especially from the rear.
tkbslc: Can someone tell me why a FF shooter would waste so much time telling m43 shooters that their lenses are crap? Just curious what's in it for them.
I suppose if one has a single lens kit with only a fisheye in it and they ignore body weight, then you've got a good point.
vscd: I don't know. Does anyone else doubt in the 7mm focal length (14mm equiv)? If I compare it with my Samyang 14mm @fullframe I could swear the FOV is a lot wider. Hmm.
Yeah, samyang has some real treats in their lineup. I suspect most m4/3 users will keep using their 7.5mm fisheye over this new Olympus 8mm.
tkbslc: Why does it make so many FF shooters angry when people using cameras with smaller sensors have access to nice lenses that they can use to make good photos? Is it some kind of defense mechanism so they can feel better about buying FF?
One specialty lens (that like 0.5% of users will buy anyway) is bigger and it disqualifies the whole system?
Look at the price of these lenses. Do you think people are buying these because they can't afford FF or they are "Stuck" with a smaller sensor?
cgarrard: Not sure why people dig the fisheye look of uwal's- I get dizzy everytime I look at one.
I like having it in the kit, which is why a Samyang is a handy solution. I don't use it often enough to spend $1000 on an AF one, but a $200 Samyang and I can add it to the bag for special occasions. It works better for people pictures than regular UWA because it doesn't stretch them (unless they get way too close)
Why does it make so many FF shooters angry when people using cameras with smaller sensors have access to nice lenses that they can use to make good photos? Is it some kind of defense mechanism so they can feel better about buying FF?
ZAnton: Ho ho ho, concerning other Oly lenses, I wonder what horryfying barrel distortions will that 7-14 have.
Unless you are married to an obscure RAW converter, it won't matter. m4/3 lenses still have some of the sharpest edges in the biz - even with heavy corrections.
They work well for some shots and where they don't work you can straighten them out well in software so they act like a crazy wide regular lens. It works out to something like a 5mm lens when you "de-fish" it.
Then the 14mm is slightly wider than 14. True 14mm would be 114.2 degrees diagonal (as would 7mm on m4/3)
115.7 works out to what a 13.6mm lens should be.
Can someone tell me why a FF shooter would waste so much time telling m43 shooters that their lenses are crap? Just curious what's in it for them.
crsantin: The Sigma 60mm is my portrait lens for my Sony Nex 6. It delivers wonderful results. I also have the 19mm and while I do not use that focal length often, it too is a very good lens. I'll purchase the 30mm next. This 3 lens set-up is very familiar to me as my Contax G1 and 28mm, 45mm, and 90mm are very close in aperture and FL to the Sigma set (yes I still shoot film). Why no Nikon mount?
I suppose they could be worked for Nikon 1 mount, though. They'd be 50mm, 80mm and 160mm equivalents. Those would be pretty attractive options, actually. Throw the 10mm Nikon pancake in there and you have a nice f2.8 prime kit.
Seems like they could have found a higher end lens to test the newest and highest resolution DSLR ever. 85mm f1.8 is a consumer grade lens that was released in 1992!
turvyT: Expected outcome: first, Phase 1, second Pentax 645, third Canon and Nikon (maybe Canon slightly better). No surprise here.
So why did you cheap out the lens in the test, then? One of Canon's oldest and cheapest against the best from the others?
wb2trf: The comments are so predictably tedious. Every superzoom announcement and photo set offers posters here the opportunity to see their ignorant snobbery in print. I guess this is the cheapest thrill imaginable, but so tiresome.
Nice pics. Good job DPR. IQ looks better than I might have feared. The only problem I have with this camera is that it is too big.
I've got a pretty open mind and am not too much of a camera snob, but look at the wide angle shots without even zooming in. The trees are a solid block of green smeared together. It's just not a good sensor.
The bird shots with the lens zoomed way in look pretty good, though.
You can tell this cam was optimized for the long end of the zoom, eh?
It's not the worst thing I've seen, but most printers come with a "Free" scanner built in these days. I guess if you don't have a printer, this is cheaper and folds up for storage.
garyknrd: Art lens? Hummm wonder where they got that from.
I'm going to guess it from the definitions of the words "art" and "lens". Given that it is a lens that one might use to create art, it kind of makes sense.
I think they spelled "Minotaur" wrong.