tongki: this is totally backward,Canon already has EF 24-105mm f/4 and now provide EF 24-70mm f/4,and we don't need stupid IS on wide lenses !!!
it really slowing it down !!!I don't like using IS on wide lenses, that is stupid idea !
Are you so out of your mind as it seems?
IS is never silly to have at your disposal, even if you don´t need it always, for all images. So, you imply that never shoot at wide angle at long shutter speeds? Always, instead, chooses a high ISO`? Give me a brake... of course a wide angle shot can very well have IS to its advantage, if light is low enough and you want/need LOW noise...
flbrit: For my use it seems great.
I will consider trading in my VRII f2.8 depending how it tests on IQ mounted on the D800e compared to the 2.8. I am also interested to see how it takes TC's.
I will not be an early adopter
@MPA1:Who expected you to trade your 2,8? Why even bother to say a word, when it´s not of any worth to folks who ARE indeed interested in this lens? This lens simply is not made for you! It is made for those who crave a more compact thing and 'who do not want to move over to Canon'!!! Is that so hard to understand? Everybody doesn´t think *exactly* the same as you do, or have the exact same needs as you have.
It is quite clear to me that many have hesitated to go for Nikon for the simple reason Nikon have ´til now not offered this lens type. The Canon 70-200/4L is one of the absolutely best lenses available at a "earthly" price. (I did own one before switching to Olympus)Very strange then, that when Nikon at last do release a competitor, they get complaints. It´s close to laughable. I say this not knowing how good this lens will show itself to be, but I do think Nikon have taken their measures so they safely can launch it and get a good business from having it in their line up.
GeorgeZ: Given that most PCs are still overwhelmed when they need to edit Full HD and that no TV and very few computer screens can display more than Full HD one has to wonder if 4K is what the industry should be pushing right now. Considering how long it took for TV stations to go HD (it's expensive!) I guess it'll take at least another 10 years before any major station goes 4K.
Hen and egg situation in a nutshell ;-)
Somewhere it must start, mustn´t it? (if it´s supposed to ever came, that is)
Why complain, then, when the start is beginning to get obvious...???
magneto shot: my heart stopped at "4k camera" but then i realized...whats the point of a 4k video that have no shallow DOF. next...
So, hi resolution (whatever you may deem as hi rez) for still photography only relates to "shallow DOF" systems, or what???
How shallow must DOF be for you (in stills, movie, or any photographic use) to be deemed "shallow enough"???
The news item describes this sensor as "Sony´s latest", but never clearly tells if this actually IS the sensor that sits in the cameras mentioned in the item.
Indirectly I get the impression it is this sensor, but normally the "latest" sensor is a sensor that´s presnted and WILL BECOME used in coming cameras.
So, is this "latest" sensor just the latest to already have come to actual use, or is it the latest that just have got presented, but not yet launched, and thus will get used in the next generation of cameras?
(maybe I did miss some info on that, sorry to bother in such a case)
Noirist: What's ridiculous about the pricing? Fast high quality zoom lenses are expensive to make. The full frame Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 is $2400 and the 43rds Olympus 35mm-100mm f2.0 is $2500. If you don't want to buy it at that price, then don't. But let the rest of us be glad that Panasonic has made two excellent fast zoom lenses available to anyone who wants one for their micro43rds camera.
But they didn´t charge even close to the same high price for this lens as CaNikon (or Sony) do for their "same angle of view" counterparts, did they?
BJN: Assuming top notch optical performance, the price isn't a big hurdle. This lens will be compared to 70-200 2.8 pro zooms for full frame cameras, but this lens can't fully fill that role because f/2.8 on Four Thirds delivers more depth of field at the same working distances for the same crop. That's fine if you just need the fast aperture but isn't as attractive if you're looking for subject isolation.
The shiny mauve-colored anodized rings seem out of place since they're alien to any other Panasonic body or lens material and color.
*SIGH* ...please understand that people contemplating this lens (mostly) already ARE IN THE m4/3 SYSTEM, thus such reasoning like what you put forward here only in order to talk down this lens, is close to nothing else than BS. Sorry, but I just couldn´t help myself, no intention to be rude.
Critizise the lens for its QUALITY or a possible lack thereof, or for its features/lack of such, etc...but this is not the place to try and "educate" people about equivalence. We KNOW about that, and when discussing this lens vs other lenses for OUR m4/3 CAMERAS the equivalence factor is quite frankly a "zero" factor!
If anything, this lens is the best of available tele zooms in the m4/3 system for subject isolation, so no reason at all to put that in question, or is there?
Aaron MC: To everyone defending Panasonic's pricing, the reason why this is a legitimate complaint is because everything on the smaller sensor is cheaper. Panasonic cannot claim manufacturing cost as a reason for the price.
Moreover, the markup on Nikon, Canon, and Zeiss lenses is very large, because they have gigantic extant systems with millions of fans. Essentially, they can afford to extract some profit from the value of their brand. Panasonic has no such freedom.
To give same sharpness as a "FullFormat" this lens must be double as sharp per millimeter "on sensor", so already that fact makes it expensive enough to design and manufacture...things with small mechanical/optical dimensions ARE expensive to make. And I can assure you that in the retail part of the business, markups are VERY low, percentage wise, for most every brand we may talk about. Especially the larger brands w high number of units made/sold do sell at very tight margins, in the end of the chain at least; how much distributors mark up I know nothing about.
polarizer: wonder how much they would charge for the uglification of the Fuji X-E1
"Uglification", another perfect word here... ;-)
Mescalamba: More like Hasselbad Lunatic. Dont know what kind of **** they are smoking, but it must be really good stuff.
Hahahaha, "Lunatic"...why didn´t I get first in finding tha exactly perfect wprd for all of this? (at least regarding the disgusting outer design, technically it may be all good..)
CFynn: What happened to Swedish design?
The classic 500c/m Hasselblad was a masterpiece of design - this is absolutely hideous.
I am with you: what happened? I feel good not living in Gothenburg (the city of H-blad manufacture) today...but still I live in Sweden where at least some of these grotesque designs may have been thought out...forgive "us" please.
D1N0: So Hasselblad is now a sony brand? sort of the Lexus where Sony is Nissan?
"Lexus" is the dearer brand used for selling luxuory Toyotas, it has nothing to do with Nissan...except country of origin.
And Hasselblad is not getting taken over by Sony,; the two companies have announced a partnership for development of a number of cameras. No less, no more, than that.
Demon Cleaner: Anyone who outlays $1100 for the "special edition" 12mm f/2 instead of paying the same amount for the 12-35mm f/2.8 X lens needs their head read. Oly can't honestly be expecting to sell even a single unit at that price point.
By including a metal hood and cap, the price increase from the silver version seems not that high... Another issue is whether the hood should have been included already at the "silver price point"; which I think it should have. The worst of it is they say the black will be a limited edition, which to me sounds nothing but crazy. If the OM-D, and follow ups to it, will, and would, be sold in black, then a black edition of this lens (especially as it now is in fact launched) MUST be available without a silly "time limit", like "get it now, or dust off". A VERY bad approach by Olympus.
If they never lauched a black 12mm it would have been another story, but making it a limited edition is simply disrespectful of their own customer base.
mpgxsvcd: Why were the T1i, T2i, and T3i all considered to be mid level Interchangeable lens cameras and the T4i is now entry level? Was that a mistake?
It is quite telling that the T2i still sells extremely well. This T4i seems more like a T2.2. Not that it is a bad camera. It just really isn't as exciting as some of the other new products we have seen lately.
@mpgxsvcd:So what if a camera is "considered to be" of this or that "level"! Compare its actual performance to your needs and other cameras performing at or close to the camera in question. Then make your choice.
What kind of "level" some one else than you yourself considers it to be is irrellevant.
That said, of curse it´s expcted that a camera testing website places cameras of the same "class" in the same "class" now when hey long ago has begun to use such wording when comparing them.The only "level" I´d consider is price level, and that changes in time so a camera can at times happen to find itself in another "class" or "level" just because its price gor lowered/risen vs other cameras.
Shakens: don't like the idea of a touchscreen on my DSLRits bad enough keeping the screen on my phone clean.don't what greasy finger marks allover my camera too
Don´t touch the screen then! The controls are there anyway, if you don´t like it "the touchscreen way"...
And if you have greasy fingers any camera would be getting "greasy finger marks all over..."
Deem the 650D on its actual merits, or lack thereof, please
wlachan: It's good to know 4/3 wasn't dead but it must be in a very difficult spot. Would Olympus be able to produce a super high performance body that is affordable enough when compared against Canon & Nikon's similar DSLRs? And how about those way overpriced lenses? It's like half the weight and engine of a Ferrari but asking for the same price because it can accelerate just as fast. Hello?
Well, same "performance" (in your example a car´s acceleration performance) at much lower weight. If it possible to make it, WHY should, and how could, that cost less to design and manufacture???
Answer: it doesn´t cost less, rather sometimes more, to make smaller things perform as well as, or better than, bigger...
spoorthy: I have heard that the liveview autofocus on the pentax k-30 is extremely fast. You guys should do a comparision
Yes, of course it´s more interesting for us buyers that this or that camera actually is faster or better in xxx factors, rathre than we would care for with what technology this preformance is achieved.
@MarkInSF:That a certain camera will sell more than another, better, camera, is no reason to cover it more in tests/news etc. If a camera actually have a performance advantage in fex Liveview focusing, like the K30, then naturally THAT would be covered, as it is more in the interests of the potential camera buyer.
OK, Canon is way bigger than Pentax, but if Pentax do have a superb product why not see that as a value in itself? Now, knowing K30 have better liveview focusing than EOS 650D then that is more interesting than that the 650D uses some new tech. Seemingly that new tech is outperformed by some supposedly "old tech"....talk about matters of priorities...
MattBrisVegas: One more reason to think of switching to a m4/3 system EXCEPT why are m4/3 lenses so expensive? I can't help but compare this 75mm f/1.8 for $900 to the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for $430 (both today's prices at B&H). The m4/3 lens is built to cover a smaller image circle, so it uses much less optical glass. So why is it about twice the price?
The smaller sensor makes it necessary for the lens to be at least(!) double as sharp as a lane for 24x36mm sensor size. If not, images would be softer than FF. Now, the Oly 75 seems to be superbly built.Presicion in mechanics is costly, especially if smaller dimensions are at hand like with m4/3 & 4/3 format lenses vs lenses for larger formats. Simple as that.
Richard Murdey: I'm all for more color variations, but this "let's make a batch in silver and charge several hundred dollars more" racket should stop.
Why is silver the "cheap looking" version, in your opinion?
My view is that it would not look cheap at all if the silver parts were actual metal surfaces, not painted plastic. The older Pentaxes like MX/ME look very good in silver, not cheaper looking at all in my view. And I´m sure it´s because they were not silver painted but instead real metal bodies. .-)
I have seen some of the images of the girl photo model holding a silver OM-D E-M5w 12mm/2 on a few forums now, and I am more and more disturbed by the Lens Hood being mounted a bit "off"...as in "not straight". It destroys the feel of thoise images even if both the camera and model are gorgeous...why on earth did Olympus not even ensure such small stupid things was not let through...???
That said, I am now going to read DPR´s report.
The swedish site "fotosidan" (= "Photopage") gave a short report recently from the same event. They did find that the images were very "denoised" meaning they thought they were too processed. I suppose Oly set the camera on "standard" noise filtering etc, like they use to be on delivery (?)
Well. now on to the DPR report ;-)