erichK: The problem is, in fact, real.
As a former employment counselor for immigrant professionals, I have come to know a dozen+ pros from all over the world. Those *without* neck & shoulder problems are in the minority: big, fit usually younge guys. (This is a major reason that belts and vests, sling bags and more elaborate solutions as Katas convertible backpack-sling, Thinktank's rotating bags have become so popular.)
What matters is the weight, balance and bulk of the all the parts of - and the total package of - the kit needed to do a particular "shoot" or combination of shoots. While this may mean an 11"x14" view camera and tripod for Clyde Butcher, many great photographs as well as countless reviews and user reports demonstrate that mFT cameras and lenses from Olympus and pansonic (and the mirrorless offerings srom Sony and Samsung) can indeed do the job,
Olympus has has its problems. It has also long produced smaller, lighter camera kit much needed by many.
Those m43 pancake zooms, so much bigger than the paper-thin 24-84 f7-11 zooms in FF.
keepreal: Why did Olympus not produce an f/4 PRO lens and kept the size, weight and price down? Built to the same quality, I probably would have been able to dispense with my DSLR kit. Lenses this gargantuan or even bigger on MFT are a bad joke.
A few months ago I asked "Panasonic 7-14mm on Olympus - how good?" on the DPR forum for "Micro Four Thirds Talk" and was put off for a number of reasons. It is not quite good enough for my liking. I had been considering it with my Olympus E-PL3 plus the VF-4 viewfinder.
That was because I would have preferred to use it instead of my Nikon D300 and Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG. Since I bought that lens, I have used it almost all of the time. That should not surprise you, since most of my pictures are of landscapes, most shot near to or at 12mm.
See the more recent at http://www.ipernity.com/home/contrajur, all but very few with this lens. Most people do not need large apertures or more than 12 megapixels, even for high quality very large size prints.
You've already answered your own question: Because that lens already exists on m43, it's made by Panasonic and you can buy it since 2011.
Making it f2.8 makes it different enough and it is consistent with the other PRO zooms from Olympus. F2.8 also makes it special because it makes people holding on to the old 43 SHG 7-14 f4 lens lust for the new lens.
Pitchertaker: Olympus OM-D M1 or Sony Alpha a6000. Trying to decide on which one. I have three Zuiko MF lenses, 50mm F/1.8; 35-70mm f/4; 85-250 f/5 I'd like to use.
I like taking shots of lightning and winter scenes, portraits, still life, landscape and macro.
The A6000 is about half price. something to consider. The crop factor on those old Zuikos is also less severe on the A6000 (your 50mm becomes a 75mm, for example). If you plan on shooting on daylight a lot and/or use manual focus a lot, you could maybe make due with the A6000.
The EM1 is more of a deluxe model. You get better ergonomics, better build, better viewfinder, better customisation, weather sealing (irrelevant if you're only using old non-weather-sealed lenses). One thing important to remember is that EM1, just like any Oly cameras from super cheap to expensive, stabilize all your lenses,
JJLMD: Steve Huff says the A7II's JPEGs are some of the best JPEGs he's seen. Why is there such a LARGE disparity between what he's seeing and what you're seeing?
Because Steve is a fanboy.
photo perzon: Skin tones make people look sick and drawn. Fuji and Olympus are better with skin tones.
The RX1 shot is underexposed but has more contrast and saturation. The EM5/17mm shot is slightly overexposed. Lacks contrasts and saturation (which could have been pushed in PP or with camera settings for the JPEG file).
The bokeh obviously goes in Sony's camp as expected, but the Oly photo is taken closer to the background so it accounts for slightly less bokeh here.
Regardless of how the pics were taken, I think the RX1 sensor, higher MP and lens still have the edge in terms of IQ, as should be expected.
moji: With my budget I can only buy the EVF for this camera! Shall I invest in this system by buying the EVF and stop smoking and save money to get the camera later on? God, some people have money!
3 years have passed since the release of the RX1. I don't think any company is a hurry to release a 2000+ dollar compact.
It took barely a year for rangefinder mirrorless cameras to be cloned by other manufacturers. Same with retro-style OMD-like clones. The FF compact is something only Sony is crazy enough to do.
Nikonandmore: It's crazy that a camera of this price and status NEVER got a single firmware update from Sony to correct some of its quirks and improve features. It's a scandal they release a camera of this price and caliber and totally abandon it's development. I will NEVER buy another Sony product. Ever! It's no wonder Sony is going down..
Sony has not much success in the smartphone market either yet that market is booming.
Budget EM5II without weather-sealing and IBIS but with 4K instead.
Good to have choices.
Watching the Camera Store review, it's hard to get excited about this camera.
Eradicate is such a strong word. The example presented show reflections are still quite visible, just less so than before.
Pitchertaker: Still trying to decide between the Olympus and Sony lens systems to invest in for landscape, perspective, and closeup images.
For my applications are primes a better choice than a zoom?
Should I grab an EM-1 and throw on this new 7-14mm f/2.8 or go with their 12mm f/2.0 & 17mm f/1.8 instead?
Should I go Sony a6000 or A7 with their sole 24mm f/1.8 prime, or would their 18-105 f/4, 10-18 f/4, 16-70 f/4 or 16-35 f/4 do just as well?
Between the Oly 60mm f/2.8 macro and Sony 90mm f/2.8 which is better?
Yeah, one stop compared to the 12mm f2. The 17mm is slightly faster at 1.8.
Ah, I see about the deal. Is the reason you are interested in the 17mm also related to the AF clutch mechanism (it micmics a manual focus ring, feels more tactile). Both 12mm and the 17mm share that feature (all the PRO zooms as well), but the 12mm is better built (metal construction).
Do you also get a deal on the EM1? If you don't, I think the EM5II might be better for your apparent needs (though the em1 will balance better with the 12-40 zoom).
As for FF, it might still be an option for you if you print large (like A2 or larger), if you are looking for that "FF look" or if you just pixel peep a lot. :)
Typically, entry-level FF DSLRs cost a bit more with the camera body but you save up much more on lenses. Lots of cheap F1.8-F2 primes that perform well. The catch with the A7 series is that you pay up significantly with native lenses.
The 24mm f1.8 on E mount is an APSC lens. It will work on the A7 but you won't the full image. You'd be shooting in crop mode.
Yes, you can use m43 lenses on E mount (A7) through a very thin adapter but the image circle does not cover the entire FF sensor (you will crop manually). Why even go there?
The 12mm prime on m43 is kinda pricey for what it actually does. For most though, the 12-40 f2.8 zoom is a more than worthy alternative and it is more versatile (you expressed interest in the 17mm focal lenght, which the zoom also covers). If you're still considering m43, I think that zoom would be better suited for you than the 7-14.
GRUBERND: can dpreview please moderate (= delete) all comments containing the words "equiv*", "match*", "fullframe" et al on all news items about any sensor smaller than 8x10" fullframe? thank you.
or the team could push the thought of "it's a tool, choose wisely and use accordingly" a bit more. ;)
back on topic: wow, that 7-14 looks like an awesome lens. =)
DPR would have to delete their own articles/previews if they were to follow your request. ;)
adengappasami: Very Nice to see Olympus releasing more lenses for this format...this is what you want to see from M4/3 or someone like Sony.
I wish they also start releasing only MF lenses making a great alternative to leica .
These camera are highly capable and i dont mind a tiny lens which is all manual but suited to stock cameras without an adapter.
Currently my canon set up is all dwindling and my leica lenses are getting added simply because of the size. SIZE matters to me now.
Don't count on it from the main two m43 manufacturers (the only exception, I think, are the bodycap lenses). They really push their AF advantage because they know they beat most other mirrorless rivals. They also go in this direction because their lenses are also smaller than most by default (these PRO are the exceptions).
But third-party do fill that void either as cheap lenses to compete with the Panny-Oly lenses or with very fast glass like Blackmagic and Voigtlander.
Weia: Distortion of the 7-14 seems to be better corrected than in my old Oly 7-14. Would like to read more about distortion of this beast.
No need to wait for Photozone:
bluevellet: The leather strap looks nice but that card is a joke.
Pay 150 extra and you get this card that says you are number XXXX out of 7000. Oly employee quote in the back. Card holder included.
Completely useless. :)
The leather strap looks nice but that card is a joke.
Will probably get the zoom myself. Skip the 8mm and settle on the bodycap (not into fisheyes).
Then Olympus should hurry up with at upcoming 300mm f4 just so they can deliver their f1.0 primes afterwards. :)
The 8mm is cute.
Cynics would say Fuji has a strong habit of releasing buggy, unfinished cameras to then try to fix them years down the line through the line. Yes, it's better than not fixing them at all. But it just doesn't encourage you to run out and buy the latest Fuji product since it is expected to be crippled.