goshigoo: It is bigger and heavier than Sony A7 ?!
I always think m43 is about portability.........
At this price, wouldn't it better to consider A7 / A7II, which are selling at ~950 USD and 1400 USD only in Hong Kong...
IQ - FFPortability - m43
So the problem is why GX8 is SO BIG, HEAVY and EXPENSIVE?
f/2.8 is sensor size independentbecause it is the amount of light per unit area
FF @ f/2.8 does capture more light than m43 @ f/2.8
if you count the total amount of light captured
@Trk I totally agree on your view, Panasonic m43 camera are usually over priced and does not deliver qualityI have gf2, gx1, gx7 as well as canon 5D3So I know the strength of each system
GX7 is just very portable and convenient, IQ is good enoughI love it's portability and user interface, touch focus is awesome
For IQ/DOF control, it is a no brainier to go for 5D3And it is indeed cheaper then GX7+highend lens, if paired with cheap lens like 50 f/1.8, 35 f/2, etc
@ IarekBCheck this outhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY
Regarding the RX 100 M3/4I was referring to mark 3 or mark 4I know RX100 has 1" sensor, of courseblue_tooth2k was only comparing the equivalent focal length and the real f number of the lensThat's why I pointed out RX100 have even better spec if he does not care about sensor size
@blue_tooth2k If you don't take format into consideration, why don't you just use Sony RX100 M3/4?
It is equipped with a 24-70 f/1.8-f/2.8 in a super portable body that weights < 300g!!
It is even cheaper than the Panny 12-35 alone
@ IarekBYou need to pump up the ISO on the FF by 2 stops to match the exposure of the m43, i.e.30mm, f/2.8, 1/100, ISO 100 @ m43 == 60mm, f/5.6, 1/100, ISO 400 @ FF
the amount of light that fall on both sensors are indeed the same in this scenario, IF we are in a perfect world (e.g. 100% QE)
It is bigger and heavier than Sony A7 ?!
Vobluda: I have give a try to Olympus 45/1.8 two times but evenutally sold it as I was not satisfied with its optical performance.It is plain glass with no asph or ed and it is visible on the pictures (and that is the reason why it is so cheap). For now I have Panasonic 45/2.8 that is slightly more expensive than Olympus 45/1.8 but optically superior.From what I can see googling new Panasonic 42.5/1.7 will have asph element (s) and that is the reason why I think that it will be much better then Olympus 45/1.8 though a bit more expensive.
You sure you have read and understand this?http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2
I am sure you do not fully understand the meaning of equivalence when you said"it's still 1.2 while they are 1.8 and not 0.9"
f/1.8 is f/1.8 but it is really pointless without taking the format into consideration
my iphone's camera has aperture f/2.2; so do you think it is better than 28 f/2.8?
Sigma82; you still do not understand "equivalence dof"the canon f/1.8 @ 135 FF is equivalent of f/0.9 in m43
have you checked?http://www.mu-43.com/threads/63080/
You can understand it better if you know how telescope for astro works; focus length and aperture does not really matterthe key is the diameter of the main lens
It is easy to compare dof control; it is not easy to compare dof quality
I cannot convince myself getting 42.5 f/1.2 @ over $1200 USD
especially when the Canon/Nikon 85 f/1.8 only priced at ~$420; and it's bokeh behaves like a 42.5 f/0.9 @ m43 camera....
Well, I know m43 is different from FF....the price of 42.5 f/1.2 is just...way overpriced..
I am very pleased with Olympic 45 f/1.8; it's cheap and gives very good image
Do you think it is better to release a D810AM, equipped with mono sensor where it can merge RBG or RGBL internally from 3 / 4 shots?
sharkcookie: 8% wider than the Nikon 12-24, but the Nikon is twice as fast (one stop equals double the light). The Canon is 50% more expensive.
Exactly; I would say "I use stitching only when its absolutely necessary"
acassino: Needs an articulated LCD.
Prixnobeldefoot: wish they had included a bigger flash, 12m range is a bit short for my astrophotography....
Yes, Pluto is usually too dim; we need a big flash with GN 1 Quadrillion
I agree a lot of shots can be done via Stitching and there are benefits using Stitching
But UWA is UWA, there are shots which cannot be replaced by Stitching
there is really no need to continue this discussion if someone insists stitching can fully replaces UWA
It depends on what subject are you trying to take!
Stitch is ok on static subjects
Stitch does not replace UWA; come on!
goshigoo: 3 mm is huge difference in wide angle
"Can you give examples where the shot can only be taken with f/2.8 but not f/4;"
You can take wide angle Milkway shot even at f/8 or smaller aperture