absentaneous: in some way it of course make sense but on the other hand I wonder where would be fair to draw the line. for example, I come across a great looking sports car on the street and I take a picture of it and turn it into a poster and I sell copies of it. does that mean the company which designed and constructed the car can sue me? by that logic one couldn't possible take a picture of something man made or designed and use it commercially without permission without getting sued.
@ absentaneous1) the firm who designed the clothes the model was wearing maybe is the firm commissioning the spot. 2) the tires the ferrari is using or the color ferrari is painted with are part of the ferrari; so it would be enough to have the ferrari consent. 3) The permission from the parents who gave birth to the model are needed only if the model is under age.
if you want to use a ferrari and a fashion model in a spot to sell whatever, you must pay the model and seek permission to have a ferrari in the spot.
The sculptor's work was exposed to the public the same way a song is copyrighted and published. Anybody who sings that song in concert for a profit should pay something to the author.Of course the USPS had to pay the sculptor.As someone in this forum already pointed out, it is very strange that the US government didn't reserve all rights to reproduce and use in any way the sculptor's work when his work was commissioned and he was paid.Isn't that what happens, for instance, when you enter one of your photos into a photographic contest?
Well done for Nikon, except.... its marketing stinks because you cannot buy just the AW1 and the 10mm (equiv. 27mm) ONLY.Underwater snorkeling I would use the 27mm equivalent ONLY -is that me, or anybody else agrees?(also a flash would be useful)
Chris_in_Osaka: Well, it wouldn't be a first. Back in the pre-m4/3's days, weren't the Zuiko 18-180mm and 70-300mm Sigma designed? The only difference is that those were low end "standard" lenses. The 75mm 1.8mm is a higher end product.
What I'd be more interested in finding out is if Olympus is actually manufacturing the 75mm. Considering that almost everything else in their product line is made in China, and sales of the old regular 4/3's lenses that were made in Japan are pretty much as dead as that system, it wouldn't surprise me if the 75mm is made in Japan by Sigma. I can't imagine Olympus are keeping a lens factory running to produce only 2 high end, limited market lenses (the 75mm and 12mm).
Another company manufacturing for Olympus wouldn't be a first either. If I remember correctly, the original E-1 camera, the only E system camera to have been manufactured in Japan, was built by Sanyo.
Sigma lenses are made in Japan.... is Sigma making the 75/1.8 for olympus?
Sigma became a very good quality lens maker. Will they ever design and make a 250mm/f4 for m4/3 ? (it'll be ok if sold under different "brand" name...)
(Dpreview's "wolf in sheep's clothing" couldn't say it better...)
TN Args: Why would they choose an eye point of only 17.5mm? Surely eyeglass wearers like me cannot live with that? My camera's eye point is 22mm and it is only just enough when wearing glasses. I would not want to go below 21mm.
What were they thinking?
maybe can the EVF prescription be adjusted so that it can at least be used w/out prescription glasses ?
Olympus ! what were you thinking when you made the EP5 without an EVF ?
Panasonic and Olympus should come up with this kind of sensor BEFORE Canon starts making mirrorless cameras. otherwise Canon will eat m4/3 share of the market. Anyway, now next improvement should come in the EVF field. Then, when EVF will be as good or even better than OVF, mirror dsrl will be dynosaurs.
Marty4650: I just want to throw this out.
If you need fast lenses that require manual focusing, then consider an f/1.2 legacy lens with an adapter for your M4/3 camera.
I just checked ebay, and found the following recent sales...
Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 lens in good condition..... $186(in fact, there were several that sold for under $200)Nikon Non AI 55mm f/1.2 lens in good condition. $260Minolta MD 50mm f/1.2 lens in good condition... $269
the legacy lenses you quote can only be compared (maybe) to only one of the Nokton f1.2 lenses: the last one (42.5mm). However, what you write makes sense.Unless..... unless Cosina-Voigtlander has other plans: considering the three Cosina-Voigtlander 1.2 Nokton lenses, all for mft, and considering that they build the "poor man Leica" FF film Bessas, I wonder if Cosina -Voigtlander is planning to follow the way of Leica, and come out with a manual focus digital rangefinder mft ?
Gesture: I'd like to see Cosina complete the circle and issue its own digital camera (Epson RD-1 successor). Would love it to take LTM lenses like the RD-1, but that's a dream. How many cameras has Cosina built off that one chassis. (Olympus, Nikon, Bessa, Zeiss Ikon, ...)
considering the three Cosina-Voigtlander 1.2 lenses, all for mft, and considering that they build the "poor man Leica" FF film Bessas, I wonder if Cosina -Voigtlander is planning to follow the way of Leica, and come out with a manual focus digital rangefinder mft ?
tko: $1265, all manual, 760g.
Canon 85MM F/1.8 = $365, all auto, 425 G
Less performance, more expensive, and heavier. A whopping 0.3" smaller in one dimension, 0.1 in the others.
A perfect example of how M34rds rips of the unsuspecting buyers who think that a F0.95 lens is amazing, and close their eyes to the real specs.
No wonder M43rds doesn't want equivalence spec published - they reveal the sham.
"Less performance"? Really? Then take two cameras: your Canon with a f1.9 and an OM D E M-5 mft with f1.2All other factors being the same, the E M-5 with a f1.2 can take a photo where the light is so low that f1.9 is not good enough.
fastlass: Can you just say that this is a 42.5 mm m43 lens. The target audience knows what the photographic characteristics in terms of angle of view, depth of field control, and background blur are for them. Let each standard stand on its own.
Really? then take two cameras: a FF with a f1.9 and mft with f1.2All other factors being the same, the mft with a f1.2 can take a very low light photo where the f1.9 is not good enough for the FF.
Good try, Leica. Your effort is appreciatedNow that you have a camera body, start working for the next upgrade model: - make the lens interchangeable- get rid of that circular little flash and buy a state-of-the-art EVF in its place- design some good Leica lenses.- buy a state-of-the-art phase/contrast hybrid sensor for fast AF
Valentinian: All the comments seem negative. Ok , so this camera is not for the typical advanced enthusiast photographer who reads this site. And yet... if a flash and the EVF 2 can be mounted at the same time (can they?), wouldn't this Leica quality built camera be a good choice for wedding photographers?
obviously this camera, for semi-professional indoor shooting, should be used together with a good flash - if that could be done (but VictorTasvina wrote above that it can't be done)
No, I have never shot a wedding - I am not a professional. But. I was recently at a wedding, and I had my E M-5 with pl 25/1.4 and no flash. the official photographer and his assistant (a beautiful lady - I took pictures of her ...lol.) they had monstrous size professional systems. and the photographer told me (several times) that he loves my little OMD.... (he emailed the same comment after I emailed to him my photo of his assistant...)
my point is that this camera is not for the enthusiast reader of this site. but there are others, probably many other photographers who might find this camera interesting. We should not have only our own narrow point of view...
All the comments seem negative. Ok , so this camera is not for the typical advanced enthusiast photographer who reads this site. And yet... if a flash and the EVF 2 can be mounted at the same time (can they?), wouldn't this Leica quality built camera be a good choice for wedding photographers?
If a flash and the EVF 2 can be mounted at the same time, it will be a good choice for wedding photographers.
Valentinian: If this were still the "film" era, then a Leica M7 would be still on top of my dreamed cameras.... it is a very well build camera designed to last forever.But we are well in the digital camera era, and a Leica doesn't belong by definition, because now a camera becomes obsolete in a few years. Buying a M8, then a few years later replacing it with an M9, and then replacing that with an M... is much more expensive than updating a digital Nikon, Canon, Pentax Olympus etc....Sad reality... would hate seeing Leica brand disappear...but...dynosaurs had a problem adapting to the enviroment too didn't they?Or... as long as there are VERY RICH photography entusiasts, Leica will live...Hurrah...
I see your point an partially agree. The M8 is still a great camera.but your point is also due to the fact that you do have an M8 (and therefore defend the validity of your possession).Can you really deny that the M9 is an advancement from the M8 ? and that the M improves over the M9 ? Why did Leica improve their flagship digital camera three times in six years? Did they do that in the film era?Compared to the M type 240, the M8 is indeed in a sense obsolete. Is it not?