I was hoping that Olympus would forget the DSLR system, and would concentrate on making lenses for the MFT...How difficult would it be for Olympus to produce versions of the existing 4/3 lenses making them compatible with the m4/3, that is changing the lens AF motor from phase detection to contrast detection, and leave the optics as they are? Then all that it would take is to use the already existing adaptor, and the MFT system would have all the lenses one could wish...
Noveenia: Contrast detection does not aim at the speed, but the accuracy, does it?
"with PDAF it's easier to get speed, with CDAF it's easier to get accuracy"So, if the hybrid AF doesn't get faster accuracy, what is it good for? (maybe to use the existing canon lenses?)
Greynerd: When contrast detect cameras struggle to focus I often move the focus square to overlap the edge of the object which usually solves the problem. In fact I would move the square from where it is on the Canon example to where it is on the Panasonic example to get focus. It does not seem to be a very convincing demonstration. In fact having the focus square in the middle of the body in a same sized image would be a tougher and more equivalent test.
Edit: Also looking at the examples the Panasonic focus square is also larger which helps especially when it overlaps the object.
Thanks. I understand the first part of your statement: "The Canon uses PDAF to determine initial subject location before calling on CDAF to fine-tune". However, could you say if it is faster and more accurate than Phase AF only and than Contrast AF only?(itis not, right?)
Valentinian: to my understanding, Nokia's great idea was to put a 40 MP camera together with a phone, and to use digital zoom (with consequent lower, but still enough MP).Ok... but... ehi... Sony RX100 has 20 MP, optical zoom AND also digital zoom !... wonder what is the RX100's IQ when zooming down to 5 MP versus Nokia IQ ...
Either my math or yours need to be reviewed... the RX1 is 1.4" thick. for the Nokia 808 to be 1/8th of the RX1, then the Nokia should be 3/16" thick.... wow
I agree... to a point. yes, it is a phone, but one trying to be also a PORTABLE decent quality p&s. What struck me, was that also the RX1 can use the digital zoom trick, and it is more than competitive for price, portability and IQ. Sure,it doesn't have a phone. so, if the phone part is more important for you, and carrying a camera AND a phone is unconfortable to you, then yes, get the Nokia. But this page is for digital camera review, so it is correct to compare the Nokia to a digital camera.
to my understanding, Nokia's great idea was to put a 40 MP camera together with a phone, and to use digital zoom (with consequent lower, but still enough MP).Ok... but... ehi... Sony RX100 has 20 MP, optical zoom AND also digital zoom !... wonder what is the RX100's IQ when zooming down to 5 MP versus Nokia IQ ...
I don't think it is fair to compare this to a digital camera. This is a device which is really, really portable, and it can easily take very decent pictures. Your digital camera can be used only when you go out specifically to take pictures; otherwise it can be left home. It is a good product. It starts a new trend. Others will follow. Now camera makers should stop trying to shrink digital cameras and making them without viewfinder.
Question: why there are no full size mirrorless cameras?
The sensor is great (at least in principle - let's wait for the review), the 22mm lens seems also very good; too bad Canon didn't make a camera to compete with the E-M5, GH3...(are they afraid it would compete with their own DSLR ?)
To me the LX7 improves on the LX5 only if, for instance, AF performance on fast moving subjects and in low light. is much better The 1.4 lens may be nice (but it causes the sensor to be a bit smaller) but that doesn't make the difference, it's just a marketing trick. (The ring around the lens is maybe more interesting). After Nikon 1 introduced the 1" sensor size, Sony bravely followed. Too bad that Panasonic didn't use a 1" sensor as well for the LX7 even at the cost of having a 2.8 lens.The other trend to watch is which AF technology will win? Panasonic Contrast AF, Nikon 1 Phase AF. or Canon hybrid AF ?
After the 45-175 came out I was expecting that Panasonic would discontinue the 45-200... Instead they must have thought that the market needs a choice of 3 (three) lenses, more or less of the same quality, more or less of the same focal range (45-150/175/200) all of them slow....I have an E-M5, and am playing with the idea of replacing the Olympus 12-50 (which is very nice, but slow) with the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 which is the kind of lenses that Panasonic and Olympus should concentrate on making. Instead, why did Panasonic waste time with those three lenses? wasn't one good enough?
Still, really cannot understand why digital camera makers do not include a telephone in the compact and premium compact digital cameras - That should be easier than it is to built a camera into a telephone....
REDred Photo: My favorite street lens has always been the 35mm. I really would love to see a 17mm f1.4 in a fairly small form factor for micro 4/3.
yes, you are right: 17/2.0 would be more than adequate. (I had written 1.4 only in comparison to 0.95 (who needs that?)
I don't have a 14mm prime lens... Will I buy this Schneider Kreuznach 14mm f2.0 ? Unfortunately no, because it will cost four times more than the Panasonic 14 mm f2.5 .Will I buy the Panasonic 14mm ? No, because I read on Lenstip.com that it has "monstrous distortion, huge vignetting.... (and) ...the image quality on the edge of the frame could have been better"Too bad nobody is making a 14mm/ f2.8 of decent quality at an affordable price.
Agree. So far there is only the Voigtlander f 0.95/17.5 mm. That's an exaggeration. f 1.4 would be more than enough for the light, and much better cost-wise and size-wise.
Jogger: didnt they make lenses for samsung and kodak cameras (or license their name to them)
Is this a common practice? Are also the Panasonic "Leica" lenses made by Panasonic and not by Leica?
John: better look closely Sean, the alpha lens is much larger than this one. Still works well but is twice the size. I have this model for my m4/3 Panasonic and it works quite well.
Hi - is it still fish eye on the m4/3 ?
Valentinian: The KEY factor here is the Hybrid AF, which seems the state of the art, combining phase and contrast AF.Another thing is the lens: 18-135 (equivalent to 28-200)/3.5-5.6. it makes you wander why the hell Olympus made that 12-50 (equivalent to 24-100)/3.5-6.3 ????Sensor and lens are great. Apart from that, mirrorless is still better.
meant to say that in my opinion, with sensors capable of both phase and contrast detection AF, and continuously improving EVF, the mirrorless system is the future of digital photography.
Valentinian: This is high-level compromise: on one hand Canon must keep all the existing lenses from becoming obsolete; on the other hand it is already known that mirorless is better than mirror reflex. Canon solution is much better than Pentax. The "hybrid" solution, combining Phase and Contrast AF is the future.However, when the Hybrid AF will be implemented also in the mirrorless cameras this "compromise" solution will have a though competion
ok- it is my opinion, but it is based on the fact that: EVF is improving continuously; mirrorless allows smaller, less expensive lenses... and the mirror is just an inheritance from the film era, guys.
This is high-level compromise: on one hand Canon must keep all the existing lenses from becoming obsolete; on the other hand it is already known that mirorless is better than mirror reflex. Canon solution is much better than Pentax. The "hybrid" solution, combining Phase and Contrast AF is the future.However, when the Hybrid AF will be implemented also in the mirrorless cameras this "compromise" solution will have a though competion