Nordstjernen: After I went from DSLR to Sony FF mirrorless my camera bag has shrunk to less than half bulk and weight without limiting my photographic projects. Now I can go ultra-compact when I want to, which never was an option with DSLR due to bulky and noticeable heavier cameras. The result? I am using my camera more than ever before!
Now I am looking forward to the 90 mm portrait/macro lens! Nice to see the other offerings too, which should strengthen the brand and system quite a lot. The FE mount is still very young, so I think we have to wait a few more years until all needs are covered - compact lenses, bright lenses, long lenses, ultra wide primes, etc.
"The FE mount is still very young, so I think we have to wait a few more years until all needs are covered - compact lenses, bright lenses, long lenses, ultra wide primes, etc."
I only wish they have started with the compact lenses. We have already a plenty of systems with the larger lenses.
But even current size savings are noticeable. Not enough for me personally - but still a step in the right direction.
IMO Sony does not need many small lenses. Even a single walk-around pancake prime, say around f/3 - f/4 and ~40mm. Make the lens cheap and use it as a promo kit - and it would do a great deal to tilt the size perception of the whole FE system.
disraeli demon: Glad to see the μ4/3 lens stable continuing to expand. Before switching to mirrorless, I was using Nikon APS-C and was constantly disappointed by the lack of compact fast primes for that format. Four years on from switching, Nikon does have a 40mm macro for APS-C, but neither they nor Canon offer a 60mm f2 (i know there are "nifty fifties," but that extra 10mm does make a difference). Neither company has anything to match the range of fast wide-angle primes offered by μ4/3... Or Fuji...
> Why getting rude?
Because repeating the same stuff many many times doesn't make it true.
> Most won't be interested.
How could ever you know?
No manufacturer tried *ever* releasing such lenses.
Not everybody out there is a f-number nazi.
Considering the high ISO performance of the modern cameras, even f/4 primes should do fine for the most tasks. Some people just want a smaller package, with least possible compromises. Without shrinking the lenses, it is simply impossible.
@HFLM, so where is the equivalent 2.6/30mm for the DX - of the size/etc equivalent to Pana 1.7/20mm?? Why you equivalency trolls always spin only one way? I do not care about why the larger lens is "better" than the smaller lens. I want to have a *smaller* lens, equivalency be damned. DX system has no smaller lenses. While m43 has larger equivalent lenses. I have the cake - and I can eat it too. Samsung NX is pretty much the only APS-C system which has smaller primes - but sadly yet no camera body worth buying.
Interestingness: Sorry to hi-jack this post on what looks to be a wonderful mkII camera but this is relevant...
A recent post on Steve Huff's site will hopefully shut up some of these annoying Sony fanboi's. As a m4/3's user I'm really impressed with how the EM1 did and even as someone who will NEVER own a Sony branded cam, I have to say how disappointing the A7s did overall. If I dropped $2400.- (CDN pricing) on that thing I'd be rushing back for a full refund!
PS - The 1st person who comes up with a NOT-A-SONY sticker for my camera has a customer right here - shut up and take my money!
"A recent post on Steve Huff's site will hopefully shut up some of these annoying Sony fanboi's."
Well, here I would be considered a m43 fanboi, but the Steve's post is really so subjective that it is not funny.
Don't waste your time reading it, I can easily provide here a TL;DR version of his comparison: PanaLeica 25mm is a great lens; Oly colors rule; the end.
> Two lenses are almost the same sized.
That was pretty much my point: one of the largest primes on the m43, is about the same size as the smallest Nikon DX prime.
In the end, if DSLR lenses were as small, I probably wouldn't have "upgraded" to a mirrorless.
xpda: What will this offer that I don't already have with the Panasonic 45mm macro lens? (A serious question. Do I need both lenses?)
@xdpa, as macro goes, you would gain nothing. For macro lens, longer FL is an advantage.
The problem is, longer the FL of macro lens is, more expensive it is. The 30mm is an affordable native macro lens for m43.
Compare: the PL 45mm (in Germany) MSRP is 800€ (red dot and all), the Oly 60mm - 600€. The 30mm - 380€.
Though I dislike short macro lenses, I probably would get me the 30mm.
Fogsprig: Still wanna get Oly's 45mm, but Pana's macro addition looks promising.
But Pana 42.5 has smaller MFD, which makes it more versatile. Damm choices.
@nerd2: "[..] 35mm f1.8G DX, and 50mm 1.8g is compact enough for small bodies too. "
You have a very weird definition of "compact":
P.S. And note, I'm comparing one of the larger m43 cameras to the smallest Nikon DX.
nerd2: 85mm f3.5 portrait prime? Not interested at all.Oh and it's priced $399... you can get the excellent nikkor 85mm 1.8G at only $50 more.
2 inches of DOF? - ridiculous! Who needs the whole face in the focus?! Better grab the Nikkor - half inch of the DOF - that's how it supposed to be!
Gesture: Vanguard of the Micro Four-Thirds movement.
I only wish the grip was better.
I think Pana GX7 introduced a clever idea: make the camera longer. Increased body volume allows for stream-lines design, while the extra length serves provides a better grip.
Mike FL: As far as I can see, lot of people are interested to see the *usability* in the real world by themselves, first hands.
That could be Amazon's *nightmare* b/c 30 days returning window.
"That could be Amazon's *nightmare* b/c 30 days returning window."
Do you like buying the "open box" ware which costs the same as new?
Boss of Sony: Does this camera have anything over Sony a6000 apart from IBIS?
BoS: "Thanks. Pretty much everything except IQ and AF."
Well, IQ is equivalent to the 7D2 which any Canon fanboi would say is excellent. ;)
AF is generally faster on Oly and Panas. The only advantage of the A6000 is the AF-C. But AF-S is the same good old reluctant Sony AF. Also worth noting, that the current crop of the m43 camera focuses better in the low light.
Peter Del: I posted this request yesterday, but I must have forgotten to click on the 'Submit' button.Could a reviewer please take a few high res photos of trees, with the camera on a tripod, as I, and many others, would really like to see how the leaves looks on, say, an A3 print!.Thanks
> and not subject to even the slightest breeze
Oh my. Again. Page 7. Left bottom corner, the greenery around the white diagonal line.
There was an air movement in the studio, what caused some of the feathers to move during the HR shot.
Also, Robin Wong posted several "product shot" like images of the food. In one of the shots, the salad leave had moved during HR shot too. See for more here:http://robinwong.blogspot.de/2015/02/olympus-om-d-e-m5-mark-ii-review.html
lacikuss: I read at DXO that this camera can only resolve 9 MP with the most expensive olympus zoom and 12 MP with the best oly prime, why is that? BTW those best lenses are very expensive ones.
> why is that?
Because it is DXO test, and they do pretty horrid job at testing the m43 gear. (And as I heard, they also do pretty horrid job on some APS-C cameras too.)
The Oly and Pana pro zooms are able to deliver near pixel-level sharp images, which can be sometimes mistaken with the IQ of prime lenses.
The "preview" of the Hi-Res mode glitches (if that is what you are after) can be already seen in the studio scene. In the ISO 200 images, look at the green feathers in the left bottom corner.
AKH: IQ is not very good for such an expensive camera. Made me think of the images presented in a resent review here on Dpreview of the Fuji 16-55mm with the Fuji X-Pro1. Those images were in a completely different league.
"I see some people have claimed this over time but I have to see yet evidence of it."
Check RAW noise at high ISO of the current Sony sensors. Find any *ANY* trace of the noise in the Fuji RAWs at the same ISO. It must be there - because the sensor tech is the same. So where has it gone? The "evidence" is the absence of the "evidence".
ThePhilips: Oly shouldn't have left out the PDAF from the E-M5 mk2...
> LOL. That is a marketing motivation, not a real motivation.
So why say Sony A6000 is more popular in the market than e.g. Oly E-M10?
How Sony alone has managed to grab ~34% of the market, while combined m43 share is ~33%?
> maybe it's because I'm a technical person
What makes it hard for you to see past the technicalities. I'm also technical person, but with some experience in pre-sales.
"Marketing motivation" is there to with the "market". It doesn't matter if E-M10 in general focuses better than the A6000. What matters is the market perception that A6000 ticks more boxes on the spec sheet than the E-M10.
Fuji has PDAF. Sony has PDAF. Samsung has PDAF.
PDAF is needed because everybody else has it.
It's a plain marketing: the feature parity with the competitors.
After the release of entry-level Sony A5100 with the PDAF, the price argument is just ridiculous.