StevenE: It's not small enough to be more convenient than my 5DIII, and if you want any shallow DOF you need at least an f/1.4 lens. Aperture f/2.8 is often sufficient on the FF, which can be beautifully thin at f/1.4.
So what use does this m4/3 serve? I would still have to bring the FF to get shallow DOF and low light performance, and I still don't get compact size. I could see m4/3 IF the package was pocketable, but I'd probably still head to the Sony A7, or one of the Fuji APS-C cameras for that.
Can't see the purpose in this one.
The advantages of FF will and continue to be about that shrinking, but important margin at the edge of photography. If you live in that fringe (extreme low light, fast-moving sports, extremely thin DOF), especially if you make your living there, it will be worth the size, weight and $$. For the remaining 90% ... wait, 95% ... no, 97% ... smaller formats will be capable and will have size/weight and cost advantages.
The 6D is at/near the top in low-light photography, so for that purpose it has its advantages. But, it also has less DR at low ISO's than even the E-M5. The D600/610 have extreme DR at low ISO (two stop better than the 6D), but not nearly the advantage at high ISOs. Go back even one generation in FF (e.g., 5D MkII) and the advantages are considerably less. I was shooting candid portraits with the Olympus 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 this weekend and several times f/1.8 resulted in too thin DOF. No system does it all and ideally we'dl have both. Budgets often force a choice.
goshigoo: From Dof prespective; it will act like 85 f/2.4 on 35mm FF
a 6D + 85 f/1.8 will have shallower DofAlso, IQ wise, 6D + 85 f/1.8 @ f/2.4 could be better than this lens
35mm FF still has it's value when shallow Dof is needed
@joejack951: what you're seeing is not necessarily the lens. DxOMark will tell you that you can't compare lenses by ratings on different camera bodies. For example, that same 85/1.4 drops to a 28 (from 40 on the D600/D800) when you select tested on D700, 25 on D7000 and 22 on a D5000. The Oly 75/1.8 is 23 on a GH2, but 27 on am E-M5. The sensor plays a role in the equation. The lens itself may be just as good. I'm pretty sure that the 75/1.8 on the E-M5 being about as good as the 85/1.8 on a D700 is sufficient for even professional portrait work.
MPA1: Not fast enough for me. I never buy anything slower than f2.8.
f/2.8 is fast on any system. What it is not as much on m4/3 is shallow. DOF, not brightness, is affected by crop factor.
zinedi: Inceribly slow glass for such small sensor.
Perhaps it's because too many "photographers" simply post images online these days, but nobody considers print sizes (and specifically their aspect ratios) when discussing equivalence (or crop factor.) I like to print 8x10 and 11x14 images a lot. Using those aspect ratios (both of which are squarer even than m4/3), the effective crop factor (ratio of diagonal of sensor area actually used) between a Canon APS-C and m4/3 is just 1.14x. That makes this equivalent (in FOV and DOF) to a 16-160mm f/4-6.3 on a Canon APS-C. On a Nikon (or Sony, etc.) APS-C, it's a little worse, being equivalent to a 17-170mm f/4.2-6.8, but still not particularly bad. Now, if you prefer 11x17 (or obviously 4x6) or some other more rectangular format, then that changes (GH2's multi-aspect ratio sensor helps there.) Without knowing the end use, it's hard to compare native 2:3 images with native 3:4 images.
optongo525: I am sure some people will like this, but Cannon missed the point: with digital sensor technology, the extra reflection optics will be obsolete like the film. How small can you make those mirrors? Certainly not smaller than the sensor. Mirrorless is definitely the way to go. Look at Kodak and Fujifilm, be careful Cannon (and Nikon).
"As soon as sensor-based AF becomes as reliable and fast as phase AF" ... for tracking focus. Contrast detection auto focus in some mirrorless systems is already faster and more reliable otherwise. Admittedly, still an advantage in some cases (sports being the biggest), but it's not like CDAF is behind in every way.
AV Janus: 5 axis for video 3 axis for stills. -is that the same as OMD?I don't remember them ever making that statement for E-M5.
Nope. OM-D is a fully mechanical 5-axis system that works in stills and video, while this is (credit given in post below) a traditional 3-axis mechanical system with 2 additional axis added via software during video only.
Sergey Borachev: Nice to see 5-axis IS used also on other cameras, this Olympus and also the Panasonic DMC-ZS30.
It's interesting to see that a hump is not needed, something previously said to be required to house the IS in an elevated position. I hope the hum is also gone.
Credit to user Elavon at mu-43.com:
"From description in the article it looks that they have implemented additional 2 axis via software manipulation on the sensor during video recording.
They just ride the OMD 5 axis for the marketing hype. This is a traditional 3 axis with a video twist unlike the OMD which is an expensive real 5 axis implementation."
SunnyFlorida: The Nikkor 35mm F/1.8 sells for $180, the 35mm F/2.0d sells for $270 and can be used in 2 formats, Oly is asking $500 for this???
"non-mirrorless" ... awesome! I'm off to eat some non-fat-free potato chips and drinks some non-sugarless soda. ;-)
thaiqchau: I said 'all the rest is superb' forgetting to mention this horrible orange ring surrouding the lens attachment on a camera of this class.
It's not horrible orange, it's stylish copper! ;-)
liukaitc: do not worry. the price will dropjust look at 12-35 f2.8. already $200 price deduction. now it is $1100 from 1300 at begining.company know the price is a bit high.
It's not competitors; it's the saturation of the relatively small high willingness to pay, early adopter market. Once those who either really need the lens or have disposable income and like to be first to have the new toys purchase the lens, the price drops to the next level of purchasers' price point.
I've early adopted far too much in m4/3, so now I'm waiting before buying. I said from the start that I'd consider the 12-35mm (replacing several other lenses) once it dropped below $1000. It's getting close.
TheEye: At that price, this lens should be one stop faster.
While still less, $600 17 years ago is equivalent to roughly $900 now (after adjusting for inflation.) You're also talking about a third-party lens vs. an OEM one. Plus, the 35-100mm f/2.8 is brand new and, thus, selling at list price. Was the Tamron? This lens will be $200-$300 cheaper before next Summer (12-35mm is already $200 cheaper.)
Cy Cheze: Interesting specs and control features. Price should not be an issue for people who absolutely need the high bitrate video codecs and so on. After all, the cost of the camera is only a wee, tiny, itty-bitty, puny fraction of the cost of the promotional videos now appearing.
However, for non-olympians who grovel below the fabled heights, have bills to pay, and haven't the time, budget, or considerable array of complementary equipment for commercial productions, none of the extras are worth the cost or trouble. Uncompressed live video capture is about as sensible for the hobbyist or prosumer as spending a comparable sum to have an arc welding machine in the home garage, Formula 1 tires on the Camry.
However, to read about the GH3 has a salutory sobering effect. Suddenly, one realizes that there are simple, saner alternatives. It will also be good if the passion of some to "upgrade" prompts low prices for second-hand or new GH2s, GX1s, G5s, and other fine brands and models.
Just have to say that your second paragraph is both funny and poetic. I don't often say this about random comments, but very well written!
forpetessake: Do you find something unorthodox about this picture? Should professional photographers know better than showing "'double posterior" to the viewer: http://www.lumixlifestyle.co.uk/london-2012/photos-of-the-day/day-3-30th-july/show-jumping-at-greenwich-park/#galleryimage
See, now imagine how much more isolated those double rears would have been on a FF shot. Aren't you glad he used m4/3 now? ;-)
(Note: since he use f/4.6 on a f/2.8 max lens, he actually chose not to isolate them as much. Just trying to be funny above.)
MDwebpro: Product sales is all about marketing and advertising.
The intended point of this exercise is not "swaying other pros," but to send a message to serious amateurs: "These are the kind of shots that are possible with this camera. Buy one and you, too, might produce photos like these."
I suspect a TV commercial and magazine ad campaign featuring Dean is also in the works.
Forpetessake, the G5 and OM-D are not comparable cameras, nor are they priced as such (roughly 30% lower for G5.) The upcoming GH3 will be more comparable to the OM-D (though, it will likely have higher spec video capabilities, too.)
mpgxsvcd: Looks like he is carrying the unreleased 35-100m F2.8 as well. This is the lens that makes m4/3s a legitimate professional camera system.
Focal Length: 89mm ISO: 160 Aperture: f/2.8 Exposure: 1/3200sec
"As far as I've seen majority of professionals used Canon 70-200/2.8L, and that one is the real deal, not the dim and inferior quality Panasonic lens."
Dim? You do know that crop factor only affects the DOF, not the brightness. In other words, if you took the same picture with a Canon 5D + 70-200/2.8 and with a Panasonic G5 + 35-100mm/2.8, the images would be equally bright, but a little more depth would be in focus on the latter. Fast lenses on 4/3 are just as good for low light as they are on APS-C or FF, but it is more difficult to isolate the subject.
Two additional comments:
1) I don't care for the composition of many of his shots.
2) Comparing 100% crops, the noise seen in the jpegs on the website is at least a stop worse than what I find in my own shots (generally, OOC jpegs, unless I want to do a lot of post) with my GX1 and I set NR all the way down (-2). Any other m4/3 users seeing the same?
57even: The irony is that sporting events are possibly the ONE place where so called "pro" gear (D4, IDx) actually DOES make a lot of sense. High ISO (hence fast shutter), high burst rate, subject tracking, fast tele lenses etc.
Sports photography is fiercely competitive so photographers want to level the playing field as far as possible. Ten years ago that may have meant a D30, but then expectations were lower too. A lot lower.
Is a DSLR still a prerequisite for professional work in every area? No, and it never was. Will mirrorless cameras catch up for professional sports work? One day perhaps - when lag-free EVFs and on-sensor PDAF have caught up. But today? Right now? Emphatically not.
Of course that does not mean you can't get a very decent shot or two with a G5, but when your livelihood is depending on it....?
I'm a m4/3 user and I completely agree with this.
Mirrorless cameras in general and m4/3 in particular are newer, growing systems that are constantly evolving. DSLRs, too, are evolving, but at a slower rate. Thus, the gap is closing (especially, if you compare with APS-C DSLRs.)
That said, there are, and will likely continue to be for some time, areas in which the gap is most pronounced. Sports/action shooting is probably the most severe of these areas.
Of course, a professional photographer, whose livelihood depends on selling his/her photos, is going to choose the best system, even if the difference is not huge. And, of course, a FF system is going to be that better system (if not, why put up with the extra money and weight?) For the rest of us with smaller budgets and less willingness to lug around a heavy kit, m4/3 can show itself to be a viable choice, producing very good image quality in most situations.
I recently purchased a used 14-42mm PZ from another member over at mu-43, who had verified that the copy did not suffer from the double image problem. Once I received it, I double checked by shooting some quick shots at 42mm and 1/60-1/200 shutter speeds. No problems.
Next, I set up a tripod and ran some comparison shots with the standard Panny 14-42mm and the older 14-45mm. The PZ was on par with the 14-45mm for sharpness, while both were noticeably better than the standard 14-42mm. There was plenty of detail in the image, including text, so it was a pretty good measure. However, I would like to repeat with a little more detail near the corners, as I suspect the 14-45mm may win out there (though, what detail there was looked comparable with the two in my test shots.)
I definitely wouldn't say that the 14-42mm PZ should be purchased over the 14-45mm for image quality purposes alone, but it is a better choice for situations that require compact carrying (e.g., when traveling.)