SRHEdD: I don't get all the hoopla. When my F2 got dirty, I stripped it and cleaned it. After a couple of weeks of spring training, the F3/F4/F5s all got stripped and cleaned. I understand these digital cameras are a lot more complex, but when my D600 got dust in the corners, just like the sample photo, I cleaned it. I don't care to memorize my camera's serial number so I can stay up-to-date on service advisories. Don't care if it was made in March or October. It works great, it gets dirty, I clean it. I'm careful when I clean it, no issues. Unless you never change lenses, its gonna happen. More than some other camera? So? I'll still take it over any competing camera without the "issue". The one important thing I've learned over many, many Nikon bodies is that the refurbs seem to be better functioning. Having a tech take the time to check it out yields a better camera than an assembly line. Maybe it is just urban legend, but the best bodies I've had happened to also be refurbs.
So you have trouble imagining not everyone is comfortable, or capable of "stripping a camera and cleaning it"? And the real "hoopla" is the bigger picture of Nikon's inadequate service, relative to competitors. It has nothing at all to do with how easy or hard it is for the customer to fix a defect. The point is, in some cameras, this defect exists.
Speculating is nice, and fun, but how about just renting the camera for a few days and do your own type of shooting? I have successfully avoided unnecessary purchases this way..As someone mentioned, all the cameras are so good now. Lots of choices, be happy.
slncezgsi: Way to go, Olympus.
I believe that both of these lenses will be much appreciated by the users. And no - none of these are sub $500 lenses.
I guess it is going to be a LOT easier to carry around a 150/2.8 than 300/2.8 (for FX). And probably cheaper too. Also much lighter tripod will be needed to hold the combo (should it be needed).
Releasing these lenses tells me that Olympus is confident that m4/3 will keep growing and attracting pro shooters - these are not lenses an average mirrorless shooter (no offense to anybody) would need/buy. There must be enough of those who would consider m4/3 over DSRL (APSc or FX) for serious work.
m4/3 is on the right track and in my opinion a very welcomed alternative to FX DSLRs (please notice: I am saying alternative, not a replacement)
@ equivalence snobs- yes, lets compare apples to oranges. For example, you fail to mention the f/2.8 lens from (insert any format here) will have two stops better shutter speed (or two stops lower ISO, take your pic) at a given exposure at max aperture. Please stop just looking at one aspect of "equivalence".
This could also be called "Countdown to Blindness"!
I think people whining about theory and suppositions should take a look at the samples. Very good IMO, and I just picked up a D600. I think the chroma noise is much better controlled on the 6D at least from these samples. The studio shot samples have controlled lighting, which helps control noise, but even the shadow noise is very low.