 |  |  |  |  |  |
| PA020047.Bald Eagle Approach.2 by Hornsbee from BIF | The king of the mountain by Dan Paris from Landscape with Wildlife | Couples' oh No moment! by mythshri from Seated Couples | Big eyes by Minas_Eye from Eye - macro/close-up | Bon appetit! by valenttin from Van een mug een olifant maken | THREE BOWLER HATS by FINEART4YPvK from Men Wearing Hats |
RolliPoli: How come when Pentax issues an APS-C camera it is proof of a doomed design and marketing strategy but when Fuji pops out another APS-C body with a fake SLR prism hump its a great achievement, surrounded by rainbows and prancing unicorns? ...Just thought someone should ask.
Because it isn't a fake prism hump. It's an authentic EVF hump - styled traditionally.
Gray Harman: With a flange distance 2mm less than Sony E (16 vs 18mm), and a much larger diameter mount, we should see some E -> Z mount adapters come to market. For manual focus, I'd expect no more than 6 months til' market. But if a company then cracks E -> Z autofocus, whoa! The ability to take on Sony's entire first party and third party E-mount lens catalog would be a real game changing feature, to surpass any of the currently known features of the Z cameras.
The critical point there is that the flange distance is less than or equal to Sony. But honestly, that's not the sticking point. What's going to make or break the ability to adapt E -> Z is whether someone can engineer a mount within a mount. If the mount diameters were similar, the answer to that question would certainly be no. But that Z mount is so much wider than an E mount, which was originally designed for APS-C, that I think it is possible.
left eye: There's only one big real issue here, one card slot.
If you are a pro (a main intended market for this camera?), many shoots are unrepeatable, and/or cost 10's of k. Not many memory cards fail, but some do, or your assistant drops a card down a crack in the floor, etc. *All* pro's I know either shoot tethered or record to two cards simultaneously.
You really don't want to say to a crew 'we need to re-shoot that day again' (due to a card failing or getting lost), when people have already left on planes, etc. If you haven't worked like this before you might not realise the full significance and cost of a re-shoot.
For enthusiast photographers 'one slot' is not a deal breaker, for a pro it is.
Surely 2 card slots would have been on the 'required list' from day one. A humongous oversight.
End of.
@ Red G8R - Just because pros at one point in time were forced to manage with having no film back-up, that in no way discounts the advantages of having data back-up currently. Film did get lost or damaged, leading to the exact same issues as having no back-up slot today. The Z-system is moving backwards away from a clear modern-day advance in professional photography. The exact same criticism was levied against Sony up until the gen-3 alpha cameras, with equal validity.
Professional photographers, for many decades, also made do without autofocus. But no one's claiming that a pro camera at this point in time would be acceptable without a highly advanced autofocus system. Progress matters.
With a flange distance 2mm less than Sony E (16 vs 18mm), and a much larger diameter mount, we should see some E -> Z mount adapters come to market. For manual focus, I'd expect no more than 6 months til' market. But if a company then cracks E -> Z autofocus, whoa! The ability to take on Sony's entire first party and third party E-mount lens catalog would be a real game changing feature, to surpass any of the currently known features of the Z cameras.
Gray Harman: I'm super pumped about that 10-18 zoom. If it's optically as good as other recent Laowa lenses, then it will be a big hit with hiking landscape photographers in particular. Much lighter and smaller than the Sony 12-24, and wider to boot.
@ Brianroger - Yeah, that was a typo. It should have been in millimeters, not centimeters. The spec sheet has it right, and the conversion is a little under 4 inches as you said.
I'm super pumped about that 10-18 zoom. If it's optically as good as other recent Laowa lenses, then it will be a big hit with hiking landscape photographers in particular. Much lighter and smaller than the Sony 12-24, and wider to boot.
T3: There is no "Sony FE mount". It's Sony E mount. Yes these are FF lenses, but these lenses can be used on both Sony APS-C and FF cameras. Stating that it's "Sony FE mount" seems to imply that these lenses can only be used on Sony FF mirrorless bodies. I'm sure there will be plenty of users who will be using these lenses on their Sony APS-C mirrorless bodies.
While you're technically correct, this is still a useful distinction. Technically it should be called an FE lens, not an FE mount lens. Still, the F in FE is very handy, and is analogous to the difference between F and G lenses in Nikon. If you know your topic, then then the F vs G designator tells you about an important feature of the lens. Likewise the FE vs E is important, although, yes, it should refer to the lens and not the mount.
MikeTakesPictures: Reading these comments, I feel like a body builder. I already walk around with a 70-200 F/2.8L mounted on a 6D/5D and have to use it hand-held for hours at a time for the events I shoot.
And nobody is talking about while it weighs as much as a 70-200 f/2.8, this lens will give me TWO WHOLE STOPS more light into my sensor! Personally I cannot wait to try this lens and get the advantage faster shutter speeds and lower ISOs.
@ sts2 - I think you'll get the answer to your question when the MSRP is announced.
Billy Chiu: why is this so much heavier than the Nikon 105 1.4?
1645g vs 985g
1 lb
Across the entire ART line, Sigma has given up size minimization as a design priority. That allows them to provide optical quality and features comparable to top OEM lenses, while still severely undercutting the OEM price. Something's gotta give if they're going to provide competitive lenses at lower prices. And Sigma decided that size was what could give, without hurting sales too much. From what I can see, it seems like they made a good bet. I'm a Loxia guy, so these aren't for me. But these will certainly sell well.
alextardif: Queue in the usual nonsense:
- No AF - oh no!
- Only F2.4 - why, why soooo slow???
- 52mm front thread - Zeiss backed themselves into a corner!
- There's already Batis 25 - we don't need another 25!
- Too close to 21mm Loxia... booo!
- Wish it was 15mm, 28mm, XXmm... - this 25mm is not for me!
- It's SOOOO big and heavy, should be 100gm and a pancake since it's mirrorless - what is Zeiss thinking!
All while 99% haven't ever touched any of the Loxias, let alone tried using one.
I liked your post. But I'm still in the "too close to 21mm Loxia" camp. I was really hoping for a 15mm, and this will be the first Loxia that I skip. I'm sure it will be an amazing lens. But with the 21mm already in the stable, there's just not enough separation to justify this one.
Does anyone have any real-world information on the level of weather sealing for the G9? The EM-I MKII has been thoroughly soaked, without damage, in countless reviews and online tests. But I haven't seen the same for the G9. Does anyone have any 3rd party test data, formal or informal, to show that the G9's up to that standard?
dbateman: What a useless test chart. This cannot be compared to anything. Why did dpreview switch to the Leica 42.5mm f1.2 lens, where previously the olympus 45mm lens was used.
Now we cant compare within the system. If your going to switch lenses, you will need to reshoot all the other M43rds cameras with the same len.
Ideally it would be good to use the exact dame lens on all camera tests. I vote for buying an Adaptall 90mm f2.8 and shoot it on everything.
Actual numeric DXO data supports Androole, and not EwanMC:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-V-versus-Nikon-D500___1136_1128_1061
ewelch: So, battery life, check.
Now for Sony to wake up and embrace weather sealing!
Hurry up Sony, before Panasonic or Olympus go full frame and make you look aged and slow.
It would make much more sense for Panasonic or Olympus, if they ever expand to larger-sensor cameras, to go into crop-medium format. Then they'd be maintaining their current competitive niche with Fuji, while avoiding getting crushed by the full frame big three. There's no realistic business upside to trying to take on CaNikony.
Rensol: Dead end road for MFT
And yes Oly and Panas know that so they crank up prices to get the max out of remaining buyers.
I had EVERY OLY model up till E-M1 (original). It all started with small cameras. There were very nice and quite bit advanced (for their time) E-PM2, etc.. Small and fast. Sony cameras (at a time) did not come close to AF speed, usability, etc.. And those cameras were affordable.
Olympus sales rep. told me they are NOT aiming at Pros or semi-pros who are after quality.
They are sort of after those who like good enough quality and like camera handling, etc..
You can draw parallels between Oly and Panas. While GH5 has its full appeal for Video these "still" oriented cameras are SIMPLY WAY overpriced! E-M1 II, G9, etc...
I asked this Oly guy last week (at the local camera store) give me a reason why should I trade my Sony A7II for E-M1 II?
He honestly told me there are no reasons to do so. And this guy shoots Nikon D750.
Need we say more?
"oh no! That's simply not true. Sometime, when it is used properly, the large aperture can create a sense of great isolation. You will never get the same quality of blurred background with the same equivalent FF focal length using a MFT sensor."
moimoi - You're not saying anything at all that contradicts my own comments. Yes, at a distance, fast full frame lenses are great for producing better subject isolation via thinner DOF. I never denied that. All I said was that, up close, fast FF lenses tend to have DOF when wide open that is TOO thin, and require stopping down to achieve subjects being completely in focus.
However, if I'm being slightly pedantic, the "quality" of the blurred background (bokeh) is completely independent of the sensor size. That's all down to lens design. The "quantity" of blur is what's directly related to depth of field (DOF), and is all that is related to sensor size. You can have razor thin DOF, with lots of blur, that still amounts to plain ugly bokeh.
Rensol: Dead end road for MFT
And yes Oly and Panas know that so they crank up prices to get the max out of remaining buyers.
I had EVERY OLY model up till E-M1 (original). It all started with small cameras. There were very nice and quite bit advanced (for their time) E-PM2, etc.. Small and fast. Sony cameras (at a time) did not come close to AF speed, usability, etc.. And those cameras were affordable.
Olympus sales rep. told me they are NOT aiming at Pros or semi-pros who are after quality.
They are sort of after those who like good enough quality and like camera handling, etc..
You can draw parallels between Oly and Panas. While GH5 has its full appeal for Video these "still" oriented cameras are SIMPLY WAY overpriced! E-M1 II, G9, etc...
I asked this Oly guy last week (at the local camera store) give me a reason why should I trade my Sony A7II for E-M1 II?
He honestly told me there are no reasons to do so. And this guy shoots Nikon D750.
Need we say more?
"What about lenses?"
"Equivalent" f/stop only matters for DOF. A f/1.4 on m4/3 is a true f/1.4 lens. It just renders DOF to a full frame f/2.8. I don't know why this matters so much to people. I frequently shoot portraits with the (FF) Loxia 85/f2.4, a relatively slow 85. Regardless, unless the subject's face is parallel to the camera sensor, I need to stop down to get both eyes in focus. So that m4/3 lens is actually BETTER than an "equivalent" full frame lens in a lot of cases, because you can shoot wide open without having the amateurish too-thin DOF look. Most fast FF lenses are virtually unusable at close distances wide open, because the DOF is just too thin.
Plus, optical quality and rendering on the high end m4/3 tends to be more comparable to FF lenses that are easily twice the price. I'll take the rendering on my Oly 75 f/1.8 over my Loxia 85, any day of the week. And it is "count the pores sharp", for less than $800; just over 1/2 the price of the Loxia.
Rensol: Dead end road for MFT
And yes Oly and Panas know that so they crank up prices to get the max out of remaining buyers.
I had EVERY OLY model up till E-M1 (original). It all started with small cameras. There were very nice and quite bit advanced (for their time) E-PM2, etc.. Small and fast. Sony cameras (at a time) did not come close to AF speed, usability, etc.. And those cameras were affordable.
Olympus sales rep. told me they are NOT aiming at Pros or semi-pros who are after quality.
They are sort of after those who like good enough quality and like camera handling, etc..
You can draw parallels between Oly and Panas. While GH5 has its full appeal for Video these "still" oriented cameras are SIMPLY WAY overpriced! E-M1 II, G9, etc...
I asked this Oly guy last week (at the local camera store) give me a reason why should I trade my Sony A7II for E-M1 II?
He honestly told me there are no reasons to do so. And this guy shoots Nikon D750.
Need we say more?
The image quality for m4/3, for all but a very small niche of professional uses, is more than adequate. Will m4/3 IQ ever be equal to larger sensors with same-generation tech? No. But it is almost always "good enough." But where m4/3 smokes the competition is in feature sets. Yes, you can buy a full frame camera for $1700. But you'd have to spend well over $4000 to buy a full frame camera that matches this list of features. For over twice the price, a difference in IQ that is negligible under most real world conditions is a very poor reason to buy something besides this. Full frame appeals more to egos than rational thought processes. The exceptions generally just prove the rule.
Rensol: Dead end road for MFT
And yes Oly and Panas know that so they crank up prices to get the max out of remaining buyers.
I had EVERY OLY model up till E-M1 (original). It all started with small cameras. There were very nice and quite bit advanced (for their time) E-PM2, etc.. Small and fast. Sony cameras (at a time) did not come close to AF speed, usability, etc.. And those cameras were affordable.
Olympus sales rep. told me they are NOT aiming at Pros or semi-pros who are after quality.
They are sort of after those who like good enough quality and like camera handling, etc..
You can draw parallels between Oly and Panas. While GH5 has its full appeal for Video these "still" oriented cameras are SIMPLY WAY overpriced! E-M1 II, G9, etc...
I asked this Oly guy last week (at the local camera store) give me a reason why should I trade my Sony A7II for E-M1 II?
He honestly told me there are no reasons to do so. And this guy shoots Nikon D750.
Need we say more?
Yeah, we can say that your sales rep doesn't understand m4/3, how good their IQ is, or how well their features-to-price ratio outmatches anything in the full frame market.
Anyone who doesn't know how an E-M1 II is better than an A7II (in EVERYTHING other than IQ), is someone I wouldn't trust for advice on cameras.
keepreal: When a flyweight takes on the heavy weights, a camera needs some quality features and this camera certainly seems to have some. Except that the G9 is middleweight with a flyweight sized sensor.
Sergey Borachev below says this is a camera that is not too heavy or expensive. Compared with my Nikon D610, the Panasonic Lumix G9 is 4mm shorter, 16mm less tall, 10mm thicker and 192g, a fair amount lighter. Given that it has advanced features that mine does not have, that's not bad until you take into account that the sensor has only 26% of the area of full frame and about 52% of APS-C.
IMO that makes the most advanced MFT cameras ridiculous. They are fairly big and quite heavy. So you have a choice of full frame or APS-C with either OVF or EVF - if you like EVF and mirrorless with a moderate amount less bulk and weight - or MFT if you have been brainwashed into a platform that started out sensibly enough but now at the top of the range has been designed for those with MFT sized brains.
Keepreal - what makes you a troll is saying that this camera is, "designed for those with MFT sized brains." There's really no other way to describe such an asinine statement. It's a preemptive insult to a huge percentage of the people who clicked on the article. That has nothing to do with bigotry, a word which it appears you don't even understand the definition of. It just makes you a troll. Furthermore, all the comments and posted photos in the world wouldn't amount to your original post having a valid point.
keepreal: When a flyweight takes on the heavy weights, a camera needs some quality features and this camera certainly seems to have some. Except that the G9 is middleweight with a flyweight sized sensor.
Sergey Borachev below says this is a camera that is not too heavy or expensive. Compared with my Nikon D610, the Panasonic Lumix G9 is 4mm shorter, 16mm less tall, 10mm thicker and 192g, a fair amount lighter. Given that it has advanced features that mine does not have, that's not bad until you take into account that the sensor has only 26% of the area of full frame and about 52% of APS-C.
IMO that makes the most advanced MFT cameras ridiculous. They are fairly big and quite heavy. So you have a choice of full frame or APS-C with either OVF or EVF - if you like EVF and mirrorless with a moderate amount less bulk and weight - or MFT if you have been brainwashed into a platform that started out sensibly enough but now at the top of the range has been designed for those with MFT sized brains.
You clearly have NO experience with m4/3 cameras, and are clearly in troll territory. For anyone other than someone who shoots in very low light conditions, or needs very high resolution, this camera, and its tiny sensor has more than enough image quality. The proper comparison is a Nikon D5, at 1/3 the price and 1/2 the weight, with the downside being only "good enough" image quality. If that's not an acceptable tradeoff, then someone does indeed have an MFT sized brain.
LDunn1: “I’m not suggesting that other companies haven’t innovated” cough cough canon cough cough.
"In fact, Canon has innovated quite a bit. In a few short years it has built its entire Cinema EOS line from the ground up, including multiple cameras and some very good cinema lenses. That represents a lot of resources as well as risk, and I give Canon credit for it."
How is playing catch-up to Sony, and doing it rather poorly, considered innovation? In terms of IQ or features, there's absolutely nothing about the EOS line that matches what Sony has already done. I'm pretty sure that innovation means doing something that no other company has done before. It's not just making an inferior version of a competitor's product, that's new for your company.