You have to remember, though, that the designs for m4/3 are like they're full frame counterparts x the crop factor. The Leica 25 is designed as a 50mm lens. It's pricey for a normal lens, but it's also frankly better than any f/1.4 AF normal I've ever used, so it's worth it. The 45/1.8 is similar in design to an 85/1.8, not a 45mm on full frame. The 75/1.8 is a medium telephoto, not a portrait length lens, and it will likely be priced as such. However, I think that pricing it in accordance with something like the Canon 200/2.8 would make a lot more sense than something truly outrageous.
I had a play with it at the CP+ show in Yokohama last week, then went back for a second look - along with a lot of other new toys like the D800 & 1DX. I wasn't the only one - there was at least a half-hour wait for the whole time the show was on.
Thanks for the hands-on report. My impression from watching videos of the new IBIS system in action is the same as yours: "Wow, freakish!" It's very stable even with a lot of movement. I'm really eager to see people test it and try to quantify just how good it is.
Good to hear about the EVF feeling natural. It needed a trick up its sleeve to beat the sheer spec impressiveness of the NEX 7's EVF, and I'd take a natural feel over a bit higher resolution any day. Did the E-M5 EVF do better pointed at low light/dark targets than the NEX 7? I've read that the NEX 7 isn't so hot in that area.
holgs wrote:
These 3 together weigh as much as my Canon 85mm f1.8, which isn't particularly big is one of the reasons I'm thinking of switching back to a 2 camera set-up for my travels.
That's why many of us are m4/3 users or considering it. I'm fine with my 5D and large L glass for paid gigs, but for my own use I love m4/3. With image quality improving, AF speed now blazing fast (except continuous AF, which remains to be see on the E-M5), and a rapidly growing lens selection, the promise of a much smaller and lighter kit is becoming a very enticing proposition for many.
Jman13 wrote:
You have to remember, though, that the designs for m4/3 are like they're full frame counterparts x the crop factor. The Leica 25 is designed as a 50mm lens. It's pricey for a normal lens, but it's also frankly better than any f/1.4 AF normal I've ever used, so it's worth it. The 45/1.8 is similar in design to an 85/1.8, not a 45mm on full frame. The 75/1.8 is a medium telephoto, not a portrait length lens, and it will likely be priced as such. However, I think that pricing it in accordance with something like the Canon 200/2.8 would make a lot more sense than something truly outrageous. ...Show more →
Can you elaborate a bit more? So you're saying the Leica 25mm is somehow designed similarly to a 50mm for FF? I don't understand how that could be. Are you talking in terms of how much it has to bend light to achieve full sensor coverage? I guess I can see that. But wouldn't the fact that it only needs to cover a 2x crop sensor come into play in terms of how much glass is needed compared to a FF lens?
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Good to hear about the EVF feeling natural. It needed a trick up its sleeve to beat the sheer spec impressiveness of the NEX 7's EVF, and I'd take a natural feel over a bit higher resolution any day. Did the E-M5 EVF do better pointed at low light/dark targets than the NEX 7? I've read that the NEX 7 isn't so hot in that area.
I didn't try the same thing with the NEX 7 yet - there's plenty of them floating around in Tokyo so maybe I should. The thing is that its impossible to properly compare things when you don't have the 2 cameras side by side, and in any case that it looks good indoors doesn't mean it still will under natural light.
I like both cameras, but the strengths are in different areas. Finally we're at least seeing a range of unique products that don't just copy each other!
I'm talking about the formula, not that they'll be the same size elements or anything. Designing a 25mm lens for full frame is designing a very wide angle lens...you need to accuratelly bend light from a much wider angle. Designing a 25mm lens for m4/3 is similar to designing a 50mm lens for full frame...same angle of view, same basic design principles.
The only real difference comes at the wide end, where it is generally easier to design a 12mm lens for m4/3 than to design a 24mm lens for full frame simply because the register distance is so close, and so different optical designs are possible (why wide angle designs for rangefinders are also different than wide angle designs for SLRs.
Sam tran wrote:
I paid $395 from B&H, and on GF1, it's pretty impressive, which it's a reason why I also interested in OM-D and willing to wait for few more months, rather than get the GF1's replacement GX1 now.
I had a play with it at the CP+ show in Yokohama last week, then went back for a second look - along with a lot of other new toys like the D800 & 1DX. I wasn't the only one - there was at least a half-hour wait for the whole time the show was on.
I had a play with it at the CP+ show in Yokohama last week, then went back for a second look - along with a lot of other new toys like the D800 & 1DX. I wasn't the only one - there was at least a half-hour wait for the whole time the show was on.
Thank you holgs, just finished reading your review and enjoyed it. Loved when you said, "The worst thing about picking up this camera is having to put it down again." You then mentioned "even using it with an adapter and a large lens such as the four-thirds mount 50-200mm SWD doesn't seem out of place." This is a lens I would definitely consider should AF be halfway decent and I could easily manually adjust when necessary It sounds like this was exactly your experience with this system
In regards to the EVF, I really like that you said "Its so good that you forget that you're not using an optical finder." This is important to me because that has been my hesitancy with EVF's and why I never got one for the E-P3, I want my VF experience to be more natural so I really hope this plays out as you said. And while I haven't used the magnified view setting on my E-P3 for manual focus, I will look forward to that on the E-M5.
I can't wait to get my E-M5 and begin to play, thanks again.
My biggest concern with the EVF on the E-M5 is size. One of the major advantages of EVF's for me is that they allow the use of crop sensors with viewfinders of equivalent size to a 35mm FF finder. The E-M5's EVF however is not nearly that large, with an equivalent magnification of approximately 0.58x at 100%, vs the 0.7x of my 5N's EVF (the Panasonics are similarly sized to the Sonys). Resolution and smoothness are concerns but the small size is a major turn-off for me since the finder remains APS-C sized.
mawz wrote:
My biggest concern with the EVF on the E-M5 is size. One of the major advantages of EVF's for me is that they allow the use of crop sensors with viewfinders of equivalent size to a 35mm FF finder. The E-M5's EVF however is not nearly that large, with an equivalent magnification of approximately 0.58x at 100%, vs the 0.7x of my 5N's EVF (the Panasonics are similarly sized to the Sonys). Resolution and smoothness are concerns but the small size is a major turn-off for me since the finder remains APS-C sized.
Mawz, I'm concerned about the size too, but I'm going to reserve judgement until I put it up to my eye. I'm hoping that in the end I won't be bothered too much by the size, but we'll see.
Yep, although it struck me as by someone who is relatively unused to shooting with EVF's. The E-M5 EVF is significantly smaller than the 5D's OVF, the NEX-7's is about the same size as the 5D's OVF.
It sounds like Oly has done a good job of improving the main weakness of EVF's, the lag, but compromised it by using an APS-C-sized unit rather than the larger displays that Panasonic and Sony are using. Note they made the same choice with the clip-on unit they produced for the Pens as well.
As everyone knows, digital bodies come and go... and become essentially worthless other than the use we have gotten out of them. The lenses will stay and still be worth something as long as Panasonic stays the course and is producing nice m43 bodies. The way I look at it, if Oly goes under, I will stick with my Oly bodies as long as I can and then just buy a Panasonic body if I need to.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
In their current position it's more realistic that an other company buy their camera business. Which is a small part of the company but making the huge loss. Partner ship is not that realistic. Only if the other company is very small or weak
And if they stay as they are today. Do they have the money to invest in new bodies/lenses ? I would worry investing my money in a new Oly system or camera
Some new videos (at least for me) watch the first five I think, all about the OM-D. The one showing 5-axis IS while walking is pretty slick, I'm often doing videos and moving around and I get the jerkiness of my movement, if this 5-axis IS can truly perform that level of adjustment while the camera holder is walking and taking video, well, that is pretty slick!
Again, there are I think five videos it will begin to go through:
&list=UUDp156hKCqYB6bgt9lHVfEQ&index=1&feature=plcp
mawz wrote:
Yep, although it struck me as by someone who is relatively unused to shooting with EVF's. The E-M5 EVF is significantly smaller than the 5D's OVF, the NEX-7's is about the same size as the 5D's OVF.
It sounds like Oly has done a good job of improving the main weakness of EVF's, the lag, but compromised it by using an APS-C-sized unit rather than the larger displays that Panasonic and Sony are using. Note they made the same choice with the clip-on unit they produced for the Pens as well.
Informal EVF comparisons also need to be taken with a grain of salt, because, often, users will use them in varying light conditions, which can make one EVF seem better than another.
The E-M5, 12/2, 25/1.4, and 45/1.8 (or 2.8 Macro) look like they would make a sweet set up. I just wish Oly or Panny would concentrate on making a kick-ass 17mm.
You then mentioned "even using it with an adapter and a large lens such as the four-thirds mount 50-200mm SWD doesn't seem out of place." This is a lens I would definitely consider should AF be halfway decent and I could easily manually adjust when necessary