dasrocket wrote:
I am no following your logic. Is there a reason one would not?
I would think a good IQ m43 body, with some good glass and radio triggers would do just fine in the right hands...
Yeah I don't understand that logic either. My E-M5 gives me better image quality than my Nikon D300 ever did. And I see a lot of professional wedding photographers who still use cameras that were not even as good as the D300.
M4/3 and its lenses are good enough for professional work these days. It is the photographer that matters most at this point.
douglasf13 wrote:
I might be cool to have a super compact, f5.6 zoom that is high quality.
Me too. Great for diffraction limited landscapes, and for long exposures in wind, where I need as large a sensor I can get in as compact package as possible.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't really get the F 2.8 maximum aperture in combination with the small m43 sensor combo when used for a "Pro" lens either. Already, by 5.6 the format is starting to hit diffraction issues so by limiting the maximum aperture to 2.8, your stuck with what, three really ideal F-stops? Maybe four if you accept some compromise at F8. So, not only are you getting hit with the loss of shallow dof, your being constrained on the top end due to hitting diffraction issues earlier than larger format sensors. F1.4 or maybe F2 at the slowest should be where most m43 Pro lenses start imo....Show more →
That's sort of faulty logic, though. F/8 gives you depth of field similar to f/16 on full frame, so you're not going to have a need to go further than f/8 very often anyway. You're not really 'constrained' there. From my experience with the format, f/11 still yields perfectly acceptable sharpness...it's f/16 and smaller where diffraction really has an impact. But, since there isn't as much of a need to stop down that far, it's not a huge deal.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't really get the F 2.8 maximum aperture in combination with the small m43 sensor combo when used for a "Pro" lens either. Already, by 5.6 the format is starting to hit diffraction issues so by limiting the maximum aperture to 2.8, your stuck with what, three really ideal F-stops? Maybe four if you accept some compromise at F8. So, not only are you getting hit with the loss of shallow dof, your being constrained on the top end due to hitting diffraction issues earlier than larger format sensors. F1.4 or maybe F2 at the slowest should be where most m43 Pro lenses start imo....Show more →
Actually Olympus thought same.
There are still 4/3 lens 14-35mm f2 and 35-100mm f2. Tho dont expect them to be small, they are really big. IQ is better than this new Panasonic lens, but it wasnt that wide. And wont have exactly great AF on m4/3 bodies.
f1.4 lens would be most likely big or slightly bigger than regular Canikon f2.8 pro zooms. Tho that speed would be worth it. Unfortunately I dont think anyone except Olympus or Leica can design something like that.. And that would be really expensive.
snowboarder wrote:
Jordan, people here are often looking for the shallow dof and that's probably why
m43 is not very popular. Look, the system is small and convenient, has way too many
boring slow zoom, so the new one is a bit better.
A few decent primes are nice and if I were looking for a small AF system,
I would consider it. Still, I like shallow dof and it's a deal breaker.
IMO their decision to go 2x crop was a mistake.
And yes, I would love a small FF system, like 95% of guys here
For those who are addicted to super shallow DOF, I agree...m4/3 is not where you should be spending your money.
I, on the other hand, have actually found the DOF on m4/3 to be just about perfect. On full frame, I had already come to the realization that ultra-shallow DOF wasn't what I preferred in the portrait realm. I even switched from an 85L and 100/2 to a 100/2.8L IS because I found f/2.8-f/4 to be ideal for portraits at that length: still a nice background blur, but the whole face in focus, rather than one eye. I find the 45/1.8 to be just about perfect in this regard. I have a Hexanon 57/1.2 for times I really want shallow DOF, but I shot with it a little yesterday, and it was just too shallow for my liking to be honest...second eye fading into soup...it's almost distracting to my eye.
I for one really like the 2x crop...it makes the lenses smaller than something like the NEX system, especially for longer glass, and the image quality is still very, very good. But, that's me. BUT...to say m4/3 is not very popular is just wrong. Sure, in the US it's not as popular as DSLRs, but still, Panasonic and Olympus can't keep their new bodies in stock...they're selling the entire US stock allocation out for months. And it's not just to the consumer market....the top bodies are the ones that are in short supply, as are the top lenses...the 25/1.4 has been in and out of stock for months on end. In Japan, Micro 4/3 is actually the #1 mount for interchangeable lens cameras...above Canon and Nikon, and mirrorless cameras together are outpacing DSLR sales there. Sounds plenty popular to me.
But again, as with anything, the format is certainly not for everyone. And those who love the super shallow DOF look should cast their eye elsewhere.
I agree about depth of field. I tend to prefer the f2.8-f8 range on 35mm, as well. I just don't think f2.8 is all that exciting, because it's still a far cry from f2.8 on 35mm. In fact, at f3.6-5.6, the NEX kit zoom isn't all THAT far off from this new $1400 zoom, in terms of aperture equivalency. It's a little faster on one end, and about a stop or so slower on the other end.
I should reiterate that m4/3 has fast enough primes to likely suit me just fine, in general, and I think it's a good system. I'm just not all excited about the new zoom, especially for the price.
p.s. I believe that snowboarder was just referring to people on the alt forum, when he mentioned popularity.
i would much rather add $1400 to one of panasonic bodies for them to try to put a ff sensor into one of their cams and get a $100 24-70mm f5.6 lens instead. i do understand the want of 12-35mm f2.8 lens but not for this price. i feel the same about the 12mm f2 lens.
nex has proved that small camera can be made with big sensor, i am sure the same size could be kept if they used ff sensor as well. it only hasn't been done due to price of ff sensor and the profit margins to convince consumers to buy this camera (the 20 people on this forum do not count )
M mount prove that small lenses can be made projecting to full 35mm sensor
now someone needs to put the two together and make an affordable FF "mirrorless" cam instead of designing all these new lenses for new systems.
Thing is, NEX has shown that yes, you can make a small CAMERA with a large sensor. They have not shown that you can makes small autofocus lenses for said camera.
I don't understand the desire for a full-frame mirrorless with an SLR mount so that old lenses are usable...it defeats the entire point of the size reduction. While wide to short telephoto full frame lenses can be made pretty small (Leica M lenses), you will always have size issues with longer glass, just because a much longer focal length is needed.
There certainly will be a market for a full frame mirrorless cam if done right, but new lenses will definitely be needed to maximize that sensor (unless you are only going to use adapted M glass...but if so, just get an M9. )
Jman13 wrote:
Thing is, NEX has shown that yes, you can make a small CAMERA with a large sensor. They have not shown that you can makes small autofocus lenses for said camera.
That is all just a matter of speed, focal length and image quality desires. Sony has chosen particularly telecentric lens designs, but smaller designs are possible. Samsung has shown that small lenses are easily possible with an aps-c sensor. The Samsung 30/2 is smaller than the Panny 20/1.7, despite being a little longer and equivalently faster, and the Samsung 16/2.4 and Sony 16/2.8 are much shorter than the m4/3 12/2. Even if you add the extra registration distance of the Samsung mount, the Panny 20 and Samsung 30 are close in size.
I see no reason why someone couldn't make a 16-50/3.8 zoom for an aps-c mirrorless of similar size to this new m4/3 zoom, and I'd bet it wouldn't be $1300.
mawz wrote:
Correction data is from the camera, which is why you get CA correction with Panasonic cameras and not with Oly's. Of course you can do this in post in LR, especially if there's a lens profile available.
Jman13 wrote:
I don't understand the desire for a full-frame mirrorless with an SLR mount so that old lenses are usable...it defeats the entire point of the size reduction. While wide to short telephoto full frame lenses can be made pretty small (Leica M lenses), you will always have size issues with longer glass, just because a much longer focal length is needed.
How does a smaller camera and the same lens (as compared to FF DSLR) defeat the purpose of size reduction?
Um...because I don't think most people are going mirrorless just to reduce the size of the camera. If I have 18 lbs of full frame lenses + body (which is roughly what I carried before going to m4/3), and I reduce my camera body from 3 lbs to 1 lb, I'm still carrying 16 lbs of gear. That's hardly a big reduction. In contrast, my full m4/3 kit weighs about 4 lbs. It's the lenses that make a big DSLR system so large, not so much the camera body. (A DRebel isn't a whole lot larger than an E-M5, but the lenses for it are MUCH bigger).
For a FF mirrorless camera to really make sense, in my mind anyway, the lenses would need to be designed to take advantage of the lack of a mirror box. This would be evident at the wide end (no retrofocus design needed), to short telephoto. Beyond short telephoto, the size reduction gained would be minimal, though.
snowboarder wrote:
Jordan, people here are often looking for the shallow dof and that's probably why
m43 is not very popular. Look, the system is small and convenient, has way too many
boring slow zoom, so the new one is a bit better.
A few decent primes are nice and if I were looking for a small AF system,
I would consider it. Still, I like shallow dof and it's a deal breaker.
IMO their decision to go 2x crop was a mistake.
And yes, I would love a small FF system, like 95% of guys here
You will never have a small FF system with small fast zooms - the zooms and FF glass will always be large and heavy no matter how small you make the FF body.
Don't know how you can say that m43 is not very popular - mirrorless system cameras are selling very very well. I don't buy a hammer and complain that it doesn't work well as a screwdriver. If I want shallow DOF I'll stick with my FX camera and fast glass. If I want very very good image quality in a compact format m43 is very attractive.
You can't make all encompassing negative judgements based only on the fact that the m43 system is not working for YOU.
Jman13 wrote:
Um...because I don't think most people are going mirrorless just to reduce the size of the camera. If I have 18 lbs of full frame lenses + body (which is roughly what I carried before going to m4/3), and I reduce my camera body from 3 lbs to 1 lb, I'm still carrying 16 lbs of gear. That's hardly a big reduction. In contrast, my full m4/3 kit weighs about 4 lbs. It's the lenses that make a big DSLR system so large, not so much the camera body. (A DRebel isn't a whole lot larger than an E-M5, but the lenses for it are MUCH bigger).
For a FF mirrorless camera to really make sense, in my mind anyway, the lenses would need to be designed to take advantage of the lack of a mirror box. This would be evident at the wide end (no retrofocus design needed), to short telephoto. Beyond short telephoto, the size reduction gained would be minimal, though. ...Show more →
I agree with the last paragraph, but I don't understand why you compare with a 18 lbs lens kit. For a comparison with another format I would take the closest you get to equivalence, and that means the smallest DSLR lenses.
But that isn't exactly fair either..because the lightest SLR lenses are generally not the best optically, while you actually can get really small and outstanding lenses for m4/3. There isn't a kit zoom out there for full frame that can get anywhere near the performance of the 12-35/2.8, even though aperture wise it would compete 'equivalently.'
I compare to an 18 lbs lens kit because that's what serious photographers are generally going to have (regarding the higher end DSLR lenses)...but when you go to m4/3, you're not going to have lenses of that size. You give up the DOF control to get the size. If it could be done with extremely high quality on the full frame side, a lot of people would do it, but you really can't, unless you want to shell out tens of thousands on a Leica M setup and lose AF and long glass in the process.
Ultimately, I think it's rather pointless to go lens by lens and aperture equivalencies, as the equivalent lenses in terms of depth of field are generally not going to compete on an optical comparison, while others freak out of you dare compare lenses with the same aperture, simply because the depth of field is different between the two in practice.
Anyway, this is quite the tangent....it's just nice to have some faster zoom options come to m4/3, though I could do without the $1,300 price tag. I'm most interested in the 35-100 f/2.8...and it's good to finally have that sort of option in a compact package. For those who don't own m4/3 and whose needs to line up with the m4/3 system, well, this is an irrelevant announcement.
It is remarkably rare that I see an image where DOF is the meaningful component. Nice, sometimes, and you need to be able to throw the background OOF for portraits, but this lens on the long end and wide open isn't exactly going to have the DOF of a GRD IV. The Oly 45mm or 75mm even less so.
Far more likely for me to encounter situations where I wish I didn't have to shoot at f/1.4 and hope that there's no front/back focus play in my lens.
People are hung up a bit too much about the DOF differences specially with reference to APS-C. Compared to a full-frame sensor the DOF offered by m43 is definitely limited. However the difference compared to APS-C is very small. The Canon APS-C sensors have a factor of only 1.24x compared to m43 and the sony/nikon/... have a factor of only 1.3x.
So if a particular aperture gives me 6 inch of DOF on m43, it will give me 4.8 inch on canon and 4.6 inch on NEX (everything else being normalized). Sure it is shallower but not by a significantly big margin. You can probably get a similar degree of variance just due to difference in stated vs actual aperture of many lenses.
The Canon 17-55mm which gives a DOF control advantage of only 1.25x over the Pana 12-35mm is considered a fairly highly regarded lens. I am sure that in most practical application the difference between the two would be hardly noticeable. Plus canon is 645g and 4.35inch, whereas panasonic is only 305g and 2.91 inch. For someone looking for a compact system, I can easily see why they would prefer it over the canon.
Jman13 wrote:
Anyway, this is quite the tangent....it's just nice to have some faster zoom options come to m4/3, though I could do without the $1,300 price tag. I'm most interested in the 35-100 f/2.8...and it's good to finally have that sort of option in a compact package. For those who don't own m4/3 and whose needs to line up with the m4/3 system, well, this is an irrelevant announcement.
We can only hope that the 35-100 f/2.8 will be lighter than the optically excellent and effectively one stop faster 70-200 F4 IS.
jhinkey wrote:
You will never have a small FF system with small fast zooms - the zooms and FF glass will always be large and heavy no matter how small you make the FF body.
But you can have a small FF system with small fast primes. Pentax did it with their limiteds and so did other companies. I guess it wouldnt be the bread and butter of many pros but there would be a fairly decent market of enthusiasts and pros who care about size.
I personally happen to think that swallow DOF is vastly overrated but I know that I am in a minority
Edit: or so I thought until I finished reading this thread
alundeb wrote:
We can only hope that the 35-100 f/2.8 will be lighter than the optically excellent and effectively one stop faster 70-200 F4 IS.
Looking at the mockups, it appears the 35-100 should be about 4" long and the same diameter as the 12-35, so I'd say it should be about half the length and likely half the weight as well, though that's hard to guess at. The 70-200f/4 IS is my benchmark for that lens as well, both in quality and price. If they come in around that price with similar quality to the 70-200, I'll be pretty happy. If it isn't as good, it won't be worth what they ask for it.
)