dasrocket wrote:
nice but the 40 1.4 is much better priced IMHO and the SC version better than the MC. The 35 is almost $200 more.
From what I've seen/read elsewhere, the MFT sensor shows some smearing at the far corners of photos with the CV 35/1.4, but not so much with the 40/1.4.
picnic wrote:
I've only found the 17 on Amazon so far with preorder at $229 USD. Not sure who it will be coming from (Amazon itself--unlikelY) and that makes a difference to me. Love to order one--though I will almost certainly buy a Panny 20 f/1.7 too--sometime(I'm now suspecting that they will hold this until they announce their other 4/3rds 'smaller' body--so that's a good while off).
Meant to say in US.
Diane
It says on the page shipped and sold from amazon.com
£700 with the zoom
£750 with the 17mm+VF
£850 with both
i.e. US $1145, $1227, and $1390 respectively
Remind me again why we get skanked for being European?
The zoom kit is $800 in the US... if you add UK's VAT (17.5%) it comes out to $940. So you're really only getting skanked by $105... not by $245.
Hope that makes you feel better.
Wait, is VAT still down to 15% now? Either way it's mostly the government screwing you over.
Sam N wrote:
The zoom kit is $800 in the US... if you add UK's VAT (17.5%) it comes out to $940. So you're really only getting skanked by $105... not by $245. :D
Hope that makes you feel better.
Wait, is VAT still down to 15% now? Either way it's mostly the government screwing you over.
Don't forget we have to pay sales tax in the US and that can be relatively high in some states/cities--it varies. We also don't have some of the perks some Europeans have either. Somebody has to pay for them *smile*.
picnic wrote:
Don't forget we have to pay sales tax in the US and that can be relatively high in some states/cities--it varies. We also don't have some of the perks some Europeans have either. Somebody has to pay for them *smile*.
Diane
Rarely do people end up paying sales tax in the U.S. when ordering over the internet. Cheaper goods, less taxes, third world health care system. Ya, that's a great trade off!
dasrocket wrote:
It sounds like the m4/3 may be what the 4/3 tried but did not accomplish.
Yes - ironic really when you recall all the marketing guff coming from the 4/3rds posse about the advantages of a longer register and more collimated lenses for the benefit of sensors. Turns out people want shallow cameras. Doh!
dasrocket wrote:
It sounds like the m4/3 may be what the 4/3 tried but did not accomplish.
The problem with 4/3rds has always been that it was predicated on a couple incorrect ideas. The first being that the smaller sensor would have a significant cost advantage over larger sensors, enough to outweigh the larger sensors improved IQ. The second being that the smaller format and (slightly) shorter register would allow a serious size advantage that did (briefly) materialize but has evaporated with the arrival of the Pentax K-m/K2000 which
delivers a smaller working kit than the small Oly bodies when matched with Limited series pancakes.
m43's basis is both much more realistic (much smaller bodies appealing to the P&S market with larger sensors and interchangeable lenses) and more likely to remain in existence (with the limitations of mirror clearance gone, you can get some _real_ size advantages from the 4/3rds format sensor). Of course I'm pretty sure that these differences exist because Panasonic, not Olympus, is driving m43 development.
I disagree that Panasonic is driving the "revolution" here. If anything, Olympus has time and time again shown the intent to try nee things, even if for a big part they are not well founded.
Can anyone explain why the m4/3 is a 2X crop sensor? Is it due to legalities with owning the 4/3 system rights? Why was the m4/3 not, say APS sized?
dasrocket wrote:
I disagree that Panasonic is driving the "revolution" here. If anything, Olympus has time and time again shown the intent to try nee things, even if for a big part they are not well founded.
Can anyone explain why the m4/3 is a 2X crop sensor? Is it due to legalities with owning the 4/3 system rights? Why was the m4/3 not, say APS sized?
Panasonic is quite clearly driving m43. There's a reason why they were first to market and why the biggest innovation in the m43 bodies (the high-end EVF in the G1 and GH1) is currently Panasonic-only. It's their baby. Oly quite clearly had considered the idea, but it was pushed by Panasonic, looking for a higher-margin market where they could be competitive (which the DSLR market hadn't been for them, mostly due to their own mistakes with the L1 and L10). The fact that m43 was announced by Olympus and not Panasonic was almost assuredly a face-saving gesture.
m43 is 2x crop because the sensor was always intended for use on m43 and 4/3rds bodies (all of the 12MP Oly/Panasonic bodies use the same basic sensor) and to take advantage of the existing base of lenses already available.
I don't buy it; Introducing a product first is not a sign of further advancement and PANA and OLY have taken a different approach to what the m4/3 can do. There also is no evidence that the G1 EVF is not available to Olympus; it did not go into the E-P1 for design reasons.
I was not refering to the m4/3 technology in terms of "revolution" anyway: I was refering to the actual product. There is a big defference in the two introductory cameras; the G1 is a scaled-down DSLR whereas the E-P1 is DRF-like. Clearly, these two are starting with different views (which in the future will come closer, for sure). Olympus also seems to be very eager to listen to the customers' direction both in camera and lens design, something CANIKON can do well to pay attention to.
In terms of the 2X crop, they could very easily adapt current 4/3 lenses on a larger sensor with a crop function much like NIKON does with the DX. Handicapping a new system is not the way to go IMO.
Oh well, I am not complaining as I am looking forward to this, I just hate seeing someone execute a great idea ALMOST well
dasrocket wrote:
I don't buy it; Introducing a product first is not a sign of further advancement and PANA and OLY have taken a different approach to what the m4/3 can do. There also is no evidence that the G1 EVF is not available to Olympus; it did not go into the E-P1 for design reasons.
When you announce a new product line shared between two companies and one has working hardware showing within a few weeks and the other takes 10 months to produce anything beyond a mockup, it's a pretty good indicator of which one was doing the driving development behind the spec. Especially since Panasonic has launched 2 bodies and 4 lenses in that time. All the information available indicates that Panasonic is the primary driving force behind m43 and that it is Panasonic's primary focus within the 4/3rds lineup, while Oly sees it as a useful adjunct to 4/3rds but not a primary focus. Panasonic will likely have an E-P1 equivalent at some point (rumour has it that we will see the Panasonic equivalent in late august or september along with the next 2 Panasonic m43 lenses)
I was not refering to the m4/3 technology in terms of "revolution" anyway: I was refering to the actual product. There is a big defference in the two introductory cameras; the G1 is a scaled-down DSLR whereas the E-P1 is DRF-like. Clearly, these two are starting with different views (which in the future will come closer, for sure). Olympus also seems to be very eager to listen to the customers' direction both in camera and lens design, something CANIKON can do well to pay attention to.
I think it's more a factor of each company not wanting to step on its partner's toes. Panasonic launches the more flexible but larger body, Olympus launches with the minimalist body. By the end of the year we should see both types from both brands.
In terms of the 2X crop, they could very easily adapt current 4/3 lenses on a larger sensor with a crop function much like NIKON does with the DX. Handicapping a new system is not the way to go IMO.
Oh well, I am not complaining as I am looking forward to this, I just hate seeing someone execute a great idea ALMOST well
Yes, but that would require developing new sensors that can't be used in the 4/3rds SLR's. Keeping the same format allows the development costs of the sensor to be spread across more products and sales, and thus reduces per-sensor costs.
Frankly, I think they've done a good job with both the G1/GH1 and the E-P1. The only real beefs I have with the latter are the rear LCD (Stupid place to cheap out) and the viewfinder configuration (A GX100 style clip-on EVF would have been a better idea, but the OVF isn't really bad).
mawz wrote:
Panasonic is quite clearly driving m43. There's a reason why they were first to market and why the biggest innovation in the m43 bodies (the high-end EVF in the G1 and GH1) is currently Panasonic-only. It's their baby. Oly quite clearly had considered the idea, but it was pushed by Panasonic, looking for a higher-margin market where they could be competitive (which the DSLR market hadn't been for them, mostly due to their own mistakes with the L1 and L10). The fact that m43 was announced by Olympus and not Panasonic was almost assuredly a face-saving gesture.
m43 is 2x crop because the sensor was always intended for use on m43 and 4/3rds bodies (all of the 12MP Oly/Panasonic bodies use the same basic sensor) and to take advantage of the existing base of lenses already available. ...Show more →
I actually do buy this. It seems right to me after watching all this developing ove rthe past few years. Panasonic was WAY ahead of Olympus with the development of the m4/3'rds. If Olympus initiated this and was the driving force behind this, then the only conclusion one could draw from the facts is that they are incredibly slow and incompetent at product design and development. But I really don't think that's the case. Panasonic was clearly out in front on this.
It 4/3rds sensor because Oly and Panasonic are committed to the format and system. They have lenses already, significant development with the sensor, a compact format camera is the ideal application for thesensor, and this product is seen as essentially part of the overall 4/3'rds system. If they suddenly went back on all the work already done and went with an APS sesnor, it would cost them A LOT more in product development and would essentially kil the 4/3rd format as key partners would be seen as abandoning it.
brainiac wrote:
Yes - ironic really when you recall all the marketing guff coming from the 4/3rds posse about the advantages of a longer register and more collimated lenses for the benefit of sensors. Turns out people want shallow cameras. Doh!
Great point. I expect that when discriminating users communicate to the m4/3rds camp that they do not want to rely on image quality robbing raw software correction of color drift, vignetting, geometric distortion and ca due to lens designs for that short registration and lens size restrictions that the next quality evolution will be with the sensor and optimized edge micro lenses. Seems like that is what is used to some degree in the Leica M8?
"...When you announce a new product line shared between two companies and one has working hardware showing within a few weeks and the other takes 10 months to produce anything beyond a mockup, it's a pretty good indicator of which one was doing the driving development behind the spec...."
Not necessarily; it could indicate funds availability; Oly currently is introducing a new DSLR (EP1) while running a full DSLR system, unlike PANASONIC which has come through a very succesful LX3 income.
"...Panasonic launches the more flexible but larger body, Olympus launches with the minimalist body.." ...which, as I mentioned shows a more revolutionary aproach then the DSLR-like G1. General market interest shown supports this.
Ifsomeone is going to the trouble to introduce a new standard system, you'd expect them to really make it new. Attaching it to previous shortcommings is not the best way to go about it. Both LEICA's attempt with the M8 and the 4/3s overall clearly showed that. Especially when both PANA and OLY are hinting at PRO bodies, in a world competing with FF DSLRs and even crop sensors that are far superior to this format: a good example being the DP2 -great sensor, under-par body...
dasrocket wrote:
"...When you announce a new product line shared between two companies and one has working hardware showing within a few weeks and the other takes 10 months to produce anything beyond a mockup, it's a pretty good indicator of which one was doing the driving development behind the spec...."
Not necessarily; it could indicate funds availability; Oly currently is introducing a new DSLR (EP1) while running a full DSLR system, unlike PANASONIC which has come through a very succesful LX3 income.
Unless you're Leica, you don't normally pre-announce a new system 10 months before introduction, then go and launch 3 cameras in your other system if you're the driving force behind the new system. All available information indicates that Oly is not concentrating on m43 and did not push its development.
"...Panasonic launches the more flexible but larger body, Olympus launches with the minimalist body.." ...which, as I mentioned shows a more revolutionary aproach then the DSLR-like G1. General market interest shown supports this.
Ifsomeone is going to the trouble to introduce a new standard system, you'd expect them to really make it new. Attaching it to previous shortcommings is not the best way to go about it. Both LEICA's attempt with the M8 and the 4/3s overall clearly showed that. Especially when both PANA and OLY are hinting at PRO bodies, in a world competing with FF DSLRs and even crop sensors that are far superior to this format: a good example being the DP2 -great sensor, under-par body... ...Show more →
The only thing new about the E-P1 is the interchangable lens mount. Otherwise it's pretty much just a DP1/DP2 clone done right.
I'd love to know exactly which shortcomings the G1 got that the E-P1 didn't. Is it the excellent EVF?, the surprisingly good for its size ergonomics? The best contrast-detect AF system on the market?, the large, flexible flip/twist LCD screen with enough resolution to ensure accurate manual focusing? Sure the G1's bigger and has somewhat conventional ergonomics. Both size and ergonomics are dictated by the extra functionality you get in exchange. Even adding a cheesy OVF to the E-P1 body would have made it much closer to the G1 in size.
I like the idea of the E-P1, it very much fills a niche that was neglected by everybody except Sigma (a compact that doesn't suck IQ-wise). But it's the G1 that is the real game-changer and the far more capable camera. If you want a nice adjunct to your DSLR system, the E-P1's a great idea. If you just want one camera the G1's going to be a lot better to work with.
--unlikelY) and that makes a difference to me. Love to order one--though I will almost certainly buy a Panny 20 f/1.7 too--sometime(I'm now suspecting that they will hold this until they announce their other 4/3rds 'smaller' body--so that's a good while off).
