Phase AF and dynamic range sensor patent. Epson explains the EVF from the E-M5.

Share

Egami (Click here) found the next Olympus patent describing a sensor with integrated pixel dedicated for phase detection auto focusing and increased dynamic range performance. What I don’t know if a sensor with integrated phase auto focusing will really make it into a real Olympus camera. The current Olympus E-M5 is already super fast and I guess it will be improved further in other model. There may be no need anymore to work on such a technology.

Speaking of the E-M5, Epson just issued a new press release (Click here) explaining the electronic viewfinder technology used for the camera. The EVF has been optimized to help photographers to shoot fast moving images without the color breakup experienced using other formats (The phenomenon by which a transient image appears when photographers move the camera rapidly or shoot fast-moving subjects).

Sounds great! Now let’s see if Panasonic will do it even better on the GH3 :)

E-M5 Preorders: Amazon, Adorama, B&H, Jessops, Amazon UK, Amazon Germany, Amazon Japan and Digitalrev.

 

 

Share
  • Panasonic better deliver it because the expectations for the GH3 are very very high after the E-M5, the NEX-7 and the XPRO-1.

    I still think that Panny and Oly could create a real PRO camera together with Panasonic’s expertise for video and Olympus for photo, a true hybrid power house!

    At least that’s what I would like to have… hahaha…

    • The expectations for the GH3 have been high ever since the GH2!

      • matt

        +1000000000000!
        That´s what I´m expecting! a true hybrid machine!
        Olympus should tweak the new global shutter cmos, pair it with IBIS and panasonic should implement their video and whoala! where´s the preorder button? :D

      • true, now it just got even higher… hehe…

        “high” expectations:
        – global shutter, possibly electronic shutter too
        – at least 1080p60
        – maybe a BSI sensor or “organic” sensor
        – IQ/ISO/NOISE/DR on par with the latest top mirrorless cameras
        – mindblowing video or almost as long as a hack can be done… hehe…
        – keep the multi-aspect-ratio sensor
        – better EVF – higher refresh rate
        – 8~10 fps
        – 12~16MP, no more
        – weather sealed
        – something like 5-axis IS, but I doubt Panny will do it
        – capacitive screen, but that’s just a plus and keep it a swivel one

    • “Panasonic better deliver it because the expectations for the GH3 are very very high after the E-M5, the NEX-7 and the XPRO-1”

      +1K!

    • Expectation is always high. For everyone.

      • yes, by definition, but when your competition is delivering you better do as well or suffer for it… hahaha…

  • Mike

    It seems more likely such a focusing system is to allow Oly’s fast four-thirds telephotos.

    Normal range lenses can be dramatically smaller on μ43 compared to 4/3, but telephoto lenses don’t really gain anything in size in the two systems. For example, the one telephoto 4/3 lens that has comparable μ43 counter parts is the the Oly 70-300mm. It’s virtually the same length of the panny 100-300 (within a millimeter) and weights just slightly more. If Oly can get such a focus system working on a μ43 camera, then there’s no need to duplicate lenses such as the 150mm f/2.8 or 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5.

    • achiinto

      It is sad that even the admin has forgotten about Four thirds lens ad speed…

  • James70094

    I think this Phase AF is just what they need for a m43 pro camera. It would offer even faster and more accurate AF as well as full support for the 43 lenses. And the benefits of even more DR, especially for pros, is absolutely needed.

  • Jonathan

    The Nikon J1 and V1 already have phase-detect AF on the sensor.

    • Riley

      It seems to me this is Fuji technology that Nikon are using so I am going to assume that for purposes of discussion.

      there are key differences between this patent and the Fuji patent which Nikon 1 are using. For the first thing you do not have to licence from Fuji, that’s a capital expense. In the second place Fuji’s patent works by blanking off half a pixel, which desensitises its light gathering ability. Nikon 1 suffers in this regard b/se in low light its pdAF stalls and it reverts to normal (full pixel cdAF)

      Olympus’s invention has a part white filter on the AF pixels and instead of blocking half of it out it uses the remaining part of the R, the G or the B colour filter. So instead of reducing light by half, or as a stop value -1, the white portion in the Olympus system increases light to the value around +0.66. This actually increases sensitivity to light by around 1.66 stops, meaning it works better in low light, and better again all other times.

      This is a significant improvement in pdAF generated from a cdAF system.

    • myself

      And it shows! The nikons have lot of shortcomings (including lack of lenses), but they are the *only* mirrorless able to shot really fast moving objects like birds: http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/autofocus-systems.html
      Wish Olympus or Panasonic have that performance…

  • Boooo!

    “There may be no need anymore to work on such a technology.”

    Of course there is, because not everyone shoots static subjects at low focal lengths, and some people would actually like to have zooms faster than f/5.6.

    • “And it shows! The nikons have lot of shortcomings (including lack of lenses), but they are the *only* mirrorless able to shot really fast moving objects like birds…”

      —-

      Could you please show me one single picture in the World Wide Web confirming that claim – with an isolated subject approaching the photographer at high speed, that is? I’m searching the web regularly but haven’t found one, to date.

    • caver3d

      At the end of the 19th century many physicists believed there would be no more significant discoveries. They had already made all the critical advancements possible. Amazing, isn’t it?

      Admin, there will always be future improvements in camera technology. Olympus should be applauded.

  • Hifinut

    @James70094
    Agreed. PDAF offers faster C-AF and better low light focusing as well. We just have to look at Nikon 1 series can do with the hybrid AF. I hope Olympus update the PEN, OMD to hybrid focusing and not just the m43 pro camera.

    • Agent00soul

      But the Nikon 1 switches to CDAF in low light…

  • Frederic Hew

    Not only will it allow better support for 4/3 lenses, it will also give Olympus lens designer more leeway in designing faster tele lenses that need heavier focusing group elements.

    As Boooo!’s comment suggests, current slow zooms have to do with glass mass/ inertia (as well as size issues).

  • I’m rather skeptical about the implementation of any Olympus sensor patents. Alas, as long as it doesn’t make its own sensors it has to choose from what is available.

    • Frederic Hew

      Not necessarily so, Nikon does not develop its own sensors either.

      • Nikon is much more powerful than Olympus. Semiconductor manufacturers will be lining up to cooperate with it.

        • Frederic Hew

          They will lineup to cooperate with whomever can generate profits for them.

          One can argue that APS-C sensors are mainstream products and that specialized sensors will be less attractive to sensor manufacturers but this has nothing to do with the camera vendor, even more so when the vendor will not disclose the sensors origin.

          That said, each Nikon Dx and Dxxx FF model has its own sensor (with the notable exception of the D3/ D700). How many units do you think those cameras sold? The same applies to the 1″ Aptiva sensor used in the N1 system… Olympus can probably outsell that.

          • Frederic Hew

            The same applies to Panasonic – each of the GHx and AFxxx models has its own designated sensor.

            Panasonic could have used the GHx multi-aspect sensors in other models but has chosen to reserve it to their higher end products instead. I assume these models are still profitable.

  • Tropical Yeti

    “The current Olympus E-M5 is already super fast and I guess it will be improved further in other model. There may be no need anymore to work on such a technology.”

    Completely wrong conclusion.

    It is one of most important technologies to put mirrorless cameras into same AF performance league as SLR cameras. Nikon already uses this for V1 J1 series cameras. Check their AF performance results.

    For Olympus this is even more important, since they have superb 4/3 lenses, which do not focus well on m4/3 cameras. Sensor PDAF is solution to this problem. This is the best (and probably the only) way to do it. And Olympus knows it for sure.

    So advantages od this technology for Olympus are:
    – Much improved AF
    – More precise AF
    – Comlete integration of 4/3 lenses into m4/3 system
    – Sensor PDAF is much cheaper to buid and implement, once the technology is developed (no need for extra PD sensors, calibration etc…)

    • @admin Ditto Yeti (et al.). This sensor technology would solve the Oly PDAFocus problem, i.e., the lack of support for 43 glass (the sole glaring omission from the E-M5). This sensor technology would unite the u43 + 43 families of lenses into one happy family. All of the magnificent 4/3 glass could then (finally!) work properly (i.e., full speed auto-focus) on PDAF u43 bodies, such as an E-M5 successor. Many of us were (and still are) waiting for just such support for our 43 glass on u43 bodies. In other words, a PDAF solution (such as this patent) is precisely what the Doctor ordered for Olympus OM-D (and, while we’re at it, Pen) bodies.

      Please consider revising your conclusion about this patent and PDAF in general. :-)

    • D

      I thought that CD AF are more precise than PD?
      The way I see it the advantages are that PD are better at predictive AF and can be fast focusing on lenses that are not optimized for CD AF.

      • Riley

        its still actually a cdAF system, but it has a capacity to phase signals from cdAF pixels which is why it is called pdAF. Normal pdAF for SLRs is quite different requiring mechanical devices to accomplish phasing, and that can introduce inaccuracies.

      • Esa Tuunanen

        Reason for potential inaccuracy of traditional SLR camera PDAF is focus sensor being separate from actual imaging sensor and unless whole lot of parts are positioned accurately enough target being in focus in that separate sensor means target being not in focus in imaging sensor.

        Integrating PDAF into main sensor removes that source of potential inaccuracy so I could actually see even DSLR makers studying it.

  • Klaus

    Phase detection AF is inherently better than Contrast AF, as there is no focus „pumping“.

    C-AF can become equally fast – it’s just a matter of computer power. However, it can’t do is finding focus without overshooting a bit.

    • Frederic Hew

      True, but as processing grows faster this becomes less of a problem. Besides, more often than not PDAF needs more than one iteration to lock focus.

  • bilgy_no1

    If this patent about the on sensor PDAF is a valid indicator for how Olympus will enable fast AF for 4/3 lenses, I may reconsider the E-M5. It is a lovely camera no doubt, but I want to use it with my 14-54mkI. If there will be another body with the required technology within the year, I’d better wait.

    OTOH I really do like the camera. I’ll bring my lens to the shop and test for this before making up my mind.

    • Who knows if and when this new sensor will available in a camera…

      • Riley

        As this invention is co-dependent on sensor technology, and since it is so different from present cdAF it means a new camera design. New camera designs usually take 2 years to filter through, although simpler updates can be less.

        However while this patent has just been granted, it was actually filed in 2010. It ‘could’ actually appear in any camera from now on.

    • achiinto

      In this case, you should consider EM6/7. As this patent is not implemented on EM5.

  • here’s for hoping for incredible low light performance and 1080p RAW video format

  • Raist3d

    There *is* a need to work on this technology- a possible alternative to AF 4/3rd lenses fast.

    • Riley

      absolutely

  • Esa Tuunanen

    Besides currently missing real high end controls and ergonomy m4/3 needs also good moving target tracking to challenge DSLRs and basically without unlimited focus moving speed/sampling frequency contrast AF really can’t challenge PDAF in that.
    Or do you want mirrorless cameras to just stay in tiny cam&smaller companion to serious DSLR segment instead of offering product range fully challenging Canikon?

  • chronocommando

    @admin – I hope you wanted to see our reactions on this. ;-)

    I do have 4/3 Lenses. I want an new body. Therefor I need PDAF!!!

  • spam

    I’m not sure if PDAF is the only solution for focus tracking and FT lens compatibility, but it’s the only current technology that has been proved to work. It’s the reason why Sony use the translucent mirror kludge and it would solve a lot of problems for Olympus if they could make it work well.

    Fast focusing can be done with CDAF, but it’s not the same as focus tracking and Olympus need PDAF for that even though it’s not quite as accurate.

  • I think I consider myself lucky,since I do mostly near static subject photography, so I believe I can live with the current performance of FT lenses on the OM-D. But I feel pity for the others who need to deal with fast moving subjects ;-)

    • bilgy_no1

      For many instances it’s OK. But I do miss shots due to slow AF when I use the 14-54 on my E-PL1, especially in social situations (parties e.g.) or even in street shooting with people in the frame.

      Since Olympus no longer makes a mid-level (E-620/E-30) DSLR, this role should be taken up by the m4/3 products. That is, if Olympus care about their 4/3 customers. And no, as an amateur 4/3 user (E-500, E-520, 14-54, 35, 70-300) I do not consider the E-5 a viable offering for my situation.

      • Milo

        +1 (E-500, 11-22, 35, 50, 40-150)

      • E-1

        +1 (Beside too much m43 stuff, E-510, 50, 50-200 and the kit lenses)

      • Miroslav

        It’s not only 4/3 users that are being neglected because of not being able to use full potential of their lenses on new bodies, m4/3 users have been affected as well by Olympus and Panasonic not providing solution for PDAF on m4/3. I’d like to buy some 4/3 lenses for E-PL1 – there are many interesting ones that aren’t expensive used or even new, but their slow AF puts me off.

        I also do not agree with admin that there is no need to work on PDAF any more. By putting PDAF on sensor, Olympus and Panasonic would save themselves a lot of R&D costs and could just continue producing some 4/3 lenses that wouldn’t have been much smaller in m4/3 version anyway.

      • +1 (E330, E30, 9-18, 14-42, 12-60, 40-150, 14-45, OM adapter, m42 adapter, adaptall adapter) have m43 also

    • Geoff

      I’d agree with Ulli on this point, my photography (at present) is based mainly on static subjects, though there are many occasions when the static does move (outdoor flora), so that can sometimes be a bit hit & miss. I will admit that at present I do not use any of my 4/3rds glass (11-22, 50, 50-200, 9-18, 14-42, 40-150 plus a Sigma 18-50) on my E-P2, it all lives with an E-1 or 620. Regards the 620, I find bilgys comment interesting in the way he classes the 620 as a mid-range along with the 30, while I consider it more an advancement on the 5** series, though it is a very competent body. As regards E-M5, I’d love to have one but pennies don’t allow it at present.

      • Geoff, do you think an upgrade to E-P3 would be a good option? From what I have read there is already a good improvement in the single AF mode.

        • Miroslav

          Pekka Potka said that “S-AF speed and locking capability with E-M5 is roughly the same as with E-P3. Any differencies are so small that they are not worth testing more closely”. So if you don’t need new sensor, EVF, 5 axis IBIS, tilt screen, battery grip and weatherproofing, E-P3 would be OK for you.

          • yes but C-AF is likely to be better in the OM-D because it will switch the sensor readout to 240 hz, with reduced EVF resolution that is.

            • Miroslav

              No :(. Pekka says: “Olympus states that C-AF does not work with 4/3 lenses”.

              • The E-M5 manual says s-af with 43 lenses only

            • Frederic Hew

              The bottleneck is the inertia of the moving elements and the motor assembly, not the sensor readout speed. Those lenses were meant to lock focus ina few swoops, as opposed to many tiny steps.

        • Geoff

          Interesting response Ulli, as I assume you mean an E-P3 as opposed to an E-M5? I will be honest and say I’d not considered that option, primarily as I feel the E-P3 while a big improvement over the ‘2, is still hampered by the design, it still feels like a compact to me (perhaps my liking of a conventional SLR style), by the way I do have a VF-2, which is used with a few legacy lenses with great success. I suppose it might be worth a look at the E-P3 as prices could well drop now. Would appreciate any comments you might have if you use the Pen 3.
          Geoff

    • Riley

      likewise Ulli,
      what they did to Exxx and Exx owners was not satisfactory in my view.

  • Pascal

    Phase detect AF would be great to get true compatibility with 4/3 (not micro) lenses. We are waiting for this compatibility for years !!!

  • Although I believe a hybrid AF might be brought in for the Pro, it will bring performance problems of its own.

    Please don’t tell me that the ‘pros’ at 4/3 have been swindled, because pro offset their gear expense in 3 yrs, or they are not pro at all, but rich amateurs.

    Personally, like many, I have no use at all for CAF, although I understand the interest for video.

    Having to upgrade a m4/3 body to 4/3 dimensions to carry those ‘pro’ lenses juggernauts leaves me unconvinced.

    What if Panny and Sigma start to issue fast, light, affordable zooms that rely on fast CDAF computing. Where would that leave the SHG dinosaurs?

    Frankly, 4/3 users had 3 yrs. to decide to do the transition to m4/3. sell some lenses, keep some. If they prefer to stick to their guns, because they had too much money for their hobby at the time, let them perish with them.

    99% of m4/3 users won’t care less about the Death od SHG Dinosaurs…

    • Anonymous

      How’s your 14-42 kit lens, the only one you ever purchased, holding on?

      Also, are you still convinced that software will manage depth of field control in the future, so we’ll do just fine with ISO 149387134987 sensors and f/64 pinhole lenses?

      • Agent00soul

        Actually, Olympus has released faster lenses (f/1.8) for m4/3 than for regular 4/3 (f/2.0).

        • Frederic Hew

          And this is for a reason… 43 lenses were designed with very strict image quality objectives.

          Olympus can make faster lenses, infact some SHG lenses are 1/2 – 2/3 stops faster than the official specs. Pressing the lens release knob disconnects the electronic contacts and allows shooting at bigger aperture.

          • which SHG lenses are you referring too?

            • Frederic Hew

              The 7-14 is actually a constant f/2.8 (more or less) lens and the 14-35 is closer to f/1.8 than it is to f/2. This may also be the case with the 35-100.

      • Frederic Hew

        Shallow DOF can already be simulated by software, no need to wait for the future.

      • Is that all that is left of 4/3, anonymous drama queens trying to blackmail with slander? ROTFL

        Am.

        • Anonymous

          Sure as hell beats you calling people monkeys and apes, which was your recent meme (but I see you’d switched back to dinosaurs), spewing trolling, insults and hatred at EVERYONE.

          Go seek professional help – you have a mental disorder and need medication to keep your agression down.

      • Anonymous.
        You missed out the second 9 (its a double 9) after the first 9. Spike Milligan has you on his ‘Nine’ register.

    • Now now, you’re being provocative (which is fine). It’s not only SHG lenses that need a comprehensive adaptation. Smaller glass like the 12-60, 50-200 and 11-22 would be very hard to squeeze into a native m4/3 format. I suspect Olympus never developed a fast zoom for m4/3 because it’s not entirely feasible. Look at the mediocre optical quality of the 12-50 and at the long time it takes Panasonic to unleash its fast zooms. Must be a real headache.
      I agree with you that m4/3 was not designed for fast zooms nor for very long glass. However, Olympus is committed to support its 4/3 users in the long run and I can’t see a better solution than enabling PDAF on-chip. The OM-D grip suggests that something is on the horizon, albeit not necessarily soon.

    • Tropical Yeti

      @ AMALRIC
      What you said is OK as your personal point of view. But do not generalize it as everybody’s oppinion. I think you will be surprised with what Olympus does in next two years.

  • “However, Olympus is committed to support its 4/3 users in the long run”

    They can always throw in a DSLR from time to time, like they do now.

    m4/3 is a *different* system, with an ethos of its own, fast primes, narrower focal range, at least for fast zooms. Fuji understands it very well, and will build on that.

    If 4/3 diehards don’t accept the new ethos, perhaps it is because their aging arteries cannot bring enough blood to their brains?

    And should everybody else be held hostage to those thousand individuals, while O&P churn out 1 million cameras a year?

    Really there is no sense of proportion in the whining and bullying that the (past) haves bring to the discussion.

    Why don’t you smother yourself with money, or just buy another brand?

    We are very happy with what we have at m4/3, with new lenses being brought in almost every day by a variety of parties.

    We don’t *need* anymore 4/3 lenses. In case it’s you who need m4/3.

    So, hurry up, sell your aging stuff, if you still can :)

    • This is exactly why I own both systems. 4/3 for zooms and m4/3 for primes.

    • FT has such fabulous lenses,one of the reasons some people still stick with it.
      I can only respect Olympus for bringing out the E-5 and hopefully the E-7.

    • Tropical Yeti

      Again, it’s your personal view. You have a bad habit to push it as others opinion too.
      Maybe you have not been told what “polite” means when you were a child. But it is your life and you can have an attitude towards other people as you like, together with all the consequences for you.

    • Anonymous

      You never owned any 4/3 equipment (maybe you had an entry-level DSLR with the kit lens), and you don’t own any serious m4/3 equipment nor ever will (by “serious” I mean anything that costs over 100-200€), so why don’t you just stop trolling, amalric, and finally go where you know you want to be – using the camera in your mobile phone?

      • Is that all that is left of 4/3, anonymous drama queens trying to blackmail with slander? ROTFL

        Are you the ghost of Raist in disguise?

        Anonymous slanderers are disgusting cowards.

        • Riley

          “Are you the ghost of Raist in disguise?”
          its not Ricardo, I know who it is…

        • Anonymous

          Ghost of Raist? So now you’ve started “killing” people as well?

        • I don’t hide behind nicks son, you should know that by now

          Maybe it’s something you do or have done?

    • Riley

      with this technology they can actually join the two systems together, without this they have a good system of lenses namely 4/3rds, and a range of bodies namely mFT. The lenses that strike a difference will always be bigger and more expensive than the bulk of the present plastic mFT offerings.

      The one remaining difficulty for SLR users is the difference between usually poorer OVF’s (Ex excepted), while the difference for micro users is access to decent glass.

      OMD neatly enables a modular system to make bodies smaller or bigger as desired by the lenses one might choose to operate. The way to meld the whole thing together always required two technological accomplishments, pdAF that works, and EVFs that satisfy.

      There is no downside to that for either mFT or 4/3rds users, especially while there are still choices.

      • I believe Oly’s term for it: “one beautiful system”.

  • Hifinut

    The reason a lot of people interested in 43 Olympus 12-60mm and 14-54mm zoom are because their resolution are legendary and hence require PDAF support in m43 body. If even the m43 sensors go up to 24mp in the future, the sensors resolution will not be handicapped by the those lenses.

    • Panny never brought a line of HG and SHG glass to 4/3. Do you think that now they have success in their hands they will not churn out fast, light zooms for m4/3?

      Would then Oly respond by adapting lenses of another technological era?
      I find it difficult to believe it.

      They could, but how long would they keep the competitive advantage in terms of sales?

      I don’t like to live in a cloud of illusion. YMMV.

      BTW it is a legend that even kit lenses cannot take higher Mpx counts. The Soulndimage blog, favouring NEX 7, has a good laugh at it.

      Sony consumer lenses can perfectly take 24 Mpx, as shown by his beautiful landscapes shot with the 18-55.

      Please don’t feed legends.

      • Frederic Hew

        Except 24MP on APS-C is equivalent to 15MP or so on m43, not 24MP.

        A more resolving sensor will produce better detail regardless of the lens, within diffraction limits. The sharper the lens, however, the more obvious the benefit becomes.

        • So does that mean that *you don’t know* if there are m4/3 lenses able to resolve 16 Mpx?

          I bet they can, so that a rather weak argument.

          The advocates of 4/3 believe they have logic on their side, when all they do is to parade some rehoric pseudo-argument.

          Logic says that those lenses have already been sold, that there is little or no additional demand for them, while the demand for native m4/3 lenses is rising all the time.

          • Frederic Hew

            Logic says CDAF work best with lenses having small and light moving elements, which rules out fast tele lenses. This has very little to do with the lens mount.

            The entire sensor out-resolves lens thema (or the other way around) demonstrate a basic lack of understanding how how complex systems work. The weak link in the chain metaphore does not apply here.

          • Esa Tuunanen

            There are very few m4/3 lenses which can offer high image quality.

            Even supposedly premium level m4/3 12mm prime can’t match optically magnitudes more demanding 12-60mm zoom, and that’s without further blurring 12mm’s corners with software distortion correction.
            At 50mm 12-60mm has better contrast even in corner than new 12-50mm in center.
            http://www.pekkapotka.com/journal/2011/12/30/olympus-mzuiko-12-50mm-f35-63-in-comparison.html

      • Riley

        When Panny released the AG100 or whatever tf its called they displayed it with SHG glass, mostly b/se they lack lenses of that quality in their range.

        Really I cant see how anyone can have an issue with this, its like buying high quality glass from any source and choosing to use it as opposed to the present offerings in micro which hardly leave people gasping…

        • What are you blabbering about? Learn English first.

          I don’t pretend to be an engineer like you, but I know that you don’t need to move whole groups in a barrel, but just a light focussing lens. That why they are called ‘internal focussing’.

          BTW we are expecting any time now Panny’s 10-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 so you are even factually wrong.

          • Riley

            ‘internal focussing’ is about reducing the mass of the focussing elements. SLR lenses didn’t require this b/se they had pdAF.

            The problem with cdAF is it has less data to work with, just one focus point. When you phase autofocus you have two or three times the data and the focus system knows which way to drive the lenses, and knows when to stop. You cannot achieve the same with just one reference point in cdAF.

            This prevents the need for excessive hunting cdAF does in able to receive an equal amount of data by moving the focussing system backwards and forwards at the beginning and the end of travel.

            ‘internal focussing’ isn’t important if you can phase autofocus. Phase the focussing system and all that stuff goes away.

            • spam

              Why do you bother? He’s just trolling?

              • Riley

                Turn bad things into good things. I only really bother to respond to posts that enable me to add something. Really thats for everyone else.

                The truth is there are no downsides, it will even be better for mFT owners

              • Boooo!

                He’s trolling, yes – I’ve personally started ignoring him several weeks ago. There’s no point in trying to talk to that guy…

      • Esa Tuunanen

        While you can take picture with lens made from beer bottle bottom or technically even with simple approriate size pinhole in body cap that doesn’t quarantee there’s any bit of technical image quality.

        Sony’s 18-55mm NEX kit lens simply drops to cheap generic lens category with good performance only in center when put in front of NEX-7’s very demanding sensor.
        http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/724-sony1855f3556oss?start=1

  • Well, that’s your very private idea. However I you like it so much you can always dedicate yourself to video-making.

    I doubt very much that such weighty lenses will ever find a way in m4/3. There is simply no demand for them.

    Adapted lenses will not replace new lenses, whatever people who already own them would lead us to believe.

    4/3 owners want them to be adapted, but m4/3 owners want new native lenses. Why Is it so difficult to understand?

    If they cannot buy Oly they will buy native Panny lenses instead of saddling themselves with heavy, cumbersome dSLR lenses.

    • Riley

      actually I do some video professionally too, and you might be surprised to hear how equipment intensive it is, and how difficult it can be as it requires a lot more planning and a clear idea of what can be done. You cant edit video in the same way you edit stills so it has to be right virtually in the camera.

      In doing this I had to make some decisions on platform between OMD and GH2, 5DII and 5DIII, and ultimately 5DIII and GH2 hacked.

      Which is why I purchased a GH2 to cover those needs or to add them where they are missing via hacks. Chuck in fluid pan head, video tripod, track and travel dolly, big SD cards, extra batteries, adapters, software and all the rest.

    • I wonder what you do in life. Because here we have a fine English landscape photographer, with *two* NEX 7, who has a total different opinion of the 18-55, and images to go with it, while you have only words:

      http://soundimageplus.blogspot.it/2012/03/more-nex-7-peak-district-images-more-on.html

      Seems that some of you are so steeped in the dSLR paradigm, that like old people, you are unable to think outside of it. BTW according to the Soundimage above, photozone stinks. They have no protocol. LOL-

  • BCK

    I disagree.

    Phase detect is best for video, so i would LIKE to see it in a camera.

  • craftysanpper

    Those images are terrible, lack of detail in folige even for web images, if you base your views on images like those, I hold your opinions with very low regard!

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close