[Klaus]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309447771' post='9639']

I´m not getting overexcited. Sure, it is big step ahead that finally there are high-quality fast primes with a really portable body capable of producing high-quality images with relatively affordable price on the market. Unfortunately, that´s still only micro 4/3 system so:



1) 12mm/f2 still gives ridiculously deep depth of field, roughly equivalent to 24mm/f4 lens on Full Frame Cam. So in other words, FF cam with 24/f1.4 lens is absolutely in diferent league in this regard.



2)45/f1.8 = 90mm/f3.5 on full frame. Hmm, that is "better than a spit into an eye" (as the phrase has it) but still: Far, far behind my 85mm/f1.4 on D700.



I´m just eagerly waiting for somebody to put the full frame sensor into a relatively light (of course it will always be bigger than m4/3) body and offer some fast primes with that. Currently only the overpriced M9 does that... Maybe Fuji with X200 model is a possibility in the future...? ;-)

[/quote]



I'm not sure about the point of your arguments. You are comparing a MFT to a FF DSLR which is 3x as heavy. The essence of MFT is not shallow DOF nor will this ever happen. A high quality 24/4 is pretty neat though - in fact you even haven't anything "faster" on APS-C DSLRs. A 90/3.5 is just fine for basic portraits. The Voigtlander 90/3.5 is also available on FF and the mainstream is f/2.8 - which is not much faster either.

[popo]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309447771' post='9639']

2)45/f1.8 = 90mm/f3.5 on full frame. Hmm, that is "better than a spit into an eye" (as the phrase has it) but still: Far, far behind my 85mm/f1.4 on D700. [/quote]



If "shallow DoF" is the goal, then of course that is usually made easier with bigger sensors than faster glass.



However I'd argue the "big(ish) sensor mirrorless" is aiming at low end DSLR, which mostly means APS-C. And they're close enough to an even footing there.



My only concern is the price gap. The 45mm f/1.8 is near enough comparable to a 50mm f/1.8 used on APS-C. While I haven't seen street pricing yet, the indications are the 45mm will be a LOT more expensive. I hope I'm wrong there.

[Klaus]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1309452130' post='9641']

If "shallow DoF" is the goal, then of course that is usually made easier with bigger sensors than faster glass.



However I'd argue the "big(ish) sensor mirrorless" is aiming at low end DSLR, which mostly means APS-C. And they're close enough to an even footing there.



My only concern is the price gap. The 45mm f/1.8 is near enough comparable to a 50mm f/1.8 used on APS-C. While I haven't seen street pricing yet, the indications are the 45mm will be a LOT more expensive. I hope I'm wrong there.

[/quote]



The 45/1.8 should go for about 250EUR street price if the usual pattern applies. The Nikkor AF-S 50/1.8 is cheaper at around 190EUR but the difference is not too extreme I think. I reckon the Zuiko has a better BQ and possibly a better AF motor.

[popo]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309453205' post='9642']

The 45/1.8 should go for about 250EUR street price if the usual pattern applies. The Nikkor AF-S 50/1.8 is cheaper at around 190EUR but the difference is not too extreme I think. I reckon the Zuiko has a better BQ and possibly a better AF motor.

[/quote]

The rumours were putting it at $300, and so far Adorama list it at $400. I'm sure that will drop in time, but how much time? Then things always work out more expensive than simple exchange rate and taxes would suggest by the time they hit Europe...

[finaldesignrb]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309447771' post='9639']

1) 12mm/f2 still gives ridiculously deep depth of field, roughly equivalent to 24mm/f4 lens on Full Frame Cam.

[/quote]

As Klaus mentioned, why compare a tiny, light lens directly with a much larger, heavier system, as if the depth of field is the only difference between the 2 systems?



In addition, exactly what type of wide angle photography benefits from having super shallow depth of field? Upon thinking about my own wide angle work, can't recall when I wanted to use a super wide angle lens, in order to include much more of the world in a given image, *and* also wanted to have all that extra world be super blurred/out of focus.



Could you post a link to some photo you like that has real shallow depth of field, where thank goodness the background or foreground was real blurry, that could have only been taken with a 24mm wide angle lens?



Otherwise it seems like you are reaching for negatives about the micro four thirds 12mm lens, complaining about something that is technically correct (u4/3 wide angles have more depth of field than 35mm wide angles), but misleading because unimportant.

[Klaus]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1309454377' post='9643']

The rumours were putting it at $300, and so far Adorama list it at $400. I'm sure that will drop in time, but how much time? Then things always work out more expensive than simple exchange rate and taxes would suggest by the time they hit Europe...

[/quote]





MSRP:



US:

12/2: 799$

45/1.8: 399$



Germany:

12/2: 799EUR

45/1.8: 299EUR



So it's the usual rip off for the 12/2 but the pricing for the 45/1.8 is fair.

[popo]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309455823' post='9645']

MSRP:



US:

12/2: 799$

45/1.8: 399$



Germany:

12/2: 799EUR

45/1.8: 299EUR



So it's the usual rip off for the 12/2 but the pricing for the 45/1.8 is fair.

[/quote]

I hadn't seen the MSRP before, and that does sound more promising. Like I said, I hope I was wrong on the pricing.



Side note, that'll put the 45/1.8 cheaper than the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7?

[Martin_MM]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309448561' post='9640']

I'm not sure about the point of your arguments. You are comparing a MFT to a FF DSLR which is 3x as heavy. The essence of MFT is not shallow DOF nor will this ever happen. A high quality 24/4 is pretty neat though - in fact you even haven't anything "faster" on APS-C DSLRs. A 90/3.5 is just fine for basic portraits. The Voigtlander 90/3.5 is also available on FF and the mainstream is f/2.8 - which is not much faster either.

[/quote]





Of course I´m talking from the point of my personal preference only. I got a bit irritated by press release materials and many comments talking about "....finally beautifully blurried background with 12mm/f2.0" and "paper thin DOF of 45/f1.8".



Also no doubt this deed - releasig usable m4/3 body with these two primes - can finally save the whole 4/3 concept. I hope there is no need to say that the 4/3 DSLRs are more or less dead system by now (as I predicted at the time of their first introduction).





Yes, like I said, it is nice to have those two fast primes which finally make the m4/3 an option even for a serious shooter. I just wish they (somebody) did such a set with full frame sensor - to squeeze the max.image quality and DOF possibilities into a more portable body.

[Martin_MM]

[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1309455405' post='9644']

Could you post a link to some photo you like that has real shallow depth of field, where thank goodness the background or foreground was real blurry, that could have only been taken with a 24mm wide angle lens?



Otherwise it seems like you are reaching for negatives about the micro four thirds 12mm lens, complaining about something that is technically correct (u4/3 wide angles have more depth of field than 35mm wide angles), but misleading because unimportant.

[/quote]



Of course, that is easy. But look, like I said and I would like to point out that again - this is my opinion and my personal preference only which you may not share of course.



Except the landscape shooting, where of deep depth of field is required, I love wide-angle shots with shallow DOF because it often gives very special dynamics and/or depth to the image (IMHO, of course). And this is something no current light alternative is able to give you (except Leica M9).



http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/748/U748I1290041710.SEQ.0.jpg

http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/636/U636I1290278323.SEQ.1.jpg

http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/748/U748I1288209388.SEQ.0.jpg

http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/636/U636I1283870883.SEQ.4.jpg

http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/636/U636I1283870499.SEQ.2.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chaos_aping/4970890710/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nayeem_kalam/5181022161/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mackarus/4521644979/sizes/l/in/photostream/

[Klaus]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1309458859' post='9648']

Of course, that is easy. But look, like I said and I would like to point out that again - this is my opinion and my personal preference only which you may not share of course.



Except the landscape shooting, where of deep depth of field is required, I love wide-angle shots with shallow DOF because it often gives very special dynamics and/or depth to the image (IMHO, of course). And this is something no current light alternative is able to give you (except Leica M9).



[url="http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/748/U748I1290041710.SEQ.0.jpg"]http://www.nikonimag...41710.SEQ.0.jpg[/url]

[url="http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/636/U636I1290278323.SEQ.1.jpg"]http://www.nikonimag...78323.SEQ.1.jpg[/url]

[url="http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/748/U748I1288209388.SEQ.0.jpg"]http://www.nikonimag...09388.SEQ.0.jpg[/url]

[url="http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/636/U636I1283870883.SEQ.4.jpg"]http://www.nikonimag...70883.SEQ.4.jpg[/url]

[url="http://www.nikonimages.com/gallery/636/U636I1283870499.SEQ.2.jpg"]http://www.nikonimag...70499.SEQ.2.jpg[/url]

[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chaos_aping/4970890710/sizes/l/in/photostream/"]http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/[/url]

[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nayeem_kalam/5181022161/sizes/l/in/photostream/"]http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/[/url]

[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mackarus/4521644979/sizes/l/in/photostream/"]http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/[/url]

[/quote]





Yes, of course. These are all valid sample shots to illustrate the limitations of MFT - no doubts. However, even APS-C DSLRs are the wrong choice for this. When APS-C DSLRs are already off limits why should MFT be more suitable anyway or even try to.