text:
Is no-one going to mention the advantages of MORE depth of field in low light conditions with the latest mFT systems?
f2.4 on an FF is often as good as it gets for sharpness and getting what you actually want in the area in focus.
CP+ 2013: Panasonic has added a 42.5mm F1.2 portrait lens and 150mm F2.8 super-telephoto prime to its lens roadmap for Micro Four Thirds, for release in the near future. The lenses, shown in prototype form at Photokina 2012, last September, are shown as being ready for release just after the 14-42mm II ASPH. kit zoom launched this week.
The roadmap indicates the lenses should be expected near the beginning of 2013. We'll ask for further information when we speak to Panasonic, later today.
|The 42.5mm F1.2 will offer a 90mm equivalent portrait lens with depth of field equivalent to an 85mm F2.4 on full-frame.
|The 150mm F2.8 offers a fast 300mm equivalent option for sports and wildlife shooters.
The two lenses on the roadmap aren't the only new optics on show - Panasonic also has plenty of examples of its 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II ASPH. Mega OIS on its stand. Nearly 25% shorter, it is small and light, and has a rather un-damped feel to the zoom ring, consistent with its lowly status in the company's lens lineup
Panasonic is also showing-off the recently launched DMC-ZS30 (TZ40 in Europe) with NFC capability. NFC (Near Field Communication) allows you to tap the phone against a compatible smartphone and that transfers all the information the phone needs to agree a Wi-Fi connection, making it quick and easy to do
Jan 26, 2016
Jan 22, 2016
Jan 27, 2016
Jan 27, 2016
Is no-one going to mention the advantages of MORE depth of field in low light conditions with the latest mFT systems?
f2.4 on an FF is often as good as it gets for sharpness and getting what you actually want in the area in focus.
Just my pragmatic two cents... I have a Nikon FX camera, 14-24mm, 50, 70-200mm and my Olympus E-M5, 14mm, 20mm, 30mm, and a lousy zoom that I rarely touch. Love them both, but especially love traveling with my E-M5.
All this equivalence such talk is interesting on paper but I find it hardly important in the real world. Go out and shoot and know you equipment. Advantages or disadvantages; learn them, use them, make a disadvantage into an advantage or become so skilled that the limitations don't matter. If you can do that, you know you're a great photographer.
I've been paid for images I shot with my iPhone. When they ask what equipment I used to shoot, they are stunned to find out what it came from. Didn't matter to them, though, they just loved my picture.
Go out and shoot!!!
all this talk about equivalence and nobody even posted the equivalent fl and f-stop for APS, the only valid format for comparison since there are no full frame mirrorless. Apparently multiplying by fractions is too difficult for these guys.
43mm f/1.2 mFT = 58mm f/1.6 APS
150mm f/2.8 mFT = 200mm f/3.73 APS
So what do Sony and Samsung have that is "equivalent" and at what price?
to be accurate, the factor to NEX is 1.277,
thus 54.3mm f/1.53 and 191.5mm f/3.57.
the f-numbers are slightly better than Joe's,
but I think this best reflects the exposure level.
exposure in lumen-seconds of course.
so for APS-C (including SLRs),
the alternatives may be 50/1.4 and 200/4 (or 70-200/4).
both will waste a lot of the light collecting capability
of the original design but still more cost efficient than 4/3".
50/1.4: Canon 360, Nikon 440, and Sony 420,
70-200/4: Canon 1,250 and Nikon 1,400 US.
the Canon version of both are (happen to be) the best.
you get both the performance and the potential/flexibilty (for FF).
> (including SLRs)
Thus completely missing the point of my post.
Since we don't know the cost of those new lenses, it is hard to comment on cost. Hasn't stopped a lot of people, of course.
> Thus completely missing the point of my post.
so you meant neither mirrorless nor SLR ... good point.
there seems no chance for 4/3" to compete with either mirrorless or mirror versions of APS-C's.
> Since we don't know the cost of those new lenses
we don't even know the costs for Canon or Nikon lenses (don't say anything even if you happen to know). we know their prices and distributions on the chart of angle of view and aperture size, which gives good predictions for similar lenses for the 35mm-format.
we do know that they got good lenses. an issue might be that the Nikon 70-200/4VR is too expensive at the moment.
though I won't recommend it (the new 70-200/2.8 ones are at least same as good), the Canon 200/2.8L2 provides a faster lens at a reasonable price and it's very handy to use.
It took you a whole day to think up this nonsensical rebuttal?
Let me spell it out for you:
SLRs are not relevant in this debate because their added bulk and weight puts them in another class of buyers.
There are no "equivalent" mirrorless APS lenses that can compete with either of these newly released lenses. The closest to the 43mm f/1.2 is the Sony 50mm f/1.8, and that's too short to be a proper portrait lens on APS and slower to boot.
All anybody has in the ~200mm APS range is a bunch of slow superzooms.
But you knew that didn't you? Otherwise you'd be rebutting with actual lenses rather than this nonsensical drivel.
You talk about using Canon 70-200/4 on APS-C vs. MFT. You happen to realize that fe. OM-D has higher sensor score on DxOMark than current or past Canon APS-C cameras.
So basically you would recommend using slower, much bulkier FF lens for no real IQ benefit at all.
you are not saying that the 4/3" is sh!te and suddenly there comes a hero to save the system right? you don't build a system on a single sensor or some funny noise reduction algorithm.
I did say the Canon 70-200/4LIS seems better than the new Nikon one (except VR). that's a side talk. I am not with or against any particular maker. I am talking about the formats.
I know of no technology used for 4/3" cannot be used on APS-C sensors. maybe you do.
>I know of no technology used for 4/3" cannot be used on APS-C sensors. maybe you do.
As a matter of fact I do, it's called... lenses! lol
Apart from the 43 f/1.2 and 75mm f/2.8, there's also the 12-35mm f/2.8 constant zoom. APS only needs f/3.6 to match f/2.8 but does APS mirrorless even have a f/3.6 constant normal zoom? No... Bet lots of Sony and Samsung shooters are wishing they can screw the 12-35mm f/2.8 on their camera indeed...
I think the panny 42.5 f/1.2 will be expensive;
but I believe canon's 85 f/1.8 is much better than the panny's because of shallower DoF and its pricing
Well, but GX1 + 42.5 is still much smaller and lighter than 6D + 85 f/1.8
so it's a trade off
for portrait; FF is still the best system
for landscape; m43 is the way to go!
How do you know that it is better? DOF at 1.8 may be, but what if the panny is razor sharp at 1.4 and the canon has to stop down to match it?
There is no best system for anything, even cell phone can take amazing photos.
Do I need to sell my house to get these, or will merely selling my boat be sufficient?
So perhaps it's time to stop criticizing people for being uninformed about their purchasing decisions and listen to what everyone here is saying: that they have different needs, and that there are actually compelling reasons for some people (granted, not you, perhaps) to choose m43 over 35mm. In fact, I'll pose a question for you: do you honestly need the 20, 24, 36, or however many MP your camera captures? I'm sure lots of you will answer, absolutely – you m43 shooters may be happy with lower resolution, but *you're not me*. Do you see what I did there?
Thank-you for reading this essay. That is all.
micasa: "I'm sure lots of you will answer, absolutely – you m43 shooters may be happy with lower resolution, but *you're not me*. Do you see what I did there?"
are you trying to say that 35mm users are not actually forced to buy m4/3 equipment? wasn't this some kind of mandatory provision in order to be allowed to be allowed to use a 35mm camera? but then how is this format supposed to be profitable, without people being forced to spend money on it?
think the resolutions of Canon cameras are low enough.
Then there's the fact that we're not talking about identical resolutions. Current generation m43 cameras are 16 MP, while most 35mm cameras are at least 20 MP, and some are over 30 (the $6000 D4 is the only one I know of that's 16 MP). That means the whole ISO multiplier is out the window too – instead of 100 vs. 400, it's at most 100 vs. 300-something, and for a 36 MP camera, it's 100 vs. ~200. Yes, m43 sacrifices resolution, but I would wager most m43 users have absolutely no need for anything beyond 12 MP, let alone 16. I, personally, work with 12 MP files, and would have to buy a new computer if I wanted to shoot 35mm format, despite the fact that the extra pixels would be of no benefit whatsoever (OK, I guess most cameras offer lower-res "raw" files, but then why am I wasting money on those extra pixels in the first place?).
This has enormous ramifications for the "value" question. You're justifiably pointing out that m43 lenses are more expensive, for what they are, than their 35mm counterparts (although you're cherry-picking using 25mm vs. 50mm, the latter being a very easy focal length to design a 35mm format lens for). But those lenses have to go on a body, and that bit I mentioned about wafer yields means that m43 bodies will *always* have a built-in cost savings. Beyond that, as far as I know, having a smaller camera/lens is something people are willing to pay a considerable premium for. So please don't talk as though people are getting nothing for their more expensive equivalent m43 lenses.
Why do you never bring up the issue of semiconductor wafer yields? I.e. you can't expect to get nearly as many usable sensors for 35mm as you can from m43. To be clear, this is above and beyond the fact that m43 is ~ ¼ the size of 35mm. I.e. if Canon were making m43 sensors and had the same standards of quality control for both m43 and 35mm formats, it would get *significantly less than* ¼ the number of usable sensors for its 35mm format cameras than it would for m43. I assume you're aware of this (which makes it puzzling why you're not including it in the "equivalence" curriculum), but if not, just google "digital camera wafer yields" or something similar, and you'll quickly understand.
Small point - most sensors have a few dud pixels in there, it takes a major fault to stop them using one.
OK equivalence people, you're clearly wanting to argue the technical side of things, and are snickering at all the people here who "just don't get the math". The problem is that most here get the feeling (justifiably) that you're actually far more interested in telling people they're irrational for using this format, than teaching people how to understand the differences between formats. I will grant that you're 100% correct in stating that, all else equal (which it never is), 42.5mm f1.2 shot at ISO 100 in m43 format = 85mm f2.4 shot at ISO 400 in 35mm format. Now let's address some of the things you're concluding from this vis-à-vis image quality and value...
> an f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens, period.
so true, and it will give you no same result on different formats, nothing that's controlled by aperture will be the same.
but if you have the same aperture (diameter or area) for the same angle of view, you get everything the same with no exception.
the equivalent f-number is no f-number. it's aperture size (again, diameter or area) expressed in terms of/reference to 35mm-format.
People know this!!!
It's not like their are any $600 FF compact bodies. So what's the alternative?
I'm only saying that 42.5mm f/1.2 is a lens that can do far less than, say, Nikon 85mm f/1.8G (0.83 stops slower).
let people decide their alternatives base on the correct information and not fooled by the f-number which does not provide a level ground for comparison.
The 42mm can do far less than the 85mm on what? What is the alternative? A $1900 D600 with that 85mm f1.8 G?
Even then, the "far less" is quite an exaggeration. 85mm f2.4 is only a little more than half stop difference, barely noticeable.
how slower is Pana 42.5mm f/1.2 compared to Nikon 85mm f/1.8?
the difference is 0.83 stops as the spec suggests.
I leave it to you whether it's nearer to 1 stop or 2/3 stops.
You still haven't answered what alternative you are proposing.
"how slower is Pana 42.5mm f/1.2 compared to Nikon 85mm f/1.8? "
In terms of exposure speed, the 42.5/1.2 is faster than the 85/1.8, duh. lol.
"I'm only saying that 42.5mm f/1.2 is a lens that can do far less than, say, Nikon 85mm f/1.8G (0.83 stops slower)."
Or maybe it can do more. Sometimes better DOF at wider apertures is desireable.
The new long lens is almost equivalent to my OM 135mm 2.8, which freaking rocks. I can only hope the optical quality is as good. Kudos for finally bringing the system a good (x fingers) long lens. Now a tele-extender por favor. For the birders.
Okay, so for everyone who glazed over after the 997th misleading post on equivalence there is a good one buried in the middle about how Panasonic only designed the 150/2.8 so someone could do a coffee mug from it... :-)
IMHO almost all the equivalence posts are wrong as they miss out on various important facts. FF and m43 are both great camera systems (well, now m43 finally has a couple of decent sensors available). For best quality and the best overall system FF is where it's at, for something you can carry around all day and get decent photos m43 is the way to go (or Fuji XE1, or NEX6, or RX100, ...).
FF = best image quality
APS-C = best value for money
MFT = best size
Considering the increase in IQ of APS-C/MFT, FF will continue to slide into a product for people with large egos. It will actually be the downfall of Canikon that they invested all their energy in FF just to please egos, because now their lens line-up is not competitive with mirrorless systems, while it could have been.
35mm-format = a century old one that we happen to use.
APS-C SLR = a temporary format that actually costs more.
MFT = a little bit better than SLR (same to NX).
other mirrorless formats (NEX and EF-M) = the future
there is no significant differences among formats of different sizes. they all line-up straight following the same rules of physics and we can get the same result from two formats many times different in sensor size (though we cannot have too large apertures for too small sensors).
A few thoughts and facts:
a) FF stands for Full Frame. In that respects MFT ( Micro Four Thirds ) is Full Frame, as the sensor is occupying the full frame size which its MFT standard defines. Probably a better name would be 35 mm
b) Given the use of Proper lenses 35 mm can give MFT a run for their money in case you print 24" ( A2 ) or bigger. If your printer is however US Letter / A4 size or even 13" / A3 then prints of pictures taken with a MFT and 35 mm camera are mostly indistinguishable. Your amount of shoulder pain however may show a great difference between these two camera system sizes after a day of shooting :-)
c) It would be indeed interesting to see of MFT will pick up and Canikon will be sluggish to follow, as they have no such lens lineup. Who would have thought that years ago? Now it is a possibility indeed :-)
"FF = best image quality
APS-C = best value for money
MFT = best size"
MFT is for me quite right with value for money. Best image quality doesn't go to Full Frame. Medium Format will beat the crap out of it. I do not understand all this whining about FF when MF is far superior in IQ.
> Medium Format will beat the crap out of it.
actually it doesn't. currently we have more good large aperture lenses designed for 35mm-format. after all it's the lens that decides the quality, not the format.
quality does not = large aperture. You seem to be confused. Large aperture has some benefits but it does not dictate image quality.
"quality does not = large aperture. You seem to be confused. Large aperture has some benefits but it does not dictate image quality."
Exactly! It's like he didn't even take the time to figure out why so many pros choose MF, and not just for the megapixels (e.g. bit depth, dynamic range, better glass, more flexible system). 35mm can't touch MF at base ISOs, and no one is going to put a Nikon or Canon lens over a Hasselblad lens.
Apart from equivalence or sensorformat, don't forget to wait for the final tests. A lot of fast lenses are unsharp/unusable wide open, so sometimes the slower and lighter lenses are equally good (and sometimes better, like some 50mm Carl Zeiss f2). For example compare a Canon EF 50mm 1.0 agains a EF 50mm 1.4. The first one was only made to show what's technically possible, but you can't use the f1.0 except of artistic purposes. When the 42.5mm 1.2 is sharp wide open (at least in the center), this would be a hell of a lense... otherwise get a pencace 40mm and save the weight.
@Dark Goob, now you mentioned your Hasselblad, kid. So can you show me more than your 85mm 2.8? (ca. equiv 45mm 1.4) ;)
I am looking forward for Panasonic to create 20mm f/1.7 II with updated AF performance and a 12mm pancake
I think if we are going to throw around equivalence, it should be to APS-C. I mean, that's what the vast majority of m4/3 users would be using if not 4/3. It's not like there are all these people who would be using $2000-7000 cameras, if not their $500-1000 m4/3 body. I wonder what percentage of m4/3 users have even shot "full frame" since the film era.
I guess I just don't know why it is brought up so much since it's probably not a familiar point of reference for most people in this segment.
youd be surprised, the majority of m4/3s shooters have either migrated from full frame as an alternative to the bulk and stayed because of the IQ or they are old school fim buffs who want to give new life to their old lenses. The point and shoot crowd go straight to the rebel.
I haven't shot APS-C since going 35mm full frame in 2005. Reason: APS-C bodies are slightly smaller, but the lenses are the same size as FF. So frankly it was never worth the sacrifice in IQ. With the higher end m4/3 bodies, there is significant weight/bulk savings with APS-C IQ. For those kinds of weight savings, it's worth the sacrifice in IQ. I still shoot 35mm FF for critical stuff (client work), but for my personal work, it's 99% m4/3.
tkbslc makes a good point. I've argued people who would "convert" everything aps-c into 135 terms when talking to beginners, except these beginners had never used 135 format so those equivalencies meant nothing to them.
if you ever visited Oly or Pana's web site. they all do the same stupid thing to convert to 135-format terms.
could there be any reason for the spec 42.5mm f/1.2? other than the attempt to fool people to mistake it for 85mm f/1.2 equivalent?
Could there be any reason? How about replicating a classic portrait length and then giving it the fastest reasonable aperture to almost compensate for the smaller sensor?
Why are you acting like this is a conspiracy? They though about making a good portrait lens, figured the appropriate focal length (About twice the diagonal) and then gave it a fast aperture. Yes 1.2 gives a smaller aperture and thus less BG blur and deeper DOF on 4/3 sensor, but Panasonic did the best they could working withing the constraint of their system. It's not some ploy to trick customers who already know their sensor is smaller than a Canon or Nikon.
> 1.2 gives a smaller aperture and thus less BG blur and deeper DOF on 4/3 sensor
and two stops worse image quality.
it's really funny to say fast, but poor image.
Worse does not equal poor any more than fast equals good image.
So after almost 5 years of being announced, people are still claiming the doom of the system is not far away? What I keep seeing on and on is people migrating from other systems TO m4/3s and not away from it. I keep seeing lenses being announced that give you FOVs that simply dont exist in APS C, and I keep seeing more and more companies joining the consortium. How is that gonna doom the system?
Now even dpreview is quoting equivalencies, in all the years digital has been around this was never brought up in APS C.
People here use the word IQ and genuinely believe they know what theyre talking about.
The funny thing is most full frame shooters use a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom lens 99% of the time and are happy with the results.
If you really believe a Summilux 25mm f/1.4 or M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 will deliver inferior quality to those zooms, you are delusional. Sure, you trade the flexibility of a zoom for extreme compactness, but often that is a compromise worth making. Especially if your entire lens collection fits in the same space as one FF zoom lens.
there is nothing wrong with the fake Leica or genuine Oly besides they are taste-flat lenses sold at ripping-off prices.
Rip off?
Sure it's an expensive lens, but it goes on a relatively cheap body. You want to make FF equivalence posts all day, but is a $2000 body with a $400 lens cheap? And if it is "equivalent" to a $800 lens on a $500 body, then what is the better deal?
> on a relatively cheap body.
think the cost performance of 4/3" bodies are low and
the cost performance of 4/3" lenses are very low.
Compared to what? Value is only a function of the alternative.
Once more with feeling ...
In response to what seems to be a misunderstanding that has shown up in several posts here (and I see in others on DPR):
An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens, period. F-values are a measure of the size of the aperture vs.the focal length of the lens. Or: Fstop=focal length/aperture. These are the _only_ two factors determining a given f-number. The size of the sensor that the lens will cover is irrelevant as far as the f-stop is concerned.
So a FF 150mm f/2.8 lens mounted on an m4/3 body via an adapter will have exactly the same maximum f-stop as an m4/3 lens on that body, provided the adapter doesn't change the effective focal length of the FF lens. (Assuming the lenses are correctly spec'd by the makers.)
Actual light transmission is measured in T-stops, of course, which is why pro video shooters use lenses calibrated that way.
If you want more detail, of if you think I'm wrong, Google 'f-stops' or 'f-number' and read the articles.
Yep, last time I checked, my Sekonic never had a setting for 8x10, FF, Crop, m43, etc. etc. but yet amazingly it still gives proper exposure settings no matter what camera I use... go figure.
And what is your point? Nobody has suggested otherwise.
I believe most are talking about equivalent Bokeh and not necessarily shutter speed or low light comparability. I personally don't think that Panasonic can produce high grade long lasting lenses, look at their DxOMark scores.
Look at the post immediately preceding this one - the poster talks about 35mm equivalents as double the f-stop (or half the light). People bring this up all the time.
Yes, of course but while the actual focal length and the actual f-stop are what they are, the equivalent focal length and the equivalent f-stop naturally are different. I don't understand what is so difficult about this.
(Well, I obviously have a guess and that is that a lot of people don't intuitively understand that the noise levels are roughly proportional to exposure times sensor area.)
"Yes, of course but while the actual focal length and the actual f-stop are what they are, the equivalent focal length and the equivalent f-stop naturally are different"
No they are not. There is no "equivalent" about it. A 150mm F2.8 lens it just that. It doesn't change either focal length or f stop because you stick it on a camera with a different sized sensor.
It has nothing to do with noise levels either. Is a FF camera about two stops better noise wise than an aps-c camera? I'd say so (at higher ISO's) but that doesn't make an F2.8 lens an F5.6 lens on an aps-c camera. It is purely a reflection of one thing and one thing only - sensor noise performance.
Given at low ISO you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference in noise levels between the two sensors anyway if your logic was correct you would have to say what what ISO an F2.8 lens became "equivalent" to an F5.6 lens when used on an aps-c camera.
"There is no "equivalent" about it. A 150mm F2.8 lens it just that."
Well, I think you have lost that battle pretty comprehensively as long as we keep using different sensor sizes.
Almost every compact camera comes with 'equivalent focal lengths' printed on the packaging. You might not like it, but it is here and you cannot ignore it.
Any noise difference between different sensor sizes will be exist over the whole ISO range (of course that is a simplification). It is just that at base ISO you really have to lift shadows significantly (and view large enough) to see the difference.
These silly battles just go on and on, mostly because many people do not include the necessary qualifiers or do not understand the qualifiers.
As the OP stated, F2.8 is F2.8 and has nothing to do sensor sizes, etc. It is merely a measurement of the light passing through a lens to its recording medium, regardless of the size or type of recording medium. Aperture is "quantity of light", Shutter speed is "time of exposure" or how long the quantity of light exposes the recording medium. ISO is the "sensitivity of the recording medium. These are the 3 elements of exposure in photography.
When some people talk about a 45mm F2.8 m4/3 lens being equivalent to a 90mm Full Frame lens at F5.6, they can do so correctly only if they include the qualifier of "Depth of Field". 45mm at F2.8 on m4/3 will provide the same depth of field as a 90mm on full frame at F5.6. It is not the maximum aperture or equivalent aperture, it is specific to "depth of field"
(continued) Now, when we talk about a 45mm on m4/3 being equivalent to a 90mm on a full frame, what we are really talking about is the angle of view. 45mm on m4/3 will have the same "angle of view" as a 90mm on a full frame camera. The aperture for either lens does not matter. The equivalent "angle of view" will be the same. These terms and relationships were derived from the decades of 35mm film and used to describe relationships between various formats, but since so many photographers today, have no association with film based formats and little historical relationship to the terms, they are often misunderstood, especially when people do not identify the specific value or parameter they are referring to.
Apeture = Quantity of light. It is a mathematical formula that is constant.
Shutter = time of exposure.
ISO = sensitivity of the recording medium.
Equivalent lens = Angle of View.
There can be occasional technical variations, but they are out of the norm.
I would only add to (completely correct) answer of David247: A lens with given aperture (be it f/2.8 for the sake of example) provides the same amount of light per IMAGE AREA as another lens with the same aperture - irrespective to the focal length or the size of the image are. In other words of on camera X at given light conditions a 28/2.8 lens results in 1/100s shutter speed a 300/2.8 lens will result in the same shutter speed.
So - since we get the same amount of light per image area it matters into how many pixels we divide it and that determines (in the first order) how much noise are we going to end up with.
"Almost every compact camera comes with 'equivalent focal lengths' printed on the packaging. You might not like it, but it is here and you cannot ignore it."
That relates to field of view. Nothing else. I thought everyone understood that simple fact. Obviously not!
"Any noise difference between different sensor sizes will be exist over the whole ISO range (of course that is a simplification). It is just that at base ISO you really have to lift shadows significantly (and view large enough) to see the difference."
There is no practical difference at all at lower ISO's. You can theorise all you want but for this ridiculous notion of aperture equivalence to hold there would have to be a completely linear relationship noise-wise at all ISO's with aps-c demonstrably two stops worse at ISO 100 as opposed to 3200 (for example). There clearly isn't that linear relationship.
The ever improving noise performance of smaller sensors makes this equivalence theory completely irrelevant.
90mm f/1.2 and 300mm f/2.8 (35mm focal lengths equivalents) at prices. whatever they will be, far less than their FF equivalents! Although the apparent lack of O.I.S. seems a most strange omission, as it would make using these lenses - esp. the 150 - with an Olympus body the more obvious choice.
A prediction: IF some maker can come up with a m4/3 body that has continuous AF as good as, say the Nikon D7000, AND has GPS capability, either built-in or add-on, m4/3 will replace the DX format systems for many users.
It's only the lack of these two things that has kept me in DX.
Of course, FF and MF shooters will likely stay with these formats for the IQ advantages.
Of course, for many DX DSLRs and APS-C mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X cameras and NEX have a great deal to offer like added DOF control vs m43, smaller size vs FF, improved IQ vs m43, and more wide angle friendly 1.5X crop factor vs m43 and a more telephoto friendly crop factor vs FF. These are a few reasons why Sony, Fuji, Canon, Samsung, et al choose the APS-C format: it allows for smaller lenses and bodies while keeping IQ on an extremely high level. It's perhaps the best of the compromise formats.
How lucky are the FZ200 buyers, they get a 25-600 mm f/2.8 lens for a small fraction the price the FF users pay for 600 mm f/2.8 lens.
Sensor technology should deliver close to FF IQ very soon if it does not already.
I shoot both M43 and Nikon FF - different horses for different courses.
A 600 2.8 on a 1/2.3" sensor, like the FZ200 is not the same as a FF 600mm lens. But there is no f2.8 FF 600mm lens. If there were it would be bigger than this Sigma 200-500 2.8 (not exactly pocketable, see image below of the guy handholding this monster lens).
The 150mm f/2.8 will be tempting for hiking/travelling/weight conscious wildlife photographers, especially if Panasonic also make a sharp 2x teleconverter (preferably with integrated tripod mount). Alas, still not DSLR competitive for sports til Olympus or Panasonic does on sensor phase detection focusing.
The 42.5 f/1.2 would have been interesting to me before I discovered how nicely the 75 f/1.8 simplifies portrait backgrounds, if you have enough space.
Hiking? Wildlife? You can`t carry half a pound extra stuff?
D600, 100ISO and 180mm Nikon prime @ 3.5. Severe lighting condition, faraway animal.
Face it, biggish and sharp glas, big sensor, fast acting camera is baseline, especially if you want to shoot animals under severe conditions.
Bringing a P&S with EVF and crappy glas is a wasted opportunity.
A Gh3 + the Panny 150 f/2.8 will weigh only a half-pound less than the D600 + the Nikon 300mm f/2.8? I don't think so ... . :-)
Saving weight for IQ and usability? Dumb idea and you know it.
P&S are getting eaten by phonecams right know. M43 will bite the dust 1 year after the last compact has been built. That is the real roadmap here. Fun to be consumer drone?
@ wakaba: PLONK
wakaba, why so angry? btw i hope that shot was meant to be an example something wrong, cause the bird is severely underexposed.
the point is - no shot at all with anything less capable. Underexposed not - unadultered - yes. Excellent comment from someone who thinks incamera jpg m43 on dsp-zoom is key...
That bird shot isn't very good. Not just exposure. It's soft, as well. Plus, the composition tells me that the shooter should not be spouting photographic opinions as gospel, especially in such an arrogant manner.
Wow Wakaba. I'm going to give up my m4/3s immediately.
We're only used to seeing a pretty low quality of wildlife photos in the m4/3 forums, such as in these links.
As you can see, the m4/3s are definitely no match for your Nikon FF.
PS. ISO100? That's not exactly severe lighting conditions.
I am happy to see these lenses closer to production. The 150mm F2.8 should be an excellent lens for low-light photography at a distance (concerts, stage performances, etc.). I just want it to be reasonably priced. I am not too concerned about size (at this speed and reach, the lens cannot be small).
How do manufactures come of with 42.5 mm. Its sort of like they made it and it came out a bit longer or shorter than the expected. ( the .5mm) . I am not knocking Panasonic but these strange length primes do make one wonder , Olmpus made a 17.5 - 42mm zoom. :)
The angle of view of this lens corresponds to 85mm (42.5x2) lenses in the FF format, and that was a very popular type of lens. I think they selected such correspondence so that the FF shooters could relate easier to framing they have been using in the past.
OTOH, the 0.5mm probably isn't that important, given the difference between the 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratio, and the lens barrel is labeled 43mm.
The weirder thing is that the spec says 42.5mm but then the lens has a large "43" on it... they could at least stick with either of the two, just for the sake of consistency...
I don't like the fractions at all for the lens names. Lenses like the Voigtlander 17.5 0.95, Olympus 17.5 1.8, Nikon 18.5 1.8, and now this lens. They are all a result of the crop factor, and a desire to match popular 35mm focal lengths. But vendors should just round the focal length off in the lens name, and make the actual focal length whatever fractional length they need it to be. It's a hassle to type and say "I just got the new Nikon 18.5 1.8" normal lens.
Agreed. Give me your Voigtlanders.
I'll save you the hassle.
I love m43 camera. I think the 42.5 is very interesting. but i dont get these enourmous m43 lenses. these are compact cameras. useful only where dslrs are inconvenient. If i can easily use my d800 i am gonna do that.
more compact lenses. and please more wide lenses!
I thnk they're beyond "small size is everything" now. Both leading companies are about to develop the system to a real pro level.
Granted, many users still want small and compact lenses (of whoch there are alread quite a few). but there are now also a lot of people that do no longer compare size only. They go for micro four thirds because simply because by now it' has become a mature and capable system.
Their lineup isn't just about small cameras now, they're trying to take a bite out of parts of the DSLR market now too (especially for video), after all the GH3 is almost DSLR sized itself. It makes sense as your small carry-round camera can be the same system with the same lenses are your large "more serious" camera.
"these are compact cameras."
GH3 is pretty biggish. E-M5 with optional grip is also reportedly OK with largish lenses.
But we know they won't be :)
I would buy both of these lenses tomorrow, if they are priced reasonably (ie. not more than their full framed equivalents.) I can't help remember, however, how long it took between the time Panasonic first showed the 12-35 & 35-100 F2.8's and they actually made it to market. :-(
Where are all these weirdos when APS-C lenses get released?
LOL, those don't seem to count for some reason. It makes for entertaining reading though.
People with small sensors seem to suffer from inferiority complex, otherwise how can one explain inability to understanding the simple laws of physics behind the equivalence (http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#1)
Probably some truth in that. Do you also have an explanation why APS and FF users apparently feel the need to moan about every M43 lens release, when it's a system they most likely haven't invested in and aren't likely to either?
Maybe they just don't respond well to assholes.
Would that be the same inferiority complex that drives you to regularly troll the m4/3 forums with "Nyah, I'm better than you...equivalence, equivalence, equivalence. Your system is rubbish" style posts?
Work harder on your photography if you want to feel better about yourself. Don't go and troll others just for choosing a different format than you.
Why does the equivalence matter unless you are comparing it to a non-existent mirrorless FF system? All you need to know is that this is the fastest AF prime for m4/3.
People don't moan the release of m43 lenses, they moan when m43 users start saying that the shallow DOF of fast FF lenses is essentially unuseable. They moan when m43 users claim that m43 has more DOF (it has not unless you go deep intro diffraction territory).
FF users don't claim that the small size and lower cost of m43 makes it essentially unuseable.
The biggest problem with equivalency arguments is that people make the equivalency conversion, but then try to compare the lens to a non-equivalent one with the same numeric values. You can't say '75mm f/1.8 on m43 is equivalent to 150mm f/3.6 on FF" and then complain that the 75mm f/1.8 on m43 doesn't have the same depth of field as a 75mm f/1.8 on FF. Or, you can, but you're just arguing with yourself at that point.
People will believe and regurgitate whatever supports their own ideas and decisions, understanding what they are saying is often optional.
I have the impression that the DOF equivalency is being more and more understood or maybe just accepted.
I don't really understand what everyone is so excited about. I used to own Canon FF. I sold it b/c I like MFT weight and portability. Both formats take great pictures, each has advantages. DOF is an issue if you like blurred backgrounds so if that is important to you, either shoot FF or else get very fast MFT lenses. No one is better than anyone else. Why all the fuss?
You 'll get killed by vignetting wide open and you won't get the background blur cause a 1.2 is really a 2.8 on m 4/3. I had a real bad experience with the Panasonic leica 50 m 1.4. Plus it looks cheap.
LOL at people who think 135-format is king of bokeh.
Now back to my Hasselblad.
If you actually want to be pedantic, 1.2 on a MFT camera gives a 2.4 DOF equivalent on 135. Which I think should be enough to nicely separate subject from background in most situations... Honestly, do you really shoot all portraits on 135 at f1.4-f2 ? On film, I find myself using f2.8-4 more often than the max f2 value on my 100mm. And if you need a shallower DOF for some shots, well yes it might be a limitation, but for MFT user in general it means a lens with great light gathering ability, and I guess it will be just enough sharp for portraits, so pretty good news for this system...
I do agree, I do have a feel though that these lenses will be overpriced and IQ will be worse than you average equivalent prime from Canon or Nikon.
"LOL at people who think 135-format is king of bokeh. " -------------- with given lense choices indeed 135 format is king of dof control.
F1.2 on m43 is equivalent to about f/1.8 or f/1.9 on FF in terms of DOF, f-values are not linear with respect to aperture size (i.e., f/1.4 is a full stop faster, or twice the light, of f/2.0, not f/2.8).
Good lenses, now Pana just needs to work on better sensors and processing.
Love the equivalence moron's logic.
The 150f2.8 is equivalent to a 300f5.6 and should therefore cost the same.
Ok, lets continue with that logic. (I'm only guessing prices here, but that won't be an issue for a little logical fun)
A m4/3 lens 150mm f2.8 is $1500
Is equivalent to a FF300 f 5.6, worth $500
Therefore, the price of the m4/3 lens should be $500.
However, the lens is still a 150mm f2.8, with similar design, glass cost, etc to a FF 150mm f2.8. Therefore, the FF150mm f2.8 should also only cost $500
What you clowns are saying is that the lens design, etc doesn't matter and that the camera that the lens is mounted on should determine the price.
A 150mm f2.8 lens is a 150mm f2.8 lens and should cost around the same, regardless of format. It just has different results depending on which camera it's mounted on.
You'd better think before calling others morons. A fullframe 150 mm lens is not the same as a micro4/3 150 mm lens, which only needs to cover a sensor of half the size. Much easier to design.
150 mm f/2.8 on micro4/3 is indeed equivalent to 300 mm f/5.6 on fullframe, and that's both in terms of DOF and light gathering. It's the most useful way to think about comparisons across different sensor formats.
Wrong. This is why an Oly 70-300 will be about the same size as a FF70-300, or an Oly 300/2.8 will be about the same size as an FF 300/2.8. You can save a tiny bit with the smaller circle but in general the lenses will be the similar size and complexity (You do see some size advantages in wide angle on m4/3).
Ergo, the Panasonic 150/2.8 will be about the same size and cost as a FF150/2.8
The lenses are the same size? Olympus and Panasonic marketing will be shocked to discover this.
> FF150mm f2.8 should also only cost $500
the cost is much cheaper but both 150mm f/2.8 lenses for 35mm-format or 4/3" should be of the same cost at the same volume.
thus I think it's fair the 4/3" one be sold at a slightly higher price if the volume is low, say 600, and maybe 700 in the first several months.
Mjankor, if you believe that what matters is only the focal length and aperture, let me remind you that there is a $600 camera from Panasonic, the DMC-FZ200, which has a 4.5-108 mm f/2.8 lens. According to your logic, there should be a similar full frame lens for $600. If you can get me such a lens, hell even 28-108 mm, I'll be happy to take it.
Aaron MC - Oly 300, f2.8 - 3.28kg, 28.5x12.7cm.
Canon 300, f2.8 - 2.55kg, 25.5x12.8cm
Nikon 33, f2.8 - 2.9kg, 26.8cm x 12.4cm
The 4/3s gear does have a weight advantage for two reasons. 1) There is usually some weight and size saving in the smaller imaging circle, but not much, especially as you go telephoto. 2) To match the FoV of that 300mm, you need a 600mm on FF. There's your weight and cost savings.
As a system, 4/3s is a lot cheaper and lighter, however a particular lens, such as this 150/f2.8, is still going have a generally similar cost, regardless of the system.
Yabokkie, so you think that a FF 150mm f2.8 should cost $500 or so?
The market appears not to have caught up with your forward thinking attitude. Would you like to imagine some prices for other things too?
No Jan. I don't think you get it.
There is no 4.5-108mm lens for FF. You have nothing to compare it to.
Yes, indeed there is no 4.5-108mm f/2.8 lens for FF. Even a 28-108 mm f/2.8 lens for FF would be very expensive. And why? Bingo! Now you can go back and think again what the point of my argument was.
I concede your point.
I knew that at some stage (looks like over 150mm) the front element becomes the limiting feature. eg: for a 300/2.8 you cannot have a front element smaller than 107mm. I thought that may also play at 150mm, but apparently not, (now I've gone and had a look at some 150mm FF lenses.) I grant the m4/3 150mm f2.8 may be a bit smaller than an FF variant.
However, I do not agree that it will be "much easier to design" and the idea of basing prices of m4/3 lenses on their "equivalent lenses" is still a retarded idea.
You people are all acting like morons.
m4/3 is a full-frame format because the lenses that are made for it are engineered to be full-frame relative to its native sensor size.
WHO CARES what it's "equivalent to" on some other, bigger or smaller format!?
I mean we could remind you that it's about a 138mm f/5.6 on a 6x4.5 on 120-format, but what difference does it make? Nobody cares anymore about 120-format, just like nobody cares anymore about 135-format. It's largely irrelevant to the marketplace. Less than 5% of all cameras sold are 135-format. GET OVER IT.
Because at the end of the day a 1.2 lens will ALWAYS have the SAME light intensity per unit area no matter what format it's on, meaning you'll get to use a lower ISO. And no, ISO is not related to sensor size purely, it's related to sensor size over time. Every year it gets cleaner and cleaner, such that a 135-format camera from 2008 gets outperformed by a m43 camera from 2012.
A brighter lens is always brighter. These arguments about frames being full are just bull. m43 does not crop its lenses, it's full frame by the precise and original meaning of that term, before marketing idiots got ahold of it and ruined it, creating legions of ditto-heads who parrot jargon terms without even knowing what it means.
Dark Goob, it's a bit silly to pretend that "full frame" isn't generally accepted to mean 135-format, however pedantically you'd like to define it.
And it's also pretty obvious why people care about equivalence numbers, given the long history of 135-format being such a popular size that people relate to. Over time, and as these other formats become more common, maybe the need for equivalence comparisons will gradually disappear. But so long as people have cameras in more than one format, and/or many people refer back to 135-format for comparison, you'll see equivalence discussions.
Get over it. If you don't like those posts, ignore them.
Alright, Mjankor. I will also agree that this 'equivalence' doesn't have much to do with lens prices. It's purely about light gathering and DOF. Pricing is another issue outside of the realm of physics.
Well, I think that was the most civilised end to a discussion on this comments thread.
***High five***
@Alumna Gorp:
When you say "f2.8 is a f2.8", then you have also to say "ISO 400 = ISO 400". But: Is there any law, which states, that comparisons are only valid with identical ISO setting? We are living in a modern world, where ISO can be changed nearly as easy as the shutter speed.
Way to go, Olympus.
I believe that both of these lenses will be much appreciated by the users. And no - none of these are sub $500 lenses.
I guess it is going to be a LOT easier to carry around a 150/2.8 than 300/2.8 (for FX). And probably cheaper too. Also much lighter tripod will be needed to hold the combo (should it be needed).
Releasing these lenses tells me that Olympus is confident that m4/3 will keep growing and attracting pro shooters - these are not lenses an average mirrorless shooter (no offense to anybody) would need/buy. There must be enough of those who would consider m4/3 over DSRL (APSc or FX) for serious work.
m4/3 is on the right track and in my opinion a very welcomed alternative to FX DSLRs (please notice: I am saying alternative, not a replacement)
Fantastic comment, shame the lenses are from Panasonic, not Olympus.
small aperture lenses are lightweight and cheap regardless of the sensor size. micro 4/3" is no Oly mount. it's designed by Pana and Oly followed and changed the track. they may change again, better change again, sooner than later.
What's the point of comparing apples and oranges? The 150/2.8 should be compared to equivalent 300/5.6, and no such FF is neither heavy nor expensive and probably achieves better optical quality, at least it's easier to achieve a better optical quality in FF lenses.
[quote]What's the point of comparing apples and oranges? The 150/2.8 should be compared to equivalent 300/5.6[/quote]
You seem to be, a f2.8 is a f2.8, comparing it to an f5.6 is just silly.
Adequate dof is all that matters :)
@ equivalence snobs- yes, lets compare apples to oranges. For example, you fail to mention the f/2.8 lens from (insert any format here) will have two stops better shutter speed (or two stops lower ISO, take your pic) at a given exposure at max aperture. Please stop just looking at one aspect of "equivalence".
This equivalence stuff is absolute rubbish. An F2.8 lens is an F2.8 lens. Period. It doesn't matter what sized sensor sits behind it. Same applies to focal length.
Ok a 150mm on m4/3 will give the same d.o.f as a 300mm at F5.6 on ff but surely the point is your 300mm F5.6 is two stops slower.
And what is the downside of being two stops slower?
(1) On the same format that would mean less shallow DOF but that is not the case here as you conceded.
(2) It requires an ISO two stops higher to achieve the same shutter speed. But then an ISO two stops higher on FX gives roughly the same noise as the lower ISO would on m43.
So, what do you gain by shooting a 150 mm f/2.8 on m43 compared to a 300 mm f/5.6 on FX? That warm feeling that f/2.8 must be better. If that helps you to sleep better at night, go for it.
These are ok but from what I have seen will be quite expensive for what I would be getting.
Are there going to be any really decently fast prime lenses coming out; i.e. 12mm to18mmf/0.9 or f/1.2?
My educated guess would be that a 12/1.2 (or just 18/0.9) lens would be more expensive than 42/1.2 simply because the optical design would be much more complex. I do understand that such lens could be more attractive to some users.
I would not be surprised if fast wide angle lenses would appear at some point, but the situation is not as bad right now with 12/2.0, 35/1.8 or 25/1.4
micro 4/3" lenses shorter than 20mm are more expensive to make. it's was not a smart decision when Pana designed the mount.
small aperture lenses (slower than f/1.4 for 4/3") can put the small rear element behind mount. this may solve part of the problem but still they won't be as good as NEX or EF-M mounts. they = Pana 4/3" and Samsung APS-C.
The Voigtlander 17.5 0.95 is already available, and it's an excellent lens. It's not cheap, but like the Voigtlander 25 0.95, it produces excellent IQ and has an all metal casing.
Voigtlander 17.5 0.95 Review at Lenstip
Dpreview, any extra info on the release dates yet?
I like the idea of EM5 5-axis IBIS and f1.2 (with the DOF of f2.4 on FF). That means you can slow the shutter, keep ISO down, and still get enough stuff in focus. Lots of creative possibilities!
> Lots of creative possibilities!
there is none. none unless you can rewrite the laws of our universe.
all the camera lenses, whatever the sensor sizes, get you the same result at the same angle of view (28.5 degs here) and aperture size (42.5/1.2 = 83/1.2 = 35.4mm). good or bad, live or dead, there is no way you can step out of the line.
I can see that you only live on paper.
Cause that, "no creative possibilities" statement with a pathetic try to use math to convince us you are right, definitely can mean only that.
I think SLOtographer means he can get the light gathering of f 1.2 (resultung in faster shutter speeds) and the DOF of f 2.4 compared to an equivalent lens on FF. This indeed might be a slight advantage in shooting moving objects (more tolerance to less than perfect focus) compared to a 85mm f1.2 on FF. I doubt however, that this a real advantage for creative photography.With M4/3 you loose more on the side of selective focus and background blur.
So you couldn't be creative with a 85mm f2.4 on FF or a 55mm f1.5 on APS-C?
This guy has been going all day. I wonder if he works for some consortium of anti m4/3 brethren.
I thought everybody knew that the apertures of f1.2 and f2.4 render you creatively impotent. Why do you think I set my camera to 1/3 EV steps and avoid all lenses faster than f1.4?
> I think SLOtographer means he can get the light gathering of f 1.2 (resultung in faster shutter speeds) and the DOF of f 2.4 compared to an equivalent lens on FF.
creative possibilities he was saying can never happen without breaking the laws of physics. anyone should be able to see all the cameras line up straight under the same rules if he ever studies physics.
I'm sorry but you wouldn't have a faster shutter speed, as you'd probaby be using a slower high ISO than you could (cleanly) get on a larger sensor. The advantage is size and especially having a less conspicuous camera. When you are travelling this is a big deal. Who actually travels with 85mm full-frame lenses?
@G Davidson wrote: "Who actually travels with 85mm full-frame lenses?"
Just got back from abroad (Europe) where I brought a backpack with 28-50-85 1.8G, 70-200 f/4G ED VR, my D800, and a GH2 and V1 in a shoulder bag. If photography is important, carrying an 8 kg backpack is no big deal.
Seriously? A 85 mm f/1.8 FF lens is one of the most compact FF lenses, only primes from 24 to 50 mm are more compact (and that excludes the f/1.4 WA versions).
I love to see the m4/3 & 4/3 grow. The systems keep get larger & better. I shot an Olympus half frame for many years & still have that camera. Of course I shoot digital now & moved to full frame 2 years ago.
I don't understand the attitudes that many photographers have against what the other guy uses for their tools of choice to photograph with. I think it is great that we all have so much to choose from to create. Do we have to be so petty & jealous? I can shoot my 1.2 at dinner with out a flash & the other guy had to use a flash??? WTF! That may have been a choice? And all the people using cell phones think all these "big" cameras are crazy & not needed at all.
These are just choices & need no justification. If you see me in the field please say Hi & if you have time to chat show me your grear. I'm sure I will like it & hope to learn its best features. I doubt my FF is any better than yours. We all love taking pictures.
How very reasonable. What on earth are you doing here?
Probably he is sent here to reeducate this crowd lol!
I got GH3 with 12-35mm, I have a 7-14mm, 14mm, 14-140mm, 25mm/1.4 and 100-300mm. I'm very happy with the pace of work, image sharpness and quality depth of field. Especially pleased sab video recording modes in this range lens. And expect these lenses to give their contribution to the popularization m4 / 3 format!
I indeed believe that the GH3 make the choice of 'best' m4/3 camera much harder :)
My 50mm f1.4 FA Pentax works great on my GH2 in video mode so I would only get the 42.5mm F1.2 if it is sharp in the F1.2 -F2 range. The Pentax has a big advantage since it's a full frame that also works great on my Sony NEX-VG900 full frame mirroless along with my three Pentax DSLRs. But it's good to see all of the new glass coming for m4/3 cameras .
Sad people writting off m4/3 as inadequate for portraits,i suspect the obsession with narrow dof is from folk who lack skill and rely soley on narrow dof .
43mm f1.2 will provide very narrow DOF. It's like a 55mm f1.5 on APS-C or 85mm f2.4 on FF. Narrow DOF and BG blur will not be an issue.
Oh no, the "equivalent aperture" brigade again. Sheesh...!
I think it is just a one man army.
No, it's several of them. It's like John Carpenter's movie: "THEY LIVE...!"
still waiting for the 25mm f1.0
No bokeh no buy.
need a 25mm f/0.7 to take similar photos as 50mm f/1.4's.
no image quality no buy.
No bokeh, no buy - the old Marley classic.
There's plenty of bokeh, and it's good quality too. If you want shallower depth of field than the system provides, then you're simply barking up the wrong tree. Try "full frame" or medium format or even large format if you want the ultimate in shallow DOF.
However, the Oly 45/1.8 has excellent bokeh wide open, see: http://go o.gl/PMDUT (delete the space)
Of course if you'd rather waste your time whining on online forums about gear that doesn't exist and might never exist, then by all means, have fun with that.
Granted, there's some bokeh, but seriously, folks, no where near enough. I would be happy with the equivalent of 50/2 on FF but wide open one generally gets deistracting rings and other nonsense, which is why we need a larger aperture to allow us to close-down a little bit to get rid of those rings.
For serious bokeh portraits (I don't mean head-n-shoulders for which a decent lens is now available) you need a lot of OOF background, and soft and creamy.
I'd love to see some images, say from the 45/1.8 and 75/1.8, that illustrate times when you wished for less DOF.
I really like the shallow DOF I get on my 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 on FF, but rarely use them to their fullest in my paid work.
The only trick I'd really miss would be the 200mm/f2. THAT is something that smaller formats can't replicate. But I don't know anybody who owns one, and I only rent one myself. And no, I don't think you'll see a 100mm/f0.7 anytime soon either.
How many people desire something like that from experience? I can't believe that it's very many.
The voigl is 25/f0.95, even better than what you want!
Apologies for the error in the original version of this story. In my rather jet-lagged state I left a typo in the story and didn't spot it.
The 150 F2.8 sounds great, but I'd rather see Olympus develop those type of lenses.
What about a m.Zuiko 300f4?
My dream would be an 8-18f4 that takes filters and a 100-400f4.
What type of filters do you need on a 16mm equiv lens? Have you actually tried the 7-14mm?
ND, GND, etc. can be useful, regardless of angle of view. Polarizers will be tricky, but do provide the only way of cutting through reflections at select locations in the frame, if this is what one wants. A filter mount is not always a necessity, but is nice to have.
No. If you think you need a polarizer for anything wider than 20mm, you obviously haven't tried it. Try it out holding one in front of a lens that wide. You get horrible weird effects across the frame with anything wider than a 90deg angle of view with a CPL. I dunno, maybe you dig that, but it's just not something that has many practical purposes. LPL is a different effect, but still doesn't work like you might think on ultra-wides.
This is not like a Samsung NX roadmap is it? I presume there is a chance these lenses will actually exist one day unlike the NX 16-80, 55mm and anything hinted at over 200mm.
So far every single lens that Panasonic and Olympus had on the road map went on sale. I think the longest delay was with the 12-35 and 35-100 f/2.8 zooms, that were announced in Aug 2011, and shipped in Aug 2012. So I would say I am quite sure these new lenses will be on sale within 12 months.
But at what price? It seems encouraging that these have not been named Leicas, but...
Seriously funny how people who apparently aren't interested whatsoever in 4/3 lenses or cameras seem to spend so much time talking about equivalence or lack of it.
Is there truly any justifiable reason to try to tell anybody that you know better than they do what is right for them?
Truly these things can surely be seen as tools.
For example, I play a classical guitar. You can get similar sounds with an acoustic though it's more versatile, but louder sounds with an electric, which weighs a lot more but we're talking rock & roll so you should be willing to sacrifice weight for the pure beauty of that sound!
Take it easy! LOL
buyer's lack of knowledge best serves maker's interest.
Troll's arrogance and pretension best serves troll's head further up own rectum.
Exactly. FOD. Yet, yabokkie, you seem to suffer from this worst.
I use full and cropped frame cameras for stills, and m43 for video. There are some studio gigs that I'd but just as happy using my little GX1 bodies on, but they are too small for most clients to take seriously. But the quality is there.
It sounds like your hung up on the lens math, but you're missing other parts of the equation. You're correct about depth of field. And that's about it.
You don't know anything about the quality of these lenses or sensors. Go use a m43s camera. Use one with the following lenses: 14/2.5, 20mm/1.7, 45mm/1.8, 75mm/1.8. And don't make another whiny post until you do. You do not understand what can be done with this gear until you actually use it.
All you're doing now is bootless speculating.
"you're" not "your". Why won't this piece of crap let me edit my own damn comment?
Still maybe 2 interesting comments here, the rest is filled with "equivalence trolls". Can mods actually moderate these posts, and redirect them somewhere else ? Maybe dpreview would need an "Equivalence talk" forum. Then these people could argue there until death (hopefully) ensues.
As for the announcement: it's interesting to note the release date is now 2013, and close to the release of the 14-42 mkII. That means closer than previously announced, as it used to be 2014.
full-frame hipsters being threatened that their "unique and creative" style of pictures will become mainstream.
I have full frame and u4/3 kit - I'm loving the possibility of this 42.5 lens - just one more area where I can take either kit out and not be concerned that I may not have an ideal lens for the shot.
Agentul: what do you mean «"unique and creative" style»? That certainly doesn't apply to the people you've mentioned. They photograph their cats and MTF charts. That's hardly unique or creative!
@Manuel - but feel the quality of the bokeh on those MTF charts!
Everyone seems to be stuck on the difference between 4/3 depth of field calculations (+2 stops equivalence) and 4/3 light throughput calculations (x1 equivalence).
Why does this have to be such a big deal? Same light throughput and same shutter speeds at equivalent focal lengths, much deeper depth of field. That's good sometimes. It's bad other times.
Lately it seems like everyone on the internet is deriving their own behavior from American politics. Total inability to admit anything other than "I have been completely right from the start"
Grow up.
I found the equivalence calculation and deriving price of the new lenses from that calculation totally ridiculous.Some people seem to forget that shutter speed is a hugely important consideration when shooting low light and action shots.
I am a full time FF user, yet I find these new lenses (and Panasonic's commitment for 4/3) very encouraging.
Don't you forget that FF pixel gather 4x more light so ISO400 on FF equivalent to ISO100 on 4/3. You can have 4x faster shutter speed on FF.
Everybody knows that already! Those in the search for lenses for m4/3 are supposedly those who OWNs such a camera, and they KNOW the differences betw "FF" and m4/3 (of course exactly everybody doesn´t know but most do)
Thus, no need for FF apologists around here. And you may know: Manyy people use BOTH "FF" and APS-C/m4/3...happily and for the subjects/events they consider respective camera to work best.
"Working with a smaller sensor and a fast lens you can use wider aperture = lower ISO or shorter exposure time and still get a decent depth of field. That's what it boils down to. You don't want to have just one eye in focus - most of the time."
Working with a larger sensor, you stop the lens down and shoot at a higher ISO yielding the same image. The difference is that the full frame lens that gives you that image cost far less than the m4/3 lens, and when don't need the DOF increase allows faster shutter speeds/lower ISOs than the m4/3 lens. Reference Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 vs. any full frame 50mm f/1.8.
100 ISO on FF = 100 ISO on m43. It's a standard. That's why it's called "ISO". It's measured to standards.
There is a difference of noise. However it's not four times more on m43. There is an issue of not just the math of "bigger sensor collect more light" but the fact that these are completely different sensor designs backed by completely different circuits.
My m43 cameras have shocked me by how well they do really long exposures and extremely long video clips. That tells me that they generate and/or dissipate heat differently than larger APSC or full frame sensors. (see: NEX cameras overheating with video). In that one thing alone--heat, which generates noise--we have one place where these cameras are not directly comaparable, so you can see that your assumptions and simple math are wrong.
Yes, the larger sensors do tend to perform a little better when comparing a similar generation of cameras. However, not by as much as you seem to think.
zstep thats absolutely moronic
shouldn't it be 85mm and f/2.4?
Depends on if your talking low light shooting (1.2) or DOF (2.4)
I shot my GH3 with 25 1.4 tonight at dinner with no flash while the person across from my with their Canon DSLR used a flash because their lens wasn't fast enough.
4/3" got fast lenses that produce noisy images.
what does "fast" mean and what does "fast" for?
other than image quality (in terms of SNR here).
Mike: Without telling us what their "slower lens" was it's impossible to tell whether you're making a fair comparison. For example a FF DSLR at ISO 6400 with a 50mm at f2.8 will produce an almost identical image in terms of DOF and "noise" to a 4/3 DSLR/EVIL at ISO 1600 with a 25mm at f1.4, assuming the technology is equivalent. With these settings the FF DSLR captures ~1/4 times as much light per unit area, but its sensor is ~4 times the area.
it's very simple that image quality in terms of SNR is decided by exposure in terms of lumen-second.
traditional exposure lux-second was meant for films or chemistry instead of optics or photographics. you have to multiply it by sensor area to get lumen-second.
I see that the DoF-Gestapo really takes m4/3 as a serious threat now. Al this deliberately wrong calculations are just so funny.
I read as far as your article touting "Less blur!" as a purely positive consequence of smaller sensors when talking about bokeh. Then I stopped, because it was obvious that they had no idea what photography is to those who take photos for aesthetic value.
Why it doesn't matter. Christ. As though the price difference between a $500 dollar 25/1.4 and its full frame equivalent, a 50/2.8 - which no one seems to make because it's so inexpensive they'd make no money on it (yes there are 2.8 macros, but good luck finding a 25/1.4 macro) - matters to anyone in the real world. And the option of having a $350 50/1.4 equivalent with 4/3? Nope.
Just to bang that home... Nope.
What puzzles me is why they've only discovered these theories after micro 4/3 became a steady format. Crop sensors have been there for quite a while and no one seemed to care about equivalent aperture BS then. I wonder why.
"but good luck finding a 25/1.4 macro"
LOL. Ever seen a crowing duck? quacking chicken? Have you EVER shot macro??? Apparently not, because then you would have known why there are no f/1.4 macro lenses.
|Stare Down by yannha
from Cat (Entry must be cropped to a square format)
|Looking Up by Jonathan Shapiro
from Abstract Photo - Architecture
|Crisis Over by Mond
from Random Items - Challenge 8
|Hvitserkur sunrise by Cloned
from The 100 and Under Club
|**PART 2** This Week Through your m4/3 2016.04.30
|***Weekly Wildlife Thread: May 1st - 7th***
|1dx II B&H Status
|Panasonic 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 a forgotten lens?
|**Weekly X Series Photo Thread 1 May - 7 May**
|What specifically are Sony cameras good/bad at and used for?
|F-stop & Iso changes
|Nikon D500 Does Surfing
|How do you feel about this guy's opinion on the different camera brands?
|Your most difficult photographic experience?
|Model Not happy with Pictures (I'm Amateur)
|A6300 Basketball Kit Lens at 5.6 and 3600 ISO
|a (REAL) Crop vs FF comparison
|Panasonic & Sony Sensor Debacle
|**PART 3** This Week Through your m4/3 2016.04.30
|The size advantage
|Quick question for the GIMP users.
|A few planes from yesterday with 14-140
|FZ1000 inflight photos - is this a limit?
|Post processing products and techniques - Part 5 (JPEG and raw)
Follow us


text: With stunning simplicity and welcome functionality, you'll reach for this gorgeous Prada leather tote all the time. Details include: double rolled leather handles, magnetic snap closure, goldtone hardware and hanging ID tag. The interior boasts two open and one zip compartments, along with open and zip pockets on the tan colored leather lining. Interior has ink stains a few different locations. Dimensions: 15"L x 67"W x 11"H. 7" handle drop..

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A carjacking victim has his car back Friday morning, while one man is under arrest for the crime.
A second suspect remains at large.
According to police, the victim, a man in his 50s, was sitting in his pickup truck in the area of Fountain and Chelton just before 11 p.m. Thursday when two men approached and assaulted him. After forcing the victim out of his vehicle, one suspect drove off in the F-150, while the other left the area on foot.
Police soon spotted the suspect driving the stolen truck in the area of I-25 and Garden of the Gods and arrested him. The suspect reportedly struggled with officers briefly before being taken into custody. He will face charges of aggravated robbery, second-degree assault, felony menacing, and possession of a weapon by a previous offender. Police have identified him as 29-year-old Gene Hamilton.
Officers have not located the second suspect. No suspect description has been provided at this time.
KKTV firmly believes in freedom of speech for all and we are happy to provide this forum for the community to share opinions and facts. We ask that commenters keep it clean, keep it truthful, stay on topic and be responsible. Comments left here do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of KKTV 11 News.
If you believe that any of the comments on our site are inappropriate or offensive, please tell us by clicking "Report Abuse" and answering the questions that follow. We will review any reported comments promptly.powered by Disqus


text:
"When I first started Huntington I was so against the whole idea of coming to a two hour tutoring session everyday. To me I thought it was some kind of punishment. I soon realized that was not the case at all. I grew to love each and every day I spent at Huntington. I built awesome skills like reading comprehension and math skills that I never thought I could get."
"We cannot thank you enough for all that you have done for Cameron. He is not the same boy who walked into your center back in September. We will be forever grateful for the confidence you have given him. We will continue our relationship with Huntington as Cameron goes through his school years - it is the best investment in his future we could have made."
"Huntington made a major difference for our daughter and I tell any teacher or parent I come across because I see how the individualized care that went into teaching our daughter made such a huge difference. We have been with Huntington now for close to 3 years and the progress she has made is remarkable. They meet with her teachers in school to get feedback so they can tailor her lessons and make it work for her."
Before coming to Huntington, Jon lacked confidence and was really struggling in school. His grades were mostly Cs, and he was extremely unorganized. Jon has been with us since the end of January. He recently got his report card for the third marking period. Not only did he get all As and Bs, but he made the honor roll for the first time ever.
Meghan came to us with a 530 in Math on the last SAT she took. She had 700s in Critical Reading and Writing, but wanted to bring her math grade up. Unfortunately, she came to us with only a few weeks before the March test. As with everything else she does, Meghan gave her Math SAT program her all in the weeks before the test and, we are very proud to say, she earned a 690 on the math portion of the March SAT
"Before I came here, I did not have any confidence in my work. That has changed significantly. I now have so much confidence in all of the work that I do. I needed better study skills, and Huntington went above and beyond in giving me those skills. I am setting and reaching higher goals that I was never able to reach before coming here."
"Our son has been doing extremely well in school since he started attending Huntington. His study habits have improved, his confidence has increased and he's looking forward to attending college."
Brittany came to our center with poor study skills and low self-confidence. We worked with her on study skills and linking important information together...Brittany starting doing well in her classes and her grades were improving except for her Social Studies.
Brittany's test and quiz grades were very low so she brought in her study guides and we broke down the information so she could better understand and remember the information. With each test, Brittany became more and more confident. She called last week to tell us the she went from a 50 to and 95 on a re-take quiz.
"Thank you so much for the support you have given Olivia and our family. We appreciate your help and the attention you have given Olivia has boosted her confidence tremendously. She LOVED tutoring and I know that most of that was due to the fact she knew you cared about her, and wanted to see her succeed...on a side note, Olivia had a high B in Reading Workshop for the quarter and one of the highest grades in her class in English (95.4%)!!"
When Michael initially started his SAT preparation, he scored a 1960 (Critical Reading: 620; Math: 650; and Writing: 690). His goal was to break 2000.
When Michael got back his SAT scores, he was delighted to learn that he scored a 2180. Michael's weakest area on his evaluation was reading and on his SAT he received a perfect score...an 800!
Jordan was struggling in many areas of reading, but comprehension gave him the most trouble….he is now is a sophomore…and, with many thanks to Huntington and your staff, he is doing very well. He recently received an application to join the National Honor Society….Your program in reading has helped him in so many ways and we are very grateful. Your program works!
"Huntington made a major difference for our son and I tell any teacher or parent I come across because I see how the individualized care that went into teaching our son made such a huge difference. We have been with Huntington now for close to 3 years and the progress he has made is remarkable. They meet with his teachers in school to get feedback so they can tailor his lessons and make it work for him. As a parent I get a progress meeting monthly to discuss what the teachers are seeing and how we should proceed for the coming month. I am thrilled to say that Huntington has changed my son's life for the better in so many ways. I will be forever grateful to the caring staff for helping put the confidence back into his step."


text:
Coolifying With Powerpoint Vector Art
Posted by bonesiii , Oct 21 2007 · 1,041 views
Coolified Artwork
Today the Bones Blog brings a walkthrough of tips to consider when drawing vector art with Powerpoint. This is Part 2 of the two-part feature begun here: Vector Art In Powerpoint: Quality, Inexpensive, Easy. That entry focused on the inexpensive and easy aspects. This entry should help with the quality aspect, listing many important concepts I use when I "coolify", though they can be used for original artwork too. I will use an avatar request from Great Being #1 to illustrate these concepts. Enjoy!
Note that "quality" here is partly defined in my own tastes, since all I know how to do is my own style. A lot of what I'm talking about is my own definition of "cool", as previously defined by this blog entry: Ruthless Elegance: A Visual Guide to Cool. However, many of these concepts can be modified for other styles, and I will point out some techniques I use that can help with any vector artwork. If you don't see "cool" the same way I do, don't fret.
Note also: Images will follow the text of each short section, as many are quite large (but not very wide so hopefully not screenstretching). Lemme know if these take too long to load. (I was too lazy to thumbnailify most of 'em. )
Order is roughly a mix of relevance, and just the order of which subject comes up in order as I drew.
Setup Artpad
Okay, here you see the "artpad" that I created in the first part of this feature. Below the drawing area, I pasted the quote from GB's PM. That is the guideline I have to keep in mind as I go. To the left I put an image of the Ignika, so I can easily glance at it as I go.
Since he's asking for a meld, I could have also pasted in a Miru pic, but I know its shape by heart so I didn't bother.
Zoom In!
Don't try to draw it at 100% zoom. I go into 300%, usually.
Note that you should click the BZP Blue square before zooming so that the new zoom will center screen right on it. Otherwise it just goes into the center of the whole slide and you'd have to scroll around to get to the right spot. Zooming always centers on whatever you have selected.
It helps if you imagine what you will probably end up with before you start clicking. In this case, I knew I needed to find similarities between the Miru and the Ignika. There are a lot; they're really the same basic shape except the Miru's nose area bulges out and the cheek areas have those biggrin gaps. I noticed that there's a line on the cheek areas of the Ignika next to those serrations that could have a gap added in, and imagined from there.
So before I even clicked once, I knew roughly what the final product had looked like.
I also sketched it on paper real fast at one point. That can be helpful if you're proficient at sketching (as I am). Try not to overthink the paper version, though, because you might end up drawing something so cool you'll wish you'd done it on the comp and then get lazy for that step.
Note that if you have a scanner, you can also scan a sketch, paste it into Powerpoint, and draw lines directly over it. I have done that for some coolified Kanohi.
Spikes are the key, IMT. What I love about sets like the Piraka or masks like the Ignika itself is spikes. It's a central concept to my style of "cool", and it's also very important for "coolifying".
The Ignika has some spikes, but right off the bat, I notice that the four in the mouth area and three at the top could use extending. So I draw them sharper and longer.
Serrations, like on the sides of the official Ignika, are another key to my style of cool. Serrations are basically three or more parallel ridges or the like.
As I drew, you can see I originally put some "gap" serrations on the forehead. Dropped 'em later, but that's a type of serration too; long gaps arranged in parallel. Also used on tons of my coolified Kanohi. Serrated rectangular prisms, flat, are used on the sides of the mask later.
Mock Curves
You might recall I said that in the Edit Points mode, you can make a point on a line into a "curved point". This alters the mathematical formula behind the vector object to make the line literally curved.
However, it's tedious when you're manipulating ten thousand points. If you're drawing a company logo, you would use that feature in a professional vector art program. For making an avatar, it's pointless because 64 x 64 is too small to see that kind of detail. Even 100 x 100, my avatar size, is too small.
So you can make "mock curves" by simply clicking enough dots in a curve shape to mimic the effect when you zoom out. I never use actual curve points anymore. Too complex for free stuff.
Use the Edit points mode to make any slight corrections needed if the result accidentally looks too "cornery" to you.
This image goes back in time a little compared to the last one but it illustrates the concept. The dotted red line is a point I was moving when I printscreened:
Line Coherence
The above looked horrible IMT -- but it was fine for the moment because I got something down on paper (as it were). The beauty of vector art is that you can change anything you drew just moving points around, unlike pixel art. But why did it look horrible?
Because there was no "line coherence". Coherence is a fancy term for not being a blob. If you look at a sword, it might have a curved line, but that curve is steady along its width. It doesn't waver wimpily like the goofy cheek area in the above attempt at the mask. The word also strongly implies that different parts of the same mask "line up" in ways that make the whole thing seem like a whole, rather than a conglomeration of different parts. Strong curves, lines, angles, and lining up those things all come together to form "coherence".
So I edit points like mad until the whole thing feels "coherent" to me.
Notice in the final mask in the banner: the outer edge of the cheek gaps lines up (continuing the curve) with the outer edge of the eyes. The inner edge of the gap next to the eyes lined up with the outer edge of the mask, and the outer edge of that gap lines up with the outer edge of the lower half of the mask. The mouth spikes all line up, and their outer edge forms a rough 90 degree angle with the lower edge of the upper half. A rough curve exists between the points of all the lower end of the spikes. Etc. All of this contributes to the mask's coherence.
Speaking of strength, remember that this style is supposed to be "ruthless" elegegance. But as I went, I realized those chin-spikes looked more "dainty" than ruthless. So I thickened them, and made the sharp "blade" point more like the number 7. Later I realized it needed to be even thicker and the thickening of it increased its appearance of strength.
Detail vs. Space
There are two conflicting ways to go with any given flat surface area. You can add detail, or make it "smooth", making a space with no detail other than maybe a gradient or texture, etc. Both are important.
Detail can give a piece of art a greater sense of reality. If I make some details of a coolified Kanohi too small to totally make out in the zoomed out view, it creates the impression of a real object that you could see more of if you zoom in. Compare the final avatar with the banner for this blog entry; you might see a few details in the zoomed-in banner that you can't quite make out in the avatar.
Space on the other hand can give the mind a sense of peace. If you just throw a pure wall of detail at someone, especially if most of it is too small to make out clearly, you just confuse them. Might even give 'em a headache. If you zoom out and have to squint at the screen to see your artwork, you need more space. Cut stuff out.
This is always the hardest aspect to balance when coolifying, especially with the 64 x 64 avatar limit. I much prefer making avs for 100 x 100, but only staff can use those.
As I went, I realized that I was trying to put too much detail on the forehead of this mask. Even after I cut some forehead serrations (that I forgot to printscreen), when I zoomed out, I had to squint. Had to edit several times. Helps to do so when you're very tired and your eyes are getting blurry at night, BTW.
Even the final version of this might have too much detail; I'll leave that for GB to judge, heh.
Usually these aren't problems with big art though.
Set Autoshape Defaults (Color, etc.)
Note that as you draw, you can right-click an object and select "Set Autoshape Defaults". If you do this with a green object with a black line, those settings will become the "default" for when you draw a new object. Useful since you want your whole thing to be in some color other than that weird bluegreen Powerpoint has as its default. This way you don't have to keep editing the colors of every new shape you draw.
This will reset every time you make a new file.
In the example, you'll notice that I had started out with blue, which had been the default for the objects in the last blog entry (I'm using the same file, obviously). GB hadn't given me the color he wanted until this point, so I had to edit them myself once he did.
Then, I set the main green as default, and every object I made was this color. Note: still requires modification sometimes with gradients or shading or cast shadow objects, but in general it's easiest.
You can "poke holes" in a mask by simply drawing a gap on top of it. That is, draw a new object in the shape the gap would be, and then just make it the same color as your background.
Note that this isn't possible with any kind of gradient, texture, or image in the background, unless the gap is tiny enough that you can recreate the color from that part of the gradient to estimate. In general, use it only for solid color backgrounds like the BZP Blue background in this example.
3D Thickness
Remember you're drawing a 3D object. This might be a lot harder to do for a beginner than I can identify with, having been drawing 3D for years now, but basically, pick up a piece of plywood sometime and hold it at an angle. Notice it's not just a 2D piece of paper, it's got thickness.
You can draw that sort of thickness into a Kanohi or other similar things with thin polygons drawn on top of gaps' edges. In terms of layers, these "thicknesses" on the eyes are actually above the BZP Blue objects that form the "gaps".
Gradient Shading
3D objects with curved surfaces have a gradient "shading" effect (not to be confused with a shadow; shading is on the surface of the object itself). You can mimic this with Powerpoint gradients that start with your main color and blend into a slightly darker version of it. With symmetrical objects, it's easiest if you simply aim the darker side of a gradient fill towards the outer edges of your mask or whatever. In this example, it is as if light is cast onto the green mask from directly in front, so the parts to the sides are dimmer.
Be aware of diagonal gradients too. Also, to convey a concave shape, you can flip the gradient so brighter is on the edge and dimmer in the middle. I use that for mouth areas sometimes with Kanohi to convey that the chin is jutting towards the screen. Not used in this example.
Cast Shadows
Use a transparent black object with no line over parts where a light from slightly above would cast a shadow onto other parts of your artwork.
In this case, I wanted to convey that this is half Miru, and Miru has a far-jutting nose area, so I used a cast shadow under that area, transparency about 80%.
Be consistent -- if you use cast shadows in one part, pay attention to where else one would realistically be cast.
Remember the zoom -- and that the size of each part might look big as you draw it, but when you zoom out to the real size (like for a 64 x 64 av), that part might look tiiiiiiiny.
Was the case with the mouth area ridges on this mask. When zoomed out, I could barely even see them, so I had to enlarge them by more than double the original size. I did this in this case by Editing points and moving the outer edge points of each spike out even farther.
This same concept helped judge "Detail vs. Space"; there was a lot more line detail around the eyes originally, but when zoomed out, I could see that that made the area look too "small". So I cut some of that detail, and it created the impression of larger parts.
You're drawing a germ through a microscope. Keep that in mind.
Ruthless Revision
If a part of your artwork is looking ugly, don't be afraid to change it or cut it completely. Be your own worst critic as you're making it. You should design it to please yourself above all, since that is pretty much the only thing you can be an expert on. So be honest, is something you just made displeasing you? If so, change or cut.
I cut almost half of what I drew with this mask, and the final shape is a lot different than what you see in the earlier pics. Maybe a grand total of 20 points are untouched out of the whole 200 (or whatever) since I drew them. Estimating wackily, but you get the idea. Even then I was not yet done, as the below is not the same as what you see in the banner or GB's avatar:
You write a story, you proofread. You draw something that's designed to be printscreened, you "proofscreen." That is -- by all means, printscreen when you think you're "done", but don't let the ruthless revising stop there. Be honest -- once it's put into the final image, does it really look perfect? If not, is there anything you can still do to improve it?
In this case, I again went back to the powerpoint file and widened the mouth parts once more to what they are now, even after I had actually uploaded one version to brickshelf and was about to PM it to GB. It just wasn't right yet.
So I widened them, and went through the whole printscreening process again. Might sound tedious, but get it over with while you still have the file up, or you'll probably never go back to it. Don't let the "but I thought I was done!" idea discourage you from putting out your very best. Of course, if it's 11:30 at night and you have homework, like me right now, do call it quits and call it best job possible (for now). But otherwise, fix it. Shouldn't take too much longer.
Also, one note about printscreening. It can be hard to get the line thickness juuuuuuust right for the zoom you need. Not to mention getting the zoom exactly right. (Remember the line thickness is not related to the size of the artwork, so if you zoom out, it seems thicker, maybe too thick.)
So if you have a good program that can resize images without distorting them too much, feel free to printscreen a little larger than your final size, and shrink it a little. Remember to hold Shift to make sure its width and height stay undistorted. Also, if there's an "Anti-Aliasing" option, make sure it's turned on.
(That program that I use for pixel/raster art is iPhotoPlus 4; just a prog that came with an old (now deceased) scanner. It roxors, but as far as I know, few have it, and pretty sure it is no longer available. But there are tons of other programs out there that can do simple resizing, including Microsoft Photo Editor, which, as I mentioned before, sometimes comes with Microsoft Office.)
Aaaand, all that done, here's the final mask in two zooms:
And here's the actual avatar, background turned transparent and converted to a .gif in Photo Editor, as sent to GB#1 already:
QUOTE(Great Being #1)
ZOMG that's cooler than I ever imagined thanks Bones.
You're welcome.
- 0


text:
The Agriculture Department's Jim Hubbard and the Interior Department's James Douglas told a House subcommittee Thursday that the cuts reduced the seasonal workforce and administrative expenses like travel and supplies.
But they warn that sequestration could jeopardize prevention efforts and preparedness in the future.
Their comments come as the cuts take fuller effect on federal government agencies, and just 11 days after 19 firefighters died in Arizona while trying to protect the town of Yarnell.
Douglas also warns that other reductions will mean that fewer dispatchers can be trained to fight fires.


text:
Ceiling Lights
Pendant Lights
Table Lamps
Floor Lamps
Night Lights
Ceiling Fans
Wall Sconces
Lamp Shades
Ceiling Medallions
Children's Lighting Designers
All Light Fixtures
Sphere Lamp in Green Dinosaur Character by Alex Marshall Studios
Light up your kid's room with this cheerful Sphere Lamp from Alex Marshall Studios! Available in 12 different color and design variations, this lamp makes the perfect reading light for any kid's bedroom or nursery. You can even personalize this lamp with your child's name (up to 11 characters) to make this lamp truly unique! Works best with an on/off bulb up to 100 watts.Ever since Alex Marshall Studios began in 2000, Alex Marshall has provided customers with handmade, high quality ceramic art. Each original piece is formed by hand with white earthenware clay and finished with unique glazes to make it truly one-of-a-kind. Alex understands the need for convenience as well as style in a family's home, so every piece of dishware is food safe, residential dishwasher safe and microwave safe! This item is custom made especially for you upon order.Please note, this product is wired for use in the US, Canada and most countries in Central and South America. If you are purchasing this lighting item for intended use in another country, it may not be compatible with the typical voltage requirements of that country. Some of our light fixtures can be re-wired by the designer to meet the needed voltage requirements. Please contact our customer care team before ordering.
SIZE: Small: 7"Dia x 6"H with 10" x 10" x 8" Shade (total height: 15")Large: 9"Dia x 8"H with 11" x 11" x 9.5" Shade (total height: 18")
Category: Lighting, All Light Fixtures
Free Shipping
Size:Please ChooseSmall - 15 inches high (BAL-041)Large - 18 inches high (BAL-040) $(+50.00)
Personalize Your Item:No Thank YouWith Personalization
Join Our Mailing ListTO RECEIVE UPDATES AND SPECIAL OFFERS!
©2004-2015 Rosenberry Rooms. All Rights reserved. | 3101 Stony Brook Dr., Suite 140, Raleigh, NC 27604
ecommerce enabled by fastpivot | PRIVACY POLICY


text:
Self Help Clearinghouse
This information is provided as a resource and does not constitute an endorsement for any group. It is the responsibility of the reader to decide whether a group is appropriate for his/her needs. For evidence-based information on diseases, conditions, symptoms, treatment and wellness issues, continue searching this site.
National Stroke Association
National. Founded 1984. Dedicated to reducing the incidence and impact of stroke through prevention, medical treatment, rehabilitation, family support and research. Professional publications, 'StrokeSmart' magazine, information and referrals to local groups. Guidance for starting stroke clubs and groups.
National Stroke Association
9707 E. Easter Lane, Suite B
Centennial, CO 80112-3747
Voice: 1-800-787-6537
Fax: 303-649-1328
Website: http://www.stroke.org
E-mail: email@example.com
Verified: 1/16/2013
American Stroke Association
Division of American Heart Association (BILINGUAL) National. 1800 groups. Founded 1979. Maintains a listing of support groups for stroke survivors, their families, friends and interested professionals. Publishes bimonthly magazine. Provides information and referrals to groups and general resources.
American Stroke Association
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231
Voice: 1-888-478-7653
Website: http://www.strokeassociation.org
E-mail: email@example.com
Verified: 1/22/2013
Stroke Talk for Young People
Online. 400+ members. Founded 2002. Support, information and tips for the younger stroke survivor (stroke or TBI happened before age 55). Families and caregivers welcome.
Website: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/stroketalkforyoungpeople and https://www.facebook.com/groups/strokeforFBsupport and https://www.facebook.com/groups/unitedstrokeandbraininjury
E-mail: email@example.com
Verified: 1/9/2013
Stroke Support Network
Online. Provides support for stroke survivors and caregivers of adult stroke. Support group is available 24/7/365.
Website: http://www.strokenetwork.org
Verified: 2/14/2013
The above information was "verified" as correct on the date at the end of each entry. Since American Self-Help Group Clearinghouse's database is extensive but staffing is limited and information for these organizations can change, it is not possible to keep every entry in American Self-Help Group Clearinghouse database completely current and accurate. Please check with the organizations listed for the most current information.
For additional information on self-help groups, please visit the American Self-Help Group Clearinghouse web site at http://www.mentalhelp.net/selfhelp
If you find information that is not current, please contact American Self-Help Group Clearinghouse at: email@example.com
Copyright © 2013 American Self-Help Group Clearinghouse. All rights reserved.
This information does not replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise, Incorporated disclaims any warranty or liability for your use of this information. Your use of this information means that you agree to the Terms of Use. How this information was developed to help you make better health decisions.
Healthwise, Healthwise for every health decision, and the Healthwise logo are trademarks of Healthwise, Incorporated.


text:
Wednesday, December 02, 2015
4 comments
This is the hardest month for me to stay on track. I have not been doing well. The remainder of this week I am focusing on portion size.... Read more
Sunday, November 29, 2015
3 comments
Today is going to be a great day. I am going to go to church. I am going to clean and decorate for the holidays. ... Read more
Sunday, November 08, 2015
4 comments
I am not feeling great had hell of couple weeks. I have a son with severe autism who was accused of something. The person who accused put restraining order against him. So two weeks later they didn't even show up at court everything was dismisse... Read more
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
7 comments
today I am going walking. It hasn't come any easier. Test walked 1 1/2 miles. Doing same today. Wish me luck. Because I don't want to go ... Read more
Monday, August 10, 2015
2 comments
Today my goal is to walk/run 20 min on the couch to 5k program. Then go play tennis with my daughter. (Mostly me chasing her ball) but fun no the less. Then go pick out paint to paint my entry way. Should be a fun day. ... Read more
Monday, May 18, 2015
1 comments
Today my plan get up early and walk for 30 min on treadmill.
The unexpected happen...
My daughter woke up midnight bloody nose. With how much she was covered you would of thought she murdered someone. Pjs covered face covered. Really ... Read more
Saturday, May 16, 2015
1 comments
I keep losing my motivation. Or I get hurt which side tracks me.
Today my goal is to log everything that I eat, and to go walking.
... Read more
Saturday, May 02, 2015
1 comments
today I feel sick and tired. I am choosing food that is good for me. I went walking this morning.
... Read more
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
2 comments
what does my health mean to me... It means being here for my kids and family. It means getting off the chair and moving. It means I feel great all the time. How about you?... Read more
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
0 comments
went walking with my son. Legs hurt. Boy does he walk fast.
Today is a good day to get outside!!!... Read more
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
1 comments
Today, I feel beat.... Read more
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
2 comments
so my husband gets new job and throws off my whole schedule. I was working out before work. Now I have to bring kids to school get the ready etc before work. I just make it on time. And he works 2 hours later than I do. So I gotta pick kids up f... Read more
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
4 comments
The habit I am having hard time with is soda and chocolate. It is everywhere at my job!!!... Read more
Monday, July 28, 2014
0 comments
How often give 100%. I give up way to easily. I am working to change everything one step at a time.... Read more
Sunday, July 27, 2014
0 comments
I was really convicted this weekend on how over weight I am. Tomorrow start fresh. Here I go. ..
On a strange note just managed to get a splinter in my head and it hurts like head.... Read more