"Disturbingly shallow depth of field"?!? What kind of camera user are you? That is a HUGE advantage, and is something unattainable with current P&S offerings due to tiny sensor size and slow lenses.
Please learn something about photography before posting "first looks" at camera equipment.
Actually, that's not a good thing for Engadget photographers because they usually abuse the bokeh. Look at the photographs they take of gear that they see at a press event. you can never really tell what you are looking at because about 1mm of the item is in focus, and the rest is washed away in blur.
That is the conundrum, most experienced photographers wish for the shallow depth of field (sometimes to excess), whereas some macro photographers, and some inexperienced prefer a broader depth of field.
I have heard, and correct me if I am wrong, that using regular 4/3 lenses and other lenses on the m4/3 body (with an adapter) will give a broader depth of field.
FWIW, a 'disturbingly' shallow depth of field, in close up or macro photography is a fact of life? Lumix also announced a macro m4/3 lens this week. It will be interesting to see what depth of field it provides. It is priced as much as the camera, $900, ouch!
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"Disturbingly shallow depth of field"?!? What kind of camera user are you? That is a HUGE advantage, and is something unattainable with current P&S offerings due to tiny sensor size and slow lenses.
Please learn something about photography before posting "first looks" at camera equipment.
Yeah author, seriously...the shallow depth of field is likely the result of the large 1.7 aperture and focusing relatively close.
The More You Know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
Actually, that's not a good thing for Engadget photographers because they usually abuse the bokeh. Look at the photographs they take of gear that they see at a press event. you can never really tell what you are looking at because about 1mm of the item is in focus, and the rest is washed away in blur.
Don't abuse the bokeh.
That is the conundrum, most experienced photographers wish for the shallow depth of field (sometimes to excess), whereas some macro photographers, and some inexperienced prefer a broader depth of field.
I have heard, and correct me if I am wrong, that using regular 4/3 lenses and other lenses on the m4/3 body (with an adapter) will give a broader depth of field.
FWIW, a 'disturbingly' shallow depth of field, in close up or macro photography is a fact of life? Lumix also announced a macro m4/3 lens this week. It will be interesting to see what depth of field it provides. It is priced as much as the camera, $900, ouch!