LPG

Yes, it IS a great lens and a great system...
Even Toneh had to admit this recently when he shot with this lens on the GH5-II... He now says it is the best vlogger combi on the market...
According to him Panasonic finally fixed the CAF on that camera…
It is clear that unsubstantiated one-liners do get him a lot of clicks!
Furthermore he is firmly within the group that doesn't understand equivalence.
Yes, it behaves like a 20-50 mm in FF terms, and yes it has the bokeh of a 3.4 FF lens, but as aperture is concerned, it DOES behave as a 1.7 as far as the exposure triangle (aperture - shutterspeed - iso) is concerned. Not as a 3.4 lens! How unfortunate that Toneh doesn’t understand this…
People get confused by the fact that the light-gathering of this 1.7 lens is lower than with a 1.7 FF lens, but that is of course relative to the sensor size. On a MFT sensor you need less light to cover the sensor.
This actually means that you gain nearly two stops compared to a FF 2.8 lens, and this handily does make up the ISO disadvantage that MFT has compared to FF.
As to bokeh, it is very dependent on the type of footage one shoots. For my line of work, I am in 95% of the cases perfectly fine with the bokeh of a 1.7 aperture on MFT. Having a shallower depth of field can easily become tricky. My 42.5 mm 1.7 gives me a gorgeous look in the right balance of shallowness. If I want a real FF look, I reach for my 1.2 Sigma zoom (with speedbooster) or my excellent (sharp!) 0.95 17mm Mitakon.
Only if one needs extrem bokeh, a FF camera with a 1.4 lens will be the better choice.
The 10-25 1.7 zoom is really tack sharp, and it even outperforms most primes in this range.
I will be curious to see whether they can make the announced 25-50 1.7 zoom optically as good as this one…
 

Yes, it IS a great lens and a great system...
Even Toneh had to admit this recently when he shot with this lens on the GH5-II... He now says it is the best vlogger combi on the market...
According to him Panasonic finally fixed the CAF on that camera…
It is clear that unsubstantiated one-liners do get him a lot of clicks!
Furthermore he is firmly within the group that doesn't understand equivalence.
Yes, it behaves like a 20-50 mm in FF terms, and yes it has the bokeh of a 3.4 FF lens, but as aperture is concerned, it DOES behave as a 1.7 as far as the exposure triangle (aperture - shutterspeed - iso) is concerned. Not as a 3.4 lens! How unfortunate that Toneh doesn’t understand this…
People get confused by the fact that the light-gathering of this 1.7 lens is lower than with a 1.7 FF lens, but that is of course relative to the sensor size. On a MFT sensor you need less light to cover the sensor.
This actually means that you gain nearly two stops compared to a FF 2.8 lens, and this handily does make up the ISO disadvantage that MFT has compared to FF.
As to bokeh, it is very dependent on the type of footage one shoots. For my line of work, I am in 95% of the cases perfectly fine with the bokeh of a 1.7 aperture on MFT. Having a shallower depth of field can easily become tricky. My 42.5 mm 1.7 gives me a gorgeous look in the right balance of shallowness. If I want a real FF look, I reach for my 1.2 Sigma zoom (with speedbooster) or my excellent (sharp!) 0.95 17mm Mitakon.
Only if one needs extrem bokeh, a FF camera with a 1.4 lens will be the better choice.
The 10-25 1.7 zoom is really tack sharp, and it even outperforms most primes in this range.
I will be curious to see whether they can make the announced 25-50 1.7 zoom optically as good as this one…
 

Yes, it IS a great lens and a great system...
Even Toneh had to admit this recently when he shot with this lens on the GH5-II... He now says it is the best vlogger combi on the market...
According to him Panasonic finally fixed the CAF on that camera…
It is clear that unsubstantiated one-liners do get him a lot of clicks!
Furthermore he is firmly within the group that doesn't understand equivalence.
Yes, it behaves like a 20-50 mm in FF terms, and yes it has the bokeh of a 3.4 FF lens, but as aperture is concerned, it DOES behave as a 1.7 as far as the exposure triangle (aperture - shutterspeed - iso) is concerned. Not as a 3.4 lens! How unfortunate that Toneh doesn’t understand this…
People get confused by the fact that the light-gathering of this 1.7 lens is lower than with a 1.7 FF lens, but that is of course relative to the sensor size. On a MFT sensor you need less light to cover the sensor.
This actually means that you gain nearly two stops compared to a FF 2.8 lens, and this handily does make up the ISO disadvantage that MFT has compared to FF.
As to bokeh, it is very dependent on the type of footage one shoots. For my line of work, I am in 95% of the cases perfectly fine with the bokeh of a 1.7 aperture on MFT. Having a shallower depth of field can easily become tricky. My 42.5 mm 1.7 gives me a gorgeous look in the right balance of shallowness. If I want a real FF look, I reach for my 1.2 Sigma zoom (with speedbooster) or my excellent (sharp!) 0.95 17mm Mitakon.
Only if one needs extrem bokeh, a FF camera with a 1.4 lens will be the better choice.
The 10-25 1.7 zoom is really tack sharp, and it even outperforms most primes in this range.
I will be curious to see whether they can make the announced 25-50 1.7 zoom optically as good as this one…
 

Yes, this is a beautiful camera indeed. A friend of mine has the T1. I like everything about Fuji, except that their lenses are big and expensive... Will wait for the GH5 because of the whole ecosystem. For studio work this is no problem, but I do not go back to bulky systems when outdoors.

Yes, this is a beautiful camera indeed. A friend of mine has the T1. I like everything about Fuji, except that their lenses are big and expensive... Will wait for the GH5 because of the whole ecosystem. For studio work this is no problem, but I do not go back to bulky systems when outdoors.

Yes, this is a beautiful camera indeed. A friend of mine has the T1. I like everything about Fuji, except that their lenses are big and expensive... Will wait for the GH5 because of the whole ecosystem. For studio work this is no problem, but I do not go back to bulky systems when outdoors.

It all depends on the way you pursue these offences. If the guy get lynched, you would be right. If he gets a fair chance to defend himself, there is nothing wrong with pursueing him for his offences.
Indeed, a society where these offences are being pursued in a fair way is a much better place than a society that does not care.

I may not like that you punch an editor, but I will defend to the death your right to punch an editor, because you are a megastar and missing a steak will ruin your creativity.

Interesting! While we share the history of slave trade and colonization, in our society it is not so consciously associated to the upper class. Maybe the social divisions within England were a bit more outspoken. 
Elitism seems to be a dreaded notion, nowadays, but there were times when also the idealists among socialist movements strived for education, enlightment and good behaviour. 
I guess your remark on the oxbridge society has some truth, but does it validate the strive for vulgarity and bad taste so evidentl in display in programs like Top Smear?

Maybe no need to quit this site and Andrew's good work. I also don't agree with his tolerance for racist remarks, but there's nothing wrong with a good argument. Having a good argument is one of the good old English virtues we should uphold at any cost, I think.

​Two things:
1) Your assertion that the upper classes are superior to the lower classes is some quite open classism and eliteism.
2) Those lovely polite old English gentlemen who upheld these Oxbridge ideals traded in slaves and colonised a third of the world causing repercussions from their rampant and destructive racism that echos today in organisations like ISIS, the IRA and Al Qaeda. I'm going to make a bold statement: That they queued politely at the post office does not make up for the atrocities they committed.