marcio_napoli: Let's face it people, we play with small format because the big guns cost 40.000 bucks.
If one of those were only 6k or 7k (possible, if it were mass produced like 35mm cameras are), then ha!!! Canon / Nikon would be crushed, I mean, among enthusiasts too.
Besides action and fast AF, DMF reigns supreme on IQ.
Someone said weight? Hmm... then grow some biceps.
And this camera is really not that heavier than a FF DSLR. If you carry your D810 around, you can easily carry a Hasselblad.
Price is not the only advantage of smaller formats: they often win also on lower size and weight, better hand-holdabillty, wider lens selection, more sophisticated and flexible AF and metering, etc.
Remember that in the film era there were medium format cameras for about $2000 and less, but even then many professionals and enthusiastic amateurs chose 35mm film cameras instead – even many professionals who could have afforded an MF kit.
Some people have a good use for a two-ton truck, but I have no interest in one, even though I could afford it; a car is _better_ for my usage.
greypixelz: haven't Panasonic gotten the message from Kai and Lok that micro4/3rds is dead? and don't they know that Pentax is the king of WR and that it had just out-sensor'ed them?
I mean, really, Panasonic! :P
@Dr_Jon and @JimW-203: yes, all I can come up with is the "DMC-L" cameras, which were Four Thirds DSLRs in the same 4/3" format as MFT. I guess Mike99999 was just confused.
iudex: Given the current standard zooms for M4/3 this one is definitely the most interesting. The old 14-42 kit lenses are not wide enough and optically mediocre (well, a kit lens). The 12-32mm is wide, however too short. The 12-50mm is both sufficiently wide and long, but too slow. This one is wider than the kit zoom and longer than other two, so definitely the most interesting cheap zoom (well, cheap in comparison to Pro 12-40mm lens). So basically a counterpart to popular DLSR zooms like 15-85/16-85mm from N/C/P. However I cannot get rid of a feeling that Pana could have used the advantage of smaller sensor and make a bit faster lens, e.g. a constant f4. This would fit nicely between f2,8 zooms (12-35, 12-40) and slow variable aperture kit lenses.
I would also be interested in a MFT successor to the wonderful Olympus Zuiko 12-60/2.8-60, which hopefully could be distinctly lighter than that lens, especially since I now have to use it with a mount adaptor. And it would AF better on CDAF-only bodies!
But a mid-speed lighter option like this is nice too.
P. S. Why the desire for constant f/4 zooms when a f/2.8-4 can be about the same size, weight and price? It is the maximum effective aperture size, so at the long end, that mostly dictates bulk etc.
@Mike99999 Have I missed the news about Panasonic still cameras in two other larger formats, or is "L mount" an in-joke that I am missing?
Arizona Sunset: Question - is the other travel zoom from Panasonic so bad that they needed a duplicate?
Compared to the 14-140, this is distinctly wider (12mm vs 14mm), less expensive, and with 5x zoom range vs 10x, has a good chance of being optically better. (But I await the reviews.)
As to being "more interesting at f/2.8", it would also heaver and more expensive too. There is nothing wrong with some people sometimes opting for a kit with more speed and the option of less DOF in exchange for more weight and more cost, but some of us have chosen a smaller ILC format like MFT exactly for offering a different trade-off, in the direction of a smaller and lighter kit.
endofoto: Sony has to make difference in sensors to force us to buy new cameras. Graphene sensors can increase camera sales, bec silicon sensors cant get any better. Graphene sensors are 1000 times more light sensitive and 10 times cheaper than silicon sensors.
No: the 1000 times improvement in sensitivity was compared to previous _graphene_ sensor experiments – the number was mis-represented in the press release from the marketing division at the university where the research was done.Silicon sensors are already detecting over half of the photons that reach them, so there is no possibility of getting more than 2 times more sensitive.
With the rear dial looking dedicated to exposure compensation, how does manual exposure setting mode work? Does that dial become aperture, or shutter speed, despite its labelling?
Anyway I a happy to see Olympus offer a small, low profile body (so-called "rangefinder style") with an eye-level viewfinder. I want to down-size from my "bump-top" EM-5 some day.
Elliot H: where's the 4x5 sensor &while you're at it the 8X10
Price is the main barrier to larger sensor sizes; sensors up to about 5"x4" (actually 200mm or even 300mm diagonal) are already available, as custom order "wafer-scale" sensors from companies like Teledyne-Dalsa. See the two at bottom-right on this page:https://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/custom/sensors/
P S. Pixels are huge, though.
Lee W: Can the human eye actually resolve 8k video or are we at saturation limit with 4k?
It depends on the ratio of picture width to viewing distance, or "viewing angle" For typical eyes, 4K is good until your distance the screen is about the width of the screen; already quite close! And that is for stationary images that you can examine carefully; for most moving images, motion blurring and such mean that less resolution is needed. So seeing the full 8K detail require absurdly large viewing angle, like a distance from the screen about half the screen's width or less.
But maybe the point is that sometimes 4K is not quite enough and even if 5K or 6K would be enough, it is technically easiest to jump by a factor of two. Then compressing can still look better than a 4K, 5K or 6K signal at the same data rate, since the compression can be selectively done more where it has least visible effect, while keeping more detail in parts of the image than benefit from it most.
Note that some people already have >4K TVs, in the form of 5K computer monitors where they watch movies.
JosephScha: Let's see, 4K video (38## by 25##) is said to give an 8MP extracted still. This imples that 8K video (nearly 8### by 5###) should yield a 32MP extracted still. Considering that Panasonic has just one camera with a 20MP sensor, and that 4K video requires some pretty darn fast memory cards ... on the one hand I credit Panasonic for investing in something for several years in the future. On the other hand, I wonder if they realize it will be several years in the future before they can make this work?Personally, I hope they can squish out a BSI sensor somewhere on their development path, it would be worth it if it can gain a stop of light gathering capability, I'll bet it can.
@mosc Firstly, Panasonic make cameras and sensors in other formats, so this goal of 8K video camera need not be based on 4/3" format. For a professional 8K video camera, I would expect Panasonic to make the sensor in a shape like the 7680×4320 of the "8K UHD" standard, which is 16:9. Seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_resolution#Resolutions
By the way, since names like 4/3" and 1" primarily refer to a diagonal size, not a specific shape, there are also video oriented sensors in both those formats that are in wider, lower shapes like 3:2 or 16:9. It is only in the specific application of the Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds camera systems that the shape is also specified.
RonHendriks: Hasselblad is the next to be absorbed.
Hasselblad already went through a similar merger with Danish digital back maker Imacon. In fact, after that merger, the new company was called "Hasselblad", but its top management came from Imacon, and for a while its offices were in the former Imacon head office in Denmark. So basically the two dominant Danish maker of digital backs have taken over the two surviving makers of medium format cameras. (Excluding Leica, which more recently super-sized from 35mm format to a "almost medium format" 45x30mm system.)
This article needs a new headline, as many readers are mislead by the original one: the news is not specifically about the NX1.
Samsung is withdrawing _all_ its still and video cameras (except phones!) from several markets: so far, the UK and Germany, and I believe also the Netherlands.
bluevellet: Why do they keep updating their APSC SLT cameras but FF SLT is left out to dry?
Maybe a new APSC SLT is needed to provide IS for existing A-mount lenses - Sony moved IS out of thr boy into the lenses with its APSC mirrorless system. And IIRC, has moved it back to the body with its 35mm format mirrorless system, so those bodies can stabilize adaptor-mounted A-mount lenses.
fmian: Just as I've been saying for a while.Digital sales are slumping, while analog sales are pumping.
fmian wrote:"BJL wrote: 'Meanwhile sales of mobile phones other than smart phones declined'
and then he wrote: 'Mobile phone sales are not down'
So which is it?"
It's both, as is clear if you look at the numbers in the source that you cite:- smart phone sales are well up- "dumb phone" sales are down, but by less- total mobile phone sales = "smart plus dumb" are up.
And by the way,sales of "phones with digital cameras that get used a lot" are up.
Mobile phone sales are not down: they at worst were only slightly up in in that one quarter, with a shift in the mix towards more smart phones. Last I saw, mirrorless sales were about level or up slightly.
So:- Digital camera-phones (smart phone) sales well up: 13-20% and in numbers that overwhelm everything else in this list.- Total mobile phone unit sales up a bit, revenues up more due to the mix shifting towards smart phones.- Mirrorless ILC sales about flat.- P&S sales going down for years now (as camera-phones largely replace them)- DSLR sales down after a "bubble" of film to digital transitions, and not because of a move back to "analog" SLRs!
The bottom line is that your real and imagined downs are mainly shifts in the digital product mix towards different kinds of digital tool, with total sales and usage of digital photographic equipment going up.
P. S. Are analog photography sales up? A one-time uptick in one niche product line (Instax) does not quite show that.
tkbslc: Shrinking sales? Seems like a trend with all brands.
Not all brands; just the brands whose products fail to also handle phone calls, text messaging, music playing, email, web browsing, video games, internet connectivity, and so on. There is no point ignoring that fact that for the vast majority of camera users who are only interested in snapshots and little video clips, "smart phones" are now the dominant tool.
"Are digital sales not decreasing?"
No, sales of digital photographic equipment are not decreasing! They are just shifting to different product categories. (The same for digital music players; see below.)
And this is shown by data in the source that you cited. To repeat: smart phones ("digital camera-phone-music players") are now the dominant digital photographic tool (in fact the dominant digital tool, period – also for music playing, etc.) and even in that supposedly bad quarter, sales were UP by 13%, for an extra 40 million in a single quarter, which completely overwhelms the decrease in sales of other types of digital camera, which decrease is mostly people buying less of the low end P&S digital cameras.
P. S. Over the last six month or reported sales, the year-on-year in increase in sales of "digital camera-phone-music players" is even more impressive, at 21%, and 124 million more units sold.
Apart from the folly of inferring a trend from a single quarter's sales, the source you link shows about 13% *increase* in smart phone sales, from about 290,384,400 in 2Q2014 to 329,676,400 in 2Q2105. Meanwhile sales of mobile phones other than smart phones declined, keeping total mobile phone sales almost flat. So there is a continuing shift amongst phone users towards smart phones, which tend to be the phones most likely to be regularly used as a camera.
That is an increase of about 40 million sales in single quarter: how do you think growth in Instax and other film camera sales for 2Q2015 compare?
You do know that these sale losses are due to less people buying P&S digital cameras because for more and more, their phone is all the P&S camera they need? Since phone cameras are digital, your digital vs analog claim is wide of the mark.
Jefftan: look at that huge size,847 gram without a lensif not using a tripod, just hand holding , all fun of photography is lost
APS-C is the real successor of old 35mm film camera not these full frame
The weight of the body is not too bad: less than most DSLRs in the same 35mm format (only the Nikon Df is lighter AFAIK), and indeed less than the Canon 7D Mk II despite its 1.6x smaller format.
The only available lens looks "solid" though: at 1140g, that 24-90 f/2.8-4 weighs significantly more than the longer and brighter Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5 (my heaviest lens, so I use it for comparison.)