Panny really has done a lot for photography and video. Too bad their marketing and distribution is so messed up. They should get far more credit than what they do. Heck, m43 would not have made it on the back of Oly alone. The best early lenses were all Panny. Their work with Leica. This sensor work.
Even back with compacts, they were pushing the envelope with 720p and then 1080p in compact cameras.
Panny -- figure out how to blow your own horn and get announced products to market on time!
The service will be available until Adobe decides they have a better idea. Then it will disappear.
ravikiran532: Enough of comparisons with FF lens or 4/3 lens...I don't know why such comments come when any manufacturer releases a new lens...If canon releases a tele lens...people start complaining ...how big that lens is ..Mirrorless is future..If 4/3 releases a tele lens...size is too big...DSLR is king..
Of all three if you dont want to compromise for low light..then APSC is the right option.. High end fuji will always be lighter than high end APSC canon..
For comparision sake 7d mark II with 100 -400 --- 900g + 1.6 == 2.5kgfujifilm Xt1 with 100 -400 -- 450g + 1.4 == 1.8kgGH4 + 100 with 100-400 (ts slower too 4 - 6.3) -- 600g + 1 == 1.6kgI hope people will stop making "size" comments instead welcome the move by the manufacturer by introducing a great lens..to make their lens family complete..comment later after seeing sample images
FYI -- Pana is slower on the long end, faster on the short end (4.0 vs. 4.5) vs. the Fuji. I'd be much more interested in the imaging characteristics of the lenses than .3 stop on either end.
digifan: Nice lens it oozes quality just like the Panna 100-400mm.
The Oly price is eye-bleed level, especially with it's bokeh characteristics.
mosc: The world should just indicate the physical aperture diameter and the viewing angle ranges. Interpreting anything else requires sensor information. If people really want to talk about lens-only attributes when they look at lens stats, viewing angle and aperture diameter ranges are all they should get.
But then you would have to know the sensor to translate physical aperture size into exposure parameters. How is that better?
mosc: This shows the advantage Fuji has over Canon and Nikon in not selling a FF system. Fuji makes a much more reasonable APS-C telephoto compared to buying a heavier piece of FF glass and throwing away most of it's light mounting them on a D500 or 7D. Long APS-C glass is almost non-existent. Pentax has a couple lenses but even they seem to be switching back to FF. I doubt we'll see ANY new long (500mm+ equiv focal length) glass from them.
This lens shows how overpriced long m43 glass is too delivering the same focal range from a larger physical aperture for less money and similar weight on a format with higher resolution sensors.
I don't think this + a Fuji T1 is going to focus well enough for birders but if it did, it would make a lot more sense for shooting at 600mm than what they typically use.
"This lens shows how overpriced long m43 glass is too delivering the same focal range from a larger physical aperture for less money and similar weight on a format with higher resolution sensors."
-- that strikes me as a contorted mouthful. What do you mean?
The PL100-400, which is similarly priced and speced, is smaller and lighter (e.g. 985g vs 1375 g)
Results on both lenses is not yet out, so we'll have to see how that goes. That could make a big difference. Right now, it's just specs and pricing. If you factor in AF performance (as you noted about birding), my guess is the PL100-400 will outperform.
I think your statement reduces to "the Fuji sensor is better" and a comment about more glass in the Fuji at the same price, but the Fuji has to have more glass because of the larger sensor, but also therefore makes it bigger and heavier.
Not everything has to be a win or lose proposition. It could just be trade-offs, depending on what people want most.
Retro Instax I get -- take a pic, hand it to a friend at a party, etc. Heck, they even sell the printer for your phone. Cool and phone for retro, lo-fi fun.
Retro super 8 - take a film, put the film in your closet sometime later (never to be seem from again) and digitally edit your low-fi video? That doesn't make sense even to a hipster.
Now, if you included an "easy splice" machine, at least a hipster might be interested (though still not the rest of us).
JakeB: It's better than the iPad.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
There. I've just saved you the time you would have spent reading the rest of the responses to this article.
I guess I didn't mean quite THAT much of an argument, lol.
WT21: In a fast shrinking market, it doesn't pay to be the number, what, 6 player?? (Canon Nikon Sony Panny and Oly ahead of them?) Maybe even behind ricoh/pentax?? It makes perfect business sense. They make a ton of good consumer electronics. They should focus any photo expertise into their phones. I would be an unhappy stockholder if they double-downed on cameras (I am not a stockholder, but if I were...)
Thanks. Didn't get your point the first time.
If Sammy was first with the rumored "organic sensor" or some other breakthrough, then I could see that. But the straight-up mirrorless camera? Not working well for them.
They do have solid R&D, though, so you never know!
How many TV units shipped in 1995 total across the industry, and in 1995, what was the major disruptive technology threatening TV sales? I'm not sure myself, but if you are going to use the analogy, please provide the data.
But I came here for an argument
Last comment, then it's all yours.
"Not disappearing" and "shrinking market" -- If I were to bring to my manager the idea that we need a ton of investment to be #7 in a "not disappearing" and shrinking market. Well, I'd best update my LinkedIn profile, as I'll be looking for a new job soon.
It sucks for the users who tried a pretty good camera system in the NX, but all the hope in the world won't change the hard reality.
DSLR units are falling, and mirrorless units are also not doing well. That's been published in numerous places. P&S cameras have all but disappeared. The ILC is also shrinking.
Douglas F Watt: That would really be quite a shock if Samsung indeed has abandoned the digital camera market. They must've spent a boatload of money developing the sensor and the rest of the technology in the NX 1, and it seems like they're dropping it like a hot potato. I suspect someone in the higher-ups of Samsung decided that this pet project of one of the technology teams was an interesting diversion but not part of Samsung's future. And the other comments about how they're not into customer service, warranties, etc. are unfortunately true. That was always my biggest question about Samsung cameras.
Yes, not talking tech. Talking sales. Sales is what matters in a business.
If they are dropping out, it's much more like they made a bet early as MILCs developed, and they didn't execute well enough. They've fallen too far behind. Now they cut their losses. Why send good money after bad? Likely the camera team had goals of certain volumes, and didn't hit those goals, and lost their funding.
Sometimes in a business you have to stop banging your head against a wall. GE in it's heyday always said they would only operate in a market where they could be the #1 or #2 player. It's a classic business portfolio decision.
Horshack: Maybe they were hiding a new MILC inside one of the refrigerators?
I see what you did there. MILC inside a refrigerator.
In a fast shrinking market, it doesn't pay to be the number, what, 6 player?? (Canon Nikon Sony Panny and Oly ahead of them?) Maybe even behind ricoh/pentax?? It makes perfect business sense. They make a ton of good consumer electronics. They should focus any photo expertise into their phones. I would be an unhappy stockholder if they double-downed on cameras (I am not a stockholder, but if I were...)
Merry Christmas to you, too, DPR, and Happy New Year to all!
Might be fun to play with, with the kids
How is this different from Pixelmator?