So the short flange distance makes no sense, because it causes big distortions, abberations and problems with "real aperture" on a big sensor (light has to fall on the sensor under a big angle). These lenses look quite long.
So what is a advantage of a slim 35mm mirrorless?
crashpc: Please, add some older camera models in the comparison tool. It has been said many times and it would make good reference. I'm sure you'll find your time for 4-6 models... THX
agree, I'd like to see a granddaddies Canon 350D and Nikon D80. They probably wont be that much worse (if at all) than new Canon crops.
Peiasdf: Sony a6000 is winning this thing at ISO 1600 and above. APS-C and JPEG only of course.
JPEG is SOOOOOOOOOOO irrelevant =)
It would be cool if you would shot this test scene with Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 and Zeiss 55mm for cropped sensors.
ZAnton: Sony has good innovation in cameras, but its lenses are 1) extremely big and heavy (compared to CaNikon)2) very expensive, especially considering that they don't have IS like all others.
Ok, now back to numbers, ladies.70-200 f/2.8:Nikon 2000 Euro with stab. Canon 2000 Euro with stab.Canon 1200 Euro w/o stab.Sony 2800 Euro no stab.
16-35 f/2.8Canon 1350 Euro 640gNikon 1370 Euro 745gSony 2100 Euro 900g
Other "cheapo" ff and aps-c lenses like 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 or 55-200 cost same or more than Canon, Nikon, Tamron etc. analogies but with OS.
Sony has good innovation in cameras, but its lenses are 1) extremely big and heavy (compared to CaNikon)2) very expensive, especially considering that they don't have IS like all others.
my 2 notes for DP Review.1) in DR tests LX100 does have somewhat less noise than Sony and Canon G7x. It is not much less noise, but visible and worth mentioning.
2) Please compare it in size with ILC m4/3 like Olympus PL7 + standard and bright lenses.
For me LX100 is a main rival for Oly PL7 (or other compact m4/3).And it looks like LX100 will be smaller and lighter AND significantly cheaper than Oly PL7+standard zoom+bright fixorOly PL7+bright zoom (Oly 12-40 f/2.8)
Donnie G: I was convinced that I wasn't among the consumers that Canon's G7 X was made for because I have never been interested in owning any compact camera. Boy was I wrong. Although I have no interest in owning compact cameras, my teens are very interested in the category, and I am their "deep pockets". So I wound up buying 2 G7 X cameras, one for him and one for her. Between the 2 of them, they were able to setup the cameras without any input from "the broke old guy". After about 10 days, my gorgeous gal pal, Brandi, and I were able to decipher enough teen slang to learn that the camera features they worship the most are the programable click wheel around the lens collar, the articulated touch screen, and the ability to upload images to social media via Canon's Image Gateway service. I don't think that these kids are even aware of the other features, such as sensor size, lens speed, focal length, or even IQ. It takes better photos than their smartphones and their friends think its cool. :)
Donnie, I can make only one conclusion out of your story:your kids would be similarly happy with pretty much any other enthusiast compast. Whether is be Nikon P, Canon S, Canon G, Pana LX, Sony RX ...
Photoman: it looks like Panasonic & Sony win in this race...again.
@PhotomanThose build-in EVF/OVF are tiny and useless. For example for me such an EVF/OVF ist just a waste of money and useless addition in size and weight.
GeorgeP71: How can this camera rate a silver with SO MANY CONS??I would not buy it. The Panasonic reads MUCH BETTER!
Agreed, but Pana has much smaller zoom range. And I think for a non-changeable lens, 100mm is a must.
ZAnton: I think in Video Mode Sony uses full chip readout, while Canon skips lines.So Sony's image is MUCH better than Canon's.
Nikon had f**d up pretty much everything they started lately.Canon is still trying and at least some attempts are successfull (like 100-400, 35 f/2, G7X is not THAT bad for a first 1" camera, although I don't think it deserves Silver Award)
I think in Video Mode Sony uses full chip readout, while Canon skips lines.So Sony's image is MUCH better than Canon's.
Artistico: Well, in this day and age when digital processing has removed the need for colour-correcting filters and most others, save for ND, Polarisers and the occasional Grad for the ones without the patience for bracketing and post-process combined exposures, the only way a filter manufacturer can try reducing the fall in income is to hype up new products that no one really needs to try to create a demand.
I know what some will say - getting it right in camera is better than in post, etc. Well, the "right" image in that camera is also a processed image, except you are leaving your processing in the capable(?) hands of camera manufacturers sometimes with quite differing views to yours as to what a final image should look like.
I am as nostalgic as the next person, but using colour shift filters just so I have to move some sliders a tiny bit less in post doesn't appeal to me.
But, then again, what is Tiffen to do? If I were them I'd produce new filters no one needed and hyped them up too.
It looks like you have never worked with presice colors and are a pure theoretician. The ability of digital image to correct colors has its limits. More so, if you want precise colors. In most situations it is much easier to screw on a proper filter, than f**k 20-30 minutes with color correction afterwards (by eye). With each single image. With unguaranteed results. One can also use a Color Checker instead, but then again, you need more time to correct colors in PP (apart from that color checker and software also cost money).
High-res screen is good.... unless you work with Adobe products that can't scale up fonts...I have tiny-winy letters and icons on my Dell 27" 2560x1440. Thank's God it is not 24" or 22" with same resolution.
steelhead3: I wonder if the judges will know which cameras took the shot?
that is why you get 2/3 of the prize in nikon gear, not in cash.
xpanded: Scandinavians have bigger brains ;-)
and pockets =)
JohnTh: Most probably this throws out Tokina 16-28 F/2.8 and even Canon 16-35 F/2.8. Eager to see the image IQ, distortion charts etc. vs to above and Nikon 14-24.
Why is this not a PJ zoom? Do you KNOW how fast its Af is?This lens competes with Nikon 14-25, and Nikon 17-35, and Canon 16-35, and Tokina 16-28
brendon1000: Should be a stellar lens but but $1599 for an APS-C lens seems rather steep. :P
Wait a year or two.
Sannaborjeson: That is weird.
They show only 3000x2000px samples on their flickr and all the samples are terribly over-sharped. https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/14833959224/
And for some reason CZ bans people from commenting or asking questions on their photo samples.
They have Original Size 3817*5719But you are right. It is oversharped.