Jogger: Seems ok for budget video folks.. but, why would anyone buy this for stills when the A7 is cheaper, much smaller, better built, and with 4x the sensor size... at this size and price, you might as well go for the D610.
Seems ok for budget folks? The WHOLE DSLR video save is for budget folks. This just happens to be the current best in the DSLR video world just as the GH3 was before it irrespective of the FF obsession too many seem to have.
love_them_all: I was hoping the Cmos Sony sensor ver would be 30-40% cheaper than their CCD ver. But they are pretty much the same price.
While the sensor may be cheaper at some nominal level, they are still produced in very small quantities and thus don't have a cost advantage due to economies of scale. This also applies to the cameras themselves. The selling price is a function of the tremendous R&D costs, production costs, distribution costs, warranty costs and marketing spread over a small unit sales volume.
TXforester: With lenses faster that f2.8, why would Fuji have a top shutter speed of 1/4000 and the lowest ISO in raw of 200? You are stuck stuck at f2.8 in bright sunlight unless you add at least a one stop ND filter. At least with film you can stick in a roll of slow film to make up for lower top shutter speeds. :) Other than that, the camera looks good to me.
With film cameras in the 70's 1/1000 was generally the fastest shutter speed we got unless someone was lucky enough to own a Leicaflex that had 1/2000. We were only thinking of freezing motion, never being obsessed with a shallow DOF in bright sun. We used B&W almost exclusively and tried to avoid Panantomic -X because it was so slow. A large aperture was of no interest to us for the most part.
Photomonkey: A good update to a fine camera. Not everything that everyone wanted but good nonetheless.
This may be Nikon's last top end DSLR. We may see a move to mirrorless (donning flame suit) for the next generation.Buy your piece of history today.
As for those claiming that action is a business model today, please point me in the direction of this market as it seems to be the province of soccer dads/moms and SI wannabes. All of which make no money at it.
@Vfunct. Your response is amusing considering it completely ignores the inevitable march of technology. Mirrorless was originally useless. Today the TT-1 is making DSLR manufacturers envious/nervous.
A good update to a fine camera. Not everything that everyone wanted but good nonetheless.
Terry Breedlove: Fuji nor Sony have anything even close to this.
They are trying to make money with what they are selling rather than making troll candy for whiners who won't buy anyway.
Photomonkey: GoPro has created an ecosystem with their camera that wannabes will find difficult to beat or even match.The camera is only the starting point for the action/extreme photographer . Accessories and software tools allow for a large range of application plus post processing.Those detractors focusing on sensor size and IQ need to see properly PP video from these cameras. Most all of us have seen the output as they use these cameras in almost every action film and scores of television shows for the otherwise impossible to get footage. It does perform at the cinema level assuming proper use and handling.Of course proper use and handling of cameras is harder than carping about the lack of features that the self appointed expert believes are necessary in any camera they have never owned or used.
Other films include The Avengers, Transformers (all of them), Fast and Furious. Almost every film covered in American Cinematographer each month includes a film using GoPro as part of their gear list.
GoPro has created an ecosystem with their camera that wannabes will find difficult to beat or even match.The camera is only the starting point for the action/extreme photographer . Accessories and software tools allow for a large range of application plus post processing.Those detractors focusing on sensor size and IQ need to see properly PP video from these cameras. Most all of us have seen the output as they use these cameras in almost every action film and scores of television shows for the otherwise impossible to get footage. It does perform at the cinema level assuming proper use and handling.Of course proper use and handling of cameras is harder than carping about the lack of features that the self appointed expert believes are necessary in any camera they have never owned or used.
Jogger: I wish Sony would come out with an action cam using their 1 inch sensor. The QX100 is maybe 50% of the way there.. its just needs to be a bit smaller and have a fixed UWA lens. It can be done and the video quality would blow away these 1/2.3 sensor action cams (GP3+, AS100, etc).
They would be creating a new niche for themselves.
One key aspect of the smaller sensor and related circuitry is the lower power requirements. A larger sensor would need a larger battery and thus defeat the small format objective.
jaygeephoto: As a professional photographer I fully understand that equipment is not always pleasing to look at - I used to own a Rollieflex twin lens! However for a family/vacation/survey camera this thing is absolutely hideous - especially with the optional viewfinder attachment. Does anyone remember something called the Vsioflex that attached to Leica M cameras? It made an otherwise panache´looking camera into something that resembled a Russian moon lander.
^ Rube Goldberg? You mean a rectangle? Clearly you have been ignoring camera shapes since you fell in love with your Exakta VX500. This camera is actually very cleanly designed and has great features for walk around photography for those wanting good quality and light weight. For me it is appealing as it promises to be a Leica Vario replacement with silence, good fast zoom, and good IQ; a perfect candid shooter.
G Sciorio: Small body with a larger sensor means larger lenses. If the majority of the weight and bulk is in the optics...and if there are so few native lenses I don't see any major advantage over a DSLR.
The short flange distance only helps a bit. The fact is that very small lenses have avery short throw to the sensor that creates problems with sensors that did not happen with film. Note the problems with short Leica M lenses on the A7/R and other mirrorless cameras
B E: Am I the only one who finds it odd that X-Sync speed is almost never listed in specifications? Because it is the first thing I look for.
I look for it too but in this case I believe it is a leaf shutter that syncs at all speeds.
How refreshing to see appreciative comments.Panasonic have done their homework: it shows and the public is noticing.
iudex: I can imagine taking this lens on a safari (of cours combined with a dustproof body). There is enough ligt near the equator, so the relatively small aperture should not be an issue. On the other hand the biggest problem on a safari might be the dust, sand etc., so eliminating the need to switch lenses and having one dustproof combo where the sensor will never have to be exposed to environment can be a great advantage.
^ Or higher ISOs that are good and clean with almost any decent camera today.
Emacs23: More careful observation of results should dump down initial enthusiasm. In fact this lens is only great on FF. It is quite mediocre on APS-C and there's something in optical design or coatings which spoils color reproduction with filters (at least UV).
It is excellent on FF while the still besting the lenses purpose made for APS-C. This is a specious comparison. Much like saying your motorcycle is better than a car because it is faster and gets better mileage.This lens covers FF and thumps the competition. An APS-C lens can't cover FF and thus loses on the "edge resolution" front.
People always laud MF IQ. The truth is that many MF lenses were not as sharp as 35 lenses but then they never had to cover MF. This is precisely the case here but the lens in question still trounces the budget lens used in this false comparison.
@Yabokkie, this lens beats the others optically irrespective of whatever camera you put it on IF you can put it onIn the end, everyone wants great construction and excellent IQ and then wants to pick nits. The truth is that the new lens is superb but also the lenses we already have are fairly decent.
Hooray for Sony.A brilliantly sharp and well made lens for a small amount more than Canon's 2.8 IS offerings. Granted they are not a 50/55 but they are comparable prime configurations.
I hope this signals the beginning of a number of premium lenses from Sony. Considering that Fuji is currently setting the standard for optical excellence and fair pricing for their quality, I am sure that Sony have noticed the accolades for Fuji's line
ChapelThrill23: One of the biggest issues that the Sony systems have right now is how expensive the native lenses tend to be. I don't doubt that they are very high quality but other mounts offer some optional but still quality lenses at more modest prices too.
I see the bus of cheap trolls just stopped at DPR.
ulfie: 71 mm (2.8″) long make it a bit long for steady, low-light, hand-held shooting considering these two full-frame Sonys have no IBIS unless you're willing to pump up the ISO. The price for a "normal" lens is, IMHO, ridiculous.
Price too high? So everybody clamors for razor sharp optics but seem to think they should be priced like kit lenses? Maybe you need a cheaper hobby or softer lenses.
How do you come to the conclusion that it is only so-so for APS-C? The center is the sweet spot of highest performance and is what is used by the smaller sensor.The resolving power of the lens is measured to be extremely high in absolute terms..
In addition, DPR and DxO say the is one of the sharpest lenses they have ever tested so how does that make it mediocre?
Color reproduction? Lets see some facts that go beyond the typical color signatures of different lenses.