qwertyasdf: "And because we picked the APS-C format, also SIZE and operability"
I cannot agree with this. I have a X-A1 and the 18-55 f2.8-4, and stopped buying Fuji lenses, they are huge, esp. the 10-24mm f4.
Canon EF-M 11-22mm / EF-S 10-18mm is ~ 220g, vs Fuji's 10-24mm's 410g.Ok, not exactly the same FL and aperture, but that's 80% weight premium.
"And because we picked the APS-C format, also SIZE and operability"
Tom_A: I have a Fuji GA645 medium format AF rangefinder.Compact, light, stellar results. Same approach in digital would be awesome...
Awesome camera indeed, many digital cameras come and go, but it's the GA645 that traveled around the globe with me.
I'm happy sticking with film for MF, and one of the biggest strength of GA645 is price, which would not be the case if it's digital.
In shot #13, the grain doesn't look organic at all.
One really nice thing about Oly lenses is the very high magnification, 0.24x physically (0.48x FF equiv. as they say). This is very handy in capturing small birds, animals and larger insects, which would add a healthy variety for a wildlife trip.
Happy to see such a lens, but I'm always surprised the M43 camp is so slow to realize their crop sensor's advantage in reach.
Now, please release a 150/200mm f2.8 prime, which is priced around the range of FF 150/200mm f2.8 primes (read: moderately priced).
qwertyasdf: 9xx comments?! WTHNobody use to care about Samsung, and now so many people caring for them loll
justmeMN, that's an excellent metaphor!!!
9xx comments?! WTHNobody use to care about Samsung, and now so many people caring for them loll
qwertyasdf: Good genes?! It's coming from the worst bloodline lollll
Well, one of the main reasons I ditched Samsung is becoz I can't adopt Leica M lenses to it, which I have a decent collection. The relatively long flange distance is silly, it turns pancake lenses to cupcake lenses. I know many disagree, but that's just me.
Ofcoz I have idea, Samsung makes great cameras, no doubt.No one buys them regardless, also no doubt.
I have used all major brands, Samsung included, and I parted with it the quickest. There's just something not right with it, which I really can't explain lol....
Good genes?! It's coming from the worst bloodline lollll
Fairly speaking, Canon and Panasonic mirrorlesses have decent battery life, Sony's bad, and Olympus is absolutely miserable (less than 200 shots per charge on EM5, IBIS off)
I want to suggest something out of the ordinary, how about a collapsible telephoto lens to keep everything small?! Since telephotos really have a lot of air space in them.
Since the picture is showing a Fuji camera, I'm particularly disappointed with them, why the heck are their lenses becoming bigger and bigger?!?!?! I love Fuji, but stopped with the X-A1 and 18--55mm F2.8-4, I have no desire to buy any of their huge lenses.
To cater to the current generation, Rishi, where's your selfie?!
Marty4650: Expensive but a bargain in it's category.
If you want a full frame 35mm fixed lens compact camera, then your only options are this one and a Leica Q for twice the price.
I give Sony a lot of credit.
It's the most expensive in it's category (with the cheapest one being the RX1 1st gen!!!)
Chaitanya S: This is exactly what Sony should do, take atleast 2-3years for product upgrades rather than willy nilly every couple of months. This is certainly a drool worthy camera, and the upgrades it offered over 1st gen Rx1 will definitely juatify the upgrade for anyone.
(cough cough) Nex5 5N 5R 5T.....Nex3 C3 3N F3....
thxbb12: I very welcome the 100-400, but another 25mm? Really?Here we go again with the redundant lenses! There are alread two 25mm lens: 1.4 and 1.7. Yayaya none have IS, but there are several holes in the line up that need to be adressed and are much higher priority IMO: UWA prime 8 or 10mm, standard fastish zoom (eg. 12-50 f2.8-4), fastish tele (eg. 50-200 f4) and a 17 f1.4
After waiting for years, I finally gave up and moved to Fuji. Their lens lineup makes a lot more sense than MFT. I can't be happier :-)
My thoughts exactly...
futile32: I always get this the wrong way round so correct me if I'm wrong, but "4:1 macro" would mean 4x life? Should it be "1:4 macro" ?
Yup, you're correct, 4:1 means 4x.
qwertyasdf: Seems that this lens has horrendous field curvature, from the sample picture here:
The text indicate that it's the 10.5mm.But in that scene, the problem is exacerbated.
I personally have the same bad experience with the CV 21/1.8.
Seems that this lens has horrendous field curvature, from the sample picture here:
Well....the last time I heard Pentax delaying some stuff (Mysterious voice: FF camera), it was delayed a decade +....