brycesteiner: Okay, nice lenses. They are a really nice addition to m4/3.
Where is the 50-200 2.8? I really think the market would be much larger for this lens than either of those. The 50-200 is so versatile compared to either of these. I have the Zuiko 50-200 and it's great. My only option is still the E-M1 to focus this large lens. I'd rather have another nice glass that is fully compatible with other OMD's and I can use with other m4/3 bodies than just buying an E-M1 so my older lenses work.
I too love the 50-200 but suspect the forthcoming 40-150/2.8 ends any possibility of a µ4/3 version. There's still a fast zoom void between 140 and 300, so maybe we'll eventually see...what...a 140-270/3.5?
NZ Scott: NO!
No filter thread on the new 7-14 ...
That means I can't buy it. I'll have to get a 9-18 instead, which doesn't go wide enough for me.
Sony's NEX system has an ultrawide starting at 15mm (ff equivalent) that takes filters and only weighs a couple of hundred grams.
Why can't Oly/Panny do the same?
There's a way to kludge a Cokin holder onto the ZD 7-14 (posted to the Oly DSLR forum a couple years back) so yes, it can be done. It's just not simple with the big, protruding front element, built-in shade and vast field of view.
UWA lenses, especially zooms, are tricky specialty lenses. The 4/3 7-14 is wonderful so hopefully, the new one will give similar results.
kimchiflower: The 300mm lens won't have OIS, so it will be of less use for Panny owners although this lens will likely spend more time on a tripod than handheld as I assume it will be heavy.
The 4/3 300mm 2.8 is $6000 and 3.3kg, but this has to be significantly lighter and cheaper.
I wonder what the price/cost/size advantage is to building a lens without OIS is?
Yes, the GX7 is their first IBIS body. Presumably there will be more to come.
topstuff: People trying to predict the future of the 1, or how Canon will enter the game, are really clutching at straws while ignoring the hard, irrefutable, unchangeable facts of the science of digital technology.
People say the sensor is too small? Rubbish.
People say that only APSC sized sensor cameras are the way forward? Also rubbish.
The sensor is small because it allows the lenses to be small. The relationship between sensor size and lens size cannot change easily.
But the sensor is big ENOUGH to offer high IQ. The result is a camera that is faster and more compact than NEX, especially with a telephoto lens.
Canon have not played their cards yet. If they offer larger sensor mirrorless, the lenses will have to be larger. For many people, that would still be advantage Nikon 1. If people want a larger camera, they will take their DSLR after all.
It would not surprise me at all if Canon took a similar direction to Nikon with a new, smaller sensor. Now that would shock people!
Have only handled the V1 in the store but find there's a good deal to like. Build and layout are both excellent, as is the EVF. Focus speed, even with the kit zoom, is very impressive. I could imagine an impulse-buy were it not $800. Nevertheless I think Nikon has a winning format in the 1 system. Because it's such a closed system (no hotshoe?!?) their risk would seem in making it complete and relatively affordable over the long haul.
As to Canon's intentions, I suspect the G1X sensor represents their mirrorless system format, should they head down that path. I think they're testing the waters with this rather odd camera.
tkbslc: OK, here's why they went for the slow aperture:
m. Zuiko 12-50 f3.5-6.383mm L x 57mm Dia, 52mm filter211g
Zuiko 12-60 f2.8-499mm L x 80mm Dia, 77mm filter575g
So roughly 1/3 the weight and 2/3 the size of the regular 4/3 12-60.
Good summary. I'll add half the price, to boot.
Definitely slower than I'd prefer, but portends a weatherproof body on the way to go with the weatherproof lens.