Timlo: Not only is a rangefinder camera expensive to buy but to own too. What I've heard owners send in their cameras for inspection and service regularly, usually for checking the alignment of the rangefinder. In this regard this Konost with its digital ghost patch is really ground breaking in my opinion, no more maintenence!
It will still require a mechanical linkage to the lens, but there will be less points of mechanical failure for sure. The accuracy of the patch might be tricky though.
J A C S: Lenses?
Voigtlander have plenty of good value and affordable M-Mount lenses and cameras. Plus LTM.
TwoMetreBill: Sony will focus on sensors for vehicles and phones, each heading rapidly toward a billion sensors a year. Sony is doing extremely well in this market. Sensors for cameras, a rapidly declining market measured at less than 1/10th of one percent of the phone/ vehicle market.
With a growing multi-billion sensor market out there, they will soon stop wasting their time on the collapsing multi-million sensor camera market.
My worthless opinion, within 5 years, only Panasonic will be making camera sensors.
If Pany just made a full frame version of their current 4/3rds sensor, it would be 64 MP. When it comes to sensor technology, Panasonic is the world leader; not Sony, Samsung, Fuji or Canon.
Ah, sony made a 16MP 4/3's sensor which is still considered by many to be the best 4/3's sensor made. Sony also make a 1" type 20MP sensor that scaled up to 135 format would beat the pants off anything Panasonic could muster with a scaled up 4/3's sensor.
Mike FL: SONY will be NOT in good position after CANON starts to entering the mirror-less market.
If SONY's Camera decision has to be out of business one day, M43 camera mfc will be died before SONY.
Canon entered the mirrorless market 2 years ago... crickets. Oh you mean when they 'seriously' enter the market...
Canon: "we have always been serious about mirrorless"
Marty4650: People who enjoy paying $10 a month for the rest of their lives to get the latest tools are right. This is the "best deal for them" even if it is a very poor deal for others. But there are plenty of other people who don't want or need to upgrade every year. And their attitude seems to be... "that's their problem.... I got what I want."
I wonder if these those people lease their cars rather than buy them? I wonder if they upgrade to every release of Microsoft Office? Do they rent their homes? Or rent their furniture? Do they upgrade their wives every year?
I think the whole point of the complaints is that Adobe stopped giving you a choice of renting or buying. Everyone has to rent now, or use some other software. Take it or leave it.
This may be great for the people who were upgrading every year anyway, and for Adobe's bottom line, but it shouldn't be hard to understand why other people would rather own their homes, cars, furniture or software rather then renting.
Why should they, do people 'buy' you? You never ever OWNED photoshop, ever. You have a perpetual license but it is not even close to the same thing. You aren't just paying for the license, you are paying an ongoing support contract, something most people didn't have the option of previously. You can choose to moan about it like everyone else, but the arguments I read are near fantasy.
The idea of the 760D has me very interested indeed. The idea of a semi enthusiast but cost effective DSLR that is inexpensive and light weight, with some of those quite nice pancakes is very tempting and one of the reasons I moved to mirrorless, smallish bodies with higher end controls, it isn't rocket science! Which have all DSLRs (apart from a nice little effort from Pentax) always had to be so lacklustre in this range? Why do we always have to buy big clunkers to get two dials and half decent AF? Or a top LCD panel?
My only gripe thus far is they seem to have used the typical rebel pentamirror VF which firmly places it behind mirrorless (you can argue best OVF vs EVF all day long, but those poxy little things simply aren't in the same class).
And and Canon are offering three bodies around this sensor DPR, not two.
mgrum: "Canon has never offered us two cameras with the same sensor and asked us to pay more for one, to get some extra features before"
That's pretty much all Canon have done for the past 6 years ;)
Taking it further, selling the following all at once based on the same sensor with different exteriors:
(might have been 550D/600D or 600D/650D - but you get the point)
Ron A 19: I'd love to see this battle: Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 vs Sony Zeiss FE 35 1.4.
On a FE camera I think the result will be pretty obvious, there is a reason why that lens is pretty large.
Thanks DPR for adding additional info to this article! Particularly interested in the 35mm. Did you have a chance to try the manual focus? I wonder how the new actuator affects the focus by wire MF? The large focus ring suggests it is a decent priority for them. Now I just need an order button.
villagranvicent: This is the only system with more camera bodies than native lenses...
Erm no. Nikon have actually more 1 bodies than lenses (V1-3, J1-4, S1-2, AW1 = 10 vs 8 lenses with another 3 variations). Canon have a 3 body to 4 lens ratio for EF-M. Sony have 4 FE bodies (really 2 bodies I and II and 3 sensor variations for I) and currently 7 lenses and these 4 for imminent release makes 11, plus they have the 'designed for' loxia range of 2 lenses with more on the way.
But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good Internet meme ;)
abortabort: The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.
End of discussion because DPR changed the text. They changed it for a reason after the point was raised, end of discussion.
Oh that's rich :P
@ Thorgrem - Understand that not everything is about you.
@ ThePhilips - "Nowhere, NOWHERE, DPR said that the Oly 4.0/300mm is equivalent to FF's 4.0/600mm. It has only said/implied that FOV is equivalent to that of 600mm on FF."
It originally said 600mm f4. It was then changed AND I put a follow up post directly below my OP...
So SETTLE yourself
Thanks I see it has been changed to the more diplomatic text that you used for the 7-14mm :)
abortabort: DPR - does the Air have IBIS?
Thanks Barney, that's a shame.
DPR - does the Air have IBIS?
The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.
nikonson: Rich man's lens: FE 90mm/F2.8 = $1,500Poor man's lens 1: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.7 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4Poor man's lens 2: 85mm/F2.? = Maxxum 50mm/F1.4 + 1.7X converter + LAEA4
"That Sony 85mm may not work full frame as the Maxxum 50mm. If it's APSC then the FL is 85mmX1.5"
I think you may be confused how this works. IF it were an APS-C lens it would still be an 85mm lens regardless of what sensor you put behind it, it would only be 85mm x 1.5 IF you used it on an APS-C body, the same could be said about a 50mm with teleconverter.
However the 85mm IS a FF lens, is small, light, sharp and inexpensive. Build is low, but what does one expect? It is considerably smaller and lighter than this macro because it isn't a macro (well 0.25x magnification).
Poor man's lens, Sony 85mm f2.8 - 170g, less than $200 most of the time. Much better than clunky 50mm plus adapter.