Choice is good. I'll look forward to seeing this when it finally emerges. (Anyone else think that the ad with black camera on slab of dark stone looks familiar??)
I like what looks like analogue ergonomics, but the specs remain to be seen. In any case, a camera body is only one part of a camera system. The real decider for their new FF system will be the lenses. Pentax had and still has some great FF lenses in its line up and has recently released a few new FF zooms. More will be needed to fill the gaps, especially in the wide angle prime range.
Congratulations on winning the challenge. That's a spectacular landscape. I'd like to now more about the geology. Is that red a rock or mineral? Or a plant, lichen, etc growing on specific mineral layers? I'd be fascinated to know.
Lee Jay: The assumption being, the purpose of photography is to create art.
I have only recently realized that many, even most photographers think this way.
I've been shooting for over 35 years and I never really thought of photography as a way to create art, at least for me.
I guess I'm now wondering if there aren't two totally different types of photography - artistic and documentary. I've always thought of photography as a way to document events, not as a way to create art. For that reason, very little of what he said made much sense to me.
I suspect it's different things to different photographers including both art and documentary (and probably other purposes) according to the intention of the photographer.
Ming Thein makes some good points, but his article seems to hold the underlying assumption that DSLRs set the benchmark for camera systems as if it would be impossible to write a similar list about DSLRs. They aren't perfect either.
One chooses one's set of features AND limitations. I chose to change from a APSC DSLR to an APSC mirror-less system because it offered me things that no DSLR does. I'm happy with my decision and won't go back. Fundamental for me is the fact that DSLR systems - bodies and lenses - have become bloated and weighty. Certainly Canon and Nikon have abandoned any pretence of servicing that part of the market interested in small kit and their lenses just keep getting ever bigger.
surlezi: No EVF no buy.
Widely tipped. Only Pentax know and they aren't saying. We'll know when it's announced next year.
Some people like having the option of both - like on the Fuji X Pro 1. You can get either the brightness and immediacy of the OVF or the wysiwyg view and data of the EVF. Nothing wrong with choice.
It might have an EVF overlay on the ground glass screen in the VF. That would offer both optical and EVF viewing with wysiwyg and data etc - sort of like a DSLR version of Fuji's OVF/EVF hybrid in the X Pro 1.
Glad to see a small and sealed 35mm option. The fact that it's an unusual optical design suggests that Fuji have gone out of their way to offer something special. I'll be interested to see how it performs. The only things that are distinctly missing are focusing and DOF scales.
Ironically, no-one really thought that Fuji's 35/1.4 was large and what many Fuji users really want are some smaller alternatives to the larger 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and 56/1.2 lenses. Hopefully this lens signals the start of a series of small, sealed lenses. All with an aperture ring of course.
This is certainly faster than Zeiss's DSLR Distagon 21/2.8, but it weighs almost a kilo by itself and we've yet to see how it compares in IQ. Add Nikon's new 20/1.8 into the comparison. For mirror-less adapters it will also be interesting to see how its IQ compares to the newly announced Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 which like the Nikon only weighs 350gms.
I'm into landscape, hiking and travel and I don't want mega weight WA primes at all. For me UWA images are all about what happens in the foreground, not shallow DOF. So again for me personally, f1.4 in UWA lenses is a complete waste of time. I'd love to see modern optical design expertise applied to give us better high grade *small* lenses. Yes they'd be slower, but in an UWA lens, that's fine for many people.
Wonders will never cease...... Canon actually finally worked out that offering a built-in EVF is a good idea compared to omitting them completely or offering some expensive add-on accessory that blocks the flash shoe and gets lost, left at home, etc.
I always wondered why Zeiss offered the 35mm and 50mm first when those FLs were already catered for by Sony. I would have bought into the A7 series IF there had been a decent WA (20-24mm) available from the start. This is the first one that appeals to me - solid, aperture ring, and has focusing and DOF scales - far better to me than the gimmicky AF Batis 25mm design. And far smaller than an adapted SLR Distagon 21/2.8. Let's hope the IQ lives up to it.
These look good, but what of the corner issues that have plagued UWA short registration lenses on the A7 cameras? No mention....?
Rod McD: Interesting designs. It's good to see independent offerings designed for mirror-less (as against DSLR lenses with extended barrels). OTOH, I'm generally suspicious of very fast WA lenses - they often have crappy corners. It's no accident that the best 21mm lenses remain slower offerings from Zeiss and Leica. Let's await some tests to see how they fare.
I agree that one sometimes needs the speed, but note that f1.4 is only suitable for subjects that work with very shallow DOF. It's not a panacea for action or low light all the time. Our uses are probably different. If I was offered a Zeiss 21/2.8 or the Samyang 21/1.4 for free, I'd take the Zeiss every time. It's nothing to do with the value - it just suits my uses better to have high IQ across the frame. In any case, the new Samyang may surprise us - perhaps it's as good? Let's see some tests.
Rod McD: All the talk of it being a DSLR mirror-less hybrid might give a DSLR the option and benefits of an EVF (ie live view at eye level through VF and data) but it won't change the registration distance.
If Pentax are going to introduce a FF system part of the equation is the lenses. Some Pentax owners have film era lenses that will cover FF. The company sells a handful of digital era designs, including the new FF zooms they've announced this year. What I will want to see is the future primes. Pentax have a long history of offering compact high quality lenses and I'm hoping they'll be offering something like that in their new designs. Every other manufacturer seems to have abandoned compactness as a goal. If Pentax offer another load of massive "me too" f1.4 and f1.8 WAs, there won't be anything to differentiate them from brands I could have bought years ago. Let's see.
Zvonimir... There are some exceptionally fine lenses in the mirror-less world and not all of them are corrected by SW. (NB that Pentax also offer SW correction on their DSLRs for certain lens issues. Perhaps it's not "cheating" when Pentax do it?) Your endless railing against mirror-less systems here and in the Pentax Forum is bizarre.
@ Tsvonmir Tosic. Registration distance is not irrelevant - it's an absolutely critical matter inherent to the design of any camera system and is chosen carefully at the design stage by the manufacturer. Pentax's K mount registration was chosen to be 45.46mm decades ago and will obviously remain there. IF they do offer a camera with a hybrid system it will have all the benefits and limitations of that longer registration distance. But to infer that short registration distances aren't for a serious system is ridiculous. Tell that to Leica and these days Fuji, MFT, and Sony - all of which have professional users.
If Pentax do offer some sort of hybrid eye-level OVF/EVF viewing, it might give some of the advantages of both systems, but the registration distance won't won't allow it to offer comparable compact size.
Interesting designs. It's good to see independent offerings designed for mirror-less (as against DSLR lenses with extended barrels). OTOH, I'm generally suspicious of very fast WA lenses - they often have crappy corners. It's no accident that the best 21mm lenses remain slower offerings from Zeiss and Leica. Let's await some tests to see how they fare.
All the talk of it being a DSLR mirror-less hybrid might give a DSLR the option and benefits of an EVF (ie live view at eye level through VF and data) but it won't change the registration distance.
belle100: Zeiss marketing department is a master of illusion. They don't have many lenses but they make up a lot of sub-brands to disguise as lots.
I don't know that it's even mastery of illusion. It's just plain obvious that most of these lenses are a re-shelling exercise.
There was nothing wrong with the existing Zeiss lenses...... I wish they'd put their efforts into developing new Loxia MF lenses for mirror-less.... The Batis line doesn't appeal at all with its gimmicky plastic focusing window, no aperture ring and no DOF scale.
M1963: So many remarks on manual focus. Which is faster - rotating a focusing ring or fiddling with buttons and dials to select the focusing point?
AF has its place but so does MF. One of the best things for me about lenses that are deliberately designed for MF is that they have a decent long focus throw and a DOF scale for hyperfocal focusing. A long MF focus throw is great for precision, close work and macro and hyperfocal focusing is ideal for classic landscape. Most AF lenses suck in terms of both their MF throw and DOF scale (if they even have one).
Another bird name, but same glass? These lenses look like the identical FLs and same optical constructions as the good ol' ZF/ZEs. Not so? No 25mm or 28mm lenses though.... No new FLs either. Looks like a re-shell to me, but I guess some testing will tell if there's anything new in performance.
Good to see quality MF still alive and well. And real aperture rings, at least on the Nikon versions.