I've had a DSLR. I now have a MILC - which happens to be Fuji - and half a dozen lenses. Often I take only the 18-55 as my minimum kit. If I was in the market for a second smaller, lighter camera, it would be an all-in-one with a retracting lens, not another MILC system.I already have one - the Canon G1X (original). I'm tempted to get a different camera because although the G1X IQ meets my expectations of a compact, it's tunnel OVF is poor, and even if its AF is accurate, it's between-shot times are glacially slow.To me the LX100 appeals because it has 1) a 24mm start to the zoom 2) a good EVF 3) dial exposure controls, 4) dial compensation, and 5) NO touch screen. Its only downer for me is the power zoom (as compared to a manual lens ring) but maybe I could live with that....... No commitments yet, but I'll look at one.
The LX100 might well be a contender for my next compact. My G12 is aging and the lens cover is slowly scratching the lens. My G1X produces great IQ but its between-shot time is glacial and I'd prefer an accurate wysiwyg EVF over its poor OVF. One unresolved question is the AF speed - I haven't seen a report on that yet but I hope it's better. The only downer for me is the fact that the camera uses a power zoom and not manual.I'm hoping there's a decent separate lens cap instead of that plastic 3 door auto device they keep showing. I've had it with things that risk touching the front element.
Rod McD: I'm a Fuji APSC user and understand exactly what you're saying about the portability of the 50-135/140/150 f2.8 zooms compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8 lens. OTOH, that doesn't exactly make them small and light in absolute terms either. I'm going to make another observation. While all the higher grade zooms have headed for f2.8, what we've also seen is a reduction in quality and still slower apertures in the more affordable range of zooms. Many are f5.6, 6.3 or 6.7 at the long end - too slow for me. The middle ground has disappeared. Gone are the small 60-120 f2.8 and 75-150 f3.5 and f4 constant aperture lenses that Nikon, Pentax and others used to offer. I personally would have found these more useful than either of the f2.8 or f6.7 options. If Fuji or a third party brought out a small light high grade 50-135/3.5 or 4, I'd buy it before either. Portability for hiking and travel is very important to me and I don't care too much about shallow DOF equivalences.
Sorry Lassoni, but how do any of the lenses you've cited relate to my post above about small short-mid tele zooms?
I'm a Fuji APSC user and understand exactly what you're saying about the portability of the 50-135/140/150 f2.8 zooms compared to a FF 70-200 f2.8 lens. OTOH, that doesn't exactly make them small and light in absolute terms either. I'm going to make another observation. While all the higher grade zooms have headed for f2.8, what we've also seen is a reduction in quality and still slower apertures in the more affordable range of zooms. Many are f5.6, 6.3 or 6.7 at the long end - too slow for me. The middle ground has disappeared. Gone are the small 60-120 f2.8 and 75-150 f3.5 and f4 constant aperture lenses that Nikon, Pentax and others used to offer. I personally would have found these more useful than either of the f2.8 or f6.7 options. If Fuji or a third party brought out a small light high grade 50-135/3.5 or 4, I'd buy it before either. Portability for hiking and travel is very important to me and I don't care too much about shallow DOF equivalences.
Agree with your thoughts. It's a good time to be a photographer. Choice is good and there's more of it than we've ever had before.These small cameras with sensors larger than earlier P&S models are very capable. They may be more expensive, but in a reduced market that's an inherent problem of economies of scale. These cameras are a luxury item. I don't think a good quality, highly controllable camera has ever been cheap. People have accepted the modern digital camera as more or less routine, but they over look what an incredible technical achievement it embodies. There have indeed been cheap cameras, but they didn't offer what these do.
Miki Nemeth: 72mm filter size on a lens (90mm/f2) designed/dedicated specifically for APS-C mirrorless cameras is really interesting. My full-frame FD 135mm/f2.8 has only 52mm filter. The full frame FD 135mm/f2 has 72mm filter size. The FD 100mm/f2 has 52mm filter size, too.
Hi Miki, yes I had one for my Pentax system. A really excellent small light 1:1 macro lens. Also has great bokeh. The only problem adapted to Fuji is its lack of an aperture ring. You have to use an adapter with an aperture control ring and they adjust from wide open to fully stopped down in a very small movement. It's a bit hard to control. Cheers, Rod
Agreed Miki - my post above. It's even bigger than AF FF lenses.
These lenses have been discussed in the last couple of days in the Fuji Forum. There's a fair bit of interest in them.One unresolved question is why the 90mm f2 is as big as it is. SLR 90-100mm f2 lenses from the film era had filter diameters of around 52-55mm. The AF Nikon 85mm f1.8 covers FF and still only has a 62mm filter. The Fuji 90mm will also be AF, but only has to cover APSC, yet it appears to be a monster of a lens with a filter size of 72mm. Unless there's some hidden technical reason within, it appears to be a bit over the top. Where's the APSC advantage? Certainly too big for me.
And no 1:1 macro lens with a FL longer than the current 60mm?
I'm into hiking and landscape photography, but chose not to buy into the A7r six months back. The lack of a convincing WA lens was one reason. This zoom might remedy that problem but it's much larger than I'd like. I'd really prefer to see Sony issue a top small light 24mm f2.8 prime that's sharp from corner to corner - a sibling to the FE 35mm 2.8 - before I could rekindle interest in the system.
A new sensor, and a very ambitious camera and lens system. Kudos Samsung. If the great specs are borne out by performance and reliability, it should sell for them. One thing I've never understood about Samsung's camera products is their almost total lack of marketing. It stands in stark contrast to their TVs and other electronic goods (- at least as far as I can see in Australia).
I know already that it's not for me. It's aimed at a different sector of the mirror-less market. I'm in the 'small and light' mirror-less camp. With it's 16-50/2-2.8 attached, this camera isn't.
I know this is principally a gear driven site, but I think products like these very exclusive and expensive lenses must lead us to ask whether the gear is more important than who's behind it and what's in front of it. Adams, HCB, Capa - none of them had lenses as good as we have today. Did it matter? An image is more about moment and content than technology.
Rod McD: Can we have them in Fuji XF mount too please? I know Zeiss offer the Touits, but they seemed to have ended the release of any new models in that lineage. I'd appreciate the solid mechanical MF feel and aperture control of these as much as anyone. If they do one in the 85/90/100mm FL - small, no faster than f2, better f2.4 - I'd be in.
I agree with you in relation to the 35mm and the 50mm. They wouldn't have been the FLs I'd have offered as third party alternatives to the Sony/Zeiss 35/2.8 & 55/1.8. I could see more point to either a VWA or the short telephoto FL I suggested. I could certainly make very good use of the latter on my XT1. In any case, Zeiss have made decision.....
Can we have them in Fuji XF mount too please? I know Zeiss offer the Touits, but they seemed to have ended the release of any new models in that lineage. I'd appreciate the solid mechanical MF feel and aperture control of these as much as anyone. If they do one in the 85/90/100mm FL - small, no faster than f2, better f2.4 - I'd be in.
While I'm sure that the KS1 offers real capabilities and the use of Pentax's great lenses, I certainly prefer the design aesthetic of their K5/K3 series.
Thanks DPR for posting these. I'm not going to enter the debates in the preceding posts about whether it's art, photography, useful, pointless or whatever. As far as I'm concerned those debates are pointless because they revolve around classifying these pieces. They simply are as they are, and I simply enjoyed them. Original, different stuff from my own, and entertaining.
Thanks DPR for the round-up.
After experimenting with a few of these reverse folding tripods for travel I've learned a few things. One is that they all rely on the centre column to achieve height - too much so in my view. The other is that five leg sections drive you mad. They might stow away nice and small but they take an age to erect and take down. I've gone back to a more standard design. They're taller without the centre column up and they have fewer leg sections. They don't weigh any more but I have to acknowledge that they don't pack down as small. Tripods are all about compromises.......
Tried one in-store. A well featured camera and a remarkable achievement in miniaturisation, but as slippery as a bar of soap. Why the heck can't Sony add a grip rather than leave it to the aftermarket? Surely it would not make the camera any less pocketable if a grip as deep as the control ring was built in?
I'm getting deja vu......... Why can't at least one camera manufacturer offer a decent WP camera? There seems to be an assumption inherent in these designs that outdoors types aren't interested in IQ or camera controls. The alternative of DSLRs in housings are simply impractical for water sports, climbing, caving, skiing and so on. And the housings are often more expensive than the camera...... Surely there it would be feasible to offer something in between - a decent size sensor (1", APSC?) a fixed high quality zoom lens, raw and reasonable ergonomics?
Why is not having a touch screen a "con"? It's just a statement of fact. It seems that the position being adopted is that all cameras SHOULD have a touch screen. Sure some people like them. There are others who don't. I personally don't want a camera that does have one and this would put the A6000 higher on my list.
Now we need Sigma to build some wide-angle lenses to the same standard. Zeiss need some competition for the 21mm 2.8.