A FF rangefnder with liveview and a *great* EVF, simple, direct controls and IBIS, which can mount my Rolleiflex and Leica R & M lenses. Autofocus is not necessary, => *as long as the EVF is good enough* (ideally I'd like the viewfinder of my Leicaflex SL, but that would be impossibly expensive to make and would preclude being able to mount all kinds of lenses).
The new Leica M is a step in the right direction, but is too expensive, has no IBIS and the EVF isn't good enough for fast *and* accurate manual focus with non-rangefinder coupled lenses.
A compact FF dslr like an Olympus OM would be nice, but it must be able to1) mount at least all lenses designed for slrs (sigh! Goodbye M lenses....)2) have a truly good manual focus viewfinder, something *no* dslr has managed to do yet.
Valentinian: I don't have a 14mm prime lens... Will I buy this Schneider Kreuznach 14mm f2.0 ? Unfortunately no, because it will cost four times more than the Panasonic 14 mm f2.5 .Will I buy the Panasonic 14mm ? No, because I read on Lenstip.com that it has "monstrous distortion, huge vignetting.... (and) ...the image quality on the edge of the frame could have been better"Too bad nobody is making a 14mm/ f2.8 of decent quality at an affordable price.
As I mentioned, lens design is a compromise between different characteristics.If for a given number of lens elements (which means price, size, weight) a designer doesn't have to correct distortion, then he/she is free to optimise those elements for other aberrations (sharpness, astigmatism, etc.)
Certainly you can find a 35mm lens for your OM?(35mm is my standard lens for my film cameras, which is why I hope a good and small MFT 17mm comes out soon...)
I've used very many lenses and formats. Distortion was one of the reasons why I almost always hated zooms.With MFT I have several zooms which I don't want to throw out the window - that's already impressive!How do you know that "no other characteristics are improved"?I mainly shot Leica and Zeiss lenses with film until recently (still do for B&W) and find that most of my MFT lenses deliver very good results... That is a compliment indeed!
I don't understand what you mean by "accurate view", but distortion is corrected in the viewfinder of MFT cameras.
BTW: from all I've heard, the Olympus 17mm is one of the worst MFT lenses
Finally, S-K normally makes very good lenses, but is far from perfect. Zeiss tends to be more constant (fewer peaks, but also fewer valleys. I'd love to see a S-K lens in a focal length I'd really like...
Ken Aisin: On top of this 14mm, I hope they'll make a 17.5mm, a 25mm, and a 42.5mm with auto focus, f1.0 aperture, and weather sealing. Partner these lenses with an E-M5, I'll be all set for many years to come.
My own wish list:A 17.5 mm 2.0 is fine, *if* it's excellent at full aperture!A 9 or 10mm. Doesn't need to be fast (even 4.0 is o.k.), but sharp in the corners at full aperture and small...A 200 or 250mm 4.0 which fits in a pocket (Enna once made a decent pocketable 240 4.5 for 35mm) and, guess what, is excellent at full aperture.
I find the C/V 17.5 0.95 far too big!
All lens quality parameters are a trade-off. If distortion in MFT lenses can be automatically corrected in-camera (or in-raw), allowing other lens characteristics to be improved, then such a "cheat" is welcome!For lenses intended for film, such distortion would truly be unacceptable, but for MFT lenses it might actually be a blessing...