I don't get it. How does Canon manage a 12-60/2.0-3.9 with this size, when a Lumix 12-35/2.8 is 4 times as large?What's the "micro" all about with MicroFourThirds, when they don't manage such lenses like Canon did. Even if the lens was 2 times longer because it cannot retract inside the body, it would still be much smaller than the 12-35! I thought I was happy with my GM1 and 12-32, as most of the time I thought I would leave the kit-lens on, but this G1X just kills my GM1!
MJ Jones: At this focal and 200 ISO setting, it's disappointing to see so much pixel smudge on the full-size image.
that's an art filter for sure!
oluv: mFT needs at least f/1.2 lenses to compete with the rest. is f/1.8 all olympus can come up with?
yeah, three f/0.95 with manual focus, thanks!
wow, looks extremely soft, but i have no idea if it is the lens, wrong focus or shutter shock?
mFT needs at least f/1.2 lenses to compete with the rest. is f/1.8 all olympus can come up with?
wow 349$ = 399€ for the 14-42! shouldn't it be the other way round?
Actually the same size as E-M5. No near as small as has been suggested by the first rumored comparison images.
HubertChen: What am I missing? The X-T1 has the viewfinder in middle of the camera, which is ergonomically bad, as now my nose is colliding with the display. The previous X-Models have the viewfinder in the corner of he camera, which is way better.
Other then than the bad placement of the EVF, what is the difference?
And do not get me wrong. I love the Fuji X-Cameras. They are very well designed and work like a charm. Just do not see the excitement of bad placement of the EVF and why to create a new camera family? If they want to increase sales, work on cost down of the wonderful X-Gestalt.
i look with my left eye through the viewfinder, so would need it to be at the right side, therefore i don't really care if it is in the center or right or left.
I want to see it "naked" without any additional battery-grip or hand strap.
Also the black background is hiding too much of its beauty or it tries to hide its flaws?
KL Matt: 1/4000 fastest shutter speed on that dial. Not so great for the recently announced 56mm f/1.2. I was hoping for their DSLR-like offering they might manage a faster shutter speed. But I'm sure there is now room for a more "pro" grade offering with slightly improved specs, like a 1/8000 shutter. Matt
1/8000 is for snails, 1/16000 rules haha!
it is blurred at 1/100?!
was OIS or IBIS active?
oluv: can someone tell me how canon manged to squeeze such a compact 15-60/2.8-5.8 lens into the G1 X, and panasonic only managed a 12-32 3.5-5.6?
even if the lens was not fixed (as it is with the G1 X) i still think it could be made similar in size to the 12-32 or x14-42.
when we have a small camera like the GM1, there should also be more really small lenses. i would even welcome collapsible primes, if it would allow them to be pancake-flat. have a look at the 40mm/2.8 pentax pancake, which even covers a fullframe sensor.
where did you see bad IQ? have a look at the samples, it is pretty sharp, and certainly shaper than all mFT kitlenses so far.
i know the 45/1.8 for not being large, but it is the flatness of the lens that really makes the camera compact, not the diameter.
i think there are still some pancakes missing. the 14 and 20mm are certainly perfect, but the 25mm leica is too big, and could definitely be made flatter similar to the 20mm. also longer focal lenghts could be flat, as the 40mm pentax pancake proves.
can someone tell me how canon manged to squeeze such a compact 15-60/2.8-5.8 lens into the G1 X, and panasonic only managed a 12-32 3.5-5.6?
Inlined: I got an expression that most of 12-32 lens sample shots are blurry at the right side. The left side is mostly fine. What is this? Is it something that manufacturer can fix/replace?
And a tiny question: does this camera support "constant preview" on/off mode like GX7?
so far only 12mm seems affected. the 20mm shot is perfectly sharp.
Lab D: I can't believe how small the thing is! Imagine carring it in one pocket with a couple pancake lenses in another. With the 20mm F/1.7 it would be a great P&S camera to compliment a different micro four thirds camera.
an image stab that introduces its own blurring as seen on the E-P5? no thanks...
what about iso125? is it hard to set or has it be dug within the menus?
wow, at 20mm the new 12-32 is indeed pretty sharp, probably not far behind the 20mm pancake.
not bad for iso25600, and not much worse than what i was getting from iso3200 on my G1 some years ago. but the blue-blacks problem still remains with adobe converted files. the jpegs show better blacks, while the raws do have a blue tint. adobe should finally update their color profiles, especially tweak them better for high-iso.
good point lan, i was thinking the same. but so far i had lots of issues with lumix lenses, i had to exchange the 14-140 several times to get a good copy, the same was with 14-45 as my first sample was obviously decentered, the same story with the 25 "leica", as the first copy had strange blurring issues...it seems the story goes on with the 12-32, what a pity as it could have been such a great tiny lens.