Nikon does not want their high-end models to be worse in any aspect than entry-level mirrorless cameras. They have been catching up, and they are practically there! But well, you need to pay a high premium for these features on a DSLR.
Clint Dunn: This is one of the reasons I gave up on my Canon DSLR's...inconsistent AF. Mirrorless is the true solution here, everything else in DSLR land is a band-aid.
Not a way faster, not faster, about as fast, but better continuous focusing. At least on the price point of mirrorless (body-only <1500$/€/£). OTOH, DSLR's practicallly have no AF in video, no usable face detection, cannot choose the focus point ANYWHERE on the frame + freely adjust the size. OTOH x 2, 80D and so others can do this almost perfectly.
Caerolle: Seems like not a bad lens for E-mount, but doesn't seem to add much for m4/3. I guess it is cheaper than the 25/1.4, but probably not as good, and faster than the 25/1.8 and 25/1.7. A 30/1.4 would also give you a little more DOF control than the 25/1.4, I guess.
This is a great addition for those who use Lumix 20mm instead one of the 25mm's. Based on these samples, Lumix 14mm + Lumix 20mm + Sigma 30mm + Olympus 45mm + Sigma 60mm would be a great <1000$/€/£ prime kit for µ4/3.
Am I seeing the lack of AA filter on image 9 (Seattle Mariners), especially top right, where the building meets the sky? That 12-32mm lens looks impressive!
Great samples gallery, plenty of different subjects!
Azergoth: "This is a 25-400mm equivalent F2.8-4"
Stop saying that, please. It's not.
It is not "25-400mm F2.8-4 equivalent".
There is a difference.
pannumon: Please add an image of the controls at back of the camera. I cannot stop the rotating image.
PC, Windows 10, Opera 36.0 (Chromium engine).
Please add an image of the controls at back of the camera. I cannot stop the rotating image.
ProfHankD: I'm a huge fan of the Minolta/Sony 135mm STF, so this sounds great (and did when I first heard of it quite a while ago), but I'm still a tad confused. Isn't the particular method of making this apodization element patented by Minolta? My guess is that either the patent on the apodization element built by pairing smoked and plain opposing glass elements just expired or they slip by the Minolta patent because their pair doesn't form an optical flat. Still, isn't the STF name a Minolta/Sony trademark?
Anyway, assuming they have the rights to build and name it as they did, this is an awesome option to have at close to half the price of the 135mm f/2.8 STF....
The idea of patenting is not to prevent other to use the technology, but to get some royalties from your inventions. It's best for all to continue using the STM acronym.
pannumon: In the article it is claimed that Panasonic LX100 is considerably larger than what was looked for. However, the Nikon DL18-50 is only slightly smaller (http://camerasize.com/compare/#569,663). Of course, the Nikon DL18-50 has much wider lens, but the physical size of the camera is not a very good argument here.
Anyway, I think I got the point of the article. We and our moms live in a good world. Thanks! :)
I mentioned cameras that were compared in the article. Now the article has been changed and LX100 is not mentioned at all. Now the story is much more coherent. Of course a question arises: How about LX100...?
In the article it is claimed that Panasonic LX100 is considerably larger than what was looked for. However, the Nikon DL18-50 is only slightly smaller (http://camerasize.com/compare/#569,663). Of course, the Nikon DL18-50 has much wider lens, but the physical size of the camera is not a very good argument here.
pannumon: This lens seems to be an upgrade to the very good standard 14-42 kit zoom:-Slightly better IQ (hopefully; at least on par)-Extended zoom range in both ends-Weather resistant-Dual-IS support-240 FPS readout for the latest AF-tech (DFD)
The features do not overlap with primes or the constant-f/2.8 zooms. While it's probably nothings exceptional, it's a lens a lot of people will want. Especially this lens should be interesting for any GX8 owners.
@steve_hoge, the size is the reason why I am expecting slightly higher IQ.
It also has more efficient POWER OIS instead of MEGA OIS. I just wish they have fixed shutter shock issues associated with POWER OIS...
This lens seems to be an upgrade to the very good standard 14-42 kit zoom:-Slightly better IQ (hopefully; at least on par)-Extended zoom range in both ends-Weather resistant-Dual-IS support-240 FPS readout for the latest AF-tech (DFD)
pannumon: Can't wait to see 1600mm-equivalent FullHD video samples from this lens. Either cropped from 4k-video in PP, or using in-built Ex. tele conv.-feature on Panasonics.
Bright sunlight is not needed for video, 1/50s shutter speed is enough, as long as the tripod is good and it's not windy.
"Bright" light is needed when shooting indoors. For the best video quality, ability to shoot at base ISO at 1/50s - 1/100s shutter speed and desired aperture is enough. In fact, more light causes troubles, as you need to use ND-filters.
Bright sunlight is good for stills, but terrible for video, unless your camera provides good ISO 10 or so. None of the µ4/3 cameras do.
Can't wait to see 1600mm-equivalent FullHD video samples from this lens. Either cropped from 4k-video in PP, or using in-built Ex. tele conv.-feature on Panasonics.
The problem with APS-C DSLR's have been the lack of fast, high quality lenses. It's funny that it is Sigma that makes products fighting against µ4/3. Canon/Nikon still seems to think that it's either FF or toys (but they love selling toys).
40daystogo: First off, I think the camera is ugly - but then again, everyone's taste differs. (To put this in perspective, I love the design of Apple, Leica M's, Sony A7 series, Olympus Pen F - I hate Lumix's designs. This Pentax is even uglier than the Lumix's, that's how ugly this Pentax is to my eye).
Next, I think Pentax would have been better off bringing a Full Frame mirrorless system to take on Sony. There's no way that Pentax can compete with the market leaders Canon and Nikon, with Sony coming in 3rd. There just isn't room for another FF DSLR.
Whereas in the FF Mirrorless, apart from Sony there's no one else. All the other mirrorless systems have smaller sensors. Pentax should have tried to become No.2 in FF mirrorless behind Sony.
Sometimes a thing that looks good does not feel good, and vice versa. Regarding to the taste, as you mentioned, it's individual.
pussycat2013: Panasonic "Oh, wow...how do we sell GH4 now?"
Panasonic kind of killed GH4 with G7. Except it didn't. Those cameras share similar specs, but GH4 is designed for pro's or semi-pro's. Sony makes great cameras on paper, but I can't believe the handling of a6300 comes even close to G7, not to mention GH4.
Mister Roboto: Too expensive!
$500-700 for a m43 body should be the right price.
There are plenty of µ4/3 bodies offered for less than $700. That being said, I wish I will not ever have to own that camera. Retro is so retro already. Freaking wannabe-hipsters!
If I use my film SLR, it's only because I don't have a FF DSLR. 72 pics / year = 20€ (film + development, B/W).
zakaria: fuji,pentax,olympus a real photography makers!!pen loooks a piece of art!! even it is 4/3
@XentiusNo worries. :) In general, people try to say something good about every brand, which is good. But it easily becomes a dogma: Panasonic is only good for video, Olympus is only good because of IBIS, Canon DSLR's are only good because of value for money, Nikon DSLR's are only good because they are better than Canon (but slightly more expensive), Pentax are only good because they are small (with lenses), Nikon 1 is only good because it has good PDAF, Leica is only good because of the build quality, Samsung is only good because of the price for the money, Ricoh is only good for the modularity, Sony is only good because it has the cutting edge-tech, Sigma is only good because it's different... Yeah, those examples are perhaps not the best, but I guess you get the point.