I've been waiting for a GX8 announcement but if it doesn't come soon I may be changing to the EM5, it's not like I would have to swap out all my lenses (right Can-ikon users?).
It's a small gripe but why can't lens manufacturers make lenses with the same filter sizes (or 2-3 main sizes)?I love that the two 2.8 Panasonic Zooms have the same filter size. When they make a lens that is 1mm smaller than a previous lens I start to think they're just f-ing with us.
Ian: According to Panasonic, "[T]he lens can deliver portraits with a rich stereoscopic effect". Not sure how this is possible with a single photograph. I think something got lost in translation. Other than that, cool news for m4/3.
It's marketing talk. Ignore it.
WE MFT USERS WHO SHOOT SPORTS AND WILDLIFE ARE WAITING AND WAITING FOR A GOOD LONG FAST ZOOM! WAKE TF up Panasonic.
I think sports shooting and long fast wildlife is the one area where M43 isn't the best option. I suppose Oly-Panasonic could make some lenses but it's not where I think they should focus their manpower. It's a smaller demographic of photogs and an area where the M43's drawbacks are most prominent.
grasscatcher: I will echo others in saying that, while these are nice, Panasonic really needs to get on the ball and give us a nice 200-400 zoom, something that is sorely missing in u4/3.
Having been shooting a GX7 since October 2013, my dream camera would be a GX8 with everything the GX7 has, plus the FZ1000's 5-axis stabilization, DFD focusing, 4k video and better NFC range. That, paired with their 2.8 zooms and the 200-400 would cover 99% of my shooting needs.
It'd be great if Panasonic could create their own equivalent to the "Holy Trinity" by adding a long zoom lens. So there would be a format that's smaller, cheaper, and lighter.Hefting those Nikon bad-boys into the Yosemite back-country is a chore if you're hauling camping equipment as well.
jimrpdx: Is anyone else disturbed by the concept that the m4:3 group is working hard to put out multiple 30-50mm lenses? When you can spend under $100 to adapt a fast classic 28-50mm from anyone plus an adapter? Oh yeah it 'must' have AF and fancy coatings.. for studio work in controlled lighting. Hm.
Exactly. I love this range for wandering through city streets shooting street life. And in the dim concrete canyons low light and fast AF can really assist in grabbing a fleeting shot where dialing in a manual (or even zooming a zoom lens) would be too slow.
Lenses sliced in half are the true camera porn.
abortabort: The 300mm f4 is not the equivalent of a 600mm f4, or if you want to argue that it is (which I'm NOT here to do either way) then the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is not a 24mm f2.1. Again can't be bothered for arguing either camp however it would be good if there was some consistency. Generally DPR do equiv FL and f-ratio, which is why I'm pointing it out here.
Maybe they were just pointing out the speed of the lens is like having a 600mm f4 even if the DoF is much larger than a FF 600mm f4.This kind of lens is probably going to be used against alot of wildlife so exposure speed to freeze a bird is important. And an image stabilized 600mm f4 will help keep exposure speeds short to freeze the bird catching a fish on a lake.
Rooru S: E-mount philosophy totally defeated. The SEL35F28Z and SEL55F18Z are great lenses, with good quality and good size. So far the only good ''new'' lens is the SEL28F20. But I don't get why a 35mm F1.4 has to be so big. I'm quite sure if they tried something like Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 with slightly better optics and a servo motor moving the MF ring and make a new housing for it we could still get a smaller package.
Unless the 35mm f1.4 has excellent corner to corner sharpness wide open, I don't get the size...
The macro on the other hand...if it doesn't extend, that's a good point. But the size doesn't help too much.
It's never good to compare manual lenses to automatic lenses. And never compare to Leica; the current mirrorless cameras are still too different from that rangefinder.
Remember you're basically working with a DSLR adapted into mirrorless, not a Leica adapted to mirrorless.
photofisher: Looking at this big glass, I'm glad I went m43. Not the absolute best in IQ but perfect size. The cost and size are probably worth it for pros but not for me.
So far I'm sticking with M43 but it will just take some good lenses at a decent price to get me to goto the Sony. However that still looks a long way off. Too many good lenses for M43 under $1000 (or even $500 for primes) for me to be changing anytime soon.Maybe if a third party makes some good lenses for the a6000 or A7 I may be tempted.
exapixel: Sony's FF strategy means I can either put a big heavy lens on a somewhat smaller camera, or become a combination of scavenger and Paralympian as I find old film glass to mount on third party adapters. What a mess.
Why do people think that because the body size is smaller the lenses will be smaller? The sensor is still the same size, the glass is going to be similar. Eventually all that will exist is a big lens with a tiny rectangle attached to the back of it.
quatpat: Well, a full frame lens is a full frame lens, no matter what body you put behind... This said, it seems like a lot fo people are mislead by the relation body to lens size, which make these lenses in the photos look bigger than they really are.
Some of the commenters here below seem to forget how small the A7 bodies are, which is why they think that the lenses are huge in relation to them.
Fast high quality lenses are bigger. Especially if you add AF and it's a longer focal length.Look at the difference between the Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.2 L. Same goes for Nikon. The fast flagship AF lenses are bulky across all manufacturers. To call out Sony for their top of the line lenses being bulky proves you're just brand bashing because you don't like the competition.
alextardif: Curious if any of the people here who complain about the size ever held the A7II in their hands. I actually prefer the large-ish glass on it and the FE 70-200mm feels more comfortable than the 55mm. With a grip on it's simply outstanding and I leave it on more that off. Using A99/77II with CZ glass I think A7II strikes the perfect balance where it got shrunk just enough to make a difference in overall size/weight, but not so much that it's awkward to use on long shoots, especially if you DMF.
It seems the whole "HUGE glass defeats the entire purpose of A7" argument is way overblown. The numerous tech breakthroughs and advantages are completely overshadowed, which is a shame.
I agree that I like having a big lens to hold onto (phrasing!). Trying to hold a small camera with a wide pancake prime is a PITA. With my big hands I always end up getting one of my knuckles in the shot.
Pritzl: Ooooh! Look how small my camera is... and yet it is full frame! WOW! I can have my cake and eat it too... Huh... Why are the lenses so large? Physics? What's that?
Yes. Fast quality zoom lenses on full frame need to suck in a lot of light. I'm sure if they were a soft f5.6 they could make them much smaller.
straylightrun: It's obvious what Sony is doing here.
They are intentionally releasing gigantic lenses now so that next year they can conveniently release the Mark II version with up to 40% smaller size reduction as a major selling point.
Just like they did with the a7 grip: Intentionally put an inferior grip and shutter release placement and then add the proper grip and shutter placement in the Mark II version (a7II and soon to be a7rII/a7sII) and sell it as a new feature upgrade.
Sony is definitely innovating right now. But I think their lenses are lagging behind their bodies.The main reason I haven't jumped ship is I still don't like the lens offerings they have. And while these fast lenses look better I'm guessing the price will be overblown as well. I really hope some good 3rd party (and adapter capable) lenses show up in the near future.
CDMc: ? they're available all over the UK ? Many of the main online retailers have them available, and prices are starting to reflect that supply
It's weird they're so hard to find in the US. I've has one on order from Amazon for 2 months now and still not even an estimated shipping date.
PhotoTrevor: OK I'm confused. Or maybe not. Why on earth would you make conversion lenses for an interchangeable lens system? It's always optically better to get a lens suited for the job rather than throw an adapter on there. if this was a viable option, why wouldn't we just by silly converters for our DSLR's? Seriously Panasonic?
I think price is a big issue, the Lumix wide angle lens is a pricey beast (but takes beautiful pics).I'm in interested in the Macro attachment because none of my lenses focus close enough but I also don't need it enough to pay for the Lecia macro.
OleThorsen: So basically Mr. Butler tells the family father who's a photography beginner: "We at dpreview firmly believe it's perfectly OK that your only solution to capture your playing children is to shout: Stand still children - father want to take a picture of you!", instead of learning to use Shutter Priority.
This sites IQ has gone downhill since Askey left the business.
The irony is that most Photogs that are so boastful spend most of their time in Auto or Program and consider themselves experts because they have tried Aperture Priority.
filipe brandao: I really don't understand why dpreview is clinging on to a marketing catch word ("mirrorless") instead of promoting a more clear classification of cameras. Classifying these cameras as "mirrorless" is the same as saying a pencil is a inkless pen. Its confusing and forsakes a hole history of photography in which most of the cameras didn't have mirrors in their system. One should ask why isn't leica m9 included in this group. Cameras have always been classified by how they allow the photographer to view/focus on the subject and their format. Any effort in this direction would help to clear the marketing confusion in which we roam.
I agree that mirrorless is an odd way of grouping them but it's the best available. I prefer to think of them as a Rangefinder Format camera since form factor itself is their key feature but since they don't actually have the rangefinder it doesn't fit very well (and starts internet arguments).
JeffPhotalk: Hi all expert I'm a newbie to this forum. I find it funny why do people can talking about sensor size ? Can anyone tell me why ?
Comparing low light pictures from cameras with a large and small sensor points out most of the flaws. Even if megapixles are about the same the larger sensor has much less noise, crisp dark shadows.Zoom 100% on an iPhone picture from a concert and on a APS-C DSLR at a concert and notice the splotchy purple marks on the camera-phone.