T3: Digital viewfinders will ultimately overtake optical viewfinders for the same reasons that digital photography overtook film photography: because it's better and more convenient. Some people don't believe it right now, in the same way that some film photographers didn't believe that digital would replace film. Just like the digital vs film discussions, people will need to realize that a digital viewfinder doesn't look *exactly* like an optical viewfinder, but that doesn't mean the digital viewfinder is worse. In fact, we'll see that digital viewfinders will have a lot of advantages over an optical viewfinder.
So just like digital vs film, the market and users will ultimately *choose* digital viewfinders over optical viewfinders because A) they're finally as good as optical viewfinders or better, and B) they offer advantages over optical viewfinders. Also, there will be some hold-outs who still prefer an old-school viewfinder, just like some people still shoot film.
I used EVF and I can say for certain: it is worse because significantly harder to see and is therefore less convenient.
The problem with EVF I have personally encountered is low brightness and the press release is suspiciously silent about the new model brightness but still mentions that it consumes twice less than current solutions. This may mean it is not particularly brighter - which means as dim in daylight.
ponyman: I see Ken Rockwell has rubbished it, just as he did the X100. So it must be good. I've pre-ordered one :)
Kenny had completely changed his opinion about X100 when he bought one ;).
Pasha001: 85% viewfinder coverage? You get what you pay for.
T3The problem is that with, say, 95% coverage most shots may be left as is, without cropping. However, 85% means too much extra which is probably unevenly distributed and varies with focal length, so more manual editing is required.
grassmann: The best part of this beauty is its optical zoom finder which coupled with the zoom lens. That is an innovation. It would be more usable than the one on G12.
Besides this nice OVF, one still need to use LCD to change some key parameters such as aperture value, shutter speed, ISO...I can forget about the last one, because one would not change that much often. I feel regret that the nice shutter speed dial and the aperture ring are missing from X10. How about discard that silly mode dial and put a speed dial there?
> That is an innovation.What's so innovative about this viewfinder? Contax G2 had a more advanced one, IMHO.
M Jesper> The Contax G2 is also a full-size rangefinder with at least twice the space to work with. The X10 really is a compact.They still could make a larger viewfinder assembly because the lens stick out anyway - unlike in Canon G*. Plus what irritates me is that viewfinder is presented as something special while it is not really that far from Canon G* viewfinder, just enlarged a little.
M JesperYes, this is a zoom viewfinder but there was a zoom viewfinder in the past with 90% coverage (at 45mm) - in Contax G2. It was, of course, more expensive but again you get what you pay for. And please note that today less mechanics is needed than it was in G2, IMHO.
razorfish> To even achieve an optical viewfinder in such a camera is a serious bonus!G12 has one, even some Ixuses had an optical viewfinder.
> To have 100% optical viewfinder coverage in a non-DSLR is impossible!To have 93% viewfinder coverage with a precise alignment in a rangefinder is not impossible at all as X100 shows us. You can check its review on, well, the other site :).
85% viewfinder coverage? You get what you pay for.
Jefftan: I mention again that it worksThe biggest advantage is if after a trip I have 5000 photos and 20G ,I wouldn't have time to back up on 5 DVD
Now each JPEG become less than 1 MB and I can fit almost 5000 pics on 1 DVD
I won't worry about hard drive failure any more
I would happily paid $50 if it is available as a program
Well, 3.5" USB HDDs cost the same as DVDs and 2.5" USB HDDs are twice more expensive per gigabyte. But if you don't have time indeed the price should not really matter. And mirroring is needed with DVDs just as with HDDs because DVDs rot. I have personally lost a lot of certain TDK discs because of rotting. So there seems to be no real need to use DVDs today.
Pasha001: The idea is very old. I recall trying a program called AFAIR "JPEG optimizer" several years ago and it was indeed working well. There was even manual optimization when you could decide where in the image to compress more. But today when a 64GB USB flash drive costs $80 it just does not seem that useful.
Oh, yes. Actually, that "JPEG Optimizer" was recommended to me exactly for that purpose.
The idea is very old. I recall trying a program called AFAIR "JPEG optimizer" several years ago and it was indeed working well. There was even manual optimization when you could decide where in the image to compress more. But today when a 64GB USB flash drive costs $80 it just does not seem that useful.
happypoppeye: Well, whether you like it or not, you gotta love the effort and engineering for this one. At least someone is trying to see what they can do with lens design ...as Nikon and Canon lenses get bigger and bigger.
Patman888> Going small for the sake of small is totally pointless.No. For instance, I don't want to carry my D7000 in a backpack when skiing. It is heavy and expensive. Actually, it is a pity I've bought the (great) 14-45 already, this new lens is more adequate for my tasks.
d3xmeister: I hope you all do realize there is no innovation whatsoever. This is just a fisheye lens software corrected. Practically is a P&S lens with a mount. There are reasons why the ,,big boys,, are sticking with classic lens design. One is uncompromised image quality.
Also, the power zoom is ALWAYS gonna be slower and not that precise compared to mechanical zoom.
Hmmm.... another thing: Do you know the #1 reason why compact cameras aren't very reliable ? You guessed it.......it's lens mechanism failure.
And the last thing........... $400 ?????????????????????
Michael BarkowskiUnless you are using exotic an Sigma camera with Foveon sensor your pixels are not quite pixels anyway - they are products of CFA interpolation.
simon65: Wow! Panasonic have just over thrown everything we thought we knew about the relationship between sensor size, zoom ratio and lens size. A truly remarkable achievement and a industry game changer if ever there was one. The combination of a large sensor in a small camera body with a pancake zoom lens is going to prove an irresistible combo.
By the time Nikon and Canon finally get round to entering this market Panasonic and Olympus will have cleaned up.
Congrats to Pani, without doubt this is the biggest camera equipment leap forward since, well, since the advent of the micro 4/3 system itself. Excellent stuff.
nickthetasmaniac:No, 12-60 was not much smaller, just smaller. According to plain specification 12mm shorter and filter thread was 5mm tighter.And Canon 24-105L has optical stabilization that 12-60 does not have - not a big deal but nevertheless it probably takes some space.
John A Clark: Shame it doesn't have an integrated lens cap ...
Good protection filter is the best integrated lens cap for this lens, IMO.
memau: it's a reasonable approach.
if you gonna make a small camera system, then do it as tiny as you can , and now even with a useful power zoom for steady zooming , sounds good for videographing.
but don't expect this lens to outperform a regular 14-42 OIS. It's not easy to make such a lens and this one could probably apply far more in-camera image calibration, such as distortion and CA abberation.
it will be great if panasonic comes up next with a 24-120 or 24-105 effective lens with a faster aperture ( maybe 2.8 to 4 ? )
> don't expect this lens to outperform a regular 14-42 OIS.I do. The old Panasonic 14-42 is IMO the worst kit currently on market, at least according to dpreview tests. So it is unlikely that a premium "X" class lens is even worse.
The full specs are http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=DEV5#specificationsWell, the eyepieces do not impress. 36 degrees AFOV is not exactly adequate for such prices when some cheap Nikon 8x42 Monarch gives 47 degress AFOV and for a little more money there is Nikon 10x56 Monarch with 60 degress AFOV. Obviously, EVF screen resolution does not allow for an immersive view yet. Plus, eye relief 14.3 mm with such AFOV probably means eyepieces are plain cheap.
Biaggi: Another key concern is the apparent weight and bulk of this instrument. Most full size bino's run 22 to 30 ounces. I find that even 28 ounce binoculars are rather big and bulky for a full day in the field, but I put up with them for superior optics. These would appear to be far heavier, and larger. Nothing I would care to carry around all day, even with a harness. In a perfect world, I like the idea. One less item to carry around the neck. In the real world, they look to be a poor compromise.
> Most full size bino's run 22 to 30 ouncesYes, but not stabilized with light amplification so I am afraid you are comparing apples with oranges here. Fujinon 12x40 (the only one I know with such properties) weigh more than 60 ounces.