It's good to see the results right away, before the review is complete. It will be interesting to see how it goes if the other pieces roll out bit by bit - it sounds like DPR will roll this one out in more than two phases!
IcyVeins: "Sony does not have good lens selection" is code for "Sony doesn't have exotic 600mm telephoto lens or exotic tilt shift lens or 26 thousand versions of a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom"
I understand that may be a good one too, although I was thinking of some Carl Zeiss lenses I've tried, such as the 16-35, 85mm, and 135mm.
Yes, and some of the better lenses are really good - enough to make people want a Sony system just to get those lenses.
ProfHankD: An upgrade for the old Minolta AF 75-300mm? It's about time. This would also have good potential in the form of an E-mount with OSS. Nudge, nudge. ;)
I had a 55-300mm K-mount, and it's surprising how often the wider 55mm end is needed compared to 75mm (for example, when I was shooting my nephew's little league game, and suddenly he walked up close to me, I was still able to barely frame him in the shot).
marike6: In the Nikon 1 review, DPR was heavily critical of the lack of external controls. In this EOS-M Preview, the same lack of external buttons is described more as a feature, not a bug because of the "target audience" caveat. Clearly a GF3 is not as nice to use as a GF1 because of the touch screen, yet it's implied in this EOS-M preview that the touch screen can replace mode dials and ISO buttons. Why is it not OK for the Nikon 1 to remove external controls (Nikon was very clear about the target audience for the Nikon 1) yet perfectly fine for the EOS-M?
In the preview they suggest that it's the best touch screen they've yet used - I think this could explain it!
stanic042: based on photozone review, this lens has bad reputation among some pentaxians, but this could be to sample variationI like the results
An 18-135 is a travel zoom. I hope Canon's new STM version turns out to be better than all others available right now, but none of them will be truly outstanding. On an absolute basis, they all have below average IQ, as a 7.5x zoom necessitates.
I don't think the Canon's good enough to brag about, nor the Pentax poor enough to disparage. But each can produce some nice results within their limitations.
I think these lenses fulfill a useful purpose for their respective brands. And both brands produce some outstanding primes for those who wish them. These fulfill a different need. Perhaps owning the better lenses makes it easier to accept these for the times when zoom convenience is a priority.
In other words, I like much of what I see from this lens, but I also view it as a relatively inexpensive lens (at its bundle price) which I might actually use sometimes, unlike the 18-55 kit zoom which I never use.
If you want IQ you have to break it up into 16-50 and 50-135 or get primes.
jon404: Pentax people -- if I got a K-30, does Pentax make a 35mm or 40mm small, bright, sharp prime lens that you would recommend? I hate zooms.
Yes, the FA43 f/1.9 is very nice. It's an outstanding lens that meets all your criteria. The DA35/2.4 is an inexpensive alternative that is surprisingly good too, and though it looks slower than some similar lenses on paper, it has very good IQ wide open (which is often hard to come by in an inexpensive lens).
Finally, the FA31 f/1.8 has smooth bokeh and smooth transitions to OOF that may well be unmatched by any brand around this focal length.
ybizzle: The Fuji X10 is still the sweet spot amongst all these compacts like the RX100, LX7, S100, etc. As far as lens and sensor combinations go, it can't be beat! All cameras have their strong and weak points, but the X10 manages to be a great balance overall. Kudos to Fuji!
That would have been my problem too - otherwise I think it's a slightly better camera than the Olympus XZ-1. However, the X10 wasn't even available last summer when I got the XZ-1.
The XZ-1 just manages to fit inside a common Sony case, which then just fits in my front pocket. It's perfect for going to the amusement park or any place I don't want to carry my DSLR around, yet still want flexibility and good quality RAW photos.
Between the XZ-1 and the iPad2 it's possible to travel light on trips without sacrificing too much functionality.
Whether or not the LX7 and FZ200 ultimately end up being the best in their classes, Panasonic is moving the market in the right direction by prioritizing lens speed across the zoom range. Despite little gripes here or there, we as photographers should be excited about this.
DStudio: This is not the fastest lens on a compact camera. The Olympus XZ-1 is, with the Fujifilm X10 close behind. Both have 4x zoom (28-112mm equiv.) with only one stop between the wide and tele- ends (f/1.8-2.5 and f/2.0-2.8 respectively). The Samsung has almost 2 full stops over a lesser 3.3x range, and the long end is only 80mm equiv. If the Samsung could do 112mm it would be well past f/3. In fact, by 28mm the Samsung will likely be around f/1.8 already.
As we know from DSLRs, the better quality zoom lenses have either a fixed aperture (e.g. f/2.8) or a 1 stop variance (e.g. f/3.5-4.5 models from many manufacturers).
This may be a good camera, but in practice it won't be the fastest. It's also not likely to have the highest quality lens.
Well, now that the LX7 is announced we can say it is faster. It's been over 1 1/2 years since the XZ-1 came out so I was getting concerned. I'm glad to see a 3rd manufacturer is now taking lens speed across the entire zoom range seriously. It has just over 1 1/3 stops variance, which is promising.
People are rightly excited about the LX7, because Panasonic is doing what I've been talking about. The optics are the critical starting point. Panasonic is going the right direction with the optics of the FZ200 too. Let's hope the final results on these cameras are as good as the design portends.
Ariston - DPR isn't wrong to call it the fastest lens on a compact, because technically it is - at 24mm. As a practical matter, however, most shooters use the whole zoom range. This means most of the time (i.e. at most focal lengths) the Samsung is slower than the XZ-1.
There's no guesswork here, other than trying to figure out the exact crossover point where the XZ-1 becomes faster. But mathematically and optically, it's clear from the specs that in most or all of the overlapping range (28-80mm) the XZ-1 will still be faster.
The point is that buyers who are looking for a camera that is technically the best should not fall for the hype, but instead consider the maximum aperture throughout the entire zoom range they plan to use.
I agree that Pentax has released some rather underwhelming compacts - models they don't even seem to believe in themselves. But the WG models have really struck a chord with buyers, and rightfully so, I think. I'm not sure Pentax should give up on their branding of these models, especially since innovation is one of the things Pentax tries to (and often does) stand for.
Mundane P&S JPG models do little to help the brand, but cameras like the WG series definitely need to stick around, and probably should retain the Pentax brand as well. I imagine this model is profitable, but even if it's not, it bolsters their image and can create brand loyalty.
Ariston - I don't know of any overall faster zoom lenses on compact cameras. Are you aware of any I've missed?
Good choice in combining this camera and lens for street photography too!
The only ZZZZZZzzzzzz...... I can see here is that the other manufacturers are sleeping on producing a truly fast lens that stays fast throughout its range.
It's nice marketing to say they have a fast lens starting at f/2 or better, but when you start to zoom (even, say, for shallower DOF) you suddenly find your lens has turned into an f/4.9 or something!
At least Canon can still say their S100 is fantastically small, or Sony that their RX100 has a larger sensor. But they both don't truly have the useful, fast lenses that they pretend to.
This is not the fastest lens on a compact camera. The Olympus XZ-1 is, with the Fujifilm X10 close behind. Both have 4x zoom (28-112mm equiv.) with only one stop between the wide and tele- ends (f/1.8-2.5 and f/2.0-2.8 respectively). The Samsung has almost 2 full stops over a lesser 3.3x range, and the long end is only 80mm equiv. If the Samsung could do 112mm it would be well past f/3. In fact, by 28mm the Samsung will likely be around f/1.8 already.
DStudio: At first glance the images don't look any better than the Pentax DA40, and definitely can't compete with the (admittedly more expensive) Pentax FA43. The FA43 is often classified as a pancake lens as well - especially without the lens hood. In fact, the FA43 is exactly the same length as the Canon (27mm) according to the specs.
But it's good to see Canon creating this lens, and dpreview reviewing it right away. The fact that it has STM is certainly impressive, and the price is so reasonable.
@photo nuts - If the FA43 is better than the EF40 from f/2.8 on then it's still "better."
I'm not sure if you're speaking from experience, but I've looked at many FA43 photos (including my own) as well as many dpreview samples. The FA43 produces better shots without even putting much effort in. These EF40 shots aren't as nice, and it's not the fault of the photographer.
As I implied, the DA40 can't live up to the FA43 either.
I'd like to see all three compared here on DPR, even if it's only in the form of using the EF40 on the T4i review and the DA40 AND FA43 on the K30 review (especially since the two cameras are direct competitors).
At first glance the images don't look any better than the Pentax DA40, and definitely can't compete with the (admittedly more expensive) Pentax FA43. The FA43 is often classified as a pancake lens as well - especially without the lens hood. In fact, the FA43 is exactly the same length as the Canon (27mm) according to the specs.
trungthu: Why all the lenses at 50mm f/1.8 for full frame from other branches have the prices around 100USD, while Pentax has 50mm f/1.8 for APS-C, with a smaller covering power, and a higher price?Why?
We won't know until we see it. It may have higher image quality.
Certainly the rounded aperture blades are better than what Canon has for $100. Nikon's new 50/1.8 is about $220, so the price is similar. The Nikon also has seven rounded blades, with the smallest aperture at f/16 vs f/22 for the Pentax.
In any case it's welcome because Pentax needs an affordable 50, especially if the FA50/1.4 gets phased out, as it may.
And many people believe it will work on full frame - hopefully as well as the Nikon.
ybizzle: Near Leica quality without the Leica price! ;)
Yes, @Norm, I have one of those "higher quality P&S compacts" - the Olympus XZ-1. While it's a great camera, there's a huge gap between it and my K-5. There's no way the XZ-1 could approach the image quality of the current u4/3s cameras, especially the E-M5. In fact, it can't even reach the narrow FOV of this lens at all - it can only go to 24mm at f/2.5 (equiv. to FOV of 112mm on 135, or approx. equiv. to 55mm @ f/5.8 on u4/3!).