Lab D: Like most ILCs today, this one serves a niche. There is no other cameras that I can slip in to my jeans pocket, take places with the 20mm F/1.7 and 45mm F/1.8, both of which are tiny, and shoot with a silent shutter. It is a very good "stealth camera that performs acceptably in lower light. If you children are in a school show or in a performance at church, and you don't want to be that obnoxious parent, this camera is for you. I am sure some Nikon J1 and Pentax Q owners have had the same experience, but I have often forgotten I had the little camera with a couple wide aperture lenses in my pocket.
There are many F/.95 primes that will fit on the GM5 for low light events too. A silent shutter on a tiny camera with larger sensor and F/.95 lens make for a nice option in those situations.
Like most ILCs today, this one serves a niche. There is no other cameras that I can slip in to my jeans pocket, take places with the 20mm F/1.7 and 45mm F/1.8, both of which are tiny, and shoot with a silent shutter. It is a very good "stealth camera that performs acceptably in lower light. If you children are in a school show or in a performance at church, and you don't want to be that obnoxious parent, this camera is for you. I am sure some Nikon J1 and Pentax Q owners have had the same experience, but I have often forgotten I had the little camera with a couple wide aperture lenses in my pocket.
SF Photo Gal: I think it's a much needed re-direction for the GF line.
Owning a GX7 and GH3, the GM's and LX100 didn't really appeal to me, but I might be tempted to retire my very battered LX3 for one of these.
And judging by the youtube promo, looks like it will be great for personal porn!
The new GF is all about sharing. :)
Lee Jay: It's okay to be wrong Richard, and you are.
My first purchase was a 10D. That led me to a 20D for its many in-body improvements. My basic two lenses were a 17-40L and a 28-135IS but I also had two others, the 50/1.8 and 75-300IS. However, I loved wide-angle, and none of these count, and the 75-300IS wasn't long enough or fast enough. So I bought a Sigma 15mm fisheye for the crop cameras and traded up to the 50/1.4. The fish on crop is like a 19mm rectilinear on full-frame which is sort-of wide. Note than none of these are crop-lenses, but all are usable on a crop-only system.
I then sold my 10D and bought a 5D, and I sold my 28-135IS and bought a 24-105L. Then I had really, really wide (full-frame fisheye on full-frame), wide (17-40L on full-frame), and walkaround (17-40L on crop, 24-105 on full-frame). I got rid of the 50/1.4 for an 85/1.8, and sold the 75-300IS for a 70-200/2.8 + TCs, all through a nice, continuous path, each step leading to the next.
So, it's no myth.
My FF Canon lenses work very well on my current camera. Did I "upgrade" to a smaller sensor? If you want to say that go ahead. People go different directions every day and adapt what they have. Next we will see those commenting about their upgrade path from Canon to Nikon or Canon to an A7ii. Maybe anything can be considered an upgrade path.
Richard is correct. You think he said it never happens which is obviously wrong. People switch formats and brands all the time. There are many here who use their old FF lenses on ther new smaller sensored mirrorless cameras. There are many use use Canon lenses on Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Fiji cameras. So what.The truth is most DSLR owners do not buy APS cameras knowing they will one day switch to FF. In fact, most DSLR owners don't buy more than 2 or 3 lenses. Many stick with a kit lens and use the camera like a fixed lens camera for as long as they own it. Many keep their old DSLR at home and use their smartphone now. Big deal. So nice anecdote, but it means nothing in relation to the story.
km25: A Canon 24-70 wt is 805g, 1.77 lbs. The Fuji only is 655g, 1.44 lbs. All fast and wide lens are goinr to large, but this is a one lens for just about everything. Remember, the X-PRO is APS-C and some cameras like the Nikon 7000 series is nearly as big as nomal FF Nikon. The lens factor is 50% less, the wt factor will about the same. Did you exspect an 16-55mm F.95 should only wiegh as much as an 35mm F/1.4. They make other lens that cover this range that lighter, buy one of those. This a Pro level and they work for a living.
Oops, nerd2 your math is off. Think again. Also, since the large majority of Canon DSLRs have a 1.6x crop factor, the Fuji (1.5x crop factor) in your way of thinking is a faster lens! :)
Fuji has taken the lead in APS mirrorless. Samsung looks poised to do well too. Both now have multiple F/2.8 or faster zooms. It will be interesting to see of the new Canon and Nikon mirrorless offerings this year are APS or only FF.It's been almost 2 years since Sony announced a new APS mirrorless lens and zero are on the horizon. There may be too much competition looking in that format size.
blink667: Curious about the coming competition between the D750 and Sony A7II which has in-body stabilization and is $1000 cheaper with a 28-70mm.
The New 24-120/4 which is part of the $2999 kit that is $1000 more than the A7ii kit.
The A7II has a less useful mediocre lens that goes to F/5.6 while the D750 has a wider range focal length, highly rated F/4 lens.
You could get a less useful F/4 zoom for the A7ii too, but it adds that $1000 to even things out it still can't complete with the Nikon's more useful range.
btw, the D750 shoots better video. The A7ii video is similar to the old Nikon D600 with lots of moire, aliasing and softness.
turvyT: D750 looks wonderful until you compare it in lab test section with Pentax 645z. Then, image quality wise, D750 looks just like one more of the pack. I know that IQ only doesn't say much about usability, but the difference is impressive.
RadPhoto obviously makes more sense than turvyT. Also, in most cases the D750 wins because any picture is better than no picture.
The a7II video looks similar to my old D600. Nikon significantly improved it for the D750. In a couple more years when Sony has more useful native lenses for the A7II (no portrait, no macro, no 200mm+, no F/2.8 zooms, etc.) it might be about to compete. Heck, Nikon even has hundreds of legacy lenses that AF without the need a $350 adapter.
645z, $8000 for the body only and no good lenses for taking action pictures or other types that 95% of people shoot. F/44 for macros is not too appealing either. :)
Sonyshine: An impressive new DSLR from Nikon. I hope they can translate some of this tech into a smaller mirrorless body - that would be cool!
Mirrorless would be nice, but once you add the SLT adapter and a decent lens to an A7ii the size difference is not much help. The lenses are still the same size and the over all kit ends up virtually the same too.Nikon already focuses fast and reliably with hundreds and hundreds of lenses which mean no need to pay for all those adapters.
The D750 looks to be an excellent camera. For the masses it would make a much better camera than some current competitors that do not focus nearly as reliably or do not have more than few native lenses. At a time when some cameras are targeting a niche, this one is a great all around solution. The score is well deserved
sierranvin: Read this carefully, checked the samples, and I am feeling so happy to have an a7R, a Sony-Zeiss 55mm f1.8, and a full wallet!
I have Nikon which actually focuses properly AND an even more full wallet. :D Still, the 645Z is for those who want the better IQ.
ashokvashisht: 6 Sony, 4 Nikon's and 2 Canons in the list. The world of full frame is changing ? :)
The problem with you analogy is all the Sony's complete against each other and are limited in major areas such as focusing. For example, any soccer mom will be happier with the results form an older D610 with its less expensive lenses.
jennyrae: Olympus successfully reinvented hdr mode and renamed it sensor shift. Seriously, a 3 picture bracket shot would still be better. This sensor shift design is more of gimmick. It is still in reality 16mp natively and being marketed as 40mp by virtue of stacking which is in a way somehow similar to what is now commonly known as hdr mode in cameras.
Correct, Olympus Medical Division successfully implemented this while ago creating very high resolution images from very tiny lower resolution cameras.
AKH: Maybe start making a sensor that is on par with the best APS-C sensors 😊
In reality smaller sensors do have and advantage when accounting for size. This is why the RX100/FZ1000 sesnor is so good and why the E-M1 sensor is able to almost equal APS sensors for DR at most ISOs. APS will always have the size advantage but in practice it is not quite the expected 2/3rds of a stop all the time. Technology such as this would vault the 4/3 sensor in to the better FF territory (in some situations) while retaining the much small and shorter lens sizes.
Reilly Diefenbach: The D3300 with kit lens kills this nice little camera at $350 less. Can't carry a one pound camera? Really?
Yeah, I didn't know the D3300 offered 4K video. I bet it keeps a moving subject in focus really well too! I can't wait to get one and slip it into my jacket pocket.....oh wait...the D3300 with lens is HUGE (especially depth) compared to the LX100. I guess you didn't know 156mm is bigger than 55mm (by almost 3X).http://camerasize.com/compact/#509.36,569,ha,t
SulfurousBeast: Anyone watch the video? The Panasonic guy Matt Fraser? Calls the sensor as "micro four thirds" . huh! Thought he should know better. Does not matter in getting the point across, but still an employee and spokesperson should know better and that too from the company that pioneered four thirds standards.
Actually, that's a good point.