The XT10 looks so like the old Canon FX film SLR, every time I see one I get a twinge of nostalgia
I can't help wondering if a camera with this many features is Leica testing the waters for introducing an interchangeable-lens AF-capable camera (if you think of the Q as Leica's "LX100," imagine a "Leica GX7/A6000".)
jjdsyd: Impressive on a number of fronts. But, I guess I am the only one here that doesn't like how it looks. Much prefer the looks of my GX7. Perhaps they will release a GX8 with 4k capability...
jjdsyd - I'm with you on not liking the looks. Generally, I've liked the curvy pseudo-DSLR looks of all the G-cameras, though I thought the G5 was the least successful. This one looks like an OM-D jumped the fence and ravished a G6 - it's neither one thing nor the other IMHO
JPR.lda: Is the silent mode really silent like on the Sony A7s???
Depending on the lens in use, you can get a slight noise as the aperture blades stop down to take the shot, but it's no louder than the ticking of the leaf shutter on a compact. I leave my G6 and GX7 on electronic shutter as the default, only switching to mechanical shutter if I need flash or to freeze fast motion.
Sergeg: I love everything about my GX7, functionality and rangefinder looks, ergonomics, handling.This has a curious appearance, like some miniature SLR from the 70's, why the "pentaprism" protrusion if there is no mirror, does it have any practical function beyond cosmetics? The FZ1000 and LX100 fill my 4K fix and I love the extra rez of the FZ!This is a curious beast with an uncertain niche to fill IMO.
To me it looks like Panasonic lost their nerve regarding the G-series design logic and tried to make the top plate look more squared-off and "OM-like." The result looks like a bit of a kludge to me (though I generally preferred the G-series curvy "DSLR" look to Olympus "OM" styling anyway). The end result looks like one of those odd early-80's automated SLR's that were around before Canon introduced the Eos series.
I had my eye on one of these for a while as to use mostly asa video camera, but I held off because the price of G-series cameras always drops at the end of the production run - I picked mine up for £299, less than the cost of a decent premium compact. Really pleased with it.
If you don't need 4K video, they're an absolute snap right now (end of May 2015).
Xentinus: Doesn't it have 120 fps at 720p video recording?
It'll be interesting to see if the 4K video pipeline allows for increased buffer depth in stills, like it does on the LX100. I only wonder because the advertised burst rate is fairly modest (7fps) whereas the LX100 goes up to 11(fps). One of the great un-advertised features of the LX100 is the way you can just keep on shooting RAW without hitting buffer full or having to wait for it to write to card once you're done.
Marty4650: It all comes down to this:
1. It can be small (like Pentax Q)2. It can be sexy (like Fuji X)3. It can be cheap (like Samsung NX)4. It can have scores of lenses (like M4/3)
But you can't have everything in the same system.
Pick which two you want, then select your system accordingly. Stop wishing for everything in the same system, because it will never happen.
And now Sony offers a fifth option that no one else has...
5. It can have a full frame sensor with world class image quality.
If you want an apple, then don't buy an orange.
While designing lenses for high-resolution sensors is different to designing for film, I can't help thinking of the superb compact 28/35/45/90 AF lenses that Zeiss built for the Contax G system. I'd love to know if the large lens size is a technical requirement.
I feel sad about this... It's an amazing technology, but the idea it could be more than a gimmick for stills photography seemed wrong-headed to me. I wish them well, and really hope there's a market for them somewhere.
disraeli demon: Glad to see the μ4/3 lens stable continuing to expand. Before switching to mirrorless, I was using Nikon APS-C and was constantly disappointed by the lack of compact fast primes for that format. Four years on from switching, Nikon does have a 40mm macro for APS-C, but neither they nor Canon offer a 60mm f2 (i know there are "nifty fifties," but that extra 10mm does make a difference). Neither company has anything to match the range of fast wide-angle primes offered by μ4/3... Or Fuji...
As far as Nikon goes, when I was shooting 35mm film I had a "classic" set of primes; 28mm 2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.4 and 85mm 1.8. To get that range for APS-C you could get the Nikon 18mm 2.8, so long as you have a screw-drive body and don't worry about how long Nikon will support those old lenses, no 24mm f2, no 35mm 1.4 (Either Nikon 35mm 1.8 or Sigma 30mm 1.4 which is bigger that my 50 1.4 and has a dubious reputation for focussing, no 60mm f2. I think Sigma does/did 20 and 24mm f2 lenses but they were designed for 35mm so they were the size of beer glasses. When I talk about "compact " I'd include the Nikon 35mm 1.8 for DX,.
Marty4650: There seems to be a real disconnect between making an "affordable camera" for lenses that cost between $4,000 and $10,000.
I mean... why bother?
Can't the Leica lens owner afford a Leica camera?If someone can't afford those lenses, they why would they buy this camera?
Did I miss the part where Konost was planning to create a few affordable lenses for their affordable camera?
I'd say Konost is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Perhaps they might have been better off creating an affordable rangefinder camera that uses Nikon F lenses?
I own a battered old M-42 with a couple of lenses and would LOVE an affordable digital body to attach them to. Even second hand M digital bodies are way beyond my range.
ogl: 42.5/1.7 = 85/3.4 for 35 mm system.....It's slow lens.
I've got to say, if you're dead set on shallow depth of field, why shoot μ4/3 in the first place? The thing I love about the format is being able to get greater depth of field for the same light-gathering ability at any given aperture. Different strokes for different folks.
Glad to see the μ4/3 lens stable continuing to expand. Before switching to mirrorless, I was using Nikon APS-C and was constantly disappointed by the lack of compact fast primes for that format. Four years on from switching, Nikon does have a 40mm macro for APS-C, but neither they nor Canon offer a 60mm f2 (i know there are "nifty fifties," but that extra 10mm does make a difference). Neither company has anything to match the range of fast wide-angle primes offered by μ4/3... Or Fuji...
Is there any information on whether the sandwich will be made available in μ4/3 for the European market?
I know I'll be completely on the minority here, but I wish camera manufacturers would use this sort of form factor for all high-end compacts (yes, including the ones with 24-90 or -140 zoom ranges). I've used Canon G series cameras and Panasonic LX's, and on all of them I've kept the add-on lens adaptor permanently attached to protect the zoom, allow for use of filters and keep dust out. I'd love something like a Panasonic LX 100 with a non-retracting lens and a manual zoom ring, zoom range maybe 24-90 equivalent, f2-2.8. Faster start up times, no battery draw from the zoom.
A beautiful looking lens, just a shame nobody's making a nice, compact reasonably priced 24mm f2 for APS-C that would give a fast 35mm equivalent.
Given how all the key mirrorless players have either completely abandoned SLR production (Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung) or let it be eclipsed by their mirrorless offering (Sony), I can see why Canon would be extremely nervous about introducing a mirrorless line. As successful SLR manufacturers, they and Nikon face a dilemma that Olympus and Panasonic certainly didn't. They also don't have the deep pockets of an electronics giant like Sony, who can just keep trying new stuff till something sticks.
The Eos M saga, though, really does verge on the ridiculous; it's like watching someone getting into a really cold swimming pool, stuck halfway, neither willing to get out nor quite able to face the shock of going all the way in.
Klarno: There have been a lot of shifts in the world of photography since the transition from film to digital, and many photographers and the industry at large haven't really taken this into consideration. With film, 35mm was primarily an amateur format that ended up getting developed enough that it was very practical for certain professional photography genres. It was the most popular format for consumers, and have always been where the money is. But now, it's possible get exquisite technical image quality, in many cases better than what we could ever get out of 35mm film, out of a sensor smaller than your pinky nail.
In terms of "develop their APS-C" systems, it's worth thinking about lenses; in 2011 I switched "down" from Nikon APS-C to micro four thirds because I had back trouble and could no longer carry an SLR kit. I had a lovely set of Nikon primes from the days of film, and my D50 worked perfectly with them, but the crop factor meant I had no wide angles, and Nikon (has) never really filled those gaps (I was reluctant to invest in old screw-drive lenses as that system was being phased out and the G- type replacements were on the whole huge and expensive.) I really wanted affordable DX format 18mm f2.8, 24mm f2, 30-35mm f1.4 and 60mm f1.8 to give me the classic fast prime focal lengths.Switching the micro four thirds I already had a good set of affordable fast primes available, and that selection has only grown over time. I think Nikon has still only introduced a 35mm 1.8 and 40mm 2.8 macro for DX, and they're ahead of Canon.
Got a chance to play with one in a shop, and I'm deeply disappointed to discover they've ditched the lovely LX-style distance scale (with proper distance markings and depth of field band) for the useless G-series style one that's just a line with a flower at one end and a mountain on the other. Not sure it's a deal breaker but that was a feature I use all the time for depth focussing on my LX7