Retro look, yet slicker price. Well done. How much is the Sony A7?
SeeRoy: Why doesn't one of the manufacturers release something with overall improvements in IQ (bigger sensor, faster lens etc) keeping the size down by eliminating the LCD screen?
Apart from setup (and the chumps who chimp all the time) I think many people would trade it for overall performance gains if the essential functions were externally accessible and setup could be done via an EVF. After all, there are plenty of overpriced cameras out there lacking a viewfinder - which many of us find indispensable.
Still, adding an EVF to cameras in this sector: about bl00dy time too.
Totally agree with you, SeeRoy.It just seems that nobody dare/wants to make this happen.It is going to be cheaper if it is made without the rear screen.
There is definitely a huge market for SLR body with E-mount. With an adapter and a cheap but good quality legacy lens, this combination just beats M43 and super zoom cameras with small sensor. I just want to see if the Panasonic FZ200 and G6 will be firm on $549 and $799.
Sony just gets the ball rolling.
Nikon 1 series are interesting. The prices are simply ridiculous. With Sony' s excellent NEX line, why one has to bother with the small sensor N1's?Won't buy N1 V2 with 10-30mm lens until its price goes to $299 level.
Very nice shot. I've got the Pentax 135mm f3.5.
Was she happy about that shot? I know you were.
A good review on a bad lens.
Obviously, Olympus is trying to say this is a body cap, not the other way around.
An expensive body cap.
Look at this ugly design.I am not going to buy it.
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom: I am a nikon DSLR user, but I never liked the NIkon 18-55 kit lens it looks ugly.. this canon lens looks better, aesthetically of course.. we are not talking about the IQ output etc..
I would not mind using a kit lens if it was this good looking..simple..and balanced looking..
Indeed, the Nikon kit lens looks really ugly.
Along side this Canon kit lens, the new Sony 18-55 DT SAL II looks fantastic, too..
I do not know why FujiFilm ditched its highly acclaimed SuperCCD technology.Since they did that, I haven't bought a single camera from them. Meanwhile their camera design really lets me down. The glory of S5 pro has gone and gone.
Now here the Sigma SD-1 comes! This lens should be able to be mounted on the SD-1.
WHITE COLOR VERSION? HOW MUCH?
I shoot guitars: I bought one at the fire sale price of $325 with the 40mm lens. I've only shot a couple of hundred photos so far, but the picture quality is remarkable. There is a 3D effect on some of the shots that I have never seen from my old cameras or my newish Sony A77. It is quite different handling than any other camera I have, but not annoying or awkward. I like it! I would have preferred an articulating screen, but for the price, I can live without it. Again, picture quality makes this a worthy camera. A Pentax K5IIs may be in my future.
"Indeed, but here is still prince about 800 USD (Czech Rep.) "
Who will pay for that stupid price?
zygh: Even though the concept looks interesting, the price is verging on the insane. Unless one owns the lens(es) worth thousands, I can't see this adapter being a solution for those of us with old Nikkor or M42 lenses. I would like to try one, but for the price, I'd much rather get a 1.8/35E or save a bit more and go for a SH 1.8/24E.Anyone else feels the price is excessive?
Spot on. Anything added on is just an add-on.
Overall, the money spent on a dedicated NEX or m4/3 lens gives this adapter a home run. Why bother and make things cumbersome? After all, with such an expensive adapter, you still have to bite too many compromises( AF speed...).I do use adapters to accommodate my EF or F mount lenes to Nex and m4/3 bodies. But I am talking about $15.00 adapter, not $700 after tax.
Good innovation + high price = bad idea
Thanks, Pentax.This is the one that I have been waiting for a decade.I hope that the K-02 will take the same course and look as this MX-1.
iluvmyd800: I recently bought the Nikon 7700, and have been very pleased with how it generally performs, except in low light. But, I did not buy it for that; I bought it for an upcoming trip to Brasil and I am not keen to take my big DSLR and some lenses lest they get stolen! The range on this little camera is remarkable, and it takes brilliant photos in good light. I could not be more pleased. There is a lot of buzz about the Sony RX-100, but I found it to be too small, that it's optical zoom is limited, and that it is slippery in the hand and too expensive for what I wanted. I managed to find my little Nikon for $C450 with tax.
Totally agree on you.The P7700 is Nikon's first good looking enthusiast compact camera.
Chris2210: Looks like a nice lens - wonder how it will compare with the Panny 20mm f1.7?
That lens is smaller, [slightly] faster and cheaper - albeit build quality does not look so good. It is one of my favourite lenses, because it's sharp - and vitally for m4/3 it's a pancake. So that's quality and compactness and the ability to create shallow DoF even in this format. For me personally, I can't see what would be compelling about this Olympus [rough] alternative, particularly given the price.
As for m4/3 vs FF. they're different beasts and it's ultimately futile to compare.
Quality in the smaller format will always lag behind because of the physical limitations. But that size factor can be a huge advantage too and a lot of the time [perhaps most] quality is more than good enough. But let's just not pretend it's AS GOOD as current generation FF, because you're putting a welterweight in with a heavyweight...
Quote:Just a matter of time, Sony will announce a FF NEX similar to above in size and weight with IQ unmatched by any M43.End of quote
Indeed, even the current Nex F3, 5N, 5R, 6 are much better and cheaper than these mediocre micro 4/3' s.
whawha: Given that the K5 was widely received as one of the best looking, as well as best performing cameras in its class, why did Pentax have to shoot themselves in the foot by following it up with this aesthetic abomination? The fact that it performs so well is even more irritating - would it have been so hard to just style it like a smaller K5?
I like this style, and I hope Pentax will also makes a digital version (look) of MX.
This news makes me think of the besieged launch of Sigma SD1, Pentax Q.So much money for so ugly design and/or under-performance.Can someone please tell me if the sale for Sigma SD1, Pentax Q has taken off?
Retzius: $1499 would have had me pre-ordering. $1999 I would have been very tempted.
By Christmas or Easter, I think the price will drop to sub 2000.
Why this instead of NEX-7?