"Autofocus tracking is really very impressive."
I'm really surprised to hear this. Would you guys be able to say more? Surely it isn't competitive with PDAF yet...or is it? How does it rate against the E-M1 or the GH4?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.
Anyone who wants the DOF of a 20mm f/1.8 will be happy about this lens.
MAubrey: Well, I have to say, at the very least, the quality of that single shot with the 35mm f/1.4 sold me on the lens. That'll still have to wait to be a 2016 purchase. No budget this year.
Yeah, I don't upgrade bodies often. I'm perfectly happy with my regular A7. The next time I get a new body, it'll replace my E-M5...which currently has about 30,000 on the shutter.
Well, I have to say, at the very least, the quality of that single shot with the 35mm f/1.4 sold me on the lens. That'll still have to wait to be a 2016 purchase. No budget this year.
mpgxsvcd: I am starting to think that a Canon Camera, with a Sony Sensor, Nikon Processing, Panasonic Videos capabilities, Fuji Hybrid Viewfinder, and Olympus 5 axis stabilization would pretty be the end all be all.
If only they would all collaborate on one camera together the world would be a better place.
And Leica's lenses?
mgm2: This is a nice interview, but the sad truth is that their imaging division just doesn't make money and hasn't for several years. That must say something about the demand for their cameras and lenses.
Medical imaging does fine and so much of the tech in their camera/lens division overlaps with the medical division that the financial value in investment exists regardless.
Fuji makes the *vast* majority of its money these days in medical research, particularly with drug patents, but it's camera division still gets funded.
bluevellet: Around or less than 1/60 would not make the high res function usable in all situations, but it could be used hand-held in decent light at wide and normal lenses with human subjects not moving much.
For landscape, I'd say these are the primary types of lenses a μ43 user would be interested in using with it. With the exception of perhaps the 45mm f/1.8...which just might still be useable at 1/60th, telephotos for landscape, while useful, are much more rare than the wide and normal end.
Beyond that, I think the big thing 1/60th could provide is taking care of subject motion in landscapes (trees, etc.).
dvilaplana: Please don't be fooled by the size of the camera. Sony can make smaller FF mirrorless cameras when compared to DSLR, but the sensor size is what decides the size of the lens.
If someone wants smaller lenses then we have to go for smaller sensor size like APS-C ...
Fascinating which comments you choose to condescendingly respond to and which comments you choose to ignore entirely.
The 90mm could be tiny if isn't wasn't a 1:1 macro. The Contax G 90mm f/2.8 is brilliant on the A7 in terms of IQ. It just lacks fast AF. Only 1 1/3 stops slower than the Olympus 45mm, but equally sharp and better subject isolation.
They should have considered the smaller & faster USB type-c port with USB 3.1.
tinternaut: As per others here, I'm not sure what dated means. Sensor tech has pretty much hit a wall since Sony introduced its 16Mp APS-C sensor. Assuming this is an actual Panasonic (not Sony) sensor, then we know Panasonic aren't quite as good (especially with respect to low ISO DR), but the differences, compared to a larger format, are otherwise linear.
At the moment, all sensor tech is looking a litte dated, if you consider it hasn't really moved on in a few years. What is the A6000 if not greatly improved Nex7, albeit with a very similar sensor?
Do we actually know for sure how much the BSI in the NX1 improves things? I haven't seen any comparisons anywhere...
ZAnton: So the short flange distance makes no sense, because it causes big distortions, abberations and problems with "real aperture" on a big sensor (light has to fall on the sensor under a big angle). These lenses look quite long.
So what is a advantage of a slim 35mm mirrorless?
Do you think the 28mm f/2 is long?
The 35mm f/1.4 looks like it's roughly the same length as the CV35mm f/1.2 with a VM adapter attached.
iAPX: Impressive new additions to Sony Alpha 7 lenses, they are incredibly capable with awesome sensors and they deserve the best in terme of lenses.
The sad point is that their smaller size/weight being mirrorless will be offset by the lens size and weight, I don't see the point to go mirrorless if at the end of the day, your bag is the same size, as heavy and as expensive than a full frame slr?!?
Well, you don't /need/ to get the 35mm f/1.4. The 35mm f/2.8 is a superb lens and nice and small. All you need for small in a FF mirrorless package is to avoid the ultra-fast primes. Stick with f/2.8, f/2, or even f/1.8 and you'll be nice and compact.
baggy1: So this weighs more & is a lot more expensive than my Nikon 24-85 VR which can sit on an already small & light Nikon d750 which also has the benefit of full frame & mind blowing AF & incredible flash system.I don't get all the Fuji love in.Can someone enlighten me?
Nobody said 'mind blowing IQ'.
Rob Sims: Can anyone explain what happens to the equivalent aperture when you stick on an Ultra Wide converter? Does the 28/2.0 just become a 21/2.0?
It depends on how the converted affects the apparent entrance pupil.
Does it reduce the size of the pupil by a stop? If so then it will stay a 21mm f/2.
Does it reduce the size by more than a stop? Then it could be slower than f/2.
Does the pupil stay the same size? Then it would be an f/1.5 (possible, but highly unlikely).
You know...traditionally in headline writing, if there's a question the answer is invariably know. So the question is: are you communicating the right thing or the wrong thing?
wolfloid: This whole article is based on a very basic misunderstanding. The lenses are the 'equivalents of 70-200 f4 lenses. NOT f2.8 lenses. Depth of field on APS-C at f2.8 is 'equivalent to f4 on full frame. Any light gathering advantage of f2.8 on APS-C is mitigated by the larger sensor of FF, which, if the sensors are of the same quality, will have half the noise of APS-C.
So, the Canon 70-200IS f4 is actually the lens to compare these new lenses with, and that, of couse, is smaller and lighter.
You must have missed this sentence where it's clear the author is making no misunderstanding:
"If you've already got a full frame camera, then a 70-200mm F4 offers a very similar set of capabilities to a 50-150mm F2.8 on APS-C (same zoom range, similar light capture and depth-of-field)."
Joe Ogiba: The ultimate joke, the camera is lightweight but the film is a million times the size of a 256GB SDXC card and would cost a million $ for film and processing into digital images compared to the amount of full frame 36mp images that could fit on one 256GB SDXC card. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8967120
Even at the super low resolution of a 2400dpi scan you're looking at over 100MP.
(unknown member): This downsizing makes no sense to me. Throwing away 2/3 of the information from the 36 mp camera?
Sure. Noise isn't everything. But when you're explicitly making a comparison between two cameras and focusing specifically on noise, then...noise is everything...that the comparison is interested in.
Downsizing gives extra advantage to the A7r...making the image look less noisy than it otherwise is.