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.
Corpy2: 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.
So...is it worth you guys testing just how much AF improvement there is with 4/3s lenses?
samfan: I thought the recommended lens is the one you need? As in, with the focal length, aperture and other aspects that you need.
One thing that always makes me sad is when someone asks about a lens, say, 35mm, and someone recommends a 85mm because it's sharper. How much more backwards can it get.
Uh...I think that's why they have a discussion of best wide angle primes and zoom separate from their discussion of standard and telephoto primes and zooms.
Valentinian: could this camera replace the need for a 12mm-35mm lens (for a m4/3)?
It might for you. It might not for someone else.
Nukunukoo: Full frame readout on video?
Nukunukoo, you said it just fine. And it's a good question. I'd like to know to.
There are just too many people searching the comment solely for the purpose of finding someone to pounce on and correct.
PK24X36NOW: False: "the camera has all the elements implied by the term 'DSLR.'"
Nope! It's missing the "Reflex" part. It's name is therefore moronic in more than one respect. It's mirror is not "translucent" (as you pointed out) AND it is not a "Reflex" camera.
I guess they should call it "DSLST" for Digital Single Lens Semi-Transparent...
Or maybe they should just make DSLRs again, and then they could call them what they are.
bincho: Great. So, how much is it? $2300? I'd rather buy a full frame mirorrless available now.I could also buy a decent mirrorless with aps-c and several lenses.
Wow. HowaboutRAW is good at making things up.
joe6pack: The M43 sensor is 17.3mm x 13.0mm. Now they come up with a 21mm x 12mm. 17.3mm -> 21mm is a significant difference to me. It means many existing lens will be showing vignetting. Am I missing something here?
If this camera is gaining popularity. It could also mean that future M43 lens will be bigger to accommodate the wider sensor, covering 21mm x 13mm. That may not be such a good news for M43.
The gap between the two becomes much, much smaller if you're comparing the diagonal. And it's the diagonal that matters in terms of a lens's image circle.
I'd say they came up with a great idea if it wasn't for the fact that these have been around for quite some time already...
Falcon31: Nice tech, but what problem does it solve?
The whole point of a small sensor system is that it is small. Now with the speedbooster we can use our old BIG HEAVY lenses again. Now that is what I really want.
Some of us have already been using our 'big heavy lenses.' While the idea of putting a 300mm f/2.8 on this adapter is intriguing, I would expect that most people are more interested in mounting their 50mm f/1.2...which isn't big and isn't heavy.
Terry Breedlove: Perfect portrait lens for me. Fast aperture to keep shutter speeds up and iso numbers down. Perfect DOF at my favorite f2 FF eq for the fine art black and white portraits I do. I am buying the OMD em5 next week with the 17 f1.8 and I can't wait to join the four three crowd. :)
How much does that D800 weigh?
iShootWideOpen: Isn't Aptina 1" sensor in the nikon 1 system?
A previous generation, yes.