caravan: The best zoom lens is a sharp prime and a good pair of legs.
Simply not true. The image from the same object area coverd by a short focal lenght looks very much different than that covered by a long focal length. You can not zoom with your feet, you can zoom by cropping the image. (with loss of resolution)
The very best of all internet reviews are collected here: http://leasthelpful.com/ it is very entertaining. Like this one: http://leasthelpful.com/image/53119190776
Pangloss: I think the key shortcoming here is the very simple fact that one can take exactly the same pictures with the kit zoom at exactly the same focal length and aperture, adding vignetting and distortion effects in postprocessing if one wishes. So the question is, why spend any money on a body cap lens if one already has a kit zoom that can take exactly the same (or better) picture? As I see it, it is both a waste of money *and* more importantly a waste of shooting opportunities.
Quick position for hyperfocal distance maybe. And it is cheap.
peevee1: "In fact, the Coolpix can go further underwater than any rugged camera on the market: 18 meters (59 feet)"
But dark lens and weak LED light will allow you to get only black picture at this depth. And even at 15m. And no long exposures - it's not like you can bring a tripod down there.
"it's not like you can bring a tripod down there." I bet I can. But it will be useless if not put on the ground.
Mahmoud Mousef: Well, Carl still gets confused for office products:http://www.carl-officeproducts.com/
...but this is progress.Lucky we don't have a Lucy Leica company.
http://corporate.zeiss.com/about/en_au/about-carl-zeiss.htmlZeiss seems to be stuck in the black&white era if those photos are anything to go by.
And by the way, its Kyocera not Yashica. Yashica was acquired by Kyocera in 1983. They sold trademark rights of Yashica to MF Jebsen Group in 2008.
You see? You are confused. I mean that company: http://www.ikon.de/en/site/vacant2/About-AssaAbloybe/HISTORY-TEST/ The one that makes security locks.
"...typically provide plenty of manual controls, comfortable ergonomics,..."
And then there are the Nikon D5200 and the EOS Rebel. Cameras that have only one dial.
km25: Well if his middle name was Franc, it would be KFC. No big deal to me, it is still easyer the Voigtlander. Besides do not good Germans spell Carl with a K. Well I hope no one confussed by all the other Co. named Zeiss.... no more CZ.
Normaly we write Karl but for some reasons his name was Carl Zeiss. Poeple at that time thought it would look more educated to write the names more latin like. Same with Markus/Marcus and some others.
Well Zeiss Ikon dropped the Zeiss to be not confused with Carl Zeiss anymore.
jacketpotato: Anyone recall prices of digicams 10years ago.In three years FF digital mirrorless will be around £1500.
1999: 12.000 DM (6000€) for a 2.7MP-camera. (Nikon D1)
2012: 6000€ for the D4
One could say nothing had changed, but the D4 is very much better than the D1, obviously.
Why back to PSAM-mode dial? Are people so used to it that they can not operate a camera without PSAM-modes?
jtan163: View finder.
Tilting LCD is nice, but...An accessory EVF would be nice.I guess the absence of an EVF is intended to force people like me to move up to the XE-1If that is the case the problem with that strategy is it actually discourages me from buying it.I might just stick with my EM5 instead of taking the risk.Give me an accessory EVF and I might buy one of these to try the X series, and then moce up to the XE or XPro. I'm not likely to ust try those as is.But I might buy one of these more or less on impulse, if it had an EVF. And then I might try and XE or XPro.
But I probably won't find out without an EVF. So they lose me and the opportunity to lure me away from m43.
Otherwise it looks like a nice unit, I assume it can use all X mount lenses including the XFs?
The single command dial is not a problem if you can use the XF lenses, assuming it can be programmed to control shutter.
PS Dig the Lunar like wood grain.
If you are happy with your E-M5 keep it! If you are not happy with it think about why! The E-M5 is a good camera. If you consider a camera as a replacement for your E-M5 thik about if you lose something you realy like with your E-M5.
ianp5a: Mmmmmmm. Pancake!
I like Crêpes more.
ThePhilips: How about extending it to the rest of EU? Or at least Germany??
Also, in Germany, neither E-PL5 nor E-PM2 is available as body only. I'm not sure who's making the marketing decisions over there, but they are not particularly clever.
Sie haben das 17/2.8 ja als Kit mit anderen Kameras auch in Deutschland verkauft.
With other Cameras they sold it as a Kit in Germany allready. Why they don't sell these Cameras without Lens? What is the Point?
Edit: technisch. The ch is an ç [IPA] (don't confuse it with the sch witch is an ʃ like in fish)
NZ Scott: Peiasdf:
I'm sure you're correct.
The 1.8 is superior in every way except for two - it's slightly bigger and it's quite a lot more expensive.
It's probably also losing a lot of sales to the Panny 20/1.7, which is also a pancake.
It is also neither very much better than the kit-zoom nor very much smaller. Nobody nedds it and nobody wants it. I have the Panna 20/1.7, the Oly 17/2.8 and the first Oly 14-42 Kit-Zoom and I never use the Oly-pancake. It was part of a kit of E-P2 with VF-2 I purchased used for a very low price.
They don't have a color I like...
(If black is not a color)
Gully Foyle: What a daredevil company Pentax is! I truly admire the guts of these guys! And I mean I do, no sarcasm here.
They built the Auto 110 end of the 70th. That was very similar. SLR with interchangeble Lenses for 110 film. Unfortunatly it was fully automatic.
ProfHankD: So, three questions:1. Sensor anti-shake?2. Does it fully support using adapted manual lenses?3. Anybody making a focal reducer for it? Imagine a Speed Booster-like adapter that buys you several stops while restoring a FF view angle with an adapted lens.
The guys from metabones did not managed to build a reducer with factor 0.5. They say that is to much. About 0.7 was all they could do.
marike6: It's probably the same sensor as in the MX-1, which is a great performer. My only wish is that they had found a way to upgrade the 460 K LCD. Viewfinder-less cameras absolutely should have the best LCD panels possible.
As far as the lenses, I'm wondering did they purposely design the Q lenses with a large enough image circle to cover a 1/1.7" sensor? If so, why didn't they just build the original Q with this sensor?
If I remeber it correctly the 1/2.3"-sensor of the Q was the first backlit sensor and was better than most 1/1.7". Making baklit sensors was difficult then and they did not managed it to make a 1/7" baklit sensor.
@Fuzzfuzz: Wich lenses are these? I think I don't own one.
TheProv: A no sense buy. G15 canon, panasonic lx7, Olympus xz-2, nikon p7700 all has faster lenses, same or better range or both them. On the same sensor. With smaller body.
Until pentax make ultra wide angle or extreme telephoto.... Dou you believe in it?
Do you realy know how small this camera really is? It is not thin but very small.