Sony don't get it. The whole point of mirror-less cameras is compact size. These huge clunkers are ridiculous.
straylightrun: Would rather get the Fujifilm x100
It's a no brainer. If you want a status symbol buy the Leica. If you want to make photographs buy a FujiX series. (I own three)http://lightmancer.blogspot.ca/2014/09/the-day-leica-left-me.html
Buy one if you're interested in status. Buy a Fuji X-100T if you are interested in taking pictures, or an XT-1 with the 23mm 1.4 if your really think you need a faster lens.Leica is redundant.
AshMills: "minimum aperture not affected" - yes, but what about MAXIMUM aperture?
Eyeglass10101: The idea seems great: no loss of aperture (no typical teleconversion loss of two stops or more) and seemingly great Fuji optical quality. But my experience with teleconversion screw-on lenses have always been poor. I hope they have figured something out that has not been done yet.
f3.5 I'm afraid
Mattersburger: That's a lot of metal & glass to get to an f2 normal.
Hey, it's not f2, it's f3.5.
schaki: Lol. Sony and their huge lenses..
Tmmbits Full frame lenses do not have to be bloated clunkers llike this. Lots of full frame lenses are very small, especially primes. Old film lenses like Pentax M series and Olympus OM lenses were very small. Leica M lenses are very compact. Old Zeiss lenses were bloated clunkers like their modern ones however. The lenses for the old Contarex 35mm cameras were huge.
Daniel Bliss: A small camera wants a small lens. This one is begging for a really good 35/2.
$800 for a 35mm f2.8? $1000 for a 50mm f 1.8? give me a break. I'll spend my money elsewhere thanks.
The only stealing going on is by Zeiss and Sony. Your average "junk" lens, like a Nikkor or Canon do just fine thanks. I remmember a few years ago seeing tests in one of the mags of a round-up of 50mm normal lenses. The Zeiss was twice as expensive as all the other "junk" lenses, but it tested in the middle of the pack.
Nice little cameras, big clunky over-priced lenses. The lenses may be smaller than the DSLR ones, but those are monstrous. What's the point of making compact camera bodies if you don't make lenses to match. Maybe they could hire Pentax or Olympus to make lenses for them. Zeiss is a big part of the problem. Their lenses have always been bloated, over-rated clunkers.
Why does Sony persist in making lovely small cameras, then only offer big ugly clunky lenses?
This is complete horse-pucky
No surprise that the clunky Zeiss lenses fared so badly. They've always been over-rated. Maybe they should be selling re-badged Samyangs.
Wow, check out the white paper nay sayers, very impressive.
I love my x100, but I have two concerns that are not mentioned in the preview. The shutter lag, not from the autofocus, but the crazy aperture dance the camera does befor every shot, and second, the terrible overlay of the distance scale which obscures the bottom of the viewfinder in manual focus mode (and which they won't let you turn off in manual mode)
Sounds good so far, but my biggest concern, does that horrible distance scale still intrude into the picture area in manual focus, and will the camera let me turn off now?
marike6: IQ seems good, but the colors from the Fuji X cameras are significantly better.
But the image of the kid on the beach show the big problem with a lens sans lens hood as with light hitting the front element, contrast is horrible. I don't know if there is a way to mount at least a screw in lens hood, but just shooting the naked lens in not the way to go.
Fuji's lenses are every bit a match for Leica's.
Joe Ogiba: I would rather pay $800 more for the FF Sony RX1, APS-C compacts are a dime a dozen but there are very few FF compacts under $3k.
Ehhhh....I'll stick with my Fuji x100 thanks very much. Hey, and DP review, if you need someone to shoot some test pics, I'll gladly help out for free. These are frankly dreadful.
Good grief, look at the horrid noise! My Fuji x100 blows Canon's doors off at high ISO