magneto shot: LCD'less is one of my wish list. My other was setting a possible shots of only 36,64,128. Limitations such as these gives u all the glory and film shooting experience, makes u a better photographer definitely without the fuss of film development.
Edit of my previous post: "...turn the back LCD off..."
straylightrun: Would rather get the Fujifilm x100
Not only you would do this, but thousands of people already have done it. But maybe Victoria Beckham will buy some Leica X. ;-)
sportyaccordy: That 16-35 is massive.... scary as it's not even F2.8
Where is the wide angle FE prime???
Again confirming the fact that mirrorlees cameras are best suited with standard zooms and primes.
zorgon: It's hard to believe that they can make a lens that small, with that zoom range and aperture. On paper at least it looks better than the Sony RX100III and Panasonic LX100 but I get the feeling that something has to give. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the image quality is like.
Yes, people take pictures with smartphones in bright light... and only when they come home they can finally see what they shot. ;-)I have quite advanced smartphone with great camera specs (considering this market segment of course): 1/2,3" sensor, f2 lens, great 5" screen, but shooting in sunlight is a punishment. But it´s only a phone so I can live with those limitations. Not so with the dedicated enthusiast camera that costs 700 USD.
My camera has the possibility to turn the back LCD off. So do I have sort of a Leica now? ;-)
Who forces you to shoot more than 36 pics with a digital camera? Who forces you to have the LCD on? Just order yourself to shoot max. 36 shots, turn the back LCD on an here you have your "classic camera, that makes you a better photographer". ;-)
keeponkeepingon: Is canon making a knock off of the RX100 really "one of the most exciting announcements from Photokina"?
Either it's a boring conference or I'm missing something. Can you explain why this is exciting?
I was also surprised by the designation "one of the most exciting announcements". It is really a nice camera, but definitely not as exciting or as expected as Panasonic LX100, 7D II, D750, NX1...
On paper it might look nice, but a large sensor enthusiast compact for this money in 2014 must have an EVF. But as usual, Canon made a great camera and then put something away, in order to be able to add it in later generations. I am sure the successor will have an EVF, but for now you have to look elsewhere.
Considering the fast lens covering big 1" sensor I wonder why couldn´t Canon make an S series compact with brighter lens. If they are capable of producing 24-120mm lens with f1,8-2,8 for 1" sensor, how come they were not able to make the S100/110/120 with small 1/1,7" sensor any brighter than f1,8-5,7. I onwed the S100 and it was a nice small camera, but the slow lens (at telephoto) made me angry; I wasn´t able to lock focus at 120mm anywhere but in bright sunlight. So making a S130 with f1,8-2,8 would breathe new life into this small camera.
xpanded: What is the logic of posting a stand report of Fujifilm before posting news of all the goodies Leica announced today?
There is a lot more that has been introduced and not covered by DPR by now. But it´s surely because of too many news and too little time. I believe everything will be written soon (waiting for new Pentax lenses).
iudex: Man it´s huge: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/E-M1_SLV_leftside_M4015F28_BLK_LH76_BLK_HLD7.jpgBut I guess it is not possible to make a 300mm eq. lens with f2,8 any smaller and it is perfectly within the competition of fast CSC telezooms:Fuji 50-140/2,8: 995g 72mm filter threadOly 40-150/2,8: 880g, 72 mm filterSamsung 50-150/2,8: 920g, 72mm filtee.
Btw. since it has not been introduced by DPR yet, here are the specs of competing Samsung telezoom:50-150mm/2,8, OIS, 154mm x 81 mm, 920g, 72mm thread, weather-proof:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081863-REG/samsung_ex_zs50150abus_50_150mm_f2_8_ed_ois.html
Man it´s huge: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/E-M1_SLV_leftside_M4015F28_BLK_LH76_BLK_HLD7.jpgBut I guess it is not possible to make a 300mm eq. lens with f2,8 any smaller and it is perfectly within the competition of fast CSC telezooms:Fuji 50-140/2,8: 995g 72mm filter threadOly 40-150/2,8: 880g, 72 mm filterSamsung 50-150/2,8: 920g, 72mm filtee.
While I believe this lens will be better than usual cheap superzooms, I think it came too late. Tamron changed the game with its 16-300mm and for those who prefer maximum reach (i.e. basically everyone looking at superzoom lenses) Tamron is a better choice, those 2mm at wide end make a big difference, plus the Tammy is weather sealed.P.S. Nice they included Pentax mount though.
tkbslc: I am pretty sure it would cost more to put together a high end kit from Fuji than it would a FF kit from Nikon, Sony or Canon. I can't think of any APS-C lenses that cost more than these two.
The story does change since D7100 (the best and most expensive Nikon APSC) is cca. 900 eur, whereas X-T1 is 1200 eur. And don´t forget the Pentax, not only K-3 is cheaper than X-T1, also it´s zooms are APSC and cheaper than Fuji/Nikon/Canon lenses.
What about a price comparison between Fuji and comparable (meaning high-end) APSC DSLR? D7100? K-3? With comparable lenses they are way cheaper than X-T1 plus f2,8 zooms.
Harry S: There seems to be an automatic assumption that everyone buys into mirrorless because it's smaller, therefore lenses like this are pointless.
I would guess many of these people have not stopped to think there may be a whole host of other reasons why somebody owns a mirrorless camera, of which size may just be a small part of. Even taking size into account, you can still have a very compact system when required (i.e. X-E2/35mm 1.4), but that doesn't discount bigger lenses like this, particuarly as there are a lot of pros using Fuji X gear now, particuarly for weddings.
Even with this lens in their bag, an X-T1, this, and a bunch of the X primes is still going to be significantly lighter and smaller than a DSLR setup.
I personally shoot with a Sony a7, size isn't on my radar at all, in fact I bolt a big LA-EA4 adaptor on it and use a Sigma 35 1.4 and Zeiss 135 1.8.
Re: "Even with this lens in their bag, an X-T1, this, and a bunch of the X primes is still going to be significantly lighter and smaller than a DSLR setup." I dare to doubt it.As has already been said, this telezoom is huge, same or even bigger than DSLR lenses: http://img01.quesabesde.com/media/img/noti/0075/fuji_50_140mm_01.jpgIf I take Fuji X-T1 plus a set of lenses to cover different FL, there is no significnat difference.Example (sorry, there are not exactly comparable lenses available):Fuji X-T1 + 14mm/2,8 + 35mm/1,4 + 56/1,2 + 50-140/2,8 = 2,26 kgPentax K-50 + 14mm/2,8 + 31mm/1,8 + 55/1,4 + 50-135/2,8 = 2,47 kg.So is this what you call "significantly lighter"?And if I didn´t consider the speed, I could take the Limited primes: 15mm + 21mm + 40mm + 70 mm, that weigh alltogether 550 g.So the summary: if you want to go mirrorless because of light primes, they are also available for DSLRs; if you want fast zooms for mirrorless, they are the same weight as DSLR lenses.
The Mick: Lovely early morning colors and nice symmetry!Mick
Thank you. The colours changed every minute and this shot had the nicest colours.
iudex: From the dawn of mirrorless cameras we have been told their advantage over big heavy DSLRs is the smaller size and weight: smaller bodies that do not need mirror and mirror box and smaller lenses that have smaller flange distance. So let´s take two examples:Fujinon 50-140/2,8: 995 g, 72mm filter threadPentax DA 50-135/2,8: same speed, similar FL, but 685 g and 67mm filter thread (just adding that it is a DA* lens, i.e. Pentax´s top and optically perfect, plus iit´s weather sealed).So where is now the advantage of CSC/CSC lenses?The point is: if CSC manufacturers want to build a fast lens, especially zoom with longer FL, the laws of physics are the same as for DSLR lenses and mirrorless lenses will be the same size and weight as DSLR lenses. The only difference is that the combo CSC + telezoom will handle worse than DSLR (with big comfortable grip) + telezoom. ;-) P.S. I like Fuji lenses and I could imagine having some (e.g. 56mm/1,2). But on a DSLR. ;-)
When I take the E-PL3 we have at home you are right that ISO above 1600 is better avoided. But the latest sensors (those in E-M1/E-M10/E-P5) are performing much better, just like APSC sensors (not the best ones like Fuji X-Trans, but definitely better than 18 MPx sensors of Canon).As regards the DOF every crop is a compromise of course, but when size is crucial, 4/3 sensor seems like the best compromise of size and picture quality.
That´s is why I believe M 4/3 is the best mirrorless system: 4/3 sensor allows for smaller bodies and lenses (while still delivering decent picture quality), thus gaining size/weight advantage over APSC DSLRs, something a CSC with APSC sensor cannot achieve. So if I ever switched to mirrorless, it would be something like Oly E-M10: great sensor, small body but with VF and lots of controls plus enormous choice of nice small lenses.But then I look at all the small and beautifull Pentax Limited lenses and I know I´m gonna stay. ;-)
TangoMan: This lens could have been 400g easily. Yep, less than a pound. And it could be small too! If only they had used a three lens element design in a sliding cardboard tube, all the weight savings they could have made!Alas! They decided to weight down each and every past and future Fuji X camera owner by releasing on all of them that epic optic.
While I appreciate the humor/irony, other manufacturer´s lenses are not primitive optics, but still manage to make the lense lighter and smaller, e.g. Pentax 50-135mm/2,8.