jon404: Well, I have an older 16-45mm. I'm sure this new one is better, but I don't know that the difference would make me a better photographer.
And then there's the cost. $1,000 is a lot of money!
No lens makes you better photographer. This is not the right way to look at new gear. It just allows you to take technically better pictures (sharper, with more contrast etc.)1000 USD is a lot, but so is the price of other Limited lenses, so it fits.
nicolaiecostel: I don't want to sound like a troll, but a 20-40 focal ratio combined with a 2.8-4 aperture would have made sense in 1984.
Would it? I repeat, look at the size and weight: it´s only 283 g, which is in the league of prime lenses. Make it a constant f2,8 and it would be much bigger and heavier (see Sigma 18-35/1,8, even smaller zoom, but f1,8 makes it weigh 800 g).
WordsOfFarewell: Hm, not sure why this is such a big deal. I mean there are plenty lenses out there with a constant aperture of f/2.8 like the Tamron 17-50 or sigma version or even the Tokina UWAs. Both of the aforementioned have broader focal length - although I have to admit both will propably be nowhere near the image quality of the 20-40.
Still I think this is rather weird for a lens to have only 20mm focal length radius. Nothing for me. I'd prefer a 10-30 f/2.8 that'd be something vanguardist. Still good to see many Pentaxians like it, the better they're situated the earlier I get a good UWA. ;)
And what do you think of Sigma 18-35mm, only 17mm radius?Sigma had to offer longer reach to achieve constant f1,8. Despite this small reach it weighs more than 800g. Compare it to this new Pentax: 283g is weight of a prime lens. Besides, Pentax already has a 16-50mm/2,8 lens (which has 565 g).So the whole point is lightweight and prime lens quality, imagine you have 2 limited primes (HD 21 mm Limited and HD 40mm Limited) in one lens.
KonstantinosK: Looks like a nice WR limited lens, I just wish it was a bit wider. Now, an updated version of the DA* 16-50 would be of more interest to me.
I am waiting for an improved 16-50/2,8 with HD coating (but if I have to wait too long, I will get a Sigma 18-35/1,8 instead).
iudex: One important thing that wasn´t in the article is the weight: 283 g pretty much answers all the complaints about small zoom and no constant f2,8.Considering this weight (and small size) the lens makes perfect sense and there´s no point in comparing this lens to 16-50/f2,8 zoom (which weighs 565 g, i.e. twice as much).
P.S. The price in the US should be 1000 USD.
One important thing that wasn´t in the article is the weight: 283 g pretty much answers all the complaints about small zoom and no constant f2,8.Considering this weight (and small size) the lens makes perfect sense and there´s no point in comparing this lens to 16-50/f2,8 zoom (which weighs 565 g, i.e. twice as much).
I am very glad to see that manufacturers finally put EVFs to compacts. Tunnel-type OVF is a dead thing (only Fuji has tried to improve it by putting some info in it) and (a decent, i.e. min. 1,4M dots) EVF is the future and a must for compacts to distinguish from (more and more decent) smartphone cameras.So now Canon bring a G2x with an EVF (and letar also G17 with EVF) insterad od useless OVF.
Since I don´t have FF (have Pentax ;-), I would love to see an equivalent for APSC, i.e. 16-70 f2,8 (Art of course). I intend to buy Sigma 18-35-1,8 (when the Pentax mount is finally available), but it´s focal length is a bit limiting. I would trade 1 EV for better FL. Having 16-70 with f2,8 I would never put it off my camera.
WMarreiro: Olympus STYLUS1 Leaked Image and Specification surfaced over the web today, the camera features OMD like design, 1:1,7 inch sensor and a 24-300mm zoom lens. The rumored price Mini OMD is $700, expected to be announced at 29 Oct 2013.
The focal length seems too big to retain decent speed, with 24-300mm it seems more like a bridge/ultrazoom camera and UZs typically don´t have faste lenses. But maybe they took inspiration from the RX10 (24-200mm/2,8); we will see soon.
utomo99: Any chance that it will be rx 100 competitor?I hope it has large sensor and fast lens
No, it will be usual 1/1,7" sensor.
VaLeX: And hopefully, the new camera will have the 28-112 F 1.4-1.8 Lens that is patented here: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=it&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fegami.blog.so-net.ne.jp%2F2013-01-08
That would be nice. Obviously the trend in enthusiast compact segment is brighter lenses and EVF and it seems the XZ-3 (?) will have both.
According to rumour sites this new premium compact should be announced on October 29 and it should have usual 1/1.7 inch like XZ series, but it should have a built-in EVF in the middle ("mini OMD").
Rob Sims: Would be interesting to see a side by side comparison with the RX100 (I and II) as this looks to be the target competition of this camera.
@technic: what compromise? The Zeiss lens performs very well. And if you mean that the lens gets slower when zoomed out, well, you cannot cheat physics. Look how the same sensor combined with constant f2,8 lens looks like: http://j.mp/1i1ajtRKinda larger, right? ;-)
iudex: I am a bit surprised to read DPR finds the price of A7 high. I don´t remember this to be pointed out when the Oly E-M1 was introduced and man, this is one overpriced camera. 1400 USD (body only) for 4/3" sensor or 1700 USD for a fullframe? The A7 is a bargain.
as regards the sensor size: yes, it is not the only important thig to a camera. But it is the MOST EXPENSIVE part of a camera and FF sensors cost much more than say APSC sensors.When people get firs FF mirrorless they cry it´s not only about the sensor size, but ergonomics, fast lenses etc. But when people get a perfectly specced compact (see the RX10: constant f2,8 8x zoom, EVF, DSLR-like handling and ergonomics) they complain about small sensor. ;-)
I agree that the lenses are quite expensive. But many other lenses for APSC or M4/3 are priced similarily (Fujinons are no cheap stuff). You dont expect a FF lens to cost the same as M4/3 lens, do you?And another comparison: RX1 with (only one) fixed lens costs the same as A7 with zoom plus a prime.
Sean Nelson: The price is in line with what this camera offers over and above an RX100M2 - namely a built-in EVF, top LCD display panel, and a very long range, constant-aperture f/2.8 zoom. Trying to get that combination in any other camera with a sensor at least this large would be a lot more expensive.
@zorglub: do not mention the DSLRs. In that case almost every mirrorless is overpriced. See the Pentax K-30: APSC, 100% pentaprism VF, weather-sealed, twin dial controls, 1/6000s, 6 fps... and that for cca. 500 EUR. For this price you get only the entry-level CSCs (with no VF and worse specs).You can also ask this question: which fullframe mirrorless is cheaper? ;-)
I am a bit surprised to read DPR finds the price of A7 high. I don´t remember this to be pointed out when the Oly E-M1 was introduced and man, this is one overpriced camera. 1400 USD (body only) for 4/3" sensor or 1700 USD for a fullframe? The A7 is a bargain.
Rob Sims: From final page of preview: "$1300 is a vertiginously high price tag for a small sensor compact, no matter how capable."
Not debating the price, nor the reasoning that this is a lot of money - but since when has a 1 inch sensor, 813g camera (comparable in size to some APS-C dSLRs) been considered a small sensor compact? Was this accidentally copied and pasted from an article about a different camera?
IMO the size is similar to FZ200 and the Fuji X-S1 (with 2/3" sensor) seems to be even bigger and heavier.
Ecatly my thoughts. 1300 USD is extremely high price tag: but when you take RX100 II for 700 USD and try to put a price to every feature the RX10 adds, you may come to a similar price. OLED EVF may cost couple of hundreds and especially the lens with 8x zoom and fast constant aperture must be expensive. I doubt any other manufacturer introducing camera with this specs would ask for less money.Anyhow I would like the price to drop under 1000 USD in short time. ;-)
Edgar_in_Indy: Same old optics huh? I've owned both the DA 55-300mm and the DA version, and while they were both OK optically, that's about as much credit as I would give them.
I wish Tamron would stop their Pentax boycott and release the new 70-300mm VC in K-mount. That lens puts the 55-300mm to shame.
Exactly. I had the 55-300 too, but I sold it in order to get a faster telezoom with f2,8. Since Pentax makes none, I have to look at Tamron 70-200/2,8.On the other hand the DA 55-300 was really lightweight and portable, ideal for chasing wild animals (in good light of course). And weather sealing is very useful for this purpose too.