JamesD28: I think far too many people are forgetting that this camera's aimed at beginners.Yes, the sensor is tiny.Yes, the viewfinder is under par in terms of resolution.No, the pictures aren't going to be brilliant above ISO 400.
But are beginners really going to care about this?
@Andy Crowe: (1) Yes, but does it? (2) Even if it does, there still is the question why they don't use a slightly larger sensor (it wouldn't even need to be a full 1") and a slightly shorter zoom range (rather than 52x which noone, let alone the beginner, can make sensible use of anyway) to make the difference in image quality and the money spent worthwhile.
Compared to 1/2.33", better sensors are inclined to produce visibly better images under almost all imaginable circumstances, completely regardless of whether someone knows what they're doing or not. Trying to sell beginners an extreme and hardly handleable zoom range plus bad image quality instead of a sensible zoom range with at least acceptable image quality is nothing but bogus. Why should beginners have to start with a crappy camera just to find out later what they could have known (or could have been told) right from the start?
But do beginners really need bad cameras? Most beginners would profit from a camera design that would have traded some of the extreme zoom range for better overall image quality, too, even if they might not know enough yet to care.
With all the effort they put into making such a camera (which I find nicely designed, by the way), I wish they'd strive more to find a more useful balance between versatility (i.e. zoom range) and compactness on one hand and image quality and low-light capability on the other, until by some miracle someone invents a 1/2.33" sensor with acceptable image quality some day. With a slightly larger sensor and a slightly smaller zoom range I might even become interested in a camera like that XG-1. As things are, I'd rather use this older camera that was named XG-1, too: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/photos/XG-1-image.jpg (via http://www.rokkorfiles.com/XG%20Series.htm).
Modular or not, I really cannot see how a camera that can only be used with EITHER a viewfinder OR a decent flash "would appeal to enthusiasts". I will never understand why every manufacturer in the world seems to feel obliged to copy that incredibly stupid idea from whoever it was who originally devised it (Ricoh?).
Hubertus Bigend: I wonder how a smallish EVF with 462 x 346 effective RGB pixels can be "respectable" for a camera that offers 24 MP, let alone so many years after the first mirrorless camera has appeared on the market. Even the best EVF available today still lacks the clear image of a good optical SLR finder that allows precise manual focus without the nuisance of having to switch into a zoom-in mode. But an EVF like the current Olympus finder and probably the Fuji X-T1 finder, too, is at least a step in the right direction. New electronic finders should improve on that, not deteriorate.
@Scott: I see the point, and the A6000 probably is a capable camera if you don't mind using zoom-in with manual focus. The problem, though, is, that having to zoom in makes it near-impossible to use legacy lenses for snaphots.
@quezra: I've actually used the NEX-7 and NEX-6 EVFs and found them too low-res for my demand. I'm quite sure I don't need to actually use an A6000 to find out that less pixels lead to even lower resolution.
@Zeisschen: Using old manual focus lenses of all kinds is one of the most important application for mirrorless cameras. The worse an EVF is, the less a camera is fun for that purpose, because the more often you need zoom-in to get the focus right. With a good finder, you shouldn't need zoom-in.
I wonder how a smallish EVF with 462 x 346 effective RGB pixels can be "respectable" for a camera that offers 24 MP, let alone so many years after the first mirrorless camera has appeared on the market. Even the best EVF available today still lacks the clear image of a good optical SLR finder that allows precise manual focus without the nuisance of having to switch into a zoom-in mode. But an EVF like the current Olympus finder and probably the Fuji X-T1 finder, too, is at least a step in the right direction. New electronic finders should improve on that, not deteriorate.
I had some hopes this camera could become the successor of my ten years old Olympus C-70Z, with the additional benefit of a longer zoom range, but now I see it cannot, because even scaled down to the Olympus' 7 MP the Panasonic images are much worse. Having looked around some more, I'm not even sure the DMC-LF1 can be that successor, as its lens shows some image quality issues, too. I'll be checking that again, though...
Joking aside, all of it of course only works as long as those images will be published with EXIF data intact..
Nice, and probably well worth that small an amount of money, but without TTL I'll probably not become interested myself.
cseiler: Reading this is like hearing that a very nice meal I just had was full of glutamate!- I guess sometimes its better not to know the recipe.
Reading the comments in favor of the substantial amount of PP that was applied here, people seem to forget that back in the days of film we used to have a thing called slide film which was used by many a landscape photographer for good reasons, and with slides there was no such thing as PP. More than that, if capturing a natural view of a scene is the goal, you cannot use a polarizer, either - it's as simple as that. Then again, I do like Erez' picture very much, even though I tend to find it slightly overprocessed for my tastes.
Great images, great effort! But, just curious, given how much intelligence and work they invested to recreate those images in the best possible quality, what made them stop before eliminating the heavy banding that is still there to see?
samfan: I stopped bothering with front caps a long time ago.
Either the camera/lens is in the bag and doesn't need a cap, unless you keep your keys and knifes in the same bag.
Or it's in your hand and you're shooting.
OK, there's a 3rd option when the camera is hanging on your shoulder and you may bang it into things, but in that case you don't deserve a camera.
Before I stopped using those caps, I did wonder why no 1st party manufacturer doesn't simply provide some strings to attach the cap to the lens. I guess they really hope that people will not only use them, but buy their $40 original ones instead of $1 copies.
"unless you keep your keys and knifes in the same bag" – well, i thought I didn't. But there was that one occasion when I didn't bother to put the cap on the lens before putting it away into the bag, and I scratched the front glass of my most expensive lens quite badly, because a minute earlier I must have unintentionally dropped my keys into the bag. Bummer...
I've no intention to use anything like that hack thingy, though.
Peiasdf: I really don't see the point of these lenses. If you don't care much about IQ, just get a superzoom compact. If you want some IQ and are willing to pay for it, Sony RX10 is much better buy.... way smaller with way faster lens. I think this is for people that wants a DSLR but don't care to learn how to use a DSLR.
Good superzooms do exist, like the Panasonic/"Leica" 14-150/3.5-5.6 with Four Thirds mount, or the (albeit huge) Canon 28-300/3.5-5.6 L for FF bodies, even if these two may be the only ones. The problem is, other superzoom lenses are made to be cheap, not good, even though they could have been. And why should I buy and carry a superzoom compact, when I already have my DSLR?
PictureMan3000: Booooo! That's a cruel April fools joke... As I have a few legacy lenses that need a new Digital body! Since film is quite scarce and my OM-1 & OM-4T bodies are dead. :(
How about a Sony A7/A7R? I've heard some OM glass seems to do quite well even on the 36 MP A7R.
Another option would, of course, be a Metabones SpeedBooster to adapt OM lenses to APS-C mirrorless cameras, and who knows, maybe they'll make them some day. Even an OM-to-MFT SpeedBooster would be nice, with only a 1.4x crop factor left.
Is it true that the mechanical first shutter still shuts and opens with this new setting and the 0 s is actually 30 ms, as a German site has been reported to claim? Sony's electronic first shutter, on the other hand, gets rid of the mechanical first shutter, reducing the shutter noise as well as reducing shutter lag, which seems a more sophisticated approach.
Andy Crowe: Interesting, the shutter and sensor hardware must have always supported this, I wonder why it wasn't enabled at launch...
My guess would be because they couldn't get it to work at shutter speeds faster than 1/320 s, making it a somewhat half-baked feature, at least when seen as a "silent shutter" mode.
Hubertus Bigend: A camera with a 600mm (eq.) super telephoto lens but no viewfinder (and no connector to attach one of the existing external viewfinders) is like a gun without a sighting device. With none of them you'll manage to even aim at what you want to shoot.
Birds in the sky, or in trees, which are not that much easier to aim at, are one of my favourite subjects, so that's probably where my judgement comes from ;-)
A camera with a 600mm (eq.) super telephoto lens but no viewfinder (and no connector to attach one of the existing external viewfinders) is like a gun without a sighting device. With none of them you'll manage to even aim at what you want to shoot.