Shamael: By the way, launch price with the new 14-42 lens is 680$. Sony will have a big smile for this one then.
Why would Sony smile? Panasonic have produced a much better camera system for only a slightly premium on the price. M4/3 has a much better value and capability with lots of 3rd party support. With this type of camera as well as G, GH and OM-D "SLR style" Sony will be further seen as a niche product
Sanpaku: The 150mm f/2.8 will be tempting for hiking/travelling/weight conscious wildlife photographers, especially if Panasonic also make a sharp 2x teleconverter (preferably with integrated tripod mount). Alas, still not DSLR competitive for sports til Olympus or Panasonic does on sensor phase detection focusing.
The 42.5 f/1.2 would have been interesting to me before I discovered how nicely the 75 f/1.8 simplifies portrait backgrounds, if you have enough space.
wakaba, why so angry? btw i hope that shot was meant to be an example something wrong, cause the bird is severely underexposed.
cashewNut: I am now ready to join the OM-D brigade. I got the money but I couldn't decide on what lens to use. This Tamron 14-150mm lens is very promising. If the price is right and the lens is not made in China, then I am in.
Why the diss on China? The OM-D itself is made there - as is my Panasonic G3. I'm sure like most of the Japanese they have pretty much full control of the design and manufacuring process, no matter where it is.
Drew Conway: Yay, I no longer have to buy into a new lens system: Canon EF lenses + Sony NEX bodies = Photography for the win.
I think the target lens is the smaller 28 - 100mm prime prange of lenses. I have a Panasonic G3 and use 28mm and 50mm Pentax primes. Still much smaller than a Canon 600D/60D. I would like to get say 20mm/40mm from an inexpensive Canon 28 or 50mm EF prime - provided the cost and IQ is good
Lens: Pentax SMC-M 50mm/f2 @ f/4
In your spec sheet, assuming it isn't just Panasonic's, you give the body type as "Rangefinder-style mirrorless". In my world at least, you need some sort of integrated VF to claim that - so X100, X10 or NEX7 would be, but NEX5N, GX1 or this wouldn't. Neither would micro-dslr:s like EM5 or NX11.
Would you care to qualify your criteria for "rangefider-style"?
Yes, we all know what a rangefinder camera used to mean. But *now* it means a high-end enthusiast camera, comparable in IQ to a SLR, *but* without a viewfinder. You'll just have to learn to live with it.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: How can Panasonic be taken seriously when they launch a camera without hotshoe?
Huh? If you want a hotshoe you buy the G3, GH2 or GX1. That's why manufacturers make a range of cameras so you can choose the features you must have, and those you can live without.
Dvlee: Expanding the resolution of images displayed on facebook only increases the likelyhood of those images being stolen by others for republication outside of facebook and/or commercial usage.
I am reluctant to post any images of any monetary value on facebook until facebook clarifies its privacy and usage policies and removes any clauses that allow them to resell the images.
While many will say that there is no evidence that facebook is actually reselling images, through the user agreement we have all granted fb the right to do so if it should choose to expand it's business in that direction.
Given the number of images that are posted on fb, such a move would be devestating to stock photographers , and anyone who earns income by providing visual content for online use.
The internet and companies like facebook and Google are always changing. Even though they are not actively engaged in reselling, the potential to do so exists.
Anybody would think you don't like photographers giving away their images. There are many photographers that quite willingly allow their art to be enjoyed by others, whether under a public domain or creative commons licence. If commercial stock photographers feel it is encroaching on their business, they just have to do better. It's the same lame argument commercial software companies have had for years about free and open-source software.
ok55: Why can't someone make a compact with decent apertures at the tele end?? F5.8 at the tele end is useless for subject isolation. Isn't a constant f2.8 (or wider) possible??
You are forgetting about the sensor size. The DOF of this sensor at 5.8 will be about the same as f0.7 on a baby 1/2.3" compact. A bigger sensor with the same aperture automatically provides extra subject isolation
Richie Beans: Almost there, Canon! Almost there! This may be the camera every "adventure" photographer is waiting for: a simple camera with a huge sensor. AND A SWIVELING SCREEN! It's the one missing feature that has kept me away from all other mirrorless cameras.
Mirrorless with swivel. Pana G3 and Oly E-PL3 (sort of)
Mtsuoka: since when power zoom became a nice feature and why?
Mainly for video use.
diarmuid1: Can anyone tell me why Fuji havent implemented GPS into this camera?!?!Its perfect for travels/trips (except the size) and geotaging would be very usefull and desired feature! (at least for me)
Most people these days have a phone with GPS. Just enable GPS track logging on your phone and use the various on and off-line tools to apply GPS tagging to the EXIF data from your camera. (As long your camera timestamps are synced close to correct GPS time it is a very straightforward).
This is the "old school" way of geotagging and is unrestricted by camera models.
PerpetuumMobile: The diffraction limited aperture (2/3 sensor @ 12MP) is ~4.3. That makes maximum zoom (aperture 5.6) useless (all settings with aperture higher that ~4.3!!!); you won't get any additional information in the image! (in real life, results will be worse than this theoretical limit!)
Would have been better to make the camera lighter/smaller while obeying the laws of physics!
PerpetuumMobile I wonder whether you get out of the lab or the library and take photos ;-) If someone says a camera is "useless" at a maximum zoom range, you make it sound like all you are going to get a picture of a ball of fuzz. I find that hard to believe.
Just looking at those absolutely awful pictures that this camera can take. (Just searching on Flickr for Nikon V1).
Yes sarcasm was intended. I really get annoyed with all those people that obviously only read specs and peep at pixels and never actually take real photos.
While I am not a Nikon owner (I only have Canon P&S cameras), clearly this camera is able to perform in what it is supposed to do - capturing the moment, with enough control for enthusiasts, and a lot of flexibility. (I'm probably going to wait and see Canon responds, but the V1 could be something to yearn for).