I think when asked about dynamic range the comment about having the best image quality (note not DR specifically) from to low to high ISO is about as close as you are going to get to an admission they don't have the best DR.
Optimizing image quality across all ISO's is their excuse for lower DR.
Aren't these lenses a throwback to a former era? Just because in the days of film 70-200 F2.8's were kind of state of the art in terms of fast tele zooms why on smaller sensors do we want to replicate that particular focal length range on a 50-150 or whatever?
I don't consider F2.8 fast for focal length on 150 even in a zoom and you can get 50-200 lenses that are a stop slower at 150 (i.e. F4) so given the superior high ISO capabilities of modern sensors that in my opinion reduced the need even further. The 50-200's are cheap to buy and a lot lighter and weight seems to be a factor in the article.
Depth of field, F2.8 v F4? There is virtually nothing in it at 50mm or 150mm.
Don't see the point myself.
clochesfeuilles: I'm sure I'm not the only person who would like to see Panasonic release this lens for m4/3 sometime in the near future?
Happy to see perhaps the closest successor to the LC1 yet.
If they did that wouldn't this make the LX100 obsolete?
I must admit I don't really get the idea of a fixed lens m43 or APS-C "rangefinder" style camera when you can get interchangeable lens cameras of a similar style (dials on camera and aperture rings on lens) from Pana and Fuji to name two.
On the other hand I do get the 1 inch sensor fixed lens cameras because with a short range zoom on they are smaller and genuinely pocketable like the Sony RX100 (whereas the aps-c / m43 cameras are not) or they allow a super zoom camera with a larger sensor such as the Pana FZ1000 or Sony RX10
hrt: The spec of this camera is impressive indeed. With 4/3 sensor + 24mm equivalent zoom + low light capability + control dials + EVF + light weight portability, this camera potentially could replace my APS-C DSLR.With an integrated EVF, there is no need for a tilting screen.Exterior looks of the camera doesn't matter, so long as it has a good grip, sufficient dials for control, and no sloppy covers that can easily be bent.Can't wait to see some test results.By the way, do you know whether it's weather sealed ?
@hrt "With an integrated EVF, there is no need for a tilting screen."
How do you work that one out?
I own an A77 which has an EVF and a tilting screen and I can assure you the tilting screen sees use for overhead shots in crowds and low level shots also. It is very useful to have it.
I simply cannot fathom why by now all digital cameras, particularly those devoid of an optical viewfinder, don't have at least a tilting rear LCD if not an articulated one.
It seems mind-numbingly stupid omission these days and excuses like "it might break" are just that, excuses.
Blackdog68: Wow, the 800 pound gorilla in the electronics field has spoken and every other camera company should be nervous. This camera checks lots of boxes: 1/8000 shutter, 1/250 flash sync, more phase detect sensors than the competition, 15FPS. It's an impressive spec sheet. Actual performance from this back sided APS-C sensor is yet to be seen, and the AF as well is untested, but if I'm Nikon or Canon and I've been waiting to really get into the mirrorless market, you may have waited too long.
Yes, it looks a very nice camera spec-wise ticking many boxes.
The key will be what sort of image quality comes off that 28mp sensor. The fact they upped the pixels to that level will raise eyebrows re-noise despite the high tech sensor.
Using this technology with a 20mp sensor could, if it offers inherently improved noise performance over normal sensors, possibly have delivered killer camera better than other aps-c 20 or 24 megapixel cameras noise-wise. Going to 28 means it's going to have to work harder to match them.
Samsung remind me of Fuji. Coming out with some very interesting cameras and also lenses right now.
DVT80111: Regardless of all the technology inside them, all Sony cameras are just toys because there is no ergonomic nor usability consideration in their design.
Well you have never used a Sony A77 if you think that. Ergonomics-wise one of the best cameras I have ever used.
Karl Gnter Wnsch: If the "Sport" version is geared at the professionals which do not care that much about weight, why isn't it at least f/5.6? As f/6.3 they are missing the limit of the focusing systems - and since that is a physical limit the focusing on almost all DSLR will be compromized and not function as advertised and guaranteed by the manufacturers!
"Sigma lenses (like the 50-500) bypass this problem by telling the camera that the maximum aperture is 5.6 and the actual aperture is 6.3. "
If the camera thinks its got an F5.6 lens on the front when it fact it is f6.3 how doesn't that screw up the metering in shutter priority mode?
It's taken Nikon how long to realise a tilting LCD screen is a good idea?
At least they got there in the end.
Lanski: I just feel that right now we could ask for so much more. 128GB of flash memory is getting pretty small and pretty cheap. So are card readers, and it can't take a supercomputer to run a simple backup. I'd like to see a genuinely small automatic backup drive that takes CF and SD and doesn't cost the Earth. Is that not possible? Until then, I'll stick with my 10in Windows device.
"if 128 GB is all you need, you don't need an external on site backup solution."
Yes you do. It's called a backup for a reason. You back it up in case you lose the images on the primary device.
They look a nice pair of lenses.
In fact in terms of specification being F2 and 35 and 50 they are what Sony should have brought out themselves instead of the slow (by modern standards) 35mm F2.8 and the too-long 55mm F1.8.
I don't buy this idea that had they (or CZ) come out with AF versions of the 35/F2 and 50/F2 they would have to be larger lenses.
The Canon 35mm F2 which has both AF and Optical image stabilization is 335g in weight whereas the CZ 35mm F4 is 5g heavier at 340g. The Canon has 67mm filters v 52mm but it is only just over 3mm longer. Nothing in it.
StevenMajor: Nothing creative here. Would be nice to be able to zoom in very close and even circle an object to view it from different angles. I think current technology permits that...I've seen it used in advertising.I'm surprised the thirst for war cannot be quenched by looking at the front page of any newspaper. Most people who have participated in war (and survive) spend the rest of their lives trying to forget it. Some of these images will trigger unpleasantness in many people.
Madaboutpix, I can see where you are coming from. Don't know where you live but here in the UK at the moment there are a lot of TV programs about World War 1 given the fact it started 100 years ago. Some of the best I have seen are based on 1st hand accounts, not a Historians view or interpretation of what the soldiers went through.
If you view the laying out of the equipment in the same light you can empathise with those ho had to carry it.
Unfortunately I do have one criticism of the WW1 shot and that is the lack of a tin helmet. That may be one down the bottom right with a canvass cover on it but that is not how they were worn. Just the bare metal for the most part.
The same can be said for the WWII one as the helmet there looks like a paras has not an infantry soldiers helmet which was virtually identical to the WWI helmet.
If you are going to do shots like this you need then perfectly accurate and in my opinion these are not in that respect.
JDThomas: Oh, the Leica haters are out again. Leica cameras are ALWAYS going to be expensive. Why are you surprised? Get over it.
This is the same thing they did with the M9. They put out an M9-P and it cost $1000 more. Even used they are going for about $1000 more than a regular M9. This M-P isn't a shocking release. I was actually wondering what took them so long to release it.
If you want a cheap (but fake) rangefinder go buy a Fuji. If you want a real rangefinder save up and buy a Leica.
"I'm just pointing out how stupid and useless it is to complain about the price of a premium piece of gear. "
It doesn't matter if the gear is premium or not. If it is overpriced for it is, it is overpriced. There is nothing stupid in pointing out something is overpriced. And Leica gear is overpriced.
You want to pay the price? Fine. That is up to you but remember, you really are not getting value for money.
Jay A: It's really very easy to make fun of Leica pricing and I do agree that the expense is rather a bit much for a camera and lenses, but two things come to mind...1 - I think pretty much ALL cameras are way over expensive to the point of being ridiculous. I mean come on now, thousands of dollars for camera bodies?2 - Even with the expense I have to admit that my M240 and the two lenses that I own to use on it (35 and 50 summilux) produce some of the finest looking files that I have gotten out of ANY of the digital cameras I have used in the past 20 years, and that's been quite a few. Yes, I worked hard to be able to afford what I have, but the Leica files actually have color, contrast, micro contrast, sharpness and a general look to them that make the expense worthwile as far as I am concerned.
Stick your lenses on a Sony A7 and I doubt you would be able to tell the difference.
In fact I'd go further. I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference between any of the FF d-SLR's with say a Sigma 35mm F1.4 or in Canikon land one of the CZ manual focus lenses on board, 35mm or 50mm. Maybe even with their own "cheap" primes as well.
I have always thought the investment should be in the lenses. And that was when I shot film. In the digital era this is even more the case.
I admire good engineering but you can get it (and equally good lenses) for a lot less than this.
Percival Merriwether: They were going to call it the "BeExpensive" but that would have been too obvious.
I am going off topic but I think a lot of modern lenses are over priced. Particularly primes which are of quite simple construction using well understood optical designs.
in the 80's I was an Oly film shooter and I don't recall any of their excellent lenses being out of reach (e.g 85mm F2). I'd baulk at the prices of some of the Fuji lenses (for example) today and I am far better off financially.
Same with tripods. They were of a certain price bracket, now they seem much more expensive.
£99K? Wonder how much the original selling price was and how much, adjusted for inflation, that would equate to now?
I am sure they do. I have an old Cullman aluminium tripod of over 30 years vintage. It's still going strong.
At the time I bought it Cullman were the brand of choice but there was no way their tripods cost the price of a decent lens! I certainly don't recall thinking it was a particularly expensive purchase.
Whereas today when I saw the price of this Manfrotto one I thought "You have got to be kidding!"
Agreed. It seems to have become fashionable to charge high prices for what are essentially pretty simple mechanical devices when it comes to tripods.
Pretty neat trick of the marketing dept to convince people this sort of money is justified. I am reminded of the marketing phrase "reassuringly expensive" which was used in the UK to advertise Stella Artois larger.
OK carbon fibre may put the material cost up but the aluminium ones aren't exactly cheap.
Dave Oddie: The geometric equivalence (apertures, dof) is well explained and is how I thought it all worked.
The interesting bit is about the equivalence of light, or should I say lack of it.
As the article says "a simplistic measure of standard deviation from a common patch suggests the noise isn't solely related to sensor size, either"
I have always thought those stating that a smaller sensor such as 4/3 was definitely 2 stops (or whatever) worse than FF were totally ignoring the capabilities of each sensor.
We all know generally smaller sensors are noisier than larger ones but by how much can't be stated by a simple equivalence rule.
At the end of the day what matters is the results regardless of format. If they are acceptable to you that is all that matters.
I also think most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in non-low light shots when viewed properly and not pixel peeping and could choose a format based on the other characteristics not noise performance.
Well yes but I was kind of taking it for granted we were talking the same number of pixels in different sensor sizes as the article tried to do in the test.
So you'd expect a 16mp 4/3 sensor to be noisier than a 16mp aps-c sensor due to the density but what you can't say is there is a simple mathematical rule that says by how much.
Fuji who as far as I know don't make FF sensors could make a 16mp aps-c sensor that outperforms all other 16mp aps-c sensors so how the Fuji sensor and the rest stack up v FF would be different.
That means you can't apply a bit of simple maths as you can with geometric aspects discussed in the article.
I have always thought this obviously true but have seen posts in forums saying how noisy a 4/3 (or whatever) sensors must be relative to another sensor size by doing just that.
This is what I was trying to get at.
The geometric equivalence (apertures, dof) is well explained and is how I thought it all worked.
saralecaire: Still more expensive than the brand new and 4K capable Panasonic FZ1000.
Siobhan A, the Panasonic may have 4K video but as the comparative review points out the Sony has far more than just an ND filter to aid it in producing its video output such as the way the auto ISO works which keeps shutter speed and aperture locked while still allowing for accurate exposure and the fact it has a full sensor readout.