mpgxsvcd: I wonder why they couldn’t have produced a camera like this a few years ago. I know the auto focus tech was not as good and you wouldn’t have had the 4K video. However, couldn’t they have put a 4/3s inch sensor in this size body back then?
Could they have produced this lens a few years back? Were they just waiting for the software correcting technology to catch-up with this lens design?
I have often thought along these lines. Maybe they didn't think sensors of this size offered enough to warrant it but I can't see why physically it cold not have been done.
Going the other way, to interchangeable lenses instead of fixed, it seems to have taken equally long for that to arrive in small sensor cameras. I am thinking of the Nikon 1 and Pentax small sensor cameras here.
One day some manufacturer will make a zoom lens on a camera like this that doesn't stop short at 70mm or 75mm equivalent.
I am sure an aperture of F2.8 at the long end of 90mm equivalent won't result in a huge lens. You could even compromise and have it at F3.5 while still be F2.8 for considerable way towards the telephoto end with the lens even longer at say 105mm equivalent.
There are 24-70 FF lenses, 16-50 aps-c lenses and now this 12-37.5 zoom and they all stop short.
What happened to the standard zoom going to 85mm equivalent, the first proper portrait focal length?
Add the 37.5mm long end to 12mp and you can't even crop that much.
I thought Sony took a step back by losing the long end of the zoom on the RX100 III. Same story with this camera for me.
Now if a MkII came out with a slower 24-105 equivalent on the front, where do I sign up?
aris14: Ι hate proprietary flash shoes...
The are all proprietary in some way if you want the advanced features the various cameras offer.
The real issue here is Sony changed the shoe from the old Minolta style seen on the A57/77/99 to the inferior multi-interface shoe used on newer cameras.
A completely pointless change given the new one is also a proprietary shoe anyway.
ProfHankD: Samsung already owns much of the camera market via cell phones. It's obvious from the specs that Samsung also is trying to be a leader in serious system cameras, and the sample images show that they haven't screwed-up very much. I look forward to a teardown, which I expect will reveal that this is almost entirely made from Samsung parts and subsystems. In the near future, how will other camera companies compete against the targeted resources of arguably the world's largest tech company?
Here's hoping this is a motivating challenge to companies like Canon, and not the big, bright, thing in the sky that causes a mass extinction when it hits.
Samsung's approach to the smartphone market would not be a yardstick I would want to use as a recommendation for them as a camera maker.
They add too much unintuitive crud on the top of Android and unlike HTC who's tweaks seem to add genuine value Samsung doesn't appeal. I actually use Nexus 5 myself just so you know I am not an Apple ot HTC apologist.
As to the camera I think on paper it looks fantastic specification wise. I hope the decision to go to 28mp pushing the envelope even further doesn't back fire.
As with and SLR type camera once the camera body is deemed OK the key issue is always the lenses and unfortunately few makers can match Canikon in this department in terms of range. I suffer from this myself as a Sony A mount user (E mount is ever worse for native lenses) so I'd be wary of moving to a new system equally or even more sparse on the lens front.
ogl: It's strange for me that there are users who could be happy with new very slow zoom.
Well it''s slightly slower then my CZ 16-80 (used on a 24mp sensor, Sony A77) which is F4.5 at the long end but it is an extremely useful focal length range to have.
If this lens is as sharp as my CZ pentax users will have a nice new lens to add to the lineup.
In my case the alternatives are at stop an a bit faster at the long end at F2.8 but you lose 30mm of range to get it. I don't see much point in 16-50 F2.8's and if you really want speed you still need fast primes.
Karl Summers: No need for this when you can buy a 5TB home cloud storage unit.
Can't believe the complacent replies to Pnakotus here.
However you do it, off-site backup is a completely sensible precaution to take.
And not for just reasons like your house burning down or theft etc but to protect yourself from your own occasional idiocy where you accidentally destroy important images.
Whether Microsoft Cloud Storage would be a suitable offsite backup option is another debate.
Tonkotsu Ramen: At that price...... it will not sell well..
Well in the UK buying a phone that isn't on a contract can be much cheaper. The Nexus 5 did turn up on contract offerings but you would have been mad to go there. With a price of just over 330 quid you would have paid for it twice on the typical monthly contract.
If the 6 is priced so high then that changes things.
The price was why I bought a Nexus 5. It's a great device in my opinion and is still well specified v other phones. Not interested in a phone the size of the Nexus 6 anyway but if I was, the price if it comes to the UK at £500-£600 is an invitation to look at the competition. With the Nexus 5 that wasn't the case.
Hugo808: It's got to the point where I can't tell the difference between cameras at all. If you told me these were taken with a 1" compact I would just nod and turn the page.
That they are full frame shots makes me impressed that the field has been levelled so much. But not that I'd be better off spending a lot on a new camera, not for reasons of IQ anyway....
MG89, you may have experienced a narrower dynamic range meaning in your case if the subject was exposed correctly the sky was blown out.
don't think it follows only FF cameras can be engineered to have a wider dynamic range.
Canon seem to suffer here on FF compared to others for example so I don't think FF guarantees good DR.
Wye Photography: IF I had to choose between the G7X, RX100 Marque III and LX100 and after viewing sample images from all three, the one I think has the X Factor is the LX100.
@Cain24 "Sure, for those who like to carry cameras in pockets. But there are those of us who will use pouches or small camera bags regardless, which does in fact put all those cameras under the same umbrella of consideration."
If you want to carry a small bag as opposed to have a pocketable camera then why limit yourself to the LX100? There are several m43 cameras of similar size that let you change the lens and the lens in the LX100 is not remarkable enough in my opinion to justify being fixed (and the size of the camera doesn't benefit from it either).
It may have other features such as 4K video others do not at the moment but surely it is only going to be a short time before these features are matched on interchangeable lens m43 cameras which will render the LX100 obsolete,
Zvonimir Tosic: The new LX100 has a appeal over other Panasonic m4/3 cameras because of the influence of Leica is far more prominent in it: from the new lens, to the layout of the controls.This is indeed a collaboration of the sort they once had in the DMC-LC1 era, and I am glad they have renewed the spirit of it. And considering the LC1 which employes 2/3" sensor was priced at $1599 at its delivery in 2004, today's LX100 with all its features is a bargain.
I bet the only collaboration Leica had/have with the LX100 is sticking their own badge on their version.
Glad DPR asked this question as I posted a similar one in the comments section when the camera came out.
I think they are being a bit disingenuous though in justifying the LX100 essentially on the back of its lens. A range of 24-75 mm and F2.8 at the long end is too limiting.
My standard lens is a 16-80 CZ on an A77 and it gets used a lot at focal lengths longer than 50mm (75mm equivalent).
And no you don't have to buy super fast lenses to make a case for the GX7.
Things like 4K video (if you use it) are evolutionary and I'd expect to see it on a "GX7 II" or whatever its replacement is.
The other problem I see is these cameras are not that small. So the LX100 being about the same size as the GX7 puts them both out of the "buy because they are small" category in my book when there are smaller m43 cameras from both Pana and Oly (that don't have fixed lenses either) and cameras that really are pocketable like the Sony RX100.
For me the LX100 is obsolete already.
xiox8: So three things I am interested in understanding before making the decision to buy.
1. As I understand it the spot metering does not use the actual chosen AF point? How would that work with birds?2. I have a 400mm f5.6 lens and I noticed that some of the increased AF function in the center requires an f2.8 lens to be utilized. Is this going to neutralize the AF improvements for me?3. I have read that the sensor is a derivative of the 70D which does not have stellar noise characteristics, so I want to see a DXO review. Although I saw a Matt Granger review that sounded favorable regards noise.
Any comments on the above would be appreciated.
You would never use spot metering with birds (in flight that is).
It does what it says on the tin and meters from the centre spot of the frame.
So with a bird in flight you might miss the bird with the spot and so end up exposing for the sky.
You typically use it on more static subjects in difficult lighting situations that may fool the metering. For example a back lit portrait you can spot meter the face to determine the correct exposure for the face locking the spot reading with the AEL button then recomposing.
Or you use it to take several readings from around the scene and average them out avoiding extreme lighting (some Oly camera let you do this).
There is nothing deficient here as regards the way the spot metering works. It is doing exactly as it should, metering from the centre spot always.
It could be argued with today's sophisticated exposure metering there is less need for it (and even less again if your camera has an EVF where what you see is what you get).
Canon2: I try to answer the xiox8-questions:1. As I understand it when you use spot metering, the camera focus firstly and then just before the picture is taken the light is messured around the AF point that was chosen. Either you chosed it or the camera did.2. Your 400 mm wont use the center AF point in double cross mode, but in cross mode along with many other cross type AF ponits. Double cross neads 2.8.
Spot metering means taking a meter reading from the centre of the frame. In true spot metering the "spot" will be 1% of the frame though many manufacturers who offer it have used up to say 5%. Some cameras have the spot metering circle etched into the viewfinder.
What it should never do is wander off and follow the focus point to elsewhere in the frame. That is NOT spot metering.
Wide area metering often works like that in that if you set wide area metering the camera will often link the metering to the focus point it chooses. Again, this is NOT spot metering.
If Ken Rockwell thinks it is a paradox the spot metering is only from the center sensor and "AF-point linked spot metering isn't there" just means he doesn't know what he is talking about or at the very least has his terminology totally screwed up.
If he means the metering is not linked to the focus point when wide area metering is selected then he describes this very poorly confusing it with spot metering.
Dave Oddie: 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.
I think in the days of film a 70-200 F2.8 was also a valid concept because if it let you shoot at ISO 200 in stead of 400 that was a genuine advantage much more so than applies today
The 50-150 F2.8s are not particularly light weight and so if you want to carry a lens of around 1kg or less what the article does for me is make a case for the 70-200 F4 zooms which are even lighter , not 50-150 F2.8s.
If speed is a requirement then something like the Oly 35-100 F2 makes more sense to me but then you are back to the weight issue which is 1.65kg
So to get a fisheye or a 21mm lens on E mount I'd have to buy two converters and a 28mm lens!!!
I thought converter lenses were what you attached to cheaper fixed lens cameras not D-SLR prime lenses.
What is more 28mm is a focal length I have never been keen on since back in the days of film preferring 24mm and 35mm lenses so it wouldn't see much use without one of the converters.
Sony need to bite the bullet and make a range of lenses such as 16mm fisheye, 17mm (or 18mm), 21mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm.
I know they do some of these already but with the 35mm it's either a huge and expensive 1.4 or the small and slow F2.8. One of THE most popular lenses in the old Minolta stable was a 35mm F2. I suppose Zeiss do an MF version but come on, apply some logic to the lens line up and do not leave gaps served by converters.
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?
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.