EinsteinsGhost: @Damien (author): Why is there no mention Sony RX100 at all? It is LX100's most direct competition (the article wasted way more space providing irrelevant history lessons).
@mosc,I'd like to hear from the author, not your assumptions of it, as to why he named only one camera (G1x) while complaining that this segment has been ignored.
But, I do get to correct you as well: G1X was announced in January 2012, and RX100 was announced in June 2012, so count five months, not 15 months. Although, LX100 has been announced 27 months since the RX100, so, may be it has been too long to remember, not having kept up with subsequent releases?
@Michael_13,LX100 is as close to RX100 as competition gets: Both are FLC, similar lens specs, both are about compact size and sensor size is similar and sensor performance should be similar.
OTOH, it is ridiculous to assume that GX7 is a more logical competition. There might be a fringe market where people buy GX7 only with its kit zoom but that is not the point of that camera to begin with. It is about flexibility.
@mosc,Except that the author mentions this: "The introduction of the big sensor compact was a great thing, and the interest around Canon’s almost-APS-C PowerShot G1 X demonstrated the existence of a demand almost all brands seemed to have been ignoring."
May be he is unaware of RX100's existence, which gained prominence as a pocketable camera primarily due to its larger sensor.
I'm assuming you read this:"The introduction of the big sensor compact was a great thing, and the interest around Canon’s almost-APS-C PowerShot G1 X demonstrated the existence of a demand almost all brands seemed to have been ignoring."
ThePhilips: "The longer I look at the Lumix LX100 the more convinced I become that the time hasn’t yet arrived when we no longer need the advanced compact."
You should look even longer at the statistics of how many people never buy a second lens and shoot exclusively with the kit lenses. Dumbfounding.
I personally think that the larger sensor premium compacts (like Sony RX100 and now, Panasonic LX100) will compete primarily with low-end ILCs where camera size plays the key role. But now, we're looking at buying a lens and a body separately (and replacing a cheaper body every 2-3 years or so) than replacing a more expensive Fixed Lens camera, as technology evolves.
ILCs sell for their IQ AND versatility. This is why I don't think the market for GX7 is the same as it would be for LX100. In the short term? May be.
It would appear that this is about comparing a specific FLC to a specific ILC, but it is also self-evident that half, if not more, of the space is dedicated to a history lesson that has little to no relevance. Did you not see mention of Canon G1X and G1?
And especially if the opinion points at....
"The introduction of the big sensor compact was a great thing, and the interest around Canon’s almost-APS-C PowerShot G1 X demonstrated the existence of a demand almost all brands seemed to have been ignoring. "
And teh internets are missing "opinion pieces" on history of fixed lens film cameras that were not FF? May be, this opinion is for those who needed it? In that case, I apologize.
@mosc, I'm not opposed to it being compared to an ILC from same company and with almost the same sensor size (GX7 sensor is about 20% larger... no direct mention of that either). It is logical to throw in that comparison. However, I'm questioning wasted space and time over something totally irrelevant (a history lesson on APS-c format, and P&S with a write up on a fixed lens camera with m43 sensor). You might have seen this:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz1000/images/apertures.png
A few might consider an FLC as logical replacement for an ILC, which might work fine if you keep it long enough, but a typical ILC buyer buys body, replaces it, keeps lenses. With an FLC, you simply replace both. More buyers make the decision to go FLC for portability/convenience and if one lens can do it all.
In terms of sensor size and camera size, LX100 actually sits between RX100 trio and GX7. It also has similarly spec'd zoom lens as RX100 MkIII.
Camera Size: RX100 III vs LX100.
@Damien (author): Why is there no mention Sony RX100 at all? It is LX100's most direct competition (the article wasted way more space providing irrelevant history lessons).
EinsteinsGhost: The author has downplayed the compromise in sensor size (the crop factor increases from 2x to 2.2x compared to 35mm format) and only highlighted difference in resolutions as if all else is unchanged.
With reduced sensor size, LX100 actually competes as much with Sony RX100.
The RX100 III is closer in sensor size and lens specs, although significantly smaller.
mosava: I bought aSony A6000...
I would as well. Unless I wanted a pocketable camera, then RX100 III (which the LX100 appears to follow).
The author has downplayed the compromise in sensor size (the crop factor increases from 2x to 2.2x compared to 35mm format) and only highlighted difference in resolutions as if all else is unchanged.
plamens: Except 28/2 all of the lenses are HUGE!!The main concept of the mirrorless is the small size, but with these HUGE lenses..Absolutely meaningless!!!They are even bigger and heavier than the same DSLR lenses!Sony, please consider to make small lenses, like olympus, panasonic, fujifilm and samsung stuffs! That because I would not buy any of them! Maybe except 28/2:)
Naveed, my response is based on the usual assumption that there is noticeable benefit in terms of size and weight if the lens is an APS-c vs FF. We seem to agree that is not true.
It is just that some seem to apply equivalence to argue that point, that 50-140/2.8 which is 70-200 "equivalent" is better choice than a FF 70-200/2.8 lens on APS-c (which, coincidentally, is a point even DPR authors seem to push for). We're then looking at two different applications, one becomes more about telephoto use. Sort of like arguing in favor of 55mm prime for portrait ("85mm equiv") vs a lens that is 85mm.
mosc: I just find myself dreaming of an APS-C 70-140 f1.8 stabilized Sigma that's ~$1200. Cmon sigma, blow the FF cameras away forever. Bonus points if you deliver this lens for E mount instead.
Let us not forget... Sigma DC 18-35/1.8 is about $1/gram. The premium might go up, with a lens that has a filter size larger than the camera body. :D
Rooru S: If they want professionals to take Sony seriously, they shouldn't stop R&D of A-mount lenses. There is a bunch of lenses that need an update quickly and there are serious holes in the A-mount lineup (for example, a set of constant F4 zoom lenses to complement the SAL1635Z, SAL2470Z, SAL70200G).
And if we talk about Camera bodies...where is the 1DX/D4s competitor that many professionals prefer to use? What about a proper D800 competitor with a proper AF module? Right now the a99 is only competing against the D600/6D and is losing.
Right now the Minolta Engineers are thinking what the hell they're doing with Sony after they're leaving A-mount in the dust...
Good point. And Loxia line could enable just that.
marco1974: OK, so now we finally will have a 35/1.4... but it'll be the same size as the 24-240 superzoom! So much for the mirrorless advantage in terms of size and weight.But oh, wait: we also have the more compact 35/2.8, don't we? But then the DOF and the total light-gathering ability is the same as that of a 23/2 on APS-c (which could obviously be much more compact to begin with). So much for the FF advantage in terms of DOF and ISO.Mmmh, it seems that in spite of marketing claims, one just can't beat the laws of physics. Bummer.
If building a compact, high quality, optically corrected 35/1.4 were easy with a compact body, we would see more of them. Here are some that you need to consider in your argument:Sony 35/1.4 G (A-mount): 69mm x 76mm, 510gCanon 35/1.4 L (EF-mount): 79mm x 86mm, 580gNikon 35/1.4 G (F-mount): 83mm x 89mm, 601gSigma 35/1.4 ART (EF-mount): 77mm x 94mm, 665gZeiss Distagon 35/1.4 (EF-mount): 78mm x 120mm, 830g
These are relatively large lenses (and definitely, if you consider the latest designs). It does surprise me that Sony chose to go with Distagon formula for the E-mount. All of these lenses will be still larger when used on E-mount (add the length of the adapter, about 24-26mm).
So, while the Distagon is big, those who want something else, can always get 35/2.8 as a tiny solution, or even Loxia 35/2 which is going to be quite small and light.
halc: Why so slow lenses?
Where is the old Minolta optical-mechanical prowess?
A line of bigger and heavier f/2.8 zooms makes sense following release of common-sense f/4 options on a mount that prioritizes portability.
When Sony does get to a point of considering f/2.8 zooms, IMO, instead of 24-70, I'd rather see 35-105 (it will also appeal to APS-c buyers).
@Naveed,A lens can be shorter when it uses shorter FL and/or also longer flange. System size matters. For example, you can find a 70-200/4 from SLR mount that is about the same size as FE 70-200/4. However, you have to add to the length of the SLR-mount lens to be useful. Keep that in mind.
As for the other point, make FL same, and you will quickly find that APSc lenses and FF lenses are virtually identical in size and weight. The only way you can argue is based only on equivalence (and this is why I find articles like one DPR posted couple of days ago, comparing 70-200 "equiv" to 70-200 FL lenses absurd and leading cause of misleading people).
Here is a comparison that illustrates both of my points above:Sony Planar 85/1.4 (A-mount, Full Frame): 75mm x 81mm, 650gSamsung 85/1.4 (NX-mount, APS-C): 79mm x 92mm, 696g
The APS-c lens here is larger and heavier. But, especially on length. Why? Think about it.
mjoshi: It says E-Mount so will this work with Sony A6000 or this is only meant for Sony A7 series ?
bluevellet, I've looked at the competition, and prefer Sony. I was simply pointing at a fact that you didn't realize D7100 was APS-c.
Chillbert: As a NEX user, am I just paranoid or is Sony basically giving up on developing any more small lightweight E-mount lenses for APS-C size cameras? They seem to be so far behind Fujifilm in terms of lens range and performance, and their roadmap is all bigger FE lenses.
The "equivalence" crowd has spoken, as if "exposure equivalence" wasn't enough. You can't do anything about it. :)
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.
Well, if this article is about personal preference, then it makes sense (and should be presented as such). But, if you're working on equivalence to make a point, you need to be consistent about it, and apply that idea to both, not just one.
Not to mention, if your idea is that 50-150/2.8 would be the ideal portrait lens on APS-c, sure... over a very small range. But, now you're also throwing it as a substitute for an 85/1.4. Really?
A 70-200/2.8 appeals to those with FF camera who shoot sports, and as portrait zoom. And given DPR's own article on "why equivalence matters", you're basically proposing that a 70-200/4 equiv lens is a good choice on APS-c for portraiture.
A 70-200/2.8 also appeals to those with APS-c who want greater reach with a larger aperture: sports photography. A 70-200 "equiv" might be okay, if you're also looking for something to go farther with speed.
IMO, pick up a 90mm f/2.8, and use it for portraiture: cheaper, smaller and lighter.