utomo99: This is bigger sensor compared to Sony RX100 and Canon G7x. but look like not much people discuss about this. anybody know why ? because of the price or Brand ?
@DanielNot sure I fully embrace the idea of sensor size mattering as much as size of the individual pixels AND the actual sensor technology. Ultimately, each pixel is basically a tiny photo that gathers light. I thought noise performance is based on two factors, one being somewhat basic: how much light can be gathered per pixel, and how efficient/advanced the sensor/processing is. I know having more pixels can actually help reduce perceived noise because you can shrink the image (and thus, shrink the noise), but I'm not sure if DxO takes that into account for their metrics or not.
So I'm not sure if size of the sensor really matters here (except that you can pack more pixels on a larger sensor while keeping the pixel size large) instead of size of the pixels and the overall quality of the sensor.
Mister Roboto: Should have been 20MP and f/2.0 to f/4.0 and FL of 24-135mm. That would be a real hotcake. For less than $300, I can buy a similar sized APS-C camera with kit lens and same FL.
Right... with the Nex 6 you are stuck paying $1,000+ for a gigantic F4 zoom. No thanks.
SDF: So this is Panasonic version of Fuji X100 clone?
It is if you disregard the fact that it is a zoom instead of a prime, shoots 4K video, likely has much faster AF speed and uses a smaller sensor. Then yeah... its a total clone.
Pretty sure the ISO score on DxO should be similar between the LX100 and the GH4 as their sensors are likely the same and thus, their pixel pitch is the same. Not sure if the score also takes into account the MP of the camera, if so, then you are likely right.
Though I thought the ISO scores were based mostly on these two factors:1) Technology used in the sensor itself (ie: BSI, CMOS, CCD, Foveon, etc.) and2) Pixel Pitch (ie: size of the individual pixels)
108: 1.7-2.8, this looks like a pretty impressive lens. As a simple amateur I'm satisfied with M4/3 IQ . If this is close to a G5/G6 or an EM5, that would make my and maybe other's life much simpler . No need after all for fast primes any more, just add a second m4/3 body with a long zoom, and for your primes if you don't want to sell them, and you're all set.
The sensor isn't a low pixel count sensor. I believe it is still a standard 16MP m43's sensor, its just that the lens only sees 12MP of that sensor... effectively making the useable sensor area a bit smaller than an actual m43's sensor from the m43's ILCs. Therefore, the pixel pitch is actually the same.
white shadow: This is probably the best news that is happening to Micro 4/3. It is a bargain to have this combination of fast lens and sensor. For those Micro 4/3 users who are not interested to change lens, this is it.
Excellent travel camera. For a bit more, the Leica version looks classier.
Yeah the Leica re-badge does look very fancy. I think its a bit larger too which might make it a bit better in terms of ergonomics.
Joel Benford: As a Nex-6 owner, the LX100 prompted me to check this: http://camerasize.com/compact/#332,569,535.360,493.421,ga,t
There's a rather small size difference between the Panasonic and the Sony A6000. The prices are not fundamentally different either. And there's probably not a huge difference in DoF with the lenses shown. The A6000 has a lens mount, but I have a nagging feeling the LX100 may have better ergonomics.
The LX100's lens is likely as good or better than any of the zoom lenses available to you in that focal range for your A6000. So... you may want to add another $1,000 to your price comparison with the Sony. On the other hand, the A6000 gives you more flexibility with having lens choices.
Daniel from Bavaria: I am in Fujifilm, but this seems to be a lovely lens - also compared to the upcoming Fuji 50-140 f2.8 lens.
I expected that this lens will be a bit bigger and heavier. But 160mm length and 880 grams weight for that lens is very reasonable. The reach of 80-300mm with f2.8 is also great and a novum in the market.
Well done Olympus!!
It is a replacement when you need the extra stop for shutter speed while keeping ISOs down.
qwertyasdf: This might be the first and last time that I say this to a M43 lens:
It's priced reasonably. Given it's longer range than 70-200 FF lens, it is way way more versatile, and I have confidence in the IQ of a Oly HG lens. Oh....also, the 0.21x magnification, taking into account of the crop factor of M43 sensor, is class-leading.
@RStygayaawwwn... then enjoy carrying around the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 lens at 7.5 lbs. The rest of us will be fine with f5.6 DoF but f2.8 shutter speeds/ISO on a lens that weighs a fraction of the FF equivalent.
Bleh... looks like Adobe's subscription plans are permeating to other digital imaging software companies. I really hope this is not the future for this type of software, though dang, Capture One is expensive.
peevee1: 14/2.5 II... 55g, just like the original." version of an existing lens but with revised graphics" - what does that mean?
This 14mm lens should really be the sort of nifty fifty for the m43's system as it is obviously not a very complex design, yet is lightweight and capable. Alas, they will want WAAAY too much for this lens when it shouldn't be a dime over $200.
@audiobomberAnd the F-stops on a Pentax Q lens function the same as they do on any camera format except for DoF. This isn't to say the IQ coming out of the Pentax is as good, of course it isn't... but you still expose the shot with the same exact settings.
Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: It it lighter and cheaper than I thought (based on the past lenses). It will be interesting to see price and weight of Olympus's 300mm f4 lens (planned to release next year). Also, if this 1.4x tele converter will work with that 300mm f4 lens or not?
Anyone else wish Panny or Oly would release some more f4 zooms? I'd be down with a 100-300mm f4.
John C Tharp: It's hard to directly compare MFT lenses to those of larger formats, so bear with me- we should really be comparing this new Olympus to Sigma's 120-300/2.8.
While I agree that a comparison with Canon's 70-300L results in a similar field of view and a similar level of DoF control, what really matters is shutter speed. And for the sake of calculating exposure this lens is f/2.8, like the larger Sigma.
No... you have to compare it to an f5.6 FF lens that has its ISO set two stops higher.
Rooru S: Excellent range. Hopefully it will perform great. Now I'm questioning myself why buy again E-mount APS-C cameras...
@Rooru SSeriously Sony needs to get on that and make some more lenses for their APS-C E-Mount. The A6000 is the overall best mirrorless camera body for the money hands down. It is just hampered by Sony's apathy to make more lenses for the format.
yslee1: Does the TC work with other lenses?
Panasonic is missing the boat on that... they totally need a tele-converter for that nice 35-100 lens.
stevedigiphoto: Really this is not huge! My Oly 70-300 II zoomed to 250mm reaches the 'huge' length of 163mm and at 79mm diameter its only about 5mm larger. For me this looks to be a great addition to lens options for M43 - nice 2.8 aperture, fast focussing, great range, weather sealed and a perfect match for the excellent 12-40.
I agree with you Jorginho that Oly should really consider making these longer focal lengths with OIS to increase their potential customer base. I too don't like its weight, but I think it is more than justified as this thing is built like a tank... just like the 12-40. Whereas the panny 35-100 or 12-35 aren't built quite to those standards.
iudex: Man it´s huge: http://www.43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/E-M1_SLV_leftside_M4015F28_BLK_LH76_BLK_HLD7.jpgBut I guess it is not possible to make a 300mm eq. lens with f2,8 any smaller and it is perfectly within the competition of fast CSC telezooms:Fuji 50-140/2,8: 995g 72mm filter threadOly 40-150/2,8: 880g, 72 mm filterSamsung 50-150/2,8: 920g, 72mm filtee.
In my extremely not-so-scientific testing using an EM-10 and the Panasonic 100-300 at a camera store, I did some testing at 300mm at 1/60th a second handholding. I did better overall with the EM-10's 3-axis stabilization than with Panasonics OIS on the lens.
Treeshade: E-M1+40-150mm F2.8 ProTotal cost: $2800Total weight: 1377g
6D+EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6LTotal cost: $3350Total weight: 1820g
E-M1@150mm F2.8 ISO400 would have the same DoF, FoV and SS as 6D@300mm F5.6 ISO100. It is just trade-off between IQ and cost/weight (or other features that you like). Nothing wrong with choosing either lens (and system).
To produce the same exposure (not DoF) you use the exact same f-stop number, shutter speed and ISO. Anyone who tells you otherwise is spreading a load of FUD.
If this was $600 retail, I'd buy it as my next phone in a New York minute. Alas, it looks well out of what I feel comfortable spending on a phone.