zigi_S: How can the phone get such a high score, when the photos look just awful?
Look at the whole image. You can't pixel peep phones and come away happy.
LWanTeD: Honest question:
How important is aperture on such a small sensor? (Smartphone cameras om general).
For example, on FF or APS-C, f/2.0 vs f/2.8: There is a noticeable difference if the final image (Noise, bokeh etc..,) based on that 1 stop difference. Does the same apply to such tiny sensors?
THe faster aperture also helps keep the shutter speed up. Since you can't freeze movement with flash on a phone, you tend to get a lot of motion blur as the light drops. An extra stop means twice the shutter speed and half the motion blur problem.
I've really tried to see something special in these images. But honestly, you could tell me this was from the new RX100 and I'd believe you.
Why do 9/10 of Sony's FF lenses just look like DSLR designs with a mount spacer built onto the back?
Siobhan A: When Sony raised the alpha zoom price to $3000 it was obvious these lenses would have jacked up prices too. Keep buying the Canon lenses instead and switch to Nikon and Canon when they releases their mirrorless FF systems later this year...just like so many are already planning to do.
You can always use Canon lenses with an AF adapter, too.
Feb 2 huh? I feel like maybe there is a Groundhog Day joke to be made
fenceSitter: Too bad, I had hoped for a BSI or Stacked Sensor in the next generation of Olympus cameras.
Because Sony makes more money on sensors than they do cameras.
nerd2: $1200 for m43 body? Are they serious?
same price as GX8
I don't want to be out $300 for repairs in the unlikely event that I bang my lens into something. So I guess I'll spend $400 on protection filters for my whole kit to prevent that from happening.
So just make the front element out of this glass....
meanwhile: You could get a lot of 50 Jupiters on eBay for $649. This is MENTAL.
Not defending it, just don't like your shoddy logic and exaggeration. If you'd said, "you can get 3-4 old Jupiter 3's for this price" then I'd have said nothing and probably given a like vote. Instead you said you can get 50 and then used the wrong lens as proof of your silly argument.
Might as well just say that the Canon 50mm f1.8 and the Canon 50L are the same lens, then.
Yanko Kitanov: This is a great lens, but guys - it is the Soviet M39 Jupiter 3 - it is widely available for more than 10x lower - just check any polpular online auctions.
PLEASE, DON'T GET FOOLED TO PAY 10x for this.
For a junker? The ones in mint condition are over $300.
Where can I get it for 1/10 the price?
photominion: You can get like 20 specimen of the original lens for that price.. Who's bonkers enough to pay for that stuff?
What's next? A Pentacon bokeh monster revival for 1,5 grand?Or maybe they'll offer a pinhole bodycap for 100 dollars?
No, no you can't.
Are they kidding?
Why not just buy a real one for $49.00?
Can you tell me where I can find a functional one for even twice that price? I'll buy one today.
Try looking up the right lens.
AndroC: US$649 for a modern copy of a Jupiter? Get a camera with one at an op shop for $2. Or buy an original on ebay for $10, including camera. Sheer exploitation of Gen XYZ from Lomography. Unbelievable. I can only echo all the other similar responses.
More like $150-350 for an old copy of Jupiter 3, depending on condition.
Tim C.: Focusing on solely on APS-C and possibly medium format makes sense to me. Why choose to enter the 35mm market already dominated by Canon, Nikon, and Sony? It'd be an uphill battle.
Well if Sony would merely release a decent 50mm prime that doesn't cost $1000 and a compact portrait prime, I'd probably buy an A7 II. You, know, obvious stuff.
If someone entered the FF mirrorless space and launched with a set of lenses that made sense, I think they would instantly dominate.