The X100 series has delivered on this camera's exact goal for several years now. Not sure what the fuss is about.
tkbslc: Pricing is a little ambitious given the competition from Panasonic.
Lx100 and fz1000 will definitely be in the minds of anyone considering these two cameras, so I think price is very relevant.
ttran88: Sony is the only camera maker that wants our money. I seriously don't even know what to buy from Nikon or Canon any more.
The Catch 22 is that Canon and Nikon are the ones selling the lenses you'd want to use.
zodiacfml: To Canikon, this is how you update a camera.
Maybe Canon and Nikon can send Sony some info on how to update lenses.
You had me fooled into thinking this was a compact mirrorless body until image 9.
Pricing is a little ambitious given the competition from Panasonic.
cgarrard: I'm actually interested in this.... It's got a viewfinder, nice fixed lens... in two years price may come down enough to be affordable :).
Yes it matters. Ever try to shoot f1.7 in the sun?
BarnET: Samsung NX500It performs great no surprises here at all.
The Nikon J5Well i gotta admit,might finally take these camera's serious. It finally closed the gap with the compareable Sony sensor. It's actually so similar to the G7x that it raises my suspicions.
Now Nikon make some F2.8-4 kit-zooms to make the low-light performance and DOF compareable with it's larger sensor peers.
coudet: I think I'll just buy Helios 58/2 for $2 instead.
Can you send me a link to the $2 ones?
christiankoehler: I wonder what Mr. Petzval himself would think about this lens. Remember: He was not aiming for a 'special effect' lens. He just designed the fastest portrait lens that was possible in his time. His f/3.7 lens was revolutionary because exposures shorter than a minute became possible for the first time. Other lenses were some f/22. He was the first who calculated the elements (and not just "guess" them). I am sure the "characteristic" bokeh was not really intended!I don't think the new Petzval lens has much in common with the original. The optics is completely different. Much faster and the "effect" (which was not intended!) is very exaggerated.
Its a bit like pianos. On a piano low keys are harder to press than high keys. Steinway etc. tried to eliminate this "problem" for decades without success. Digital pianos could be made with all keys equal easily. But now digital pianos do their best to emulate that old problem even tough it makes them more expensive.
People who have practiced 20,000 hours on an analog piano have subconscious "muscle memory" expecting the key action to feel a certain way. They aren't doing it to be cool, they are doing it so they can play without distractingly different key action.
It's at f22 to slow the shutter down enough for panning blur. It's intentional.
Allen Yang: I used to like Panasonic, but the skintone of indoor portraits and high ISO noise were hideous! I took a picture of my aunt in a restaurant and showed her the pic. What a horrible mistake, she almost killed me! Her face looked sort of purple in that picture. By the way, the camera I used back then was a Panasonic LX3.
I had the same experience with my LX5, but the latest 16MP sensors from Panasonic have gorgeous skin tone. I came to a GX7 from Canon and I thin they are as good or better than on the Canon.
I don't know why, but I find this camera hideous looking, especially from the rear.
tkbslc: Can someone tell me why a FF shooter would waste so much time telling m43 shooters that their lenses are crap? Just curious what's in it for them.
I suppose if one has a single lens kit with only a fisheye in it and they ignore body weight, then you've got a good point.
vscd: I don't know. Does anyone else doubt in the 7mm focal length (14mm equiv)? If I compare it with my Samyang 14mm @fullframe I could swear the FOV is a lot wider. Hmm.
Yeah, samyang has some real treats in their lineup. I suspect most m4/3 users will keep using their 7.5mm fisheye over this new Olympus 8mm.
tkbslc: Why does it make so many FF shooters angry when people using cameras with smaller sensors have access to nice lenses that they can use to make good photos? Is it some kind of defense mechanism so they can feel better about buying FF?
One specialty lens (that like 0.5% of users will buy anyway) is bigger and it disqualifies the whole system?
Look at the price of these lenses. Do you think people are buying these because they can't afford FF or they are "Stuck" with a smaller sensor?
cgarrard: Not sure why people dig the fisheye look of uwal's- I get dizzy everytime I look at one.
I like having it in the kit, which is why a Samyang is a handy solution. I don't use it often enough to spend $1000 on an AF one, but a $200 Samyang and I can add it to the bag for special occasions. It works better for people pictures than regular UWA because it doesn't stretch them (unless they get way too close)
Why does it make so many FF shooters angry when people using cameras with smaller sensors have access to nice lenses that they can use to make good photos? Is it some kind of defense mechanism so they can feel better about buying FF?
ZAnton: Ho ho ho, concerning other Oly lenses, I wonder what horryfying barrel distortions will that 7-14 have.
Unless you are married to an obscure RAW converter, it won't matter. m4/3 lenses still have some of the sharpest edges in the biz - even with heavy corrections.