Question: why there are no full size mirrorless cameras?
The sensor is great (at least in principle - let's wait for the review), the 22mm lens seems also very good; too bad Canon didn't make a camera to compete with the E-M5, GH3...(are they afraid it would compete with their own DSLR ?)
To me the LX7 improves on the LX5 only if, for instance, AF performance on fast moving subjects and in low light. is much better The 1.4 lens may be nice (but it causes the sensor to be a bit smaller) but that doesn't make the difference, it's just a marketing trick. (The ring around the lens is maybe more interesting). After Nikon 1 introduced the 1" sensor size, Sony bravely followed. Too bad that Panasonic didn't use a 1" sensor as well for the LX7 even at the cost of having a 2.8 lens.The other trend to watch is which AF technology will win? Panasonic Contrast AF, Nikon 1 Phase AF. or Canon hybrid AF ?
After the 45-175 came out I was expecting that Panasonic would discontinue the 45-200... Instead they must have thought that the market needs a choice of 3 (three) lenses, more or less of the same quality, more or less of the same focal range (45-150/175/200) all of them slow....I have an E-M5, and am playing with the idea of replacing the Olympus 12-50 (which is very nice, but slow) with the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 which is the kind of lenses that Panasonic and Olympus should concentrate on making. Instead, why did Panasonic waste time with those three lenses? wasn't one good enough?
Still, really cannot understand why digital camera makers do not include a telephone in the compact and premium compact digital cameras - That should be easier than it is to built a camera into a telephone....
REDred Photo: My favorite street lens has always been the 35mm. I really would love to see a 17mm f1.4 in a fairly small form factor for micro 4/3.
yes, you are right: 17/2.0 would be more than adequate. (I had written 1.4 only in comparison to 0.95 (who needs that?)
I don't have a 14mm prime lens... Will I buy this Schneider Kreuznach 14mm f2.0 ? Unfortunately no, because it will cost four times more than the Panasonic 14 mm f2.5 .Will I buy the Panasonic 14mm ? No, because I read on Lenstip.com that it has "monstrous distortion, huge vignetting.... (and) ...the image quality on the edge of the frame could have been better"Too bad nobody is making a 14mm/ f2.8 of decent quality at an affordable price.
Agree. So far there is only the Voigtlander f 0.95/17.5 mm. That's an exaggeration. f 1.4 would be more than enough for the light, and much better cost-wise and size-wise.
Jogger: didnt they make lenses for samsung and kodak cameras (or license their name to them)
Is this a common practice? Are also the Panasonic "Leica" lenses made by Panasonic and not by Leica?
John: better look closely Sean, the alpha lens is much larger than this one. Still works well but is twice the size. I have this model for my m4/3 Panasonic and it works quite well.
Hi - is it still fish eye on the m4/3 ?
Valentinian: The KEY factor here is the Hybrid AF, which seems the state of the art, combining phase and contrast AF.Another thing is the lens: 18-135 (equivalent to 28-200)/3.5-5.6. it makes you wander why the hell Olympus made that 12-50 (equivalent to 24-100)/3.5-6.3 ????Sensor and lens are great. Apart from that, mirrorless is still better.
meant to say that in my opinion, with sensors capable of both phase and contrast detection AF, and continuously improving EVF, the mirrorless system is the future of digital photography.
Valentinian: This is high-level compromise: on one hand Canon must keep all the existing lenses from becoming obsolete; on the other hand it is already known that mirorless is better than mirror reflex. Canon solution is much better than Pentax. The "hybrid" solution, combining Phase and Contrast AF is the future.However, when the Hybrid AF will be implemented also in the mirrorless cameras this "compromise" solution will have a though competion
ok- it is my opinion, but it is based on the fact that: EVF is improving continuously; mirrorless allows smaller, less expensive lenses... and the mirror is just an inheritance from the film era, guys.
This is high-level compromise: on one hand Canon must keep all the existing lenses from becoming obsolete; on the other hand it is already known that mirorless is better than mirror reflex. Canon solution is much better than Pentax. The "hybrid" solution, combining Phase and Contrast AF is the future.However, when the Hybrid AF will be implemented also in the mirrorless cameras this "compromise" solution will have a though competion
The KEY factor here is the Hybrid AF, which seems the state of the art, combining phase and contrast AF.Another thing is the lens: 18-135 (equivalent to 28-200)/3.5-5.6. it makes you wander why the hell Olympus made that 12-50 (equivalent to 24-100)/3.5-6.3 ????Sensor and lens are great. Apart from that, mirrorless is still better.
Retro Joe: say goodnight to smaller sensored advance compact cameras. This camera isn't perfect without a solid performing evf and articulating lcd. that said, when the price drops i might want one.
speaking of pricing, sure makes the ILCs of Sony (c-3, 5n etc) look like better values.
I agree with what you wrote here: " This camera isn't perfect without a solid performing evf and articulating lcd". Too bad that a company which was able to do just that on the NEX7 and keep it compact chose not to do it here.
plasnu: Perfect for LX5 replacement.
No... I am keeping the LX5, and got a OM D E M-5 to go with it.(only if one doesn't have a LX5- or similar- then maybe yes, this large sensorSony looks like a very nice little camera)
sorinx: So, we have a lens that is equivalent to about 100mm F2.4 for APSC sensors and 150mm F3.5 for a full frame sensor. And this is a premium lens with premium price?And I don't need to hear that it is F1.8. Because even if for exposure time it is F1.8, it only covers 1/4 of FF image. So, it only gathers 1/4 of light that a FF lens is gathering.
Cax: Which is cheaper, a $900 lens with a $400 camera body, or a $400 lens with a $3000 camera body? And what retains its value better?
A 75/1.8 is equivalent to a 150/3.5 in photographic terms, but it severely outperforms it in one aspect: Rendering the image on 1/4 of the area and 4 times brighter means you can use a smaller and cheaper camera. The lens itself will also be smaller. This has always been the strength of the 4/3 system. It was true for an E-520 with the 50/2 macro, and it is true for µ4/3 today.
You can buy a 150/2 for Canon EF, but you can not buy a 75/1 for µ4/3. That is the strength of the Canon EF system.
Choose the strength that fits your needs better. It is as easy as that.
I really don't understand why you write that a (m4/3) 75/1.8 is equivalent to a (FF) 150/3.5.it is not. Depth of field only of a m4/3 75/1.8 is the same as depth of field of a FF 150/3.5 - so what????But the m4/3 75/1.8 gathers the same light of a FF 150/1.8 (that is IF YOU CAN FIND AND ARE WILLING TO PAY for a FF 150/1.8).
dark goob: It's not freaking silver. It's ALUMINUM.
silver is a color. (a "silver car" is not made of silver !).
Monday I ordered a OM D E-M5 with the kit 14-42, and I should receive it in 3 - 4 weeks.Fortunately it will come with a free (after rebate) adaptor to use OM lenses. And already bought a used manual focus OM 135/3.5.Really, cannot afford the price of new M43 lenses: Olympus 12/2, Panasonic 12-35/2.8, and now Olympus 75/1.8 are very nice lenses, but... I'll try to find good used primes....