Menneisyys: No point in trying to emulate shallow DoF. The results will be sometimes dreadful, as has been shown by the M8.
It can be done, just need more sensor area and higher f/stops
An array of sensors adding up to the size of a large sensor with fast lenses will look like a big sensor with a fast lens.
sportyaccordy: For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.
How does resolution/base ISO = theoretical DR.... isn't DR a dimensionless unit, and ISO an arbitrary holdover from film days?
What is the denominator in that formula?
And it's possible DxOMark will never test this sensor. They have only tested 1 X-Pro body for example.
For whatever its worth, in the studio comparison anyway, the D810 gives nothing up to the 645Z on a 100% view basis as far as noise goes. Def want to see its DR capabilities as well as ability to pull info from dark/underexposed areas. DxOMark's data can't come soon enough. Not in the market, just want to see what it can do.
Can't wait for the DxO tests of this and the 645Z.
I'm really hoping this thing drives used A7I prices down. All I really care about.
I do kind of hope they fix the A7R's shutter next go round.
mpgxsvcd: I wonder why they couldn’t have produced a camera like this a few years ago. I know the auto focus tech was not as good and you wouldn’t have had the 4K video. However, couldn’t they have put a 4/3s inch sensor in this size body back then?
Could they have produced this lens a few years back? Were they just waiting for the software correcting technology to catch-up with this lens design?
Hopefully those lens advances are spreading across the industry... and will make their way up to Sony's FE line for some budget options
john10001: This camera may be great but unfortunately it can no longer be considered an Advanced "COMPACT" Digital Camera like its predecessors, COMPACT being the operative word.
Unfortunately this is no longer something I want to buy. This thing is a hefalump. A brick. And not something I can live with.
If you can live with it's size and it still ticks all your boxes and needs in a camera after coming from LX3/5/7 then fair enough good luck to you.
For me Panasonic have messed up and fallen behind the competition. They no longer have an advance compact digital camera to compete with rivals so what they did with the LX100 is take the range out of its previous category into a new category.
For someone who still wants something compact, advanced, and refined, Panasonic now have nothing to offer.
This leaves me looking at the Ricoh GR, Nikon Coolpix A, Sony RX100 II/III and the Canon G7 X. All advanced compact digital cameras that take great photos and a logical step from the LX3/5/7.
Fallen behind what competition? Barring the Coolpix A it has the largest sensor, and it has a more versatile lens than the Coolpix A. Only dimension it is larger in is thickness- a whopping ~0.75"
If this isn't "compact" for what it offers, show me another camera with similar sensor size, zoom range and body smallness. Only thing that comes close is the RX 100 III and even that falls short....
So what are your real complaints? What you are saying just isn't true.
So can I use this on my C3?
Samuel Dilworth: Look at the compressed depth-of-field and distance scales. Not only are they entirely useless for scale focusing or gauging depth of field (so why are they there at all?), but the focus speed is senselessly quick. At f/1.2 the full depth of field would be traversed in an impossibly short movement of the focus ring (likely less than the backlash in the mechanics!).
Of course the whole appearance is shamefully (and badly) copied from Leica.
The optics might be good – the headline specs certainly sound interesting – but they’re wasted in a housing like this.
The distance scale seems to be about ~120 degrees, with the middle range (2-8 ft) using the bulk of the range... not much different than my FD 50 1.4. Does kind of suck that the DoF scales are so tiny, but if you are shooting MF you are probably checking focus through the viewfinder anyway. Hardly a deal breaker.
Clyde Thomas: Liquid lens... great for cold weather shooting I presume?
It's not just not freezing....
The liquid has to be optically clear, it has to be thermally stable (or the lens mechanism has to compensate), etc etc. There are a lot of challenges with using liquids for optics
sportyaccordy: This thing could be a winner, but my big big fear is that it relies heavily on software correction to help what I imagine is a heavily compromised lens. The specs look great, and the price is reasonable, but I'd have to wait for reviews and lens tests to really get behind it.
Lens correction algorithms "correct" for distortion and vignetting. Both, but more obviously vignetting, amount to lost information, invalidating the purported advantages of faster glass. If, for example, without correction, wide open shots amount to 1 stop less average exposure, that's 1 stop less resolution than what you should be getting. So it kind of makes the lens worse than if it just had slower, less compromised glass.
Antonio Rojilla: Or a Sony A6000. With the compact 16-50 they are almost the same size and have almost the same focal length and aperture (well, depending on how you do the calculation anyway). The Sony sensor is not only larger, the Panny is smaller than m43 (the effective area used at least). The lens may be better in the LX100, but the EVF and AF better in the A6000. You also get double the pixels, a tilt LCD, a built-in flash and last but no least a lens mount.
I only see two reasons to get the Panny: 4K, and look and feel, as it is a beautiful camera with some nice retro controls.
@Joseph Black, if the end result is an image that has as much info as, essentially, an underexposed shot, they might as well have made the lens faster.
I'd rather pull up data in PP than lose it forever through inaccessible lens correction. The worst outcome would be if the lens needed to be corrected at all focal lengths and "normal" apertures (F/4-F/11) in order for it to be able to have that headline grabbing lens spec.
I don't know if this is really real. We will see.
I am still holding out for arrays, personally. I feel like a zoom camera could be approximated by combining the images of fixed lens cameras of different focal lengths focused on the same thing with algorithms. Such a setup could also be huge for subject isolation as well. And with small sensors getting long equivalent focal lenghts wouldn't be too tough.
This thing could be a winner, but my big big fear is that it relies heavily on software correction to help what I imagine is a heavily compromised lens. The specs look great, and the price is reasonable, but I'd have to wait for reviews and lens tests to really get behind it.
ZhanMInG12: Amazing! In seriousness Canon managed to create the mess that is the EOS M, then proceeded to sell an upgrade the equivalent of new firmware!
I shudder when I think about what they would have done if they weren't serious...
But could the extra $500 you could have saved on an actual 50 1.8 have bought you a FF body instead?
When you normalize for focal length (i.e. 35 1.4 vs 35 1.4), FF is generally more expensive, especially on the wide end. But if you normalize for aperture diameter & field of view (i.e. 50/2 vs 35 1.4), FF has the advantage as far as glass goes. For most APS-C mounts there's no equivalent to something even as piddly as a 24 2.8, and when there is (16 2.0) it's very big and very expensive......
I still think there needs to be mroe wide angle primes built for APS-Cs.... but I want to see it just to see what they will spec out like and cost.
jeremyclarke: What Canon needs:
• Mirrorless APSC camera with normal EF/EF-S mount.• SL1 size but a little flatter in the middle (or just SL1 size and go after GH4 demo)• EVF • Dual-Pixel AF with mirorless-standard number of focus points (i.e. NOT 9!)• ~$1000
I'd have bought that instead of switching to Fuji, and I'd now be saving up for Canon lenses.
With the mirror gone you could push optical elements into the mirror box space for mirrorless exclusive lenses. You could have real "lenscap" lenses with respectable optics.
A native mount mirrorless would be great for me from Canon or Nikon. But it's still pointless if they don't bolster the wide end of their DX prime map. I would need a 10 2.8, 16 2.8 and 24 2.0 to really change over... and even with that I doubt that setup would be cheaper than a used A7 with some legacy primes.
Some mirrorless bodies styled and sized like old film cameras would be perfect though.