Finally a mirrorless SLR like camera but...

[Gondor]

And when I measure the lenses from the photo the old lens seems to be 10% wider and not just 7

 

[Gondor]

Sorry, forget the previous message

 

[Erik Magnuson]

And when I measure the lenses from the photo the old lens seems to be
10% wider

I quoted the "maximum diameter" specs from the vendors. On the Panny lens the IS switch seems to stick out, so it's probably included in the that maximum.

--
Erik

 

[Gondor]

And when I measure the lenses from the photo the old lens seems to be
10% wider

I quoted the "maximum diameter" specs from the vendors. On the Panny
lens the IS switch seems to stick out, so it's probably included in
the that maximum.

--
Erik

I measured the diameter on the jpg image as I mentioned and 10% seems accurate

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

Bear in mind that they mount on a flange that is a shorter distance away from the sensor, so the lenses are effectively smaller by the size of the mFT-> FT adapter:



The adapter doesn't exactly look small, and that's on the larger 14-50 Panasonic lens.

But a 18-200 starts at wide angle. One can make use of the shorter
backfocus to make design for the wide end lens configuration easier.

Not if the new Panny 14-45mm or 45-200 are any guide. They're mainly
a little smaller in diameter than equivalent 4/3 or APS-C lenses.
Now it does wonders for the near-normal 20mm f/1.7 ...

--
Erik

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Looking at the review of G1 I think it is some difference and to
quote the comment in the review of the picture below: "The new
smaller lens mount and reduced flange back distance means that Micro
Four Thirds lenses are noticeable smaller than their conventional SLR
counterparts - even the already diminutive 14-42mm Olympus kit lens."

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/PanasonicG1/Images/features/lenses.jpg

You see a "noticeable" difference in that photo? They are almost
exactly the same length. The new lens is a bit slimmer in diameter
though. If you compare the Panny 45-200 vs. the Sigma 55-200, the
Sigma is shorter and almost the same diameter.

The new lens, as Joe Bloggs pointed out, is effectively 20mm shorter than the new, because it sits that much closer to the sensor. The new design eliminates 20mm of optical "dead space" at the end of the lens.

But in general, for a zoom, there's not a substantial savings in lens element width or overall length.

The big savings is in the mechanism. It's pretty obvious that Panasonic really poured their "make it small" experience from their point and shoot line into this lens. Faster AF motor, and an optical stabilization system, in a package much slimmer than the Oly lens pictured.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Mark Thornton]

The size difference seem much more dramatic on the 7-14. I wish someone would post a set of photos showing those to the same scale.

Most of the existing kit lenses have a barrel size largely constrained by the mount diameter --- none of the optical elements are anywhere close to the lens diameter. So plenty of room for volume reduction.

 

[Joe0Bloggs]

The new lens, as Joe Bloggs pointed out, is effectively 20mm shorter
than the new, because it sits that much closer to the sensor. The
new design eliminates 20mm of optical "dead space" at the end of the
lens.

But in general, for a zoom, there's not a substantial savings in lens
element width or overall length.

"In general"?

When's the last time an interchangeable zoom lens has been made for a mirrorless system of the same sensor size as an SLR system? The Contax G 35-70mm?

Coz Leica sure don't make any for the M...

And supposing you're right, why?

 

[nickleback]

Hehe, no of course not f/2.8

You wanted "fairly bright for low light shots and to enable me to control DOF". Making a slow zoom 1/3 stop wider (or whatever) won't make much of a difference in low light and DOF control, and it will make a difference in cost and size.

For example, I look at the Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. I would be
satisfied with slightly less range and if the lens was made for a
mirror less camera it should be able to shrink it given the same spec
or make it slightly faster.

Mirror-less won't cut much if anything from the size of this lens. It's the long end that dictates overall size. The short end will be simpler. If anything the lens will be longer because you need about 25mm more extension than a DSLR lens to hit the longest focal length. Shorter backfocus helps with wide angles. That's why you can see a smaller package with lenses where most of the focal length range falls behind the backfocus of the DSLR. Such is the case with the 14-42mm: although it is about the same length as the 14-45mm, it's 20mm closer to the sensor so effectively 20mm shorter when mounted on the camera. This will be true to an even greater degree with ultrawide lenses.

But with long focal lengths don't make any difference. Look at the announced 45-200mm and compare it to the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-56. VR. Very similar specs, but the Panasonic lens obviously starts a bit wider. The Nikon lens is 73mm x 100mm, the Panasonic only specifies the width (70mm), but you have to guess at the length. Doing a little measuring in photoshop gives me 135mm. I'd expect the Panasonic lens to be 26.5mm longer (due to the difference in Nikon and micro 4/3rds registration distance), but it appears to be even a bit longer than that.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Erik Magnuson]

The new lens, as Joe Bloggs pointed out, is effectively 20mm shorter
than the new,

Only when mounted - you can use a smaller never-ready case;-) In your bag, it takes up the same space and weight.

The
new design eliminates 20mm of optical "dead space" at the end of the
lens.

What you gain on wides, you lose back on the teles. That's why the 45-200 is longer than the Sigma 55-200.

in a package much slimmer than the Oly lens pictured.

How much incentive is there for Oly to make these lenses slimmer? No point in making them smaller than the outer mount diameter or they'll look odd.

--
Erik

 

[avidday]

"In general"?

When's the last time an interchangeable zoom lens has been made for a
mirrorless system of the same sensor size as an SLR system? The
Contax G 35-70mm?

Coz Leica sure don't make any for the M...

I count two tri-Elmars....

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

The new lens, as Joe Bloggs pointed out, is effectively 20mm shorter
than the new,

Only when mounted - you can use a smaller never-ready case;-) In your
bag, it takes up the same space and weight.

I thought the weight was less.

The length is more, but the volume is less. If the volume and the weight are less, that should make it better in the bag.

And the camera should also be better in the bag...

The
new design eliminates 20mm of optical "dead space" at the end of the
lens.

What you gain on wides, you lose back on the teles. That's why the
45-200 is longer than the Sigma 55-200.

This is true.

in a package much slimmer than the Oly lens pictured.

How much incentive is there for Oly to make these lenses slimmer? No
point in making them smaller than the outer mount diameter or they'll
look odd.

Not to do something because it makes the camera "look odd"? Come on, Eric, this is Olympus we're talking about. Their 50mm macro is an awesome lens, but I still can't get over the concave front element. And, for God's sake, have you ever seen an E-300?

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Kermi]

I'm waiting for R1 replacement too.. And boy was I happy when i read the news.. Although i'm suspecting the G1 won't be replacing my R1, as i'm not looking for smaller size.

 

[stefaan]

IMO people not bothered by size, only IQ, should go with Nikon D700, Canon 5D II or similar.

I would think the whole point of m43 is size and video, yet acceptable (not superior) IQ.

If it fails to steal customers who are after these m43 features, my guess is that m43 is pointless.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

I thought the weight was less.

5g heavier. The Canon 18-55IS is also only 5g heavier than the Panny lens.

The length is more, but the volume is less. If the volume and the
weight are less, that should make it better in the bag.

Since the diameter difference is only 60 vs. 65mm, that means what? You can carry 6 lenses in the space of 5 assuming optimal packing and no padding in an odd-shaped flexible space?

--
Erik

 

[Jay Turberville]

How much incentive is there for Oly to make these lenses slimmer? No
point in making them smaller than the outer mount diameter or they'll
look odd.

Not to do something because it makes the camera "look odd"? Come on,
Eric, this is Olympus we're talking about. Their 50mm macro is an
awesome lens, but I still can't get over the concave front element.
And, for God's sake, have you ever seen an E-300?

I think the 50mm Macro and its concave front element look cool on my E-300 and E-330. I'd love to see tiny lenses on a flattop Olympus m4/3 camera. It would be totally awsome dude!

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

How much incentive is there for Oly to make these lenses slimmer? No
point in making them smaller than the outer mount diameter or they'll
look odd.

Not to do something because it makes the camera "look odd"? Come on,
Eric, this is Olympus we're talking about. Their 50mm macro is an
awesome lens, but I still can't get over the concave front element.
And, for God's sake, have you ever seen an E-300?

I think the 50mm Macro and its concave front element look cool on my
E-300 and E-330. I'd love to see tiny lenses on a flattop Olympus
m4/3 camera. It would be totally awsome dude!

Fer sure...

Now, picture, if you will...

Leica style collapsible lenses. The camera has enough room so a short portrait tele could store two sections of tube inside the camera, and let you pull them out for shooting.

Obviously, it should be brass...

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Jay Turberville]

Leica style collapsible lenses. The camera has enough room so a short
portrait tele could store two sections of tube inside the camera, and
let you pull them out for shooting.

I have an Olympus compact 35mm camera with a similar design. Though it might be three sections, not two. And the camera has a leather finished body.

Obviously, it should be brass...

No. Chrome.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Kermi]

Well yea.. but i wants my R1 replacement.. and D700 (and the rest of the lot) ain't it. Sadly.

 

[MrRoger]

Canon could of course do it
but I doubt they will unless they are loosing market shares.

Canon have been losing ground to Nikon in DSLR sales, so wether that will inspire them to make an EVIL I don't know. Nikons entry level DSLR dosn't even have LV.

Note also that Canon allready make lenses that reach back into the body about as far as an APS-C mirror will let them go, which in part reduces the need for a "new" sub mount, they could just do an EVIL camera based on the existing mount.

But both Nikon and Canon need to do a lot of homework on contrast AF and that may require modifications to the lens interface anyway (as was the case with m43 which adds extra high speed data channels).