Androole

Could be. Or it could simply be bad luck. Every splash - particularly with evil sea water - is a roll of the dice. You rolled lucky with the G85, E-M1 and 14-150mm, and rolled badly on the 100-300 II.

Olympus 75-300 or Panasonic 100-300 v. II?

With a moderate size increase to the lens, they might be able to deliver 24-200mm f2.8-4. Maybe.

That might be an avenue worth barking up.

24-300mm @ f2.8, on the other hand, is a fantasy.

How could it not be?

It's literally half the sensor area. Unless there are dramatically fewer 1" sensor cameras being sold than M4/3 cameras (so 1" economies of scale simply couldn't work) I don't...

What is the F9 series? Google says that's their Toughbooks...

"Post a poll and find out whether most users shoot between 24-120mm or 120-350mm when traveling, then you'll get the answer."

Or maybe post a poll and find out whether users would rather shoot...

And the 1" sensor is a lot cheaper, so there's that advantage, too.

I guess I just don't understand why you believe that the performance of a 4x 28-112mm lens on a 2/3" sensor is relevant to the performance of a 15x 24-360mm lens on a 1" sensor.

Why not compare it...

The X30 is physically larger, with a much shorter range and a much smaller sensor. It's clearly a significantly less ambitious optical design, so it's no surprise that the quality within that...

Let me help you. A 360mm crop from a 12MP / 28mm smartphone sensor would give you less than 0.08 MP for your entire image.

That's about 336 x 224 pixels.

Not better, but about the same. And at exactly 1 focal length (~28mm) only.

How's your smartphone at 360mm?

So DJI will be releasing a new camera system with more prime lenses than the Nikon 1 system received over the course of 7 years.

I don't know whether that's impressive, sad, or both.

Much better than the SQ10.

Yep, the E-M5 is the first one that I would say was worth it as a legitimately reliable feature that almost always improved image quality. Many of the earlier 2-axis models seemed to cause as many ...

I understand that. But the colour science is still incredibly poor, and that's the biggest takeaway from the video, unfortunately.

Does the kid in that video have a terrible sunburn or allergic rash? Not a great set of photos to highlight your product's colour science...

But the O25/2.8 with a 4/3 to M4/3 adapter costs more than a native M4/3 P25/1.7, so it seems like a poor choice despite CDAF compatibility.

You're simply incorrect, I'm afraid...

The MTF60 values of anything short of a Sigma ART or Canon "L" prime is well below that of anything except the worst M4/3 lenses.

This is easily verifiable.

An aluminum adapter weighs about 50g, so that's still on the heavy side...

That's surprising, and perhaps a bit worrying for Nikon. I wonder if 3rd party manufacturers are thinking twice about accommodating the complexity of Nikon's legacy mechanical mount given the...