For that much money it needs to be much thinner and it needs to make phone calls. Lollipop 5.0 supports raw. Olympus are behind. Fail.
Hey, I can cobble together random words too!
For that much money, it needs to have an EVF and allow me to remotely control my slow cooker. iOS 8.2 supports photos on the Apple Watch. Olympus makes me sad. Cheeseburgers.
BFHunt: No viewfinder? No deal. I'll stick with my Panasonic LF1 thanks. Plus the LF1 is f2.0 at the wide end, and has a larger sensor. I'm surprised the LF1 hasn't done better in the marketplace as it really has a nice set of specifications, and is very pocketable.
If you're surprised the LF1 hasn't done better, you may want to have a look at sales of compact cameras over the last few years.
Essentially, the LF1 is a merely-competent product lost in a sea of premium compact cameras with better image quality (think RX100) in an overall declining market segment.
I highly expect the SH-2 to deliver mostly the same market performance.
Mssimo: Great camera, but where are the lenses? Nikon DX lens selection: 4 Primes, one f2.8 standard zoom and two wide zooms (all other are kit or super zoom lenses)
This segment will die next year. Full frames are almost hitting the magic $999 mark. Mirrorless have much better native lens selection and innovations.
Nikon has given up on DX, they are just "milking the cash cow till its bone dry" I would not invest in this system.
Papi61: "I'm sure it's also different between your D600 and another FF model with a different sensor... ;)"
I don't think you quite grasp what I mean by 'resolving capability'. There are several factors that come into play when placing a FX lens on a DX camera. Shifts in convergence (the cause of chromatic aberrations), diffraction, and transmission, all have an effect on resolution. Sometimes, these effects are minor when switching between formats, but often there are jarring differences. Even when you control for differences between sensor technology - such as pixel pitch or total resolution - or autofocus, there's a difference because each lens was designed for a specific sensor size.
Glibly stating that FX lenses can be placed on a DX camera, consequence free, is disingenuous. You're essentially ignoring the complex physics of how photography works and, in turn, doling out incorrect information.
"Guess what, you can use all the FF Nikkors you want with DX cameras."
True, however a number of FX lenses behave much differently when attached to a DX camera. I'm not referring to the dreaded 'equivalence' nonsense, but rather the difference in resolving capability. For example, the sharpness characteristic of my 70-300mm lens is different between my D7000 and D600. Same goes for my primes - I have to perform different levels of corrections for each lens depending on the body it's attached to.
Suffice to say, the OP has a point, despite their conclusion being overly dramatic: You would imagine that Nikon, with all of it's DX bodies available, ought to have more lenses optimized for the format. They don't, and that ought to be of concern.
Juck: That slow zoom had better be a hell of a performer for $1000.
Forpetessake: Ljmac is correct. Reason? Physics.
The formulae for determining light-gathering capabilities of a lens says that, all things being equal between sensor technologies (which I know isn't a given, but, for the sake of this argument, it doesn't matter), if two lenses for two different formats have the same FoV, ISO setting, and shutter speed in camera, they will require the same aperture to get the same exposure.
The ONLY thing that changes is DoF.
I've owned/used multiple formats. I have used a light meter. No light meter asks, "What format are you using?" because that's not how physics works. Equivalence is a bull$#!t argument, and it needs to stop.
whyamihere: I know all of the D7100 owners are moaning or just saying 'meh' to this camera, but, for me, this is a reason to upgrade from a D7000.
The deeper buffer essentially solves one of the biggest issues I've had with the D7x00 series. Even when not shooting in continuous burst mode, I found it easy to fill up the buffer on my D7000, and it has a deeper buffer than the D7100 (10 14-bit raw vs only 6). To my irritation, I kept coming up against this limit.
So long as the image quality looks reasonably good at ISO 3200, I'm buying one.
Brownie puts the finger on the issue quite well. Few people require 24MP, and I count myself as being part of the plurality that does not need it. I never had a problem with the AF on the D7000, so the improvements of the D7100 were a non-factor. The lack of OLPF and the somewhat minor improvements in high ISO performance weren't enough to make me pay out for a D7100. The absolutely tiny buffer killed any remaining interest I had.
This D7200, however, is worth a look, in my opinion. The buffer depth is an important factor for me. As I said above, so long as ISO 3200 is clean enough for my tastes (of course, it looked just fine to me on my D7000, so I can only imagine that it looks at least similar, if not somewhat better on a modern camera), I'll buy one. I don't need most of the other improvements, but that buffer depth alleviates one of the few complaints I had of the D7000.
I know all of the D7100 owners are moaning or just saying 'meh' to this camera, but, for me, this is a reason to upgrade from a D7000.
Steve in GA: I’ve never really understood the fascination with the mirrorless concept. Other than offering a smaller body size than a DSLR with a comparable sensor, what advantages does mirrorless offer?
On the other hand, there seem to be a lot of mirrorless disadvantages when compared to DSLRs. For example,
a) DSLR technology is mature. It works, and it works well for almost any conceivable photographic need. Can mirrorless improve on this?
b) The existing catalog of lenses available for major brand DSLR’s is enormous. What can mirrorless possibly offer to compete with the hundreds of, e.g., Canon and Nikon lenses available for APS-C and full-frame DSLRs?
To me, a fairly advanced amateur who used to do pro wedding work back in film days, mirrorless seems like the answer to a question that no one asked.
I have to agree with both nekrosoft13 and Marty, here. There is something to be said about the more simple construction of a mirrorless camera. It's easier and cheaper to manufacture, easier to repair, and easier to program for improved performance. Sure, DSLR tech is 'mature', but, by proxy, so is most of the technology in a mirrorless camera because a lot of it is shared between the two camera types.
'Mirrorless seems like the answer to a question that no one asked' seems like the statement of a person who never bothered asking anybody else's opinion. I have a Sony NEX 5T for the times where my DSLR is simply overkill. I can also hand it to anybody else, expect them to operate it without prior instructions, and, regardless of who's handling the camera, I'll wind up with great photos. It's the best of many worlds.
lcf80: Damn it, Sigma, why all the love for the FF, only? When we'll see some nice Art lens, but dedicated for u43, instead of dark DN? Olympus consistently refuses to create bright optics, Panasonic pricing for lens like 42.5 F1.2 is ridiculous, and there's a lot of space for high-quality bright lens with AF. Create something like 35mm F1.2 or F1.4 Art for u43 (dedicated, weather-sealed design), and I will buy it day one if priced sub $1k.
Nope, I just recognize someone who keeps moving the goal posts in an effort to win an argument they've already lost.
Quezra: SNR didn't come into my calculation because it is irrelevant to the 'equivalence' argument. There's a reason I wrote a caveat that says, "All sensor technology being equal..." That's a playing field that may never be level, but the differences between minor sensor sizes of the same generation aren't *that* different.
Like a friend of mine said, "There's a reason why they're called 'the laws of physics' and not the 'strong suggestions of physics'."
Plus, I just read a sampling of the Photography Science and Technology forum on what appears to be referred to as 'the E word'. The folks doing the arguing are, a.) People like me, who have facts and evidence, and, b.) People like quezra who go, "But, but..." before they rage-quit because they couldn't come up with a tangible argument to counteract centuries of scientific research.
It's better than your 'I read one article on the subject' story. ;)
If you like articles on equivalence, here are some more:https://photographylife.com/sensor-crop-factors-and-equivalencehttp://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/equivalent-lenses.shtmlhttp://admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/
They all pretty much reaffirm what I've already said.
I've shot all three formats, myself, among others. I also have an entire department of physics professors to answer my questions, engineers who geek out over things like sensor advancements, a number of pro photographers and videographers as close personal friends, as well as my own varied career in technology and photography. If I don't know what I'm talking about, I know someone who does.
Nobody believes in this 'equivalence' nonsense beyond photography enthusiasts. The only practical effect between sensor size is a change in depth of field. Everything else comes down to the sensor technology (and the stack of glass that sits immediately in front of it for things like filter arrays) and lens variation (the sensor stack and the glass elements of the lens affect light transmission).
Unless you can present some amount of physics calculations that proves anything I've said otherwise...
dwill23: SWEET! ANOTHER AWESOME LENS THAT CAN'T FOCUS!
Unless you have live-view focusing, these lenses are junk, for shooters like me who don't want to fuss with manual focus. Sure it's higher priced and blah blah blah so more pros would buy it and not whine about manual focusing, but also, if pros can't get the thing to focus, even with maxing out the focus adjustments with the USB dock AND CAMERA since it's so far off, then these lenses are really junk.
I've own the 35mm f1.4 and it was awesome, in hard-to-hold live-view focusing.Then I made the mistake of buying the zoom for my non full frame camera (canon 70d) and what a mistake! Zoomed backward to canon lenses, horrible AF performance, etc. Zoom so slow you can't whip it zoom around for special effects. Terrible.
At least this one doesn't zoom (backward). Can't Sigma spend a tad more on the canon mount, of which they sell 3x more than the nikon mounts? (According to the amount of reviews at such places at BHPhoto).
So, let me get this straight: You think this lens will be junk because the 35mm f/1.4 was awesome, but the unspecified zoom lens you got for a completely different camera was terrible somehow.
That's some sound logic, and I'm sure CEO Kazuo Yamaki will get right on it.
I think people misread my comment.
Quezra: You said, "50/1.8s on FF are much brighter than 25/1.8s on MFT because you can shoot easily at ISO 6400 and 12800 compared to 1600 and 3200." That is not true, as I have outlined. You replied to my statement with, "[Y]ou are arbitrarily holding depth of field equal." I didn't: "There's just more area to cover, and [full frame] gives, by proxy, a shallower depth of field."
Junk1: "Of course a larger sensor captures more light." Yes, because there is more area available. That does not increase the sensitivity of a sensor, however. If sensor technology were equal across all formats and pixel density remained constant, there would be no change in the sensitivity just because the format size changed. If you need ISO 1600 at f/1.8, 1/100 sec. on a 25mm lens for m43, you still need those same settings to get a similar image with a 50mm lens on a 35mm-frame sensor.
Again, this is physics. Also, read carefully and do research before replying.
mpgxsvcd: I think I want all of these lenses. Bravo Fuji!
What mpgxsvcd said. As someone who shoots wildlife with a tele-zoom lens, I tend to use f/6.3, f/8, or even sometimes f/11 to ensure things are sharp and the entirety of my subject is in focus. I reckon sports photographers would be more worried about having a larger aperture range, but, somehow, I don't think that would be the target market for this lens.
Also, if this lens comes out at a reasonable enough price, I'd gladly ditch my DSLR for Fuji gear. The 16-55, 50-140, and the 100-400, would be all I'd ever need to do 98% of my photography.
spontaneousservices: What does "R" stand for?
If I recall correctly (and someone who might know better can reply if I'm wrong), "R" is meant to indicate the presence of an aperture ring. For example, the XC lenses and the 27mm pancake do not have one, and there is no "R" in their naming.
Quezra: In a word, no.
Given two different sensor sizes (35mm frame and Four Thirds) and two lenses with an equivalent field of view for each (50mm and 25mm, respectively), and if you let all other factors be equal, including aperture, shutter speed, and sensitivity of the sensor, you will get the exact same exposure with only a few inches' difference in depth of field.
Having a larger sensor does not magically give you more light gathering sensitivity, allowing you to reduce your ISO. There's just more area to cover, and it gives, by proxy, a shallower depth of field.
Physics does not conveniently change to fit your petty arguments about sensor size.
whyamihere: Dear Canon,
Your PR material appears to be missing any mention of a lens worth giving a darn about.
Let us know when that happens.
PS: Ignore the angry Americans. We all know they just wanted the option for refusing to buy the camera.
1. Nice lens, but not a reason to buy an EOS-M.2. See above, insert complaint about slow, variable aperture.3. Funny man... oh, wait, you're being serious. How unfortunate.4. Uh, sure.
So, where are the lenses I'm supposed to give a darn about? 2.5 years in, and what, 4 lenses? I mean, Sony FE has been around for a little over 1 year, and they have more lenses... and Sony fans complain endlessly about how there aren't enough native lenses.
Also: Who in their right mind puts an EF or EF-S lens on a tiny camera like an EOS-M? Talk about the opposite of compactness...