Leaderboard

After looking and foraging my various drawers in the house, I was able to find 3 Bell & Howell lenses from my grandfather: 0.7 inch, 1 inch, and 4 inch lenses. This was standard war-time military issue for war journalists. I also found 3 plastic Lomography lenses: I have ordered some inexpensive Chinese lenses too: 7Artisans 10mm f/3.5, TTartisan 17mmf/1.4, and TTartisan 25mm f2- a holy trinity for about 350 euros. From what I've heard, these lenses all suffer from poor corner performance; however, I'm throwing away 45% of that APS-C image anyway and only keeping the sharpest part. I figure those will be a perfect size too with the total kit under 1kg. I considered the Laowa cine lenses, but decided that they were simply too pricey for the concept of this kit. I'm bummed about not being able to use my AF M43 glass, but I love the limitations of straight up manual focus. I'll be shooting a lot with the 17mm this weekend.

Yes, and I think that the right situation for it is the combination of when you want a small camera and you want to shoot impromptu things. If you're shooting in controlled environments then a larger camera probably makes more sense, which was sort-of my point, and probably not explained that well. I agree about it being a new category, it sort of feels like that to me in a way too. Cameras are all about combinations of features, and this one has some feature combinations that haven't really come together before. I can recommend the Laowa 7.5mm F2, it's really sharp, but not cheap. It's probably not the right choice now as there have been wider lenses brought out in recent times, but as a reference the Laowa is a great performer. I suspect that we're probably better off without it having AF. I suspect that (in the parallel universe where they did give it AF) the AF they gave it would have been pretty rubbish and also because it got AF it probably wouldn't have gotten any/many good MF features, so neither pathway would have been particularly useful. Back in the days before PDAF subject detection was really a thing I remember spending quite a lot of time half-hitting the shutter and then asking the camera "why did you focus on the background?!?!?". The problem then, as well as the problem now, is that when there are multiple things to focus on, the robots are choosing which one and often falling on their faces. I shoot MFT at F5.6 and at F2.5 on PDAF and CDAF models and it's great and focuses incredibly fast all the time, but only because either the DOF is so large that everything is in focus or I'm simply focusing on on the middle of the image. I have the TTartisans 17/1.4 and it's small and light and cheap, but wide open it's more of a "character lens" rather than a sharp one. It's good for emulating the softness of film in-camera, if you know what I mean! I also have the 50mm 1.2 and it's a bit better than the 17mm IMHO, but neither of them are high-end glass. Share some images with us if you're able!

Already looked a ton of reviews for this one, since is (almost) the camera I was waiting since 2014, when I got my OG LX100 - it was my first 4k camera. Still have it here, internal batery dead, but still functioning well. For years tried to get an MK II, but the used prices are insane (should drop now). This one solves a lot of problems of the LX100 I and II: - Finally it have a PDAF sensor on it, and with more resolution to boot (12mp on the OG, 17 mp in MK II, 20 mp in this one). - The sequential field EVF is gone, is a proper OLED now, the same 2,36mp panel that everyones uses. Never had the tearing issue with my LX100, past in the day it was on par of the others, but now you see the resolution difference. - Movable LCD. I would prefer a tilt screen instead of a flip, but in todays market, I undersatnd the decision. - More controls, more customization, LUT support (this is a MUST), switch for stills / video / S&Q, and now is a PASM model (In the LX100 you had to remember to set the shutter speed manually every time you wants to record a video). I was 100% sure to get one, and I saw the price. Ouch. But newer cameras are pricier each day. And after I saw some things: - The camera is much larger than the LX100 models - in fact, have almost the same size than a S9. Ok, they fitted a much larger battery, but...for m43, it could be much smaller. Battery aside, it could have the old size (even with some video lenght cap, like 30 mins - not the 15 min of the LX100)...and than I realized. - Panasonic now have the tendency to share body design between cameras (S5II and G9 II, for example). Then my prediction - this body will be shared with the S9 II, EVF and all. - About the lens - is exactly the same, but the PetaPIxel guys said that Panasonic told them that the dust problem was addressed. And the stills appear much sharper than the MK II, looks like there were som optimization. - No IBIS - Probably it would cause trouble the the "multi-aspect" of the sensor. The lens does not cover the whole sensor, and vignette would appear if the sensor moves (which does not occur with the lens OIS). Internal space for an IBIS they have for spare - the GX9 is much smaller and have a very good IBIS. They should keep the lens formula the same, just make it larger (to cover the whole sensor) but...profits. It is a very good camera, and I still want it badly. But is expensive, and for an EDC camera, for my use cases, an RX100 VII is a more versatile and smaller proposition (and costs the same new, much kess used). The X-E5 is almost a dream camera to me too, and I did not bought one, again for the price. And I shoot less and less, hard to justify it.