BTM_Pix

This is what happened in 1967 on switchover day after Sweden made the decision to go from driving on the left to the right hand side of the road. I bet you there's still people waiting for that bus to show up !

The front control is recessed as per the other Nikon cameras but I'm presuming the other one that isn't is the rear one

Steady on, I think you'll find that its you lot that drive on the wrong side of the road.

I think the perspective is perhaps over selling the compactness a tiny bit there but it is a nice looking thing I'll give it that. Agreed and I wasn't expecting it be a D5 alternative but I definitely think it was a good opportunity to leave the locking PASM dial out and use the switched one instead but segmentation isn't only a Sony/Panasonic/Canon game I think they might get more pushback over the ergonomics of this from D800/810 upgraders than people might anticipate though.

And still no Cinelike D I'm going to wait for the Leica version of it so I can feel as let down but with a slightly more elitist glow.

I'm just going to chime in from the perspective of someone who uses Nikon pro bodies for work and would be looking to swap out his D810 against the Z7 versus perhaps going for a D850. Its not going to be some moan about wanting to hammer nails in with it or tow it in the water behind a speedboat or some such but it is about the ergonomic differences between the pro bodies and those that use the PASM locking dial. This will also hold true for anyone who uses a D850 in anger and was looking to swap over. I'm not sure why they've gone to a locking PASM dial when the mode selection keys at the top of the dial of the other cameras (like the D850 for example) offers fast access to WB and Meter Modes as well as the PASM selection. Not to mention being able to switch Quality modes without having to go into a menu. And it looks confirmed as per the post the other day that they've removed the dedicated lock file button which is absolutely nuts considering how vital it is. Strange choices to be honest. Quite surprising as well when you'd have thought that they would want to tap into their existing user base and offer them a seamless transition in to this brave new world of mirrorless. This is not me just being an old fart and complaining about not wanting anything to be changed by the way but their existing ergonomics weren't broken so I don't get why they've tried to 'fix' them in this way. The beauty of that top dial in their existing cameras is that you can change everything about the mode, the metering and the white balance with one finger of your left hand and scrolling with your right thumb without ever having to take your eye from the viewfinder. I've no idea why the fps mode suddenly becomes important enough to have its own dedicated button either. There are also a few other omissions (such as the multi pin front remote connector) that are surprising but the AF/MF switch seemingly disappearing is quite baffling, even for users of Nikon's lower range DSLRs. For the benefit of people who don't use Nikon bodies at the moment, the AF/MF switch also has a centre button which enables you to switch between AF modes really quickly using the thumbwheel when you hold it down and, again, all without taking your eye off the viewfinder. Its really puzzling what's happened here and as exciting as the new aspects of it may be, I'm not convinced they've done what everyone has expected them to do which is to make a mirrorless D850, irrespective of how close the specs are because it isn't comparable in one of the most important aspects of all. If this thing is significantly cheaper than the D850 then those compromises might be acceptable but if its anything like the same price - and I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise - then I, for one long time Nikon user, won't be jumping on the merry go round this time round. I'd completely accepted that a D5 style version will be somewhere further down the line but I'd definitely thought that this would be closer to a like for like D850 which suggests that there is likely a Z8 to come which will be even more expensive. For someone coming late to the party - and having seen the lens lineup from Sony improve dramatically in the interim - I don't think they've gone big enough at all here with the Z7 especially when they are trying to push a new mount as well. None of those choices have been governed by the body size either. Puzzling and a little bit troubling to me but probably less so to the intended market.

Its slightly different when it comes to Contax cameras though as Contax was originally a camera model name of the Zeiss Ikon company before becoming a brand name in itself but still owned by Zeiss. The modern Contax cameras were produced as a manufacturing joint effort with Yashica after an aborted link up with Pentax and Zeiss still retain the rights to the Contax brand name. Its semantics I suppose but a Contax branded product is still technically a Zeiss branded product as Contax is a Zeiss brand. Just spelt differently

Agreed but it was RAW on the Pocket and now 4K RAW on the Pocket II that has thrown the focus back on Panasonic and Olympus most sharply in terms of expectation of the camera when used for video. JVC threw in the curve ball about having a Super35 sensor sat behind it of course

I think the adoption of it by BM has taken it in a direction they probably never envisaged. When they look at what their intentions probably were in terms of it being an interchangeable bridge camera and then saw people hanging PL lenses off it and demanding 4K RAW I imagine they must be doing this

The trick is to get the SA mount versions of the Sigma ART lenses and then use their MC-11 adapter to put them on E mount so you get double duty out of them. You can often find these versions of the ARTs are cheaper because dealers have them sticking round for waaaay too long and want to get shut of them. If you want to use old glass with them, the M42 adapters are about £10 and open up a world of cheap options.

Turns out the something new was a new version of the Pro. Its 8K (yay) but £5K (rather less yay) https://www.insta360.com/product/insta360-pro2/

Maybe this one is more to scale

Their joint venture stuff with Contax would count I guess so it would be the Contax TVS in 2002 with all its 5 megapixel CCD goodness.

Absolutely, I was just clarifying in case any unintended tone might have been coming across in my replies. It was the availability of adapters that allowed a lot of people to dip their toe in the water with Sony in the first place though as they already had Canon glass which meant they didn't have to throw the baby out with the bath water and could also use Canon glass to fill the gaps in the Sony lens lineup which are still not completely filled even today. There are also still plenty of Sony A7 cameras of various models with M mount adapters permanently attached to them to enable people to use them as a (much) lower cost alternative to Leica M and latterly SL cameras. As far as the GH5 is concerned, I'd venture that for every youtuber posting "hey guys, whats happening, lets check out the face detect AF as I am sashaying towards the camera and appearing from below frame" videos, there are probably at least 3 other people using it with adapted (probably vintage) glass on it who would probably struggle to tell you where the AF settings where in the menu because that is the heritage of the GH line. I will also venture to say that the adapter as weakness rather than opportunity issue will suddenly be put on the back burner by a lot of people when the BM Pocket 4K finally appears.... If you don't mind, I'm going to clip together a few lines from your posts because I'm getting a bit confused about your position over it so thought I'd clarify mine against those. I'm reading that as you saying that The lenses are the limitation of MFT That there are no fundamental limitations of MFT That the sensor is a fundamental limitation of MFT That the lenses are the limitation of MFT. I disagree with 1, 2 and 4. In the case of 4, primarily because 3 trumps everything and also because I don't even think Panasonic and Olympus in their wildest dreams ever thought it had a shot of taking over the entire industry. As per my example with the PL lenses, it is everything behind the lens that would negate their use so I agree with 3 for that specific context and quite a few others but it still does have its place. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree and leave it there though mate

Some interesting choices they've made there. If the expensive one is the same price as the D850 then I'd question some of those choices.

No ZF at all, I'm afraid. The 85mm f1.4 I've got is the Contax Zeiss Planar T* which I legally stole from a shop in Tokyo. No on the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 ART either as I've got the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 which has been doing the job for what I need it for for years and will no doubt end up getting carried shoulder high by the cockroaches as the only other survivor of the nuclear holocaust. I'm not a massive fan of the 24-70mm range though I have to say when it comes to doing anything creative as you always wish it was a bit wider or a bit longer. Its a good safe bet but even on vanilla jobs like shooting press conferences I find myself taking it out less and less as I'd sooner have a wider prime or wide zoom on another camera (I use the X-T20 a lot for this) and go longer on the main camera.

OK @mercer I don't have anything as exotic as that Zeiss left. In 35mm, the only Zeiss prime I have is a very old Flektagon 35mm f2.8. I also have the short end of the Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4, the short end of the Minolta 35-70mm f3.5 MD and the long end of the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 L as a comparison. All of which I can persuade on to a Sony A6500 tomorrow if you want? As a micro contrast bonus (albeit slightly wider ) I can throw in the 30mm version of the Sigma f1.4 ART on a Sigma SD Quattro. (though this may make you weep openly and cry "Why no video on Foveon, Sigma? Why, why?")

Hang on, let me just check my collection of 35mms ....

I'm not sure why they would be any less "PRO" when they might well have extremely high quality Canon mount lenses attached to them? The adapters are such an integral part of the process for people using these cameras that they are permanently attached to the camera and so can be more or less considered the de facto lens mount. Changing the lens means just changing the lens as if it were a native Canon mount at that point. This is also true for cameras like the Sony FS5 and FS7 where a large number of them that are used in professional environments every day permanently use an EF adapter. I'm not sure where I've suggested MFT cameras are in common use on large budget TV shows and feature films by the way? Even if that was the suggestion, there are numerous reasons why they wouldn't get used in that environment that would take precedence over the lens choice, native or otherwise. I have a RED Epic and a set of PL primes and my Panasonic GX80 can mount all of them and use them in exactly the same way so if those lenses are not limiting the RED then they can't be limiting the Panasonic surely? Absolutely everything else about it would be of course but not the lenses I'm not trying to have an argument with you for the sake of it by the way - as I think the native offerings could be cheaper as well for one thing - but I do disagree about the lens choice being the limitation when it is adaptable to so many different lenses. For what its worth, I think MFT as an imaging format in terms of cameras from Panasonic and Olympus is probably in a bit of an awkward place right now but its more to do with the internals than the lens options. MFT as a mount with cameras such as LS300 and probably the BM4K behind it is a different situation but, again, the E mount is catching and probably overtaking it in terms of utility.

Natively perhaps, if actually less so now than it used to be, but the mount itself will take just about anything except E mount lenses. If you use the smart versions of the Metabones speed booster for EF lenses then you can have a lot of very fast glass (made faster) complete with AF and aperture control from the camera. The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 becomes an 11.5-22.4mm f1.2 lens when used with the Metabones XL 0.64 for example, which makes it equate to a 22-45mm f2.4 if it were on a full frame. The biggest drawback comes in the wider areas generally but even then something like the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 in EF mount using the Metabones XL is going to be like having a 14-20.5mm f3.6 on a full frame, which few people would feel would be a limitation. Having big chunks of lens like those and using an adapter doesn't really jive with the whole compact camera philosophy of course but fast glass on full frame isn't particularly compact either so if people want that sort of performance then it comes with the territory. With the f1.4 manual focus prime lenses from Samyang in EF mount then mounting them on the Metabones will get you the equivalent of f2 full frame primes without breaking the bank or your back.

Yeah, the rumour link quotes $3000 which is the same sort of price as the RX1Rii so you'd think there would be a premium so another $1K gets it closer but still a few hundred off the Leica Q. Unless you go for the new Globe-Trotter special edition which is, erm, $7000

Yeah, the 18-35mm is almost like a freak of nature the way it stands up against primes. The 7Artisans fits in the pocket somewhat easier in both senses of the word though ! Now that I'm not only sipping the Leica Kool Aid but feeding it in on an IV line, its my new best friend. Its worth bearing in mind as well with the (yes I'm going to mention it again) TechArt Pro adapter these small M mount lenses from 7Artisans and of course Voigtlander are given another dimension by being able to become auto focus on Sony E mount cameras. I have the X-T2 and the X-T20. The X-H1 IBIS looked troublesome to me during the early tests I saw of it and when internal F-LOG was given as an update to the X-T2 my interest in the X-H1 cooled completely. My take away is how much degradation there is on images when you upload them on here !

The Zeiss Ikon ZM M mount stopped production about 5 or 6 years ago I think. Looks like this new one will be a fixed lens digital version of it like Leica have done with the Q, albeit with a 35mm instead of a 28mm. The Zeiss f2 35mm is about £1000 and the f1.4 is about £1600 so if the price quoted for this new one is right you would imagine it might be the f2 they have in it but if its the f1.4 then...well...that would be very interesting against the RX1Rii and especially the Leica Q.

I've done a quick test for you of a prime ART against a zoom ART at the same focal length along with a couple of other 35mm lenses for comparison. I shot it on the X-T2 as it was the most universal mount as the lenses are EF, Nikon F, Fuji and Leica M mount. Lenses are : (L-R) Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART, Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART, Fuji 35mm f1.4 and the wildcard 7Artisans 35mm f2 M Mount. Everything was shot at f1.8 to match the 18-35mm at the same exposure with the exception of the 7Artisans which was f2 and exposure adjusted. All of them are jpeg out of the camera using the ProNeg Standard profile. The camera was locked off on a tripod so the FOV variance is due to the lens (and/or internal corrections in the case of the native Fuji lens) rather than a change of shooting position. And, yes, the backlight on the light meter did stay on longer during the Fuji and 7Artisan shots hence the reflection in the table. OK, here they are then. First up is the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART Next is the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART Next is the Fuji 35mm f1.4 And finally here is the 7Artisans 35mm f2 For reference, the current price of these lenses on Amazon in the UK is: Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 ART - £641 Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART - £649 Fuji 35mm f1.4 - £499 7Artisans 35mm f2 M Mount - £249

And if its not then you can always use it with the hood on.