[felix]

You could take a look at RAW samples of the Mark II - it's the same sensor. The lens is (obviously) different, so there could be some differences in sharpness.

 

I think the sensor does quite a good job at low ISO. Actually, it's so good that I am wondering whether this camera might replace my Fuji 18-55 for traveling...  :ph34r:

[Sylvain]

I was thinking the same... :-) this thing would be diminishing my mFT time severely.

[Sylvain]

This thing has auto iso in manual mode with exposure compensation. Bingo. It only needs a third dial, somehow :-)

 

Only lacks a touch screen for focus racking in that not expectedly not too shabby video output.

[joachim]

After mostly using a Fuji X20 over the winter (28 - 112 equiv) I think the 24-70 focal range is wrong for this kind of camera. I visit the 85-112 range more often than I miss the 24.

The old Mark II with its 28-100 was superior in that respect I think.

[peterottaway]

After mostly using a Fuji X20 over the winter (28 - 112 equiv) I think the 24-70 focal range is wrong for this kind of camera. I visit the 85-112 range more often than I miss the 24.

The old Mark II with its 28-100 was superior in that respect I think.

 

It depends on your needs. I have a Sony RX 10 and the A7r. I often use the RX 10 as my general day to day camera and at lowish EI its performance from the 1 inch sensor has been a real eye opener. Where a few months ago I would have not looked at anything lessthan an APS camera for that type of performance.

 

I would still prefer a smaller ( pocketable ) camera to be able to take anywhere and the new Mark 111 looks ideal.

[joachim]

It depends on your needs. I have a Sony RX 10 and the A7r. I often use the RX 10 as my general day to day camera and at lowish EI its performance from the 1 inch sensor has been a real eye opener. Where a few months ago I would have not looked at anything lessthan an APS camera for that type of performance.


I would still prefer a smaller ( pocketable ) camera to be able to take anywhere and the new Mark 111 looks ideal.

I fully agee on the virtues of smaller cameras and that results can be very good. However I think that for a fixed lens camera, a longer zoom reaching beyond the 70 equiv mark is more desirable than a 24 equiv WA setting.

[felix]

Well, as far as I know the Mark II will not be discontinued, so anyone who prefers the 28-100mm can buy this one.

[Sylvain]

I fully agee on the virtues of smaller cameras and that results can be very good. However I think that for a fixed lens camera, a longer zoom reaching beyond the 70 equiv mark is more desirable than a 24 equiv WA setting.

 

You've read that many times I'm sure, but you can't crop an image to make it wider.

On the contrary, with 20MP, one can crop to get to that 100mm equiv. without losing too much. 

 

I'm clearly in the camp of the happy to have 24mm.

 

Just my two cents. =-)

[Guest]

When shooting nature I always get bored without at least 24mm equivalent wide angle.

But, for those with mk2, try disabling distortion correction - the lens itself told to be wider than specified.

[Guest]

You can speak utter crap but that does not make it true. One of the slower u4/3 kit zoom is the 12-50 which is f3.5-6.3 for 24-100 range. Nearly all kit lenses I am famiiliar with for u4/3/aspc are faster than f8 at the long end (in addition to having a much larger sensor). No clue how you can claim this is 'slower' than 4.8-8.0 but I'm sure there is some methodology to your claim. What is valid is that for a 'slow' lens you do get compactness but that doesn't make it any faster. Your graph below is also not relevant as it is not comparing this camera 'effective' speed to APS or u4/3. Rather it is comparison with cameras with similar or much smaller sensors (what pisses me off is that you make this claim; provide a graph that 'seems' to support your claim but it is totally irrelevant.

-

I grant you that this camera is very compact; and a selection of people will find it 'good enough' in some situations (just look at the number of people using 'cell phone' camera but that does not make this a miracle beast with regards to light gathering or sensor ability in low light (low here is relative and with an f8 lens low doesn't have to be 'very' low to be an issue). Conversely this camera should be noticeable improvement on cell phones and given its size the cellphone crowd might find it quite useful.

 

It's not that slow; it's similar thru it's range to most APS-C kit zooms and faster than all μ4/3 kit zooms:

<p style="margin-left:40px;">(click image to embiggen!)

<p style="margin-left:40px;">

 

Pretty remarkable for such a small camera.