[Klaus]

70-200mm f/2.8:
https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/ca...70200.html

16-35mm f/4:
https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/ca...r1635.html

---

It's sort of funny that Panasonic L-mount lineup alone is more attractive than Nikon Z. And if you add the Sigmas, they are more attractive than EOS R, too.

But then few will probably take notice.

[thxbb12]

In term of lens selection yes, but the bodies are huge.
Hopefully Panasonic will realize they need to release a smaller body and more compact lenses. Most lenses are huge. The only exception is the 16-35 f4.
Furthermore the prices are insane, more expensive than Nikon and Canon offerings. If they want to attract new users, they'd better lower their prices to be more attractive. Canon and Nikon can rely on user base and brand recognition. Panasonic, not so much...

[Klaus]

Well, for a small body you could go for the Sigma FP ... although that may be too small for most people ;-)

[thxbb12]

The Sigma is has no EVF, abysmal ergonomics and must be one of the ugliest camera ever made.

However, I'd love to see Panasonic releasing a FF version of their GX80 range-finder style camera.

[JJ_SO]

70-200mm f/2.8:
https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/ca...70200.html

16-35mm f/4:
https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/ca...r1635.html

---

It's sort of funny that Panasonic L-mount lineup alone is more attractive than Nikon Z. And if you add the Sigmas, they are more attractive than EOS R, too.

But then few will probably take notice.

Given Panasonic started later than Nikon, I also think they come up with some interesting lenses, plus Sigma's offerings (or Leica's for the ones who don't like cheapos like the 58/0.95 Noct in front of their cameras). And they are not wasting time with redundant FL, come up with a better ranged 24-105 Macro.

Pity, the 70-200 has a clutched focus ring. I hate this weird idea, it's awful on the two Fujinons and makes AF-C very limited.

I don't think Panasonic will significantly lower the price point as there's still Leica to "approve" the pro lenses.

And for those yelling for "smaller, lighter cameras": please go and take a Panasonic S1 - it's really nice in the hand, all buttons at the right place and no additional bottom extension needed to find a place for your pinky. There are plenty of "small and light" cameras available and I really don't expect you, thxbb12, to go FF if Panasonic would cut some corners away. A Leica SL is bigger.

Also, Panasonic delivers a battery grip and not only a stupid, overpriced battery pack (shame on you, Nikon!). In fact, if the AF would be more convincing, the whole system would tempt me more than the Zeeeeeniverse.

[thxbb12]

There are plenty of "small and light" cameras available and I really don't expect you, thxbb12, to go FF if Panasonic would cut some corners away. A Leica SL is bigger.

May I ask why?

There are no plenty of small and light FF systems out there.
If there were, I'd definitely switch to such a system.
A smaller body is one thing. A smaller lens system is another.
It's somewhat starting to materialize in Sony FF land with some offerings from Samyang, but we're far from a complete small lineup yet.
I believe many would be interested in a small FF setup with slower lenses with the option to add a few fast ones when necessary.

[JJ_SO]

Hmmm, if we were more people here in the forum, I would suggest a poll. I read you, thxbb12, but as I see it: if lightweight and small size are determinating a "buy/no buy" decision, FF will always be only second best - except you go Sigma fp - I don't share your judgement of ugly camera, but that's a matter of taste and I admit to prefer a well made UI and button layout against an only pretty body design.

Now, my idea of a poll is "would you buy a small FF body with some handicaps in usability?" and "would you buy slow but compact lenses if available - and why would you prefer them against moderate second hand manual focus glass?".

The result would still have to be larger than any µ4/3 combination. No one would save money - even if I consider that ML has to be cheaper than DSLR as a lot of mechanics simply doesn't exist, therefore no adjustments of mechanical/optical parts. As long as the sensor is exactly parallel and also sort of well centerred, I get the best possible picture out of it.

Do you remember some o the old Yashica and Olympus designs in film cameras when the whole camera was more or less built around the (fixed) zoom lens and you hold it like a video cam? Yashica's "Samurai" or Olympus' iS-3000? If you adapt to the Sigma fp some Leica M-lenses, I don't think any other manufacturer would get a more compact system to market.

[thxbb12]

Now, my idea of a poll is "would you buy a small FF body with some handicaps in usability?" and "would you buy slow but compact lenses if available - and why would you prefer them against moderate second hand manual focus glass?".

The result would still have to be larger than any µ4/3 combination. No one would save money - even if I consider that ML has to be cheaper than DSLR as a lot of mechanics simply doesn't exist.

The Canon RP is FF and quite small. I believe a ML FF body in a GX80 for factor could be a bit smaller than the RP while being fine ergonomically. SLR from the film days were small and nobody was complaining there were tiny. It's like suddenly everybody grew huge hands and cannot operate a camera unless it's large and weighs a kg ?

If you compare equivalent systems, FF can be made as small as MFT, especially from wide-angle to short telephot (~100mm). The faster the glass, the more interesting it gets to go FF.

Below, a few examples of equivalent systems using an Olympus E-M1 II and a Sony A7 III:

• Olympus 25mm f1.2 vs Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1.8: the Olympus system is equivalent to a 50mm f2.4 FF. Slower, yet larger.
  
• Olympus 45mm f1.2 vs Sony 85mm f1.8: the Olympus system is equivalent to a 90mm f2.4 FF. Slower, yet larger (you can also replace the Oly with the Panasonic/Leica 42.5 to get an exact 85mm but it's still larger).
  
• Olympus 40-150 f2.8 vs Sony 70-300 f4.5-5.6: the Olympus is equivalent to a 80-300 f5.6. Slower, yet larger.
  

There are other examples, showing even more difference. The recent Samyang and Tamron offerings (f2 or f2.8 lenses) are a good example of this.
Now, there are tiny lenses in MFT land which would be equivalent to f4 or f5.6ff lenses. I'm sure if such lenses existed for FF, they would be comparable in size. They just don't exist.
For example, some nice compact f4 primes would be nice. Already, the f2.8 ones are quite small and affordable. Their f1.4 MFT equivalent are always very large and expensive.

[Brightcolours]

Only SLRs from the pre-AF, pre-grip era were "small" (and heavy (metal)). And everybody dumped them when more ergonomic AF SLRs came along.

I remember how everyone and their dog used to dunk on the Canon EOS 350D for its "small grip" (2005). Funny how things have changed.

About FF and small aperture primes... Why go for FF if you are not after the possibility of shallow DOF? What sense do you see in FF sensor + small aperture lenses over smaller sensor cameras?

[MatjazO]

Pana clearly went after DSLR users, used to Canikon bodies and lenses, large and heavy. Therefore large and extremely well build bodies.

Bold try though. Reliance on DFD autofocus only doesn’t help. On the other hand, their joker is video where they rock. Probably not enough for significant impact though. Even Sony, with their vast R&D and technology advantage, took years to make a dent into doupoly of last decades.