[GabrielFFontes]

Just my thought. Someone lost the first letter in BRIC. Don't worry, they'll find it soon ....

I hope they do...
I'm on my second Pentax (even though i had a problem with my first [a k-r]...i couldn't repair it here in Brazil, but i loved the camera and pentax lenses, so i bought another one. am i crazy?), and no sign of Pentax here, while Canon and Nikon cameras are found in every single corner

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I certainly hope the best for them (Fuji) but I have yet to see a focus by wire better than mildly useable.

I only have two lenses with focus by wire, both MFT: Olympus kit lens 14-42 II and Panasonic 14/2.5. The Panasonic 14/2.5 focusing experience is mediocre - focusing is slow and feels a bit laggy. But the 14-42 works great with manual focusing - it is very responsive and it looks to me like it accelerates its focusing depending on the speed of turning the ring - similar to how cursor movement on the screen is controlled by mouse movements - quick jerks make large adjustments while gentler movement can be used for precision adjustment. This behavior is quite effective and I got used to it very easily.

So what we have here is the difference between good implementations of focus by wire and mediocre ones. In time, everyone will figure out the implementation and the nice thing is that they just need to adjust the firmware.

When I use the Olympus kit lens, I always manually focus it and I forget soon that it's a by wire experience. Here's a sample shot and you can find more by clicking the lens tag. I have a decent collection of manual focus lenses, both legacy and modern, so I am not comparing the focusing experience to the Pentax 18-55 kit lens or something like that.

Yes. I have been seriously thinking about moving to a Nikon D800E and going with the Fuji X-E1 as my APS-C casual camera.

I've been waiting for photokina to see what gets announced. I was hoping Samsung would put out a body with IBIS or that Ricoh would introduce something, but it was Fuji that surprised me with the XE-1 - I didn't care much about the hybrid VF of the XP-1, as I mentioned it often before, and the botched focusing implementation was concerning, but the XE-1 with its EVF and recent focusing improvements sounds like something I could use effectively.

[Winder]

I've been waiting for photokina to see what gets announced. I was hoping Samsung would put out a body with IBIS or that Ricoh would introduce something, but it was Fuji that surprised me with the XE-1 - I didn't care much about the hybrid VF of the XP-1, as I mentioned it often before, and the botched focusing implementation was concerning, but the XE-1 with its EVF and recent focusing improvements sounds like something I could use effectively.

What about Panasonic saying that an EVIL 4:3 aspect ratio sensor with FF surface area had become a possibility?

New Panasonic GH3 test and new interview. Panasonic thinking FF? | 43 Rumors

I have not had much interest in Panasonic cameras, but an EVIL 4:3 FF would be get my interest.

[meeverett]

I only have two lenses with focus by wire, both MFT: Olympus kit lens 14-42 II and Panasonic 14/2.5. The Panasonic 14/2.5 focusing experience is mediocre - focusing is slow and feels a bit laggy. But the 14-42 works great with manual focusing - it is very responsive and it looks to me like it accelerates its focusing depending on the speed of turning the ring - similar to how cursor movement on the screen is controlled by mouse movements - quick jerks make large adjustments while gentler movement can be used for precision adjustment. This behavior is quite effective and I got used to it very easily.

Out of interest, what body are you using? I had read somewhere that despite the m4/3 compatibility, Panasonic and Olympus had some firmware tweaks that improved how each makers' lenses perform on their bodies compared to the other's. In essence, a Panasonic lens that would perform very well on a Panasonic body was slow on an Olympus body and vice versa. I understand it has something to do with firmware tweaking, which would seem to support your conclusion that this is:

the difference between good implementations of focus by wire and mediocre ones. In time, everyone will figure out the implementation and the nice thing is that they just need to adjust the firmware.

[spartan]

Adam

First I must thank you for creating a great forum and associated web site. The PentaxForum is very professional.
I also must thank you for your efforts at Photokina. Great getting to meet Pentax Ricoh.

Now I must admit that I am among the group of people not happy with the new FLagship. I expected higher pixel count in APSc and/or a FF. I also read John Carlson interview and he specifically rejected that any current DA lenses are FF compatible. I know that Falk tested them and came back with a different conclusion, but would it be too much to ask the PF to test at least one DA on a FF Digital camera (eg Canon or Nikon) through an adaptor?

Nick

[Docrwm]

Adam

First I must thank you for creating a great forum and associated web site. The PentaxForum is very professional.
I also must thank you for your efforts at Photokina. Great getting to meet Pentax Ricoh.

Now I must admit that I am among the group of people not happy with the new FLagship. I expected higher pixel count in APSc and/or a FF. I also read John Carlson interview and he specifically rejected that any current DA lenses are FF compatible. I know that Falk tested them and came back with a different conclusion, but would it be too much to ask the PF to test at least one DA on a FF Digital camera (eg Canon or Nikon) through an adaptor?

Nick

Nick,

I've said this elsewhere but, here goes again:
You really can't rely on anything JC says as being accurate. In the interview he asserted that there are currently only 3 FF lenses - the 3 FA Limited lenses. Really? What about the 2DFA Macro and the FA50/1.4 lenses still available new?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

What about Panasonic saying that an EVIL 4:3 aspect ratio sensor with FF surface area had become a possibility?

New Panasonic GH3 test and new interview. Panasonic thinking FF? | 43 Rumors

I have not had much interest in Panasonic cameras, but an EVIL 4:3 FF would be get my interest.

Perhaps, but I am not really keen on FF. I am looking for an APS-C body mainly to replace my Pentax bodies because I purchased many lenses with the intent of using them on APS-C - they could be used on FF or MFT, but they would have different purpose than what I purchased them for.

Out of interest, what body are you using? I had read somewhere that despite the m4/3 compatibility, Panasonic and Olympus had some firmware tweaks that improved how each makers' lenses perform on their bodies compared to the other's. In essence, a Panasonic lens that would perform very well on a Panasonic body was slow on an Olympus body and vice versa. I understand it has something to do with firmware tweaking, which would seem to support your conclusion that this is:

I use an E-PL2. I doubt that the manufacturers would have tweaked the lens behavior to benefit only their products, because it would have taken more effort and would also make them subject to anti-competitive lawsuits (performance degradation would be easy to prove in a court). I find it more likely that Olympus has better experience with polishing the behavior of their products than Panasonic has. From the reviews I read, performance varies even across Olympus lenses, with high end ones like the 12/2 or 75/1.8 getting a better focusing implementation.

[meeverett]

I doubt that the manufacturers would have tweaked the lens behavior to benefit only their products, because it would have taken more effort and would also make them subject to anti-competitive lawsuits (performance degradation would be easy to prove in a court).

It wouldn't be anti-competitive in the sense that they weren't degrading the performance as much as tweaking their lenses' performance. Much in the same ways that a manufacturer might be able to correct certain types of distortion in firmware because they are the manufacturer of both pieces. I disagree that they wouldn't tweak their products to gain the best possible performance from their products, rather It would be impractical for them to make these changes for every other lens manufacturer's products.

[Class A]

You really can't rely on anything JC says as being accurate.

+1

In the interview he asserted that there are currently only 3 FF lenses - the 3 FA Limited lenses. Really? What about the 2DFA Macro and the FA50/1.4 lenses still available new?

And there are further lenses, like the DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM, DA* 200mm F2.8 ED, DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM, DA 35mm F2.4 AL which either have already been confirmed or are fully expected to work a 100% on a FF camera.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

It wouldn't be anti-competitive in the sense that they weren't degrading the performance as much as tweaking their lenses' performance.

I doubt you can do any tweaking that only improves the performance of your lenses, given that the communication protocol between camera and lens is part of the MFT standard. And if your tweaking singles out your lenses in some way, that would be anti-competitive behavior.

[thibs]

I read tht kind of things multiple times indeed but how true if at all, I dunno.
I think what I read was more about AF speed and things like that, not quality-wise.

[meeverett]

if your tweaking singles out your lenses in some way, that would be anti-competitive behavior.

I disagree, but in a sense only semantically. If your tweaking singles out others' lenses in some negative way (including withholding certain general benefits for only their lenses), that could be anti-competitive. In either case, what I'm suggesting is not that they would single out only their lenses to get some kind of general benefit, but rather, I'm suggesting there might have been something specific to tweak. For example, Olympus might tweak something regarding the specific method Olympus lenses handle focus-by-wire versus Panasonic who may not do it that way. It's a standard, but that doesn't mean everything is the exact same, it merely conforms to the standard.

For reference, I am thinking of posts like the following:

I think there is a difference: Micro Four Thirds Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I fear however, I've gotten off the topic of this thread.

[markac]

What about Panasonic saying that an EVIL 4:3 aspect ratio sensor with FF surface area had become a possibility?

New Panasonic GH3 test and new interview. Panasonic thinking FF? | 43 Rumors

I have not had much interest in Panasonic cameras, but an EVIL 4:3 FF would be get my interest.

4:3 isn't really Full Frame which is 24 x 36 mm 3:2 ratio. To make a 4:3 sensor with roughly the equivalent surface area, it would be about 25.5 x 34 mm. Personally I'd still crop it back to 3:2!

[spartan]

POSTED BY Class A "And there are further lenses, like the DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM, DA* 200mm F2.8 ED, DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM, DA 35mm F2.4 AL which either have already been confirmed or are fully expected to work a 100% on a FF camera."


I am aware of Falk's work (and i deeply respect him) but the behavior of digital is different than film. Thus my request to take a few lenses which are claimed to be FF and test on a digital FF body through an adapter. (eg DA 200 or 300)

[Blue]

POSTED BY Class A "And there are further lenses, like the DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM, DA* 200mm F2.8 ED, DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM, DA 35mm F2.4 AL which either have already been confirmed or are fully expected to work a 100% on a FF camera."


I am aware of Falk's work (and i deeply respect him) but the behavior of digital is different than film. Thus my request to take a few lenses which are claimed to be FF and test on a digital FF body through an adapter. (eg DA 200 or 300)

Who is going to want to fubar their DA* 300 or 200 to test it ion a FF canon digital body?