[ogl]

A 28-56mm f/2.8-5.4 is fine and "cool", but a 15-45 f/2.8-5.6 is slow?

I'm lyrist. 70@5.6 at APS-C is worse than 56@5.4 at FF.
45/5.6 is DOF equiv. 70@9.0 for FF. It's slow, of course.

It's the question of taste - which do you prefer? Do you like slow zoom or not?

the lens is 24-70/4.5-9.0 for FF. I don't want such zoom for FF.

of course, 28-56/2.8-5.4 is faster.

[Kunzite]

Do you seriously believe our taste has any impact on physics?

[BigMackCam]

What about upper post about 28-54 ?

And what about its aperture range of f/2.8-f/5.4? That's no faster than the G1X MkIII lens you said was too slow

There is no zoom lens for APS-C that covers the focal length range we're discussing, is usefully faster than the Canon's, and small enough to be part of a compact fixed lens camera. Nor will there be... not using conventional lens optics, at any rate.

[BigMackCam]

I'm lyrist. 70@5.6 at APS-C is worse than 56@5.4 at FF.
45/5.6 is DOF equiv. 70@9.0 for FF. It's slow, of course.

It's the question of taste - which do you prefer? Do you like slow zoom or not?

the lens is 24-70/4.5-9.0 for FF. I don't want such zoom for FF.

of course, 28-56/2.8-5.4 is faster.

I don't even know where to begin with this...

Boris, with all due respect, your logic is bizarre. Now you're wriggling around with talk of different focal length lenses on cameras with different sized sensor and film, and equivalence...

So, it's depth of field that concerns you, and that's why the Canon lens is too slow for you? Well, guess what - it doesn't matter whether you or I consider the Fuji 28-56mm/2.8-5.4 on 35mm film to be fast(er) or slow(er). It's completely irrelevant. The fact remains that for an APS-C camera, you can't have a zoom lens with the Canon's focal length range yet noticeably faster, that's small enough to integrate with a compact body design (or that's remotely similar in size to, let alone smaller than, the slow Sony E-mount lens you posted).

Out of interest, for a new APS-C GR model, what focal length range and aperture range were you hoping for??

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 10-17-2017 at 08:45 AM.

[ogl]

I don't want to argue

[Rico]

I hope this new Canon GX1 is a move other manufactures will take. This GX1 is very small. 24-70 is a very nice focal range. As long as it produces sharp distortion free images.

Ricoh/Pentax should have three compact APS-C cameras. Ricoh GR naturally. Ricoh GRZoom. And a Pentax GRish APS-C with a 28mm ƒ2 lenses for a ~40mm 35mm eq. field of view. All three should be weather sealed.

I still think there is room for a Pentax Mirco-4/3rds Q sized camera modeled on the Auto 110. That line had something like 5 lenses. That's all they need. Three primes. A zoom and a CineZoom.

[bobmaxja]

I just bought the Panasonic ZS100 for my travel , good review everywhere and 4K video., 1 inch sensor and 10x zoom. That Ricoch is tool ate . Still waiting for the replacement of my K-5, hope the new APSC coming in 2018.

[Rico]

I just bought the Panasonic ZS100 for my travel , good review everywhere and 4K video., 1 inch sensor and 10x zoom. That Ricoch is tool ate . Still waiting for the replacement of my K-5, hope the new APSC coming in 2018.

Not to state the obvious but the K-3ii is a clear replacement for the K-5 across the board. Viewfinder. Sensor. Features i.e. pixel shift astrotracer WiFi etc. The K-3ii feature wise is still the best APS-C DSLR for any brand. For the price the K-3ii is selling now it is a real steal.

[Zygonyx]

I don't say about folding 16-50/2.8...

I do very much prefer the equ. 24-80/1,4-2,7 zoom for my beloved 12,4Mpix & 1,7" ISO80 sensored Samsung EX-2F

[camyum]

I know that camera rather well... I lusted after one, for a while

.....
I do think, though, a compact, do it all, fixed lens camera needs to offer wide-angle to short-tele, otherwise it becomes narrower in its application and will have a smaller potential market.

Yes, and still it would be more versatile than a prime 28mm equiv. lens... and the GR already "only" offers F:2.8 ... where is the loss if RICOH would offer a GRZ with that Fuji-lens design?
if its F:4 or F:4.5 at 50mm it would be cool for me.
Shallow depth of field is overrated... and IMHO most people overrate the versatility of good compact cameras... No RX100 or G1X "which mark so ever" could ever replace a K-Mount DSLR(if you know how to use DSLRs and own the right optics) this starts with using flashes, etc...(cam-body to flashgun weight ratio is ridiculous and difficult to handle)
and yes, there are photographers that do pro-shootings with phones... but that is only because they like that competition... in 99.9% of all cases you will see professional photographers with APS-C or FF sensor MILCs... that are a bit bigger then the flash transmitters you mount on them.

So no, neither a RX1 R mark II nor a Leica Q or that @the-moment non existant FF Ricoh GRZ will make you the next Mario Testino.

Those are just compact cameras, but if you like photography you would appreciate it if the FF sensor comes back to compact cameras... since such a sensor would deliver good dynamic range, better IQ etc.
and those are things that satisfy hobby photographers and pro-"street photographers" the most.
And i would welcome a FF-zoom-compact, because IT IS more versatile... even if "only" 28-56mm...and even on film compacts i sometimes feel more plasticity/clarity(or better: spatiality) on FF then on smaller formats.

Again: No one says it has to beat(in every way) a DSLR... with a 24-70 F:2.8... neither a RX1R nor a Leica Q and certainly no G1XIII will. NEVER! that is AFAIK not possible(yet) at a compact size.

but the dynamic range of such a FF compact zoom would be huge, no matter if you whine because you "ONLY" have F:5.4 at 56mm or something alike, or not.





and ogl is somehow right... indeed 56mm focal length, would get the designation "85mm equivalent" if used on a Crop sensor...

Nonetheless, I would be also satisfied if its "only" APS-C... since that would make most people happy, and it is as I annoted it above... Such a compact-camera will never replace a good and balanced MILC.

But i still like the IDEA of RICOH producing the first FF compact zoom.
That could mean another product selling like hotcake ... next to Theta... (because sometimes its not about being perfect, but only about catching the flow)

[BigMackCam]

Yes, and still it would be more versatile than a prime 28mm equiv. lens... and the GR already "only" offers F:2.8 ... where is the loss if RICOH would offer a GRZ with that Fuji-lens design?
if its F:4 or F:4.5 at 50mm it would be cool for me.
Shallow depth of field is overrated...

Depth of field isn't the issue. Rather, it's light gathering - and, therefore, the necessary ISO sensitivity in any particular situation. An f/2.8 lens lets in a lot more light than a variable aperture zoom at the long end that only starts off at f/5.6 (for example). As a result, you can keep the ISO setting lower, resulting in less noise, more detail, greater dynamic range etc.

Don't get me wrong - I'd be perfectly happy with a variable aperture zoom lens covering the 24-70mm equivalent focal lengths. Other posters here, though, were bothered about how slow the Canon's lens was. Not me - because I know how big an f/2.8 constant-aperture 24-70 equivalent zoom for an APS-C compact camera would be