[Raffwal]

Compare the NX menus to the Panasonic MFT menus...Samsung's are significantly better in every respect.

I had a GH2 for some weeks and hated the menus, confusing, complex and unintuitive.

[deejjjaaaa]

IFurthermore, Panolympus still don't have a 90mm-equiv. macro

dear, are you totally clueless ?

PL 45/2.8 macro was released together w/ P 20/1.7 in September 2009

[deejjjaaaa]

Think about this, it took the µ4/3 players 2 years and 8 months (and 2 companies!) to produce a prime trio: Olympus 12mm f/2, Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and Olympus 45mm f/1.8.

actually it took that much to make : P 8/3.5 fisheye, O 12/2, P 14/2.5, O 17/2.8, P 20/1.7, PL 25/1.4, O 45/1.8, PL 45/2.8 macro

[TOUGEFC]

Very jealous of the 135mm f/2.0 they are getting!

[pinholecam]

[LIST]
[*]Olympus µ4/3: Nice construction; best in-camera JPEGs; highly customisable, mature firmware. No body with incorporated EVF; only just released 2 quality fast primes last month; IQ at high ISO lags behind Sony NEX; slow autofocus until E-P3.[*]Panasonic µ4/3: The G1 and G2 offered the best EVF in town; many direct-access buttons on those bodies; 20mm f/1.7 lens is small, affordable and a great normal lens; fast autofocus. Like Olympus, Panny has been slow to release primes; lens

I think m4/3 seen as a whole since their lenses are usable on bodies from both brands have reach a rather fine point as a system.
8/3.5 fisheye, 12/2; 14/2.5; 17/2.8; 20/1.7; 25/1.4; 45/1.8; 45/1.8 macro. offers a nice selection of focal lengths that covers most needs.

The sensor on the GH2, G3 isn't too bad with its higher resolution and noise control. Certainly comfortably usable up to 1600 or 3200.


The rest will catch up in time I am sure.
NX seems to be the best positioned to come out with the best mirrorless system.
Already a fine selection of pancakes and good roadmap.
They can even leverage on their software/electronics expertise as an electronics giant.
They just need a better sensor wrt current competition.



Pentax better buck up.
No 85/1.4 or 135/2
I'm really disappointed by the total silence wrt future plans and new camera launch.

[Emacs]

No 85/1.4 or 135/2
I'm really disappointed by the total silence wrt future plans and new camera launch.

I think the samsung behaves like a trained monkey in this case. I see no reason to have such a focal lengths on APS-C.

[Pentaxor]

I think the samsung behaves like a trained monkey in this case. I see no reason to have such a focal lengths on APS-C.

why is that? it's not a mystery that there is a market demand for such lenses on an APS-C sensor. so that alone is one major reason why these lenses exist in other brands all except Pentax. and it's not even a full-frame argument because most people just own practically APS-C sized cameras and use these lenses on them, this includes Pentax users who don't have a fullframe dslrs.

[kenafein]

Samsung NX 20mm lens for 239 on eBay, saw a few listings. That's 100 bucks off retail, so tempting.

[Miserere]

dear, are you totally clueless ?

PL 45/2.8 macro was released together w/ P 20/1.7 in September 2009

Yeah, sorry about that, completely missed it

Thanks for pointing it out!

[Miserere]

I think the samsung behaves like a trained monkey in this case. I see no reason to have such a focal lengths on APS-C.

85mm on APS-C is only a bit shorter than 135mm on FF, which was a very popular focal length for film cameras as attested by the gazillion 135mm f/2.8 manual focus lenses available on eBay. 135mm on APS-C is similar to 200mm on FF; again, a popular focal length in the film days where every brand had a 200mm f/4 prime. So I disagree with you that these focal lengths don't make sense for APS-C.

[Miserere]

Thanks, that was interesting. BTW, I found the NX10 review parts 1 & 2 on enticingthelight, but the link to part 3 did not seem to work. Was it ever released?

It's still....ermmm...in production

[Miserere]

Speaking of the NX10 and Samsung, they just released a firmware upgrade, v.1.31; see here. It seems to be for using the 60mm f/2.8 macro and 85mm f/1.4 lenses.

[deejjjaaaa]

I think the samsung behaves like a trained monkey in this case. I see no reason to have such a focal lengths on APS-C.

what was the point in 135mm lenses on FF ? but they were.

[deejjjaaaa]

85mm on APS-C is only a bit shorter than 135mm on FF, which was a very popular focal length for film cameras as attested by the gazillion 135mm f/2.8 manual focus lenses available on eBay. 135mm on APS-C is similar to 200mm on FF; again, a popular focal length in the film days where every brand had a 200mm f/4 prime. So I disagree with you that these focal lengths don't make sense for APS-C.

right... what does not make sense focal-length-wise is DA 40/2.8 for Pentax... certainly it is good to resuse existing designs to some extent and make probably the smallest size DA pancake, but 60mm eq FOV is... very strange... 85 x 1.5x is better suited to be an analog of 135mm eq FOV, than 40 x 1.5x be an analog of anything 50s mm eq FOV...

[Miserere]

right... what does not make sense focal-length-wise is DA 40/2.8 for Pentax... certainly it is good to resuse existing designs to some extent and make probably the smallest size DA pancake, but 60mm eq FOV is... very strange... 85 x 1.5x is better suited to be an analog of 135mm eq FOV, than 40 x 1.5x be an analog of anything 50s mm eq FOV...

I owned a Pentax-M 40mm f/2.8 for a while but never warmed up to it on my K10D, so I know what you mean. That said, one man's WTF focal length is another man's "normal", as attested by the many happy users of the DA 40. Also remember that way back in the day, 58mm was a pretty common normal lens, and Pentax also used 55mm as a normal. Goes to show you can't predict people's tastes