Page 3 of 65 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 650
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,061
    Default
    Where do you see internal RAW on which spec list? (Did I miss it?)

    IMO, many cameras are still 1-2 years away from offering this, but I will take it right now if they start today!


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,496
    Default
    I am only wishing. Or feeding the algorithms that pickup user request from the internet! Fewer want anything external so I am hoping Panasonic goes the way of Blackmagic.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member roxics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,642
    Default
    They really should have given a few el cheapo options as well to start. A nifty fifty for a couple hundred bucks, a 28mm f2.8 for around $300 or so, maybe even a 28-80 f3.5-5.6 for a couple hundred. So long as those lenses exist, they can charge what they are for the others without making it too difficult to get into the system.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    4,505
    Default
    True Roxics, however, maybe close behind? I thought I read 39 lenses by March 2020.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    409
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    I would have preferred the EF-mount, but not sure the photo division or whomever this camera model is under has a license for it like the EVA1 and others, and/or if Panasonic has any interest in lieu of the cinema cameras.

    Also, if you're going to make new lenses, maybe some full-frame MFT lenses (I know that sounds weird) wouldn't hurt so they could be used on other cameras as well (Panasonic, Olympus, Blackmagic).

    A full-frame Zeiss with a MFT mount can look nice too!

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...30mm_cz_2.html
    I don't think the cinema division had a license for the EF mount either, since I don't believe Canon grants licenses for it. They probably reverse-engineered it since it's a popular, well-known mount, and the requirements for a cinema camera would be minimal in terms of autofocus, etc. Plus a cinema camera is a niche product where they can take a risk like this. Still it was surprising that they did this, but again, it was probably their best option for that camera at that time. I imagine that if they make an EVA2 they will most likely use the L-mount instead (which can use adapters to mount EF lenses).

    Imagine how unworkable it would have been to launch a whole new still photography system (i.e. not niche) using an unlicensed, reverse-engineered lens mount. So I still think that the L-mount was the only reasonable option they had.

    As to full frame MFT, I don't think that would work either since L-mount has a very slightly shorter flange distance than MFT.
    Last edited by Shenan; 01-31-2019 at 08:59 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,775
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by roxics View Post
    They really should have given a few el cheapo options as well to start. A nifty fifty for a couple hundred bucks, a 28mm f2.8 for around $300 or so, maybe even a 28-80 f3.5-5.6 for a couple hundred.
    You may notice that both Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras launched with higher performance premium lenses for their new lens-mount. The manufacturers want to ensure that lens performance is really good as they are trying to get users to adopt a brand new system with a new mount and new lenses. Cheapo lenses would send the wrong message.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,061
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Shenan View Post
    I don't think the cinema division had a license for the EF mount either, since I don't believe Canon grants licenses for it. They probably reverse-engineered it since it's a popular, well-known mount, and the requirements for a cinema camera would be minimal in terms of autofocus, etc. Plus a cinema camera is a niche product where they can take a risk like this. Still it was surprising that they did this, but again, it was probably their best option for that camera at that time. I imagine that if they make an EVA2 they will most likely use the L-mount instead (which can use adapters to mount EF lenses).

    Imagine how unworkable it would have been to launch a whole new still photography system (i.e. not niche) using an unlicensed, reverse-engineered lens mount. So I still think that the L-mount was the only reasonable option they had.

    As to full frame MFT, I don't think that would work either since L-mount has a very slightly shorter flange distance than MFT.
    I would be surprised if Panasonic didn't receive some sort of permission to use it. I could see companies like RED, Blackmagic, and Kinefinity reverse-engineering the mount, but I feel like Panasonic is a part of a keiretsu system with Canon, and a certain kind of respect between the two conglomerates exists even if those relative business practices don't (in today's world).


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,061
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDingo View Post
    You may notice that both Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras launched with higher performance premium lenses for their new lens-mount. The manufacturers want to ensure that lens performance is really good as they are trying to get users to adopt a brand new system with a new mount and new lenses. Cheapo lenses would send the wrong message.
    It's totally true, but the RF and Z mount still have some relatively reasonable choices like the RF 35mm for $499 or the Z 50mm for $597. As long as we receive a few LL options like that, it's all good (and maybe make them a hundred dollars or so less).

    I guess now would be a good time to change the ole saying:

    "Invest in glass, not in camera bodies...until they change the mount."


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    4,505
    Default
    All the new lens mounts has been a little crazy, but then, we have been in a time of major transition: a lot of new players entering the field, smaller form factors, and the proliferation of mirrorless cameras. I suspect things will stabilize again shortly.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,061
    Default
    And with that said, all three lenses appear to cost more than $1700, lol:

    https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/ful...ges-and-specs/

    (Was noted that US prices will be a bit lower due to the conversion.)

    ___

    But still...would have to be insane to pay over 500 bucks for a f/4 lens from anyone (I'm sorry). Even Canon is selling their new f/4 zoom for $1,099. Canon.

    Days of fine craftsmanship are over. Sensors are too good and people don't care/see a difference as they move on from one piece of content to the next...on their phones.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 65 FirstFirst 12345671353 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •