Panasonic re-invents the Sony NEX-7

More or less.

http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-new-images-and-specs-of-the-panasonic-gx7/

 

I don't see how yet another Panasonic Micro-4/3 is "reinventing" a Sony
APS-C product. In any case, the specs look closer to the NEX-5 than the
NEX-8.

 

Some weirdness with processing the RAWs in Adobe PS with the Fujis. The resolution of the current top 4/3rds sensor is pretty extreme, and you can actually soften it to get the kind of noise levels present in APS, if you experiment.

 

I've never had a camera with auto-ISO so I don't miss it. As for
setting hyperfocal distances, what is your objection to turning the
focus ring?

 

In manual mode I don't want auto-anything.

So pick lenses that have that marking. Geez.

 

This is the problem, very few modern lenses have them.

David

 

Until a few months ago I didn't realize there was such a thing as auto
ISO. So far I still haven't used it.

I can see the use for an upper limit, but why a lower limit?

Agreed.

 

As I said before one can, figure it out.

 

I can see it as a useful third auto option, but it's not something I'm
going to die without.

There are three f/0.95 lenses for Micro 4/3, two of which (17.5 & 25mm)
are branded "Voigtlander" and the third (35mm) branded "Mitakon", all of
which have such markings. With a suitable adapter, most lenses for the
Leica M will work--again they're pretty much all marked.

 

If it's something of importance to someone though it's an easy thing to
check, and Micro 4/3 will take just about any lens ever made for APS-C
and larger.

 

That's not what I call "manual" though. That's a third "preferred"
autooption.
As for

I found three different ones with five minutes of googling, two of which
are available from B&H.

Voigtlander seems to know something that you and Panasonic don't.

 

Yes you can but that doesn't make it quick, accurate or easy. When a lens
doesn't have any focal distance marks either one is reduced to estimating
(looking up graphs, computing etc) the hyperfocal distance under the
conditions, then finding an object in the environment (if there is one) that
is (you estimate) that distance away and focussing on it. I am not saying
that marks on the lens are a perfect solution but they are quick and easy
and give you a reference point right then and there as you are setting up
the shot without any other messing about. With a little practice you get to
know the lens and can, if required, adapt by focussing a little farther out,
stopping down another stop or whatever produces results that are likely to
satisfy. I cannot see why the lens makers will not give you a bit of help
here.

D

 

Why?

D

 

Mostly because they aren't. Take a look at the offerings from the major
manufacturers and you'll find relatively few that have such markings.
There are some that have them if it's a matter of real importance to
someone but it's not the norm.

 

Many of the EVIL camera lenses (Samsung NX, Sony NX, most FourThirds
system) use focus-by-wire, so the rotational position of the focus ring
doesn't actually correspond to an actual focused distance and so the
ring could be at any position and the lens could be focused at any distance.
No real place to put the marking in that case.

 

Landscape photography should by nature be a slow and deliberate process.
That includes looking carefully composing, using live view, so I can
tell exactly what is in focus and what is not. Remember too, that at the
short end of the hyperfocal distance, focus may be tack sharp.

 

I always thought to use shutter priority or aperature priority for those situations, or have I been missing something ?


I've never used a hyperfocal setting as I've never really understood the term 'acceptable focus', acceptable by who and under what conditions.

On the other hand I did find the IR focus mark indicators and the DOF indicators useful on the odd ocasion.

 

You are right. But, the oOF is usually more noticable at the closer end.
I should have said it better.

 

The scene may be static but the light often changes very rapidly, IME a few
seconds fumbling can mean you lose the shot because the light that inspired
the picture has gone.

 

That may be true. Depending on your location the magic light may only
last for a few minutes, to a few seconds. Of course there are times when
you grab what you can get and pray. It's like a lot of other things, you
still have to use deliberation in setting up a landscape shot. If one is
familiar with their equipment, they can determine a reasonable
hyperfocal distance, almost by instinct. If the film days, I had the
ability to make a reasonably accurate exposure, without a meter. I can't
do that know, due to lack of practice.
the answer may be not to waste time fumbling, and set up quickly. But,
that conflicts with the fact that I like to look around and see what
happens if I move a few feet in either direction. If there was a sure
fire formula, photography would not be either fun, nor an art form.