Michiganian08 wrote:Samsung's dual stablization which just might do the trick.
"Dual stabilization" is a marketing gimmick. The optical IS is what's important. Turning up the ISO to lower the shutter speeds in good lighting is only going to reduce image quality.
Michiganian08 wrote:Samsung is no Canon or Nikon when it comes to pro gear
I see you've never used a GX
Is it better than Zeiss optics:
No, there aren't many things that are up to the quality / standards of Zeiss. Just below or equal to Zeiss optics I would put Leica.
That being said, Schneider makes fair optics. After all this (even at the new price)
It's not overly large so that is why it is f3.2 at 24mm. It is a little surprising it only goes to f5.8
The Summicron-50mm is after nearly a century still called by many the best 50mm ever. Zeiss makes excellent glass, and so does Schneider, but objectively it rarely if ever outperforms Leica. Thank god for the huge FFD on R-mount glass.
It's moot, anyway, since this lens was not manufactured by Schneider. It was done under license. Cybershot lenses are manufactured by Cosina, and the VLUX/CLUX/Lumix lenses by Panasonic.
The aperture is 5.8 at the tele end because it is a factor of the focal length. An f/2.8 at that length would require the lens to be triple, if not, quadruple the size.
spacemart wrote:those pics should be crisper... I think I'll pass
With the amount of diffraction you typically on a superzoom lens, this camera's clarity actually amazes me. If you absolutely need that level of sharpness, stick with a prime lens camera.
But what do you mean by "marketing under license"? You are implying that these companies are allowing their names to but put on some other companies' lenses, and that's just contrary to fact.
It's exactly what's happening. Schneider's consumer level lenses are manufactured under license by Pentax, with theoretical design and oversight done by Schneider-Kreuznach. In all honesty, I believe they are just straight Pentax rebrands with the name bought. Leica sells designs to Panasonic, and Zeiss to Sony.
pjheinz83 wrote:I've haven't seen more than 1 or 2 that do. They're few and far between. It's a shame for people that prefer them.
An OVF is nigh-worthless for framing on a zoom lens, as anyone using the a default VF on a rangefinder can tell you with a 135mm attached. You get parallax problems at the close end, on top of that.
All that being said, this is very good for a superzoom. It minimizes the softness and has a very robust feature set.
It's been 20 years, I am going to copy that floppy.