I previously said the Panasonic-Leica initial price is rumored to be close to $2,500. And the source also said he expects the street price to be $2-300 lower once the lens is available.
Now a second source from Europe told me the price will be just under 2.000 Euro. So let’s hope the last rumors are right and the lens is indeed a bit cheaper than expected.
124 Responses
Hmm.. This sound more reasonable & realistic , under 2K .
Although I like this lens very much but I’ll not rush into it .
I will only get it if I see a true revolution m43 sensor hit the market .
Current m43 sensor is not good enough for this Leica DG lens .
Oh wow – you don’t have it, do intend to – but you know how it performs?
Or was this just a cheap way to say, once more, in an entirely unrelated thread, that you want a new sensor?
Do you think by repeating, it will make a new sensor come any sooner?
No idea why he won’t go FF. Maybe too weak to carry heavier lens.
The watch dog is back!
Yun, just go try out or rent a Fujifilm XT1. You want a better sensor, try it out, or wait for the XPRO 2.
Given the lesser 100-300 was a stretch for me and is available for closer to €400, I don’t think I’ll be upgrading for the sake of an extra smidge on zoom and only a tiny change in aperture. Sure it might be sharper, but this is outside of my budget.
… I paid 1400€ for a new Canon 100-400mm L IS, those prices for mFT lenses are completely stupid… .
Whatever.
…They are getting more and more crazy with those prices for really easy to build lenses, but for you it is “whatever”. This lens is a f4-6.3!! Not even f4-5.6… .
F/5.6 vs f/6.3 = 0.3EV difference.
So F%#% YEAH! THAT IS WORLD MAKING DIFFERENCE!
Seriously photographers who work professionally for nature photography can drop $12-15k on the table almost in cash.
And they will need f/4 and not f/5.6 as that 1EV difference in LV10 situation is crucial!
They would also need image quality, as there’s heavy cropping involved.
I’m sure they’re more concerned with that, over the size of their kit.
I am not buying it. The price is absurd for what it is relative to other things in the market. Hopefully Olympus can keep the price more reasonable…but with the addition of the OIS ….I doubt it. At least it won’t have Leica branding to drive the price up.
Why should I care about Canon (or Pentax, Sony, Nikon and Fuji) stuff as a m4/3 user.
…Why you should care? I think it’s not funny to get ripped off, it’s only mFT…
I paid .99 cents for an ice cream. It was delicious. 1400€ for a Canon thing sounds completely stupid.
…Yes, the Canon is expensive, too. But it is also a four times larger sensor, for what it was build…
F4 and above that at the long end, hell no.
Should have been a F2.8-4 or even constant F4, would probably be priced at $2500 or less.
This lens will soon be priced lower than expect correct? Half of the announced price after one year lauching.
Ahahaha…a 100-400 f2.8-f4 for under $2500…
You know in reality that lens would be 16″ long, weigh 4kg, and cost $15,000…if anyone had ever made one!
@disqus_rkJWScajlq:disqus is right.
No constant F2.8 or better (under $2000), no buy. (And of course, it shouldn’t be bigger and heavier than Oly 40–150/2.8.)
agree – price and size should be more in line with the X lenses to appeal. Sure, something more was to be expected on both accounts – but the bazooka zooms were always something that drove me (instinctively) away from DSLRs.
If they could they would but they can’t.
To be honest, I’m holding out for the Olympus 50-500mm f1.8 that they’ll be announcing shortly. My guess is that it will only be slightly larger than the current 75-300mm, and only $2000 as well.
That’s not unreasonable, because it’s only a 100-1000mm f3.6 in full-frame terms. Very small and light and slow by FF standards.
:)))))))
I hear Panasonic will later release optically perfect 100-600 f1.2 that is only the size of a pancake lens, coming in at under $500. That’s the one I want.
Should be a constant f/1.2 and priced around $149 (with the hood). And 1/3 the announced price in a year. Otherwise makes no sense.
works out cheaper than the canon 100-400mm by £400 unless you purchase import
using uk stores park cameras wex photographic etc it will be cheaper by some margin and it looks better than the canon
Although the price is still speculation at this moment and the specs
2000 euros = £1400 nice cheaper than the olympus 300 f4 also
Don’t bet on it.
2000$ = 2000 euro = 2000 £.
monetary exchange this ain’t.
you might be right ,that does not sound so appealing unless you live in the states of course .anyway it still looks better than the canon .
£ 🙁
See… Here’s another one.
I don’t want to hear it, if anyone mentions Canon over M43. You M43 fanboys brought it on yourselves.
only a fanboy because i do not own a canon camera might be the other way around if i did
WHY would i think the canon would be a better option for me one i would have to buy an adapter which would be pointless as it would put the price above the panasonic leica and with all the caveats slow focusing etc ,and size ,weight
Now if owned a canon system with lenses it might be a different option, but the panasonic still looks better to me from my view.
You can mention canon i am not stopping you .
Well if the Panasonic works for you, then BUY it. Stop mentioning Canon, which IS a better choice for image quality, y’know, what most birders want.
If you want to make a comparison, compare it against Olympus. Leave Canon and their better selection of lenses out of it.
LOL… “better choice for image quality” hahahahaha…
I’ve given you wide latitude since you don’t hide behind multiple names and have actually shared your work, but your manufactured rage against “M43 fanboys” has worn thin. You’ve made it plain that you love Fuji and despise Olympus. You’ve made your point. Repeatedly.
Time to move on if you’re only going to post complaints about Olympus, M43 or extol the virtues of Fuji,
USD under 2000 looks like to have an eye on it! And, I will try it with my E-M5II. Maybe, it will works great (always problems with CA and artefacte, when using Pana-lenses on Olympus body).
And by the way the FF Canon 800mm has only f/5.6 and it cost 13000 USD!! Why claiming if at the long end it has f/6.3! It is very good and for wildlife shooting excellent!
I cannot believe, that it will only cost under 2000 USD. In fact it will cost 2500 USD, of shure.
Even at this price it is not overpriced!
Full frame has much better noise performance, so on full frame you can get away with f/5.6 a lot easier than f/6.3 on quarter frame.
And that’s the point: micro four thirds needs fast glass, which is expensive. So from a cost-saving point of view micro four thirds does not make a world of sense.
There is no such thing as a “quarter frame”.
Nitpicking….4/3 still has only a quater of the area of a full frame sensor.
Call it the way you want.
Full frame is a misnomer. “Quarter frame” is even more misleading. We aren’t here to discuss the color of red herrings. There is no such thing as “quarter frame.”
Call it “small frame” and “smaler quarter frame” 🙂
And DOF is a funny thing: if you demand the same field of view, lets say 800mm, and the same DOF for a grizzly, same short time 1/1000 = 2 stops different ISO. “smaller quarter frame” at F4 / 800 ISO will need F8 / ISO 3200 on a “small frame” camera.
And “smaler quarter frame” will deliver the better Picture.
Only problem with that scenario is if you are shooting a grizzly with an 800mm lens on FF DOF will not be a problem at the distances you would use 800mm . So in fact you will be shooting at the same nominal aperture , shutter speed and ISO.
Would you prefer if they called mFT after the nearest film size which would be the mighty 110 film size .Olympus did make half frame cameras with wait for it half the area of 35mm film, so calling something with half that area again quarter frame is hardly outrageous
Calling 135 Format Full Frame is silly, since there are several full frame formats.
Why are you on a MFT site providing lessons on FF performance? It’s not like the differences are a secret. And what makes sense is up to the buyer.
“And by the way the FF Canon 800mm has only f/5.6”. You don’t mean that seriously?
Yes, take a look at: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/super-telephoto/ef-800mm-f-5-6l-is-usm/!ut/p/z1/hY_LDoJADEW_xQ-YtCIiLHmEMAY0YKLjbAyL4ZHwCjO48OsdjBtjxO7ae5qeAgcGvMvvdZmruu_yRvdXbt2SNLIj6mNs25mHbhJguE5N4xgbcPkHcB3jj3IR9i9gYV8bGGPiJyXwIVcVqbuiB9aITgoJTBTA5DSIkSjRiKHqVT8PiY3YtqQgW2I1pJZkkq1W5Z_HMHN26FqBFTkHDyk1v4CzZ2rACfyNEc7Cb2Dhn6Flj9gtTrRcrZ690-eq/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/
Calculate the aperture diameter: 800mm/5.6 = 14.3cm vs. 400mm/6.3=6.35cm, leading to a five times larger aperture area, capturing five times more light in total.
But, the FF canon 800 has to cover FullFrame sensor and not MFT-sensor!! And at the center it doesn’t matter, it is only the edges.
It covers FF, and therefore it is hard to compare. All these comparisons make only limited sense. Put it on a crop sensor and you get even more reach. Use it at the same f-stop (if possible, here unfortunately not) and you have a higher S/N ratio for the same shutter speed and ISO. It requires more glass and size resulting in this tremendous size.
“But, the FF canon 800 has to cover FullFrame sensor and not MFT-sensor!! And at the center it doesn’t matter, it is only the edges.”
How large do you think an 800mm f/5.6 lens for m43 would be?
Oh, the Insecurity… WHY mention Canon at all?
M43 fan boys complain about Canon fanboys, yet mention Canon as a comparison all the time.
PROTIP: Stop.
I don’t see a complaint about Canon “fanboys”.
What make do you want them to use when comparing price, value and performance?
Your advice can be taken seriously when you stop crawling to M4/3 forum to sell fujifilm insecurity. So obvious.
This 100-400 is EXACTLY a 100-400mm lens. Due to the sensor crop factor, we get a field of view of 800mm. You can’t compare the two at all since, that 800mm Canon lens would also be a whopping 1600mm on an m43’s camera.
Well, that’s kinda what I expected all along. It’s still very expensive, and it better be excellent. Will probably be a good buy after a year or two and an inevitable price drop.
This lens is part of the PRO line, and I don’t see much price drop in that line – as opposed to discounts one can find with the mainstream lenses.
Take for example the 42.5mm f1.2 – after close to 2 years since availability, the price is still about the same.
The PRO line is Olympus. This here is a Leica branded lens, like the Nocticron which you refer to. Which currently is about 250 EUR below launch price (~15% decline). So you’re right in that they tend to keep their price well. Other PanaLeicas are about 20-25% off their launch price.
As far as I can tell, the MSRP does not change at all for any of the Panasonic or Olympus lenses. Only after a year or so, various deals and promotions start to appear for them.
“The PRO line is Olympus”
WOW…. The Oly Fanboyism is strong in this one.. What are you saying, that Panasonic can’t have PRO lenses? Did Olympus trademark PRO?
The Leica branded lenses are some of the Best in M43. Are you saying the Nocticron isn’t a PRO lens?
None of this things were said, so you’re just arguing with yourself here.
You’re mixing up product designation (the PRO in Olympus’ lens names, not sure about the trademark, but would not be surprised) with an adjective (a pro lens, a pro-grade lens, etc.).
So no, this lens is not part of a PRO line, because Panasonic does not have a PRO line. Their pro lenses (whatever that means) are not uniformly branded, so you have them either in the form of Leica DG lenses, or Lumix G X Vario lenses. It’s a bit messy, if you asked me.
@ <2000 € this will be a great lens, for many serious wildlife shooter. Though I doubt I'll be getting it, it's not my area of use so much. But then again it depends a little on the 300mmF4 from Olympus and it's quality and price as well. I need the bright lenses for sports so the 300mm would be better for me. I currently sometimes rent the 300mm F2.8 43 lens, that works fine on the E-M1.
This is getting more reasonable, let’s hope for truly under 2000€.
Think I will get it to help me move my ass on the week ends instead of gassing here or elsewhere 🙂
It will be 1999€ what translates about $2499 after taxes.
Actually it will be about 1699€ at 3Q 2016.
Olympus will release 150-450mm f/4 at Q4 2016 that is compatible with 1.4x TC for 2199-2299€ price.
In 2016-2017 we will have serious amount of alternatives for telephotos.
Is this pure wishing or is there any Rumor about that?
What’s the difference?
A 150-450/f4 will be $10,000 at a minimum. Not a penny less.
Absolutely, the 43 300mmF2.8 is still around 5700€
Euro and Dollar prices are usually the same 1999€ = $1999
You just have to look at the Nikon or Canon 200-400mm f4 to get an idea of roughly how big or expensive a 150-450mm lens would be. The smaller back flange distance of m4/3 and the smaller format would not allow it to be made much smaller. In fact if it was 450mm and f4 it would almost certainly be larger. There is the possibility that Olympus may make a longer or wider aperture lens, but it will be big and expensive.
Yes an Olympus representative did say they were thinking of making either a superfast supertelephoto, or a long tele zoom, but if they did make a lens like this it would be big and very expensive.
only NZ$4000 !! bargain!! oh wait. ack used car price 🙁
The original rumored price of 2500 is still labeled an FT5, while this under 2000 price is FT4.
So which is it?
http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-panasonic-leica-100-400mm-lens-will-be-released-in-february-for-around-2500/
The rumor rating depends on the previous reliability of the source factored by confirmation from multiple sources. But those are still rumors. Sources get the information from inside the companies – and this time the companies themselves might not yet have decided on the price. One meeting they might lean to $2500 – next meeting $2000. This is an unreleased product after all: details would be set in stone only at the release.
This is a rumor site and the rating is a (semi) random number. The original rumor was based on suposedly leaked local price (they never get an exact price that far in advance) converted to euros/$ without regard for different pricing and taxes between countries. It was obvious unreliable, still got FT5.
The scale is FT1 (unlikely) to FT5 (very likely)
Or if it’s too expensive, you can buy a $99 Panny 25mm 1.7 and shoot with that only lens for a while. Henri Cartier Bresson shot exclusively with his 50mm lens.
A $99 lens that is not on sale for $99 anymore.
Pretty sure the 25/1.7 won’t let you get the types of shots you were hoping to get with a 100-400.
sure it will, you just need to get 16x closer ;-D
Will this lens be substantially better than Nikon 1 VR 70-300mm CX covering the same range?
It is retailing for $990 and smaller, lighter.
Panasonic, take notes of it.
Huh? The Nikon 1 sensor is considerably smaller than MFT so the lens can also be smaller. It’s a completely different system.
Nikon 70-300 is designed to have resolving power for the 20mp sensor. Yes the senor is smaller, but Nikon has done a great job in delivering good resolution. Search for the comparisons w FF frame 600mm lens, you’ll be amazed. And it smokes Panasonic 100-300mm
It costs twice as much too…
I would say the Nikon 1 sensor is slightly, not considerably, smaller than a 4/3rds sensor.
And why would you say that? I would say about half the size.
It’s much more than the difference between m4/3 and aps-c, whatever that’s worth…
It is half the size. I don’t consider people he stand 3 feet tall to be slightly, not considerably, smaller than me for instance. They are dwarfed and so is the Nikon.
And that is what the Nikon 1 is: a significantly smaller sensor just like the mFT sensor is significantly smaller than an APS-c sensor. And they both need to be so it makes sense. Otherwise, the lenses aren’t significantly smaller either.
The lens at least weighs more. It is a 70-300 f4.5 f5.6 lens. And it weighs 580 gram versus 505 of the Panasonic. I believe the Oly weighs 480 grams. At photozone i saw a review. The Nikon is nothing special and for the best results especially at the long end needs to be stopped down. it is not weathersealed etc.
You can crop a $99 Olympus 40-150 and get the same range as the Nikon 70-300. Hardly what this is all about.
Not really. 150 on 4/3 is 300eq, 300 on 1″ is 810mm equivalent. Your crop ratio will need to be 2.7, or 7.3 in terms of megapixels. Your 20mpix on gx8 will turn into 2.5, f/5.6 into f/15.
you clearly have no idea how good 70-300mm CX is. Check it out first.
I have an idea: it is a reasonably good lens. It has CA and for really good results at the long end it needs to be stopped down. For a 70-300 lens it is twice as expensive as an Oly 75-300 or a Panny 100-300 in which case the latter is even a bit faster with f4 to f5.6 vs f4.5 to f5.6. It also weighs less on top of that (500 vs 580 grams).
I didn’t say it was a bad lens. I’m sure it’s fine. My point is pricing lenses based on FF equivalent focal length is a retarded concept/
It has been almost 2 years since the last Nikon 1 lens was announced. I would be hesitant investing in the Nikon 1 system, now that Nikon has put their resources into fixed lens 1″ sensor cameras.
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/18/three-new-nikon-compact-cameras-with-1-sensor-and-different-focal-lengths-coming-in-early-2016.aspx/
Leica simple NEVER have to take note of ANY competition. Simple as that. The Nikon is not even weather- and dustsealed.
Second point: the Nikon is a 70-300 lens not a 100-400. For manufacturing it is of no concern what it is put on. So the Nikon at 70-300 is quite expensive compared to a 100-300 Panasonic which costs half.
Also: when I look at objective reviews the Nikon is nothing special. Just gets 3 out of five stars and needs to be stopped down to F8 to get good IQ. Especially at the long end. Leica: let’s wait and see. But a lot can be much better than the Nikon lens.
Nothing wrong with the Nikon, its IQ and build quality fits perfectly in the Nikon 1 line. Really nice for most users, but far from excellent otoh too.
Random: Would a stacked sensor help deal away with field curvature? I mean, you’d have multiple imaging planes to “sample” from.
That’s not what a stacked sensor means, at least not how it’s been currently implemented. If you mean a stacked sensor as Sony does for its 1″ sensor, it means that they “stack” support electronics like DRAM and analogue-digital-converters directly on the CMOS in order to increase readout rates.
If you mean stacked sensors in a different sense, like Foveon, where there is a different active sensor layer that it sensitive to different wavelengths, that’s a whole other kettle of fish. I imagine that trying to develop full-colour pixel data from different layers that are seeing slightly different images would only cause more problems rather than less.
The best way to deal with field curvature would be with a curved sensor…
Any reason why you thought of that in this thread? I don’t think anyone has ever complained about field curvature in long telephoto lenses.
I was just reading up on field curvature. I remember hearing about future stacked sensors as a means of increasing resolution- organic sensor tech. Something along those lines.
We could always wait until the lens is available to see if it’s any good and learn the price and then, complain about the facts, rather than the rumors.
what is the name of this website you are on?
It’s not “Complain, complain, complain”.
43complaints.com 🙂
It seems that way far too many times.
Why are there so many trolls on this site? Every lens or body rumor immediately gets a bunch of old as dust posts about FF price or performance equivalence.
It’s just a general lack of imagination.
imagination, confidence, social skills, maturity…….. 🙂
It was actually a M43 admirer who mentioned full Frame first. Just read the time on the comments.
Don’t know why anyone would mention FF vs M43. FF wins in almost everything but portability. And Image Quality easily.
Ah reminds me of that comparison between the RX100 vs the zeiss otus. Easily. Heh.
“FF wins in almost everything but portability. And Image Quality easily. ”
So THAT’S why quite a few professionals are deciding they don’t need their FF gear and buying solely MFT stuff. Including studio photographers for whom portability is not an issue.
Silly old them, eh….?
This site has been moderated since February. You may remember before then, this site was overrun with trolls. It is significantly better now.
The FF comparisons get old for the regulars, but I think the conversations can benefit newcomers. If you have any particular posters that you want to complain about, you can do it in this post and I’ll have a look.
Except MrALLCAPS. His 15 minutes is about up.
It’s gotten better but as others have mentioned I don’t understand why people who think MFT is overpriced, “doesn’t make sense”, is a bad value vs FF or loses in every way to the mythical FF bother to post the same points repeatedly.
Most MFT users I know have downsized from larger system including FF so the constant “lessons” aren’t helpful. Thanks for your efforts on providing a resource for MFT users.
I agree and you’re welcome. I’ve learned so much from the users on this site that I’m happy to take the time to mod.
I think the release of the A7 series has revived the notion of FF as some mythical panacea.
I doubt the FF trolls that come here actually own FF equipment. If they had invested that kind of money they’d be busy using it to either support their career of art. They wouldn’t be coming here (and other sites) to bellyache about equipment they didn’t own.
I enjoy intelligent and civil debate about the advantages of various M43 models as well as other systems. I think the majority of regulars on this site feel the same way. Don’t worry too much about the clowns.
Considering you can get this telephoto system with a GX8 for less thank 3k is pretty cool imo.
Of course, it should NOT cost that much. It COULD, and probably WILL, but $1000 Tamron SP 150-600/5-6.3 on any lowly Rebel beats it silly, and as such the price above does not make any sense.
With your Rebel and your Tamron you will have such an advantage over the poor dupes with a GX8 and PL 100-400mm. You should keep that secret to yourself.
Half the price at about 50% better performance (in terms of total light)… Why would I keep it from anybody? Especially rabid Panasonic managers who don’t know the market and can sell shit as a result of pulling the pricing of their stuff out of their stupid asses?
Yes and you can use it as a baseball bat too. I have tried it and the Tamron worked out just fine, just the right length and weight. The Leica…just can be used for photography sadly. Seems to be a precision tool for some people with a true afinity for just photography….To my mind indeed very restricted.
I was thinking about adding the Tamron to my Nikon D7200 lenses, but it’s somewhat small and inexpensive. I should probably buy something that requires two assistants to handle.
I feel that about half of the people posting and reading this website have nothing better to do than troll 43 users) it’s kind of pathetic. Aren’t there FF aimed websites, where circle jerk never ends and everyone is just euphoric of their dof, fapping on zeiss glass (that most of them can’t afford), comparing canon vs nikon to no end, sharing their expert opinion on FF related materials and looking down on people that happen to buy a camera that doesn’t (gasp! How dare they!) have a FF sensor? Is burning in the asses of FF users so overwhelming that they Google 43 related sites, create accounts and spend their time making sure everyone’s day is ruined and they defended FF (that doesn’t need defending). What a dark, pathetic image folks)
I suspect most of the FF trolls can’t afford FF equipment anyway. They’re probably using US$400 Canikon equipment, on Auto, no less. However, they’re amazing photographers, of course.
It’s getting to where I don’t even want to read comments because it’s the same junk on every post. The Nocticron is really a f/8.0 lens at 6×6 equivalence so it should be about $49. A FF 85mm 1.8 could “destroy” any MFT lens. A Tamron 100-800mm is only $400. And don’t forget MFT can’t gather much light because the small sensor photon cells aren’t big enough. And you have to divide FF noise then multiple MFT noise to get the “true noise” calculation for MFT sensors. Blah, blah.
It would be nice if the junk could be weeded out so people with an interest in MFT gear could share thoughts and insights.
Absolutely. m4/3 is a compact and very portable (mostly) format that allows a certain framing with a certain lens at a certain number of pixels per inch resolution. It makes use of its permanent live view operation to give the user some alternative ways of working compared to a “conventional” DSLR and is also a very good format for video. Oh and it has limitations tracking moving things (getting better all the time but still a bit behind what the good SLR kit can do)
And that’s pretty much it 🙂 Work out if it’s gonna do what you want it to and away you go (or don’t). The only thing “wrong” with the system up to now is that it hasn’t covered the full spectrum of focal lengths needed to make it a viable alternative to a DSLR setup (for people that shoot at both the wide and the long end of the scale, which many do!). The new lenses finally plug that gap, albeit about two years too late really. OK if you work at the more marginal end of things for light then it might not be the best choice, perhaps, but image quality and equivalent f stops etc are only a very small part of any real comparisons. Plus most of the “keyboard warriors” will likely only ever post their results online (IF they actually have any), whereupon you can barely tell what format produced the shot anyway!
I use an SLR and two m4/3 cameras and I can’t say any of them feel inferior to the others. I use them for different things and they all do what I need them to. FF would have been a complete waste of money for me. Doesn’t make it bad, or outdated, or dinosaur-like. Just not something I need!
But the internet is full of the negative approach to everything. It’s as if all the world’s inadequate, insecure people, who obviously know better than the rest of the world if only they had a platform to present it from, and who are unable to enjoy life due to their build up of frustrations, were suddenly given a public outlet of fairly guaranteed anonymity 😉 ………
No it should be more like $8,000 because it’s really a 200-800 and it will blow anything FF equivalent out of the water (APS-C doesn’t exist, btw, you merely imagined it). It will track moving things just as well if not better than any SLR kit could dream about. It’s also much smaller than it should be physically possible to make.
BUT it’s actually only a 100-400 on a tiny pathetic sensor and an iphone can outdo it with a Chinese telephoto attachment so really it should only cost about $1000 at most. It’s also far too big to be of any use in m4/3 and it won’t be able to track anything that so much as shuffles off it’s mark. Oh yeah and the Olympus lens will be MUCH better.
There, that’s covered everything. No need for any more discussions! Now I need to find a post about the Oly 300 and state how much better the 100-400 will be…. 😉
Launch prices for panasonic photographic stuff always amazes me (I’m a former gx1, current really happy gx7 user, both bought used, + nikon dslr in the, now rare, case I want to walk with lots of weight, and tons of lens cause I’m a frequent victim of GAS 😛 almost all from used market of course ).
I think their price policies and marketing/commercial section works so bad that is a mistery how they’re keeping business in the camera market.
They’re not able to publicize their product strong point (gx7 is a GREAT camera) plus every time they present a new product its launch price is so high that scares potential customers, who will look elsewhere (i.e. olympus, sony..).
After less than a year, usually, the product didn’t sell almost anything, and the price is slashed literally. After less than 2 years the quotation for the highly costing panasonic products are already lower than older olympus models which at the beginning costed less..
And yes, 2k$ for a dark zoom.. I really can’t understand. Come on panasonic!
Absolutely agree. Like they live in their own world. Same with Oly.
I guess all decent marketing people are snapped up by Canon, which able to sell tons of mostly inferior cameras pricing it mostly right.