Having a lens with a perfectly matched sensor is great... for about one or two years.
Then there wil be new (mauch much better) sensors and you can't profit from that by simply changing the body but you need a new lens too.
For me the only great thing about that system is that it is something different that you can watch failing.
What is wrong with keeping the expensive glass and switching the bodies?
simon_k wrote:
Having a lens with a perfectly matched sensor is great... for about one or two years.
Then there wil be new (mauch much better) sensors and you can't profit from that by simply changing the body but you need a new lens too.
For me the only great thing about that system is that it is something different that you can watch failing.
What is wrong with keeping the expensive glass and switching the bodies?
I think part of the appeal of this is that the glass would not have to be overengineered in terms of optical performance, meaning potentially less weight and cost.
interesting. not sure i'd want to pay for a lens that is permanently mounted to an outdated sensor, but maybe they have a greater purpose in mind that our feeble minds are too... er, feeble, to grasp.
i'm sorry but those mockup modules are pretty laughable i think the 28-300mm zoom sounds like a really nice unit though.
But as many have said i wonder who actually has this camera...
Has anyone, anywhere, actually bought one of these?
The concept still seems ludicrous to me, as does the cost. Each of the compact sensor models costs as a smaller and more capable compact camera, and the larger sensor modules are bigger than just the lenses would be for m4/3 or the NEX. Still don't get the whole point. Why would I buy the standard zoom compact module when I can get a Canon S95 and have a more compact and more capable camera? It just doesn't work. If the modules were half the price they are now, it might make a little more sense.
