(FT3) Panasonic manager says: 12-35mm and 35-100mm will not have Powerzoom and no f/2.0 aperture.

Share

The Taiwanese Panasonic manager (Mr.Yuasa) told at ePrice (Click here to read the translation) that the upcoming new 12-35mm and 35-100mm X lenses will not have powerzoom! If that is true than I am very surprised! These lenses are supposed to be ideal companions for filmmakers too or not? I hope this is not a mistake by the manager. He also said that it is very unlikely that the new lenses will have a f/2.0 constant aperture as this would make the lenses too big.

Hmmm, take that with a grain of salt ok? All I know from my sources is that the lenses will have a constant aperture and be weather sealed. Let’s see if I can get some feedback from my sources soon…

Rumors classification explained (FT= FourThirds):
FT1=1-20% chance the rumor is correct
FT2=21-40% chance the rumor is correct
FT3=41-60% chance the rumor is correct
FT4=61-80% chance the rumor is correct
FT5=81-99% chance the rumor is correct

 

Here are the links to the two amazing Olympus Four Thirds zooms:
Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 at Amazon, Olympus US store, Adorama, B&H, eBay Zuiko 35-100mm f/2.0 at Amazon, Olympus US store, Adorama, B&H, eBay

Share
  • Gard

    Wouldn’t mind if the 12-35 was a constant f/4, but hope the 35-100 is at least a constant f/2.8 to get fast shutterspeeds and freeze action and reduce camera shake in low light situations with reasonable iso.

    • f/2.8 sounds quite likely …. 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for DSLRs are quite popular because of the light gathering ability and reach… 35-100mm f/2.8 would be quite nice to have. Obviously f/2.0 would be even better… if size is disregarded…

      Now …. about the price….

    • Aly

      A Canon EF 24-70 F2.8L retails for $1279, so it that what we can expect price wise?

      • MikeS

        Well…

        Canon 50mm f/1.4 – ~$350
        Nikon 50mm f/1.4 – ~$450
        Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 – $550

        Canon 28mm f/2.8 – ~$250
        Nikon 28mm f/2.8 – ~$275
        Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 – ~$300

        Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 – ~$2200
        Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 – ~$2400
        Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.? – uh oh.

        • …and if somehow the 35-100 X zoom has a constant f2.8 zoom and sells for $1400, people will be on the verge of committing public immolation on this forum over the outrageous price :D

        • Aly

          I was thinking pricing more along the lines of OMFG!

        • Mr. Reeee

          Yikes!

          @Andi You’re damn right!

  • Andi

    Thanks God, no Powerzoom!

    Sometimes, they should remember, that there are also people out here, who wants to take photos with their cameras…
    Curios, isn’t it?

    • Parci

      +1

      • iluvhatemail

        these lenses aren’t for you. There are tons more you can use for photography.

        • Fish

          Actually it sounds like they are for him… because they lack of powerzoom makes it look as though they were optimized for photography rather than videos.

    • Bob B.

      Andi…I agree. I do not know why the market went into video and stills in the same camera. What happens is…instead of doing one thing REALLY well…it does two things mediocre, (and usually still photographers end up paying for a lot of video capability that they do not use). I am a still photographer. I think it is a completely separate discipline than film/video. To be good at either one I feel you have to be dedicated to one or the other…I guess there are some superstars out there…but…….
      I own a Panasonic 45-175mm X lens. Now…that lens has had its problems with IS, firmware patches, etc.
      I praise the lens and think it is a keeper (and believe me …I like my primes any day of the week)…but this lens is just so small, and very decently sharp.
      It has a power zoom button (and since I am using a GF1 I get no MM readout and there are no markings on the barrel..sorry Pany…I was not going to run out and get an new body for that reason), and I find the power zoom to be totally useless. Just useless. Too slow…not fast, easy or practical when this photographer is shooting pictures. The zoom is “by-wire” …no stops or markings to know where you are in the zoom range with mechanical feedback of any kind. And the zoom ring rotates in reverse of any other zoom lens I have ever used. If the lens was made with just still photographers in mind..it would have had a mechanical zoom and had zoom stops at the top and bottom of the zoom range and been a MUCH more positive, useful tool to use for me as a still photographer. I do not know how video users feel about the lens …but I would love to know if it serves their needs well or not?
      I am glad to hear that the new fast lenses have no power zoom…although I am not in the market for these two new items.

      • mahler

        I totally disagree. It is one of the prime advantages of m4/3 and mirrorless in general that you can integrate stills and video seamlessly into one device, delivering good quality in both disciplines. m4/3 should not give this up. The GH2 is an almost ideal camera, integrating both. Although I mostly shoot stills, it is very pleasant to have the option to shoot high quality video when needed. And because I use video less frequently I want to have stills and video integrated into the same device.

        I regularly produce AV-Shows from my travels and now have the possibility to integrate stills and videos seamlessly into the production without carrying multiple devices.

        So far, I can’t see how the video capabilities have a negative impact on the (excellent) image quality of a camera such a GH2.

        The power zoom of the 45-175mm was in my test surprisingly smooth to operate, so it is a welcome feature integrated into the product portfolio. Those, who absolutely do not want power zoom can buy an alternative without it (i.e. the 45-200mm).

        So while Panasonic always had a close to perfect product stragegy, exploiting mirrorless to what is possible (EVF from the beginning, tilt screen, fast CDAF, video) Olympus seems to slowly wake up and recognizes than mirrorless has more potential than just one single PEN concept, about whose mythos nobody really cares.

        • I’ve gotta agree the Bob B on this. Video, while a neat feature to have on a camera, is something I so rarely use that it is next to no importance to me. I’ll even go so far as to say a dedicated video button is a waste of a button. Video should just simply be on the mode dial along with all the other shooting modes.

          As far as delivering good quality in both mediums; I simply find that impossible. A video needs a story, it needs to be planned and thought out in advance. You need tripods, dollies, and steady mounts. In fact you need so much rigging and mounting gear for video it totally negates the small size advantage m4/3’s has. Really, why not use a full frame DSLR if the camera is but one tiny piece of the set up? Anything less than that is just a video snap shot…and my iPhone works just fine for that purpose.

          On the flip side, all I need for a nice still image is my camera, and my lens. Unless I’m shooting long telephotos even a tripod isn’t required these days.

          So while it’s nice that these cameras can do video, I really hope Panasonic puts photographers needs first when designing m4/3’s products.

          • Bob B.

            yeah Eric…I guess you are more serious about your photography…not the casual vacationer..I am the same way…video is soooo another commitment…I would have bought a GH2 as it had a lot of improvements over my GF1…but I just could not justify the extra cost and also knowing I was buying a camera that was video oriented didn’t sit well with me (great camera, tho). …but I think Panasonic was smart having a camera marketed more towards vid. Its gives MFT range….
            I just kept saying at that point where is the REAL GF2???? I plan on buying a GX1 (finally) …but I understand if still shooters don’t. It is a camera that should have been released over a year ago.
            LOL! Still… I love the format! Great little cameras.

            • mahler

              The GH2 is *not* video oriented. By its body concept and design, it is foremost a stills camera !

              • Bob B.

                The GH2 “is” video oriented. It “is” touted by video shooters (like the admin of this site)i.e. all the hacking of the firmware to get even better “video” performance out of the camera……and it would have been $300 cheaper if that was not the case.
                It is a very good still camera…but you have to buy into something else to get that.

                • mahler

                  No, really not. The “hack” is an unofficial, unsupported, private enterprise, you can’t count that.

                  The camera’s price does not come from the differences it has in video over its G3 sibling.

                  * The GH2 has a better more expensive body with more controls.
                  * It has the larger multiaspect sensor.
                  * It has a larger finder.
                  * It has an eye sensor.
                  * It is the prestige flagship product
                  and other details not found in the G3

                  All of the above things are more oriented to the stills photographer than the videographer. The body certainly is more after a traditional stills camera than a video camera.

                  So all the benefits the GH2 has are equally or even more profitable for a stills photographer. If I need a device mainly used for video footage, I probably would not buy a GH2.

                  • RAS

                    “If I need a device mainly used for video footage, I probably would not buy a GH2.”

                    As a videographer, I can definitely attest that there is no better value (in terms of image quality, feature-set, and price) in the video market today than the GH2. I don’t think I’ve taken a single photo with my GH2.

                    • mahler

                      Sure, there are individuals, which buy the GH2 for video. But to call it a camera especially made for videographers and that stills photographers do not have signifcant benefits buying this camera (thus the phrase that the GH2 is video-oriented) is wrong.

                      The camera is a typical hybrid camera, which does both worlds very good. If a stills photographer looks for the best m4/3 stills camera, he should get the GH2. If somebody looks for the best video camera (which also can take good stills) the GH2 is the one to go for.

                      It is hybrid. If you never shoot video, it is still advisable to get the GH2.

                    • spam

                      I totally agree with Mahler on this. The GH2 design is clearly photooriented. It also happen to have a really good video mode, but take a look at any mid level Canon, Panasonic or Sony videocamera and you’ll see that the GH2 has almost nothing in common with these designs. Then compare it to almost any (d)SLR made the last 10-20 years – do you see any similarites in the design?

                  • Eh, isn’t the G2 outwards practically identical to GH2? Not the G3.

                    • Bobby

                      Anyone who thinks that the GH2 is just for stills, has no clue what they’re talking about. There’s a whole community of filmmakers using this camera and FINALLY Panasonic might address them with the features WE want.

                      It’s great if you use it for still photography, but don’t act so clueless.

          • mahler

            According to your logic, since I only shoot raw, it would be appropiate to make a camera without a JPEG engine (excpet a small one, which is able to show the LCD image).

            Even if some never shoots video, it is very wise for the manufacturer to include this feature in a mirrorless camera, because it makes the whole camera series more attractive and therefore more economic to develop.

            And personally, I don’t need all this rig for video. I am not talking about professional footage, I talk about small additions to my still image shows, where video is better able to transport certain stuff than stills photography. I want to decide myself, if I need stills or video and want be able to that in one device and not many.

            The notion that Panasonic did not put photographers first, when designing their cameras and the GH2 in particular is nonsense. The GH2 is currently still the best m4/3 stills camera on the marktet with respect to photography ergonomics and arguably also IQ. There is absolutely no indication that the video capabilities hampered the still image qualities. It is even fair to assume that because to the video capabilities, the camera has that good performance.

            • BAH

              Mahler
              You need to try out the other M4/3 cameras before coming to that judgement.
              The GH2 is one of the worst of the current batch of m4/3 for photography.
              Photo was a afterthought on GH2. G3,Oly Ep3 performs better GH2 in that respect….but theyre weaker on video.
              You seem to focus on evfs and ergonomics but not on output quality. There are cheaper cameras that perform better.

              • I failed to see how G3 is better when I tried it.

                Just checked dxomark and according to their numbers, the difference is irrelevant.

                I did not try the EP-3. I assume that its RAW put to shame the GH2…?

                • Bob

                  Have to totally disagree with BAH. I looked at all the m43 cameras before buying, and the GH2 is by far the best choice for still photography. It’s got the best viewfinder, the best ergonomics (controls), the best grip, and the best sensor, and support for multiple aspect ratios natively, not through cropping and throwing away detail. The ONLY advantages of the EP3 over the GH2 are “better” jpegs (though not everyone would agree with that) and a better flash system.

                  Since I shoot raw, the jpeg output doesn’t concern me much, and GH2 raws are far better than Oly’s: Less noise, more DR, higher resolution.

                  I would like the Oly flash system, though.

                  • Mr. Reeee

                    ++++++ Mahler, Bob

                    Video is the “extra” feature in the GH2. It’s photography first and as Mahler said, it’s the best M4/3 camera to date, top to bottom. No, it’s not the most pocketable, nor the most fashionable, but as pure photographic tool, it’s a truly excellent device.

                    The fact that it does video superior to many high-end cameras at a fraction of the cost is astounding. You need never shoot ONE SECOND of video with a GH2 and still have an very satisfying stills camera.

                    Video is simply, especially on the level of the GH2, is a great feature to have. I’ve often mulled buying a dedicated video camera, but simply couldn’t justify either the expense, or another inevitable pile of necessary accessories. Having it built-in, accessible, easy to setup and use is just great.

                    If the dedicated video button is bothersome, deactivate it. 10 seconds in the Custom Menu. I did.

                    And the hell with power-zoom, that’s straight out of P&S-territory. I got the little add-on rubber zoom lever for my 14-140mm for $30 and it works great, yeah, even for photography.

                    If anyone wants a stills-only camera in today’s market I have a Nikon FM2 and a Pentax Spotmatic SPII I’ll sell for cheap. Sorry, no autofocus or IBIS, you actually have to be able to use a camera.

          • I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.

            Video can be used without tripod and dollie. And rigging and all that jazz.

            Creativity is what really needed. I use the GH2 for all my creative works and have used it for the past year on paid gig, without too much rigging. I can go out with the Oly 14-54MKII and the camera, a small led light and a magic arm. All I do is find creative and interesting way tu put out video within my gear limitation… witch I don’t find restrictive at all…

            Long live video on GH series.

            Oh.. and i don’t care much about powerzoom.

            • Peter F

              Rabot: I’ve been using the 14-54II on my GH2 for great stills. (FWIW, IQ seems better than on my E620.) As far as I can tell (for video) I can’t get it to autofocus. Can you? Thanks.

              • Pete

                You need to update the lens firmware on the 14-45mm to allow autofocus in videomode. Go on pannys website.

                • spam

                  Upgrade a 14-54 with 14-45 firmware? Panasonic have compatibility page though that show which focus modes that will work with FT-lenes.

            • “Video can be used without tripod and dollie. And rigging and all that jazz.”

              Yes, and the results turn out a lot like the Blair Witch Project. A film that was so jarring and horribly shot it gave people motion sickness in the theater.

              The opening scene of Saving Private Ryan is another example. While the hand held perspective is pretty cool in the opening few minutes, Spielberg wisely switched to more traditional rigging set ups for the rest of the film.

              I’ve also seen handheld wedding videos, and I personally can’t make it through more than a few seconds of them. Perhaps I’m in the minority on this one, but a handheld video is something I have no desire to watch for long periods of time. Some sort of stabilizer rig is needed. And even a “small” one like a Redrock Nano is still a very cumbersome thing.

              • Esa Tuunanen

                Agree, without reasonably well supported camera only thing video achieves is nausea.

                Right amount of camera movement in limited lengths can be used for great effect if it fits content/story (like that Saving Private Ryan scene) but in bigger amounts and lengths it just doesn’t work.
                And some types of content simply don’t tolerate any of it or very little.

            • > Without too much rigging

              You can’t argue both sides of the coin and say you’re right.

              Yes, you can use a still camera for video. You quickly discover that using it like you do a still camera has some limitations. You end up wanting to further stabilize the camera, you discover you need better audio, you want to keep the camera from jittering focusing, you need to go manual for exposure and white balance, and much more. That’s assuming that you want reasonable quality that you can cut together without jarring edits. There’s a reason why camcorders and pro video rigs use a different design and have different feature sets.

              The whole reason that video-on-still-camera took off was the large sensor thing. They have some better low light tendencies and they allow feature film style shallow DOF, both things that were wanting in reasonably priced video equipment.

              Video is a low hurdle to get over. 1080P/30 is basically 2mp. Easy enough to do. Heck, you can get it in an iPhone, in Flip-style products, in compact cameras (the Sony HX9V does some of the best 1080P/60 I’ve seen), and even in the GoPro/Contour type of small UW/helmet cams. So in that sense, you don’t need much. Why would you want it in a mirrorless or DSLR? We’re back to that big sensor thing, and that’s about it.

              Now that we have dedicated large sensor video equipment under US$2000, I’m not sure why you’d get all that excited about a still camera having it. As a backstop or only-carry-one device, maybe.

              The guys who raved about video on the 5DII/GH2 (and to a lesser degree D90 and DSLRs) and started the fad have all moved on, for the most part. You quickly figure out why when you shoot with something like the Panasonic or Sony dedicated big sensor video cameras (e.g. FS100). And you still have to rig them ;~).

              Panasonic doesn’t need a GH3, they need a smaller, less expensive video camera with the m4/3 mount. Sony already has dedicated video from low-end to high with the E-mount.

              • Do you follow the blog, just yesterday Andrea linked to Sky HD news guy using AF-101 and GH2. The GH2 doesn’t have builtin ND filter but is pretty good otherwise.

                He uses manual lenses all the way (Old glass and Voigtlander Nokton).

                Some of the reasons for using DSLR for moving images are good image quality and small size.

                I don’t understand the video hate here. It’s one camera. You can buy other cameras if you don’t need video.

                I like to shoot photos and some video too.

                • Yes. Now let me ask you some questions: is he on a tripod most of the time? Is he using the GH2’s built-in mics? For what it’s worth, the AF101 is a video camera, sort of proving my point: when video makers create smaller-size-but-large-sensor, video-oriented cameras, that’s what the pros move towards. I strongly suspect the GH2 is is second cutaway camera in most scenes.

                  People are also missing my point, which is similar to a point I’ve been making with still cameras for a while now: the low end is competent enough that it’s disrupting cameras entirely. The 1080P/30 hurdle is pretty low. Even my iPhone does it, and does a very credible job of it, at that. At the high end, serious shooters are demanding more. That’s leaving sort of a Swiss-Army knife approach to design in the middle: just throw everything in. In the long run, that’s not going to fly very well. In the short term, yes, it gives you something to market.

              • Frye

                I paid 900 bucks for my GH2 which does both great photo and video. In your perfect world I guess I would have to pay twice as much if not more if you want me to buy an AF100. And just because the hybrid concept doesn’t quite fit your idea of what a digital camera should be? No thanks. Hopefully Panny isn’t listening.

                • Of course, you could have paid less for a G3 and something else to do your video (and “900 bucks” is cheap for a GH2, when and where was that and was that with lens?).

                  I’m not arguing that video be taken out of still cameras at this point. That ship already sailed. However, this notion that the DSLR makers think they’re going to disrupt the video market further by concentrating on improving mostly the video features of a still camera isn’t going to actually win them much, if any, more business now. That ship has sailed, too.

                  • Frye

                    What would you suggest I get to do video with?

                    I prefer video from a large sensor with a high bitrate and 24fps. I also like to use vintage lenses via an adapter.

                    After I’ve spent the money on a G3 what can I get for video that would satisfy those requirements?

                    • The AF100 will give you better video capability than the GH2, in my experience. The GH2 is passable at that, but it’s weak on the audio side. That’s part of the problem: video is a blend of a lot of tech, not just video bandwidth and sensor size. The combo of an AF100 with a GH2 as cutaway/backup/second camera is a very strong one, IMHO. Same thing with the Sony FS100 and a NEX-5N as cutaway/backup/second.

              • @Thom Hogan
                the DSLR/mirrorless type factor has a lot more advantages over camcorders….
                1. form size can fit into smaller worker space
                2. price (you can now have more cameras on a shot or they can be more disposable eg for explosion.car crash shots think:Hurt Locker)
                3. some shots are actually easier eg some hand held panning shots
                4. versatility eg for documentary’s you might want to shoot stills and video
                5. the audio on the latest mirrorless is very good and many take external microphones
                6. the latest Panny mirrorless have pretty good follow focus and tbh I’ve seen “jitter” focus on high end BBC live event productions and it can look quite artistic
                7. easier to use on many crane/aerial/steadycam/wire shots

                “Panasonic doesn’t need a GH3, they need a smaller, less expensive video camera with the m4/3 mount. Sony already has dedicated video from low-end to high with the E-mount.” by all accounts the Sony NEX-VG10 has been a fail in the market place…

                I’m pretty sure most people who raved about about the GH1 or GH2 or Canon 5DII haven’t moved on as their use is turning up in more and more in productions ( can only think of of P. Bloom who has “moved on”).

                • chauffeurDeVan

                  In fact, I think Canon got it right with their first mirrorless camera – the C300 – for video/cinema (in some extent, the Sony FS100 and Red stuff had some good ideas).

                  It got the a better form than dslr. The camcorder-like rotating handle give much better handling. Much easier to be stable hand-held.

                  Many options are modular, can remove the top handle, put the LCD in any place, etc. This way you reduce most of the third-party not-really adapted to your cam rigging.

                  • Can’t say about the C300 as I’ve not used it yet. Frankly, the FS100 is a pain in some respects (why Sony thought the LCD should go on the top I don’t know), but rodded up and on a full rig it’s Hollywood level. Ditto the RED.

                    But this gets back to my point. The rush to the 5DII and GH2 was “big sensor on small budget.” It wasn’t that they were great video cameras. We all used them to get certain looks in our work and we lived with and found ways to rig the things up to get around the liabilities. As we get more and more offerings that are just outright designed for what we need, the need for a 5DII or GH2 goes away.

                    That leaves the enthusiast, mostly. The question is whether that enthusiast wants:

                    A. A better still camera, don’t care much about video.
                    B. A better video camera, the still stuff is fine.
                    C. A better still camera and a better video camera, as good as you can make it.

                    Most of you would probably say C or A. The camera companies are doing B for the most part.

                • > 1. form size can fit into smaller worker space
                  Yes, it can. Can it fit into the space my GoPro HD2 can? Thing is, true videographers have plenty of solutions now, in all sizes and form factors. The easy pickings are gone. Now we’re getting into the “just want one camera crowd,” which is different than the person really trying to make videos.

                  Moreover, as much as I love the small sizes of the mirrorless cameras and carry them with me pretty much always, there are reasons why the pro DSLRs and the video camcorders are the size and shapes and weights they are. Sometimes mass and size and form factor is useful. I do hope someone gives me the chance to cover a pro sports event with just mirrorless stuff, though. I’d like to put that to a real test.

                  > 2. price (you can now have more cameras on a shot or they can be more disposable eg for explosion.car crash shots think:Hurt Locker)
                  See #1: GoPro HD2. More indestructible, more put-it-anywhere, more cheap ;~).

                  > 3. some shots are actually easier eg some hand held panning shots
                  Perhaps. If you want to get far with your videos, handholding becomes completely situational, though, and you’d better have some sort of steadying mechanism above image stabilization. I’d also point out that many of the DSLR implementations would need to get rid of their rolling shutters, too ;~).

                  > 4. versatility eg for documentary’s you might want to shoot stills and video
                  One-man bands, maybe.

                  > 5. the audio on the latest mirrorless is very good and many take external microphones
                  I beg to differ. The audio on virtually every DSLR I’ve tried–and I’ve tried almost all of them–has serious issues with noise and gain (typically auto, but even the manual gain is problematic). Can you use it in a pinch? Yes. But from the very beginning of the DSLR craze for video most of us were using Beachtek or other mixers to get some semblance of control. More went to separate digital audio recording, mating the audio and video later.

                  > 6. the latest Panny mirrorless have pretty good follow focus and tbh I’ve seen “jitter” focus on high end BBC live event productions and it can look quite artistic
                  First time I’ve heard focus jitter called artistic. In the video world we call this a “nervous trait” (zoom twitches, erratic focus pulls, and more fall into that category). Nervous traits have a tendency to call the viewer’s attention to the camera and temporary break their suspension of disbelief or immersion.

                  > 7. easier to use on many crane/aerial/steadycam/wire shots
                  Yes and no. For great Steadicam, dolly, crane, and sliding, you need mass. That said, you can use smaller, more portable dollies and cranes with the smaller cameras.

                  • 1. the go pro has very little/no on board control or inter changeable lenses.
                    – The market is becoming “everyone is a videographer now”
                    2.see first part of my point 1.
                    3. Rolling shutter is becoming a thing of the past in micro four thirds mirrorless.
                    4. I think you find media organisations are trimming back their staff and everyone is on a budget, editing is getting easier, so no not just one man bands.
                    5. All options that work with the GH1 and GH2 and probably the GH3…

                    Panny and Sony are known for their sound and have seen largely glowing reviews on the net for the audio produced from their mirrorless offerings.
                    6.Huh…. I’ve seen it on BBC productions at Music festivals and to my mind makes the production feel more alive, also I’ve seen it delibrately put into music videos.
                    Eratic focus pulls are a different story because focus pulls are used for pre-planned shots.
                    “Zoom twitches” are a bit of both and would depend on the context in that it would be more acceptable at a live event or as part of the director’s delibrate composition.
                    7. you need the right counter weights or tension

              • spam

                I usually agree with Thom Hogan, and he’s probably right about the “guys who raved about video on the 5DII/GH2 (and to a lesser degree D90 and DSLRs) and started the fad have all moved on, for the most part” too, I certainly don’t have any sources that contradict (or verify) this.

                However there are lots of people interested in photography mainly who do an occasional video and want good results. A videoenabled dSLR or mirrorless camera can do an excellent job of recording speeches at uncle Bob’s birthday, interviewing your grandmother, doing school projects and other typical amateur video where the big sensor works far better in low light than a cheap camcorder or P&S with video.

                There’s also the pro/sempipros who want good videoquality from a device they already have. Look at the interviews on Lensworks and similar. Videopros might have moved on, but there are lots of people who want the ability to do decent quality video with their existing equipment and don’t need a dedicated videocamera.

                • The question is “is the market that’s left big enough to justify all the concentration on the video side of the camera?” Since that sometimes comes at the expense of doing at anything directly on the still side, is that the right approach?

                  Basically, what most of you are saying is you want a Swiss Army knife.

            • Joey

              @rabot agree completely, you no more need all that jazz to produce video, than you “need” strobes, light boxes, reflectors etc to produce good stills (though depending on the situation the previous items can be a necessity) though i find myself (and most people i know) moving away from digital for pure still shooting, and use digital more for hybrid or just video shoots .

        • Frye

          I bought my GH2 for the excellent video. And yes, it does do excellent video. I don’t know what you base “mediocre” on. But maybe Panasonic should just scrap the video feature so that even fewer people will buy their cameras. Makes total sense.

          • Frye

            **

          • Frye

            “I don’t understand the video hate here.”

            Nor do I.

            Wait, you like to take photos and shoot video with the SAME camera. What is wrong with you? Get on over to Hogan’s website to learn what HIS priorities are. LOL.

            • “Hate” isn’t a word I’ve used, and would never use. In fact, if you care to pay attention, you’d know that I was trained as a filmmaker and videographer, and that I’ll be teaching a class in video at my alma mater again next school year. I actually like video.

              Do I use my DSLRs for video? Not nearly as much anymore as I did when they first started giving us video capabilities. The reasons are many, but they all come back to “not the optimal solution.”

              Be careful what you wish for. This notion of “make my camera do everything” leads designers to design DOWNWARDS, not upwards. Lowest common denominator becomes one of the design tenants in a “do everything” product.

              > Get on over to Hogan’s website to learn what HIS priorities are.

              I don’t think I’ve ever been unclear about this: I want the best possible tools that can exist. That means the best possible stills camera, and the best possible video camera. In automobile terms, I want a Porsche 911 and an F-550 Super Duty, not a Chevy El Camino.

              • Frye

                In its price range the GH2 is the best tool that exists – if the tool is a hybrid photo/video camera, which has its uses for some people. Just not you.

                • I don’t disagree with your contention. The GH2 is a strong hybrid tool. But ultimately, hybrid tools either become too complex or get watered down.

              • Frye

                BTW, obviously I have no problem with Panasonic or Olympus making higher quality gear for those who can afford it – just don’t understand why it has to come at the expense of something like the GH2.

                • Again, I don’t disagree. There’s certainly room in lineups for hybrid tools. The problem happens when the emphasis on hybrid tools starts delaying or cancelling the stronger individual tools. My argument has always been consistent: still cameras still leave a lot to be desired. We are moving slower towards getting the ultimate still camera tool because engineering teams are spending most of their time on the video side.

                  • Frye

                    I don’t really buy that. By your logic Olympus should be making better still cameras than Panasonic since they don’t concentrate on the video side as much. That doesn’t seem to be the case.

          • > I don’t know what you base “mediocre” on.

            I think Bob was actually trying to say something I was writing over three years ago now: still cameras still have a lot of things that can be improved about them. By trying to make devices that do two things (and especially because the video side needs more attention and improvement than the still side), those that shoot only stills aren’t seeing as much movement towards what we’d like as we should.

            Put another way: if you let a camera designer completely design just a still camera in the last three years, would we have a better still camera today? I think the answer to that is yes. The Leica S2 comes to mind. Very nice camera that only does stills, and does that very well and to the point.

      • quiquelbola

        I could´nt say much better Bob. Absolutly agree. I would prefer the best photographic tool instead of an hibrid photo-video-thig.

        • Esa Tuunanen

          For camera body itself capability for recording video is just about fast enough sensor read out capability (needed already for fast contrast AF) and processor/software to do the video compression.
          I would welcome that multi-aspect sensor concept to any still camera.

          Problem is that P&S electric zoom on lenses.

          • I’m not sure I fully understand what you wrote, but I think that you wrote “faster sensor refresh needed for video will help stills.”

            To some degree, that’s true. Look at the Nikon 1. It’s pulling 60 fps off the FULL sensor, not just a video subset. But that also puts a terrible bandwidth constriction on the camera and Nikon had to put more DRAM in the camera than they’ve ever done before to deal with it. Even at that, they don’t have time to actually process the 60 fps in real time, so the camera can’t do autofocus when it’s pulling 600mp a second. From a still camera standpoint, I would have rather had a subset or slower refresh and functional autofocus (in video, it throws away a lot of the data, so does have time to focus).

      • Scott

        I would love a camera that just shot in manual, no auto exposure no bracketing no filters no nothing just a good sensor with fast autofocus no freaking gadets at all.

        • Mr. Reeee

          In case you didn’t know it: auto-focus is a gadget! ;-)

          Funny, but I pretty much use my GH2 just like that most of the time. M mode, I set my white balance with a WhiBal card. I use mostly manual lenses, too, for the full, all-manual experience. ;-)

          But there are times, when I’ll put aside the Nokton lenses, slap on an AF lens and use that, too. I may stoop to A mode. So, occasionally I’ll bracket, sometimes use burst mode, even video.

          It’s nice to have some flexibility.

    • JF

      +1 @Andi, I don’t want power zoom ! The only exception is if we can switch to mechanical (like the last oly 12-50 ??)

  • First Oly now Panny. Disappointment doesn’t come alone. They gang bang you :D

    • Atle

      What is disappointing? Was there any real chance of a reasonably sized f2.0-lens at any point in time?

      • Daemonius

        Considering m4/3s? Compared to everything else, f2 lens could be “reasonable” sized, depending how much “reasonable” you want. :D

        Olys f2 zooms are big, but not much more than regular f2.8 lens. And from DOF side of view, its just f4, not much..

        This will have DOF of f5,6 lens at best, or more.. :/

        m4/3s doomsday is comming. And it had such perfect start..

      • Per

        Agree! F2.0 lenses, they would become huge..

  • frank

    Thank you! No powerzoom is great. And f2.8 looks much more realistic to me than f2.0 which would have been over the top. If its f4.0 I doubt buying it though… Hope its f2.8 all through.

  • No powerzoom = Good, no f/2 = bad. We shall see..

  • Lez

    “Reminder: The Olympus powerzoom lens will be announced on Wednesday!”

    Another one? Apart from 12-50?

    • Duarte Bruno

      @Admin:
      We need clarification on this.
      The 12-50 has been officially announced.
      What are you talking about?

      • Brod1er

        I suspect Admin wrote this article before the announcement – he spreads the posts to maintain interest in the site. He probably rescheduled this post to fill a gap and forgot to take the reference out.

        • admin

          No. I wanted it to post before the Olympus announcement but than I started to get the Olympus lens specs and I postponed the rumor. That’s the right answer :)

        • Miroslav

          Yeah, who knows what else he has up his sleeve ;).

  • TheEye

    I like those two lenses, based on what I see, and on their specs, better than the Oly 12-50. They look like f/2.8-4.

    No power zoom, yay!

    Of course, I would have preferred the 12-35 to be a 10-30 or a 12 to 45/50. Clearly Panasonic wants to sell everyone a pair of lenses. I need to play the lottery and win. :-P

  • Rich

    I agree that no powerzoom is a good thing. Not bothered about the aperture – F2.8 is fine – F2 is unrealistic for a M4/3 zoom – if you want anything faster you really need to be using primes (unless you want it to completely dwarf the body you’re using it on). Also, hopefully the price will be a little more acceptable at F2.8.

    Of course the important thing is IQ, but so far very promising!

    • f/2 is not unrealistic. There is f/2 zoom in 43, why not m43?

      • Fish

        If you are comparing it to the 4/3 SHG lens, it would be unrealistic due to the size: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mfahrur/3642374791/

        And the price!

        • lol at that pic!!!

        • Mike

          Yes, but there are a lot of FT equivalents in mFT – and all are much smaller! Why should this one be different?
          Just see the size of the Summilux:
          http://www.43rumors.com/leica-25mm-priced-599-euro-at-adorama-new-tests/

          • Rich

            Just because some lenses can be made smaller, doesn’t mean the same follows with ALL other lenses. Just take a look at the contax G or leica lenses – all very small, and full frame. You’ll also notice another thing in common: they’re all primes. I don’t claim to be an expert in optics or lens manufacture but just take a look around at current and past lenses – you can find plenty of tiny primes, but what’s the smallest 70-200 or 28-70 F2.8 you can find?

            • Mike

              You can also compare 7-14mm, 9-18mm and 14-42mm. Zooms with the same range & brightness, but smaller. I’m also no expert, I just compared the available lenses.
              For some reasons the zuiko 40-150mm has the same size in both systems – no idea why…

              • Esa Tuunanen

                Question is about short focal length wide angles being very heavily retrofocal in 4/3 because of very long mount to sensor distance compared to sensor size.

                And that retrofocus/reverse telephoto design makes lens often very complex and big because of need to correct all those aberrations caused by it.
                http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/09/lens-genealogy-part-2

            • bert

              Rich, A 2,8/70-200 or 2,8/28-70 for FF or for APS-C has it´s size, an eqv. 2,8/35-100 or
              2,8/14-35 for m4/3 or for even smaller sensors can of course be made smaller. Take a look at the 2,8-4,5/ 5-15
              ( 28-84 eqv. ) for the Pentax Q and you will see this. I think there´s no problem to make a 2,0/35-100 for m4/3 in the size of the Tamron 2,8/70-200 mm
              for APS-C. Or a 2,8/35-100 in the size of the
              Canon EF 4/70-200 IS. Both really good zooms, very well built, internal focus and zooming. May be the will to produce these lenses isn´t there, at least not at Olympus.
              For my understanding a system with a smaller sensor isn´t necessarily to make the body and lenses smaller and smaller, but it gives also the possibility to make lenses faster at a given size. For me it´s not comfortable to work with these very small bodys like the current Oly bodies.

              • Rich

                I agree with your logic – just look at the size of the lens on the Olympus XZ-1 – but having owned (and only very recently sold) a Canon 70-200 F4 L, I must say I wouldn’t be keen to have one hanging off the front of my G3! (or a GH2 for that matter) :)

                • bert

                  With such a lens you held the body with the lens, not the lens with the body…
                  But as I said, I wouldn´t have a problem to get a bigger body too, like the Pentax K5, the E-620 with battery grip, or the good old Oly E-1.
                  And for the smaller bodies Olympus and to a lesser degree Panasonic should have a look at the Samsung NX 11. The grip and handling is absolutely fine with this cam. Combine that with a better EVF like the new Sonys and all is well ;-)

        • Mr. Reeee

          OMFG, that lens is insane!

    • Bob B.

      +1, Rich.

  • moomin

    Panasonic announcements = Dissapointment
    Who would of thought it? ;-)

  • I’d prefer constant f/2.8 over the PowerZoom. I don’t like the position of the lever on the 45-175, it’s too far up. Hence, I use the ring, which is more natural. Besides, zooming slows down when shooting video. Manual zoom on the new lenses, use the ring as fast or slow as I want….YES!

  • You can’t realistically expect f/2.0 from those zooms. Look at them, they’re too slim. A constant f/2.8 will be a great technical achievement and a solid advantage over competition. Unfortunately, for mirrorless designs speed = primes.

    • Bob B.

      Speed=Primes with DSLR’s as well.

  • Peppone

    mmh, not so bad!
    But other rumurs on sealed body? And other lens roadmap?

  • Jojo

    No power zoom is excellent news for photographers if true, especially for the 12-35. I have used powerzooms in the past, and while they have their uses, one disadvantage no one seems to be mentioning just now is that you cannot tell at a glance what FL is set – compromising operating speed in some situations.

    Slower than f2 seems logical for size/weight, but I’m hoping for faster than f2.8!

  • Pete

    Wow, they become interesting…

    But why does Panasonic again and again needs many month between announce and produce? Not professionell

    • Elf

      I suspect the initial anouncement of these lenses on the roadmap was to counter NEX7 and demonstrate M4/3 as a more serious and complete system.
      I will certainly be in the line to purchase and hoping for a constant 2.5. The smaller sensor needs every advantage.

      They certainly have more appeal for me than the slow Oly kit lens. I will gladly pay the premium for a fast weather sealed constant apeture,with OIS I can use on either my EPL2 or GH2.

      • Brod1er

        Agree f2.5 is likely to compensate for smaller sensors and to give a marketing advantage over other systems. F2 would be fantastic but probably is wishful thinking given the new lenses are fairly compact.

    • Mr. Reeee

      Maybe Panasonic takes a little extra time to get the design right the first time and avoid re-releasing a lens with the same focal length as an “upgrade” that fixes what wasn’t done right the first time around.

      • The Master

        Naw, they are all about intentionally selling dysfunctional products, so that they can make a simple adjustment on the next model and get you to spend more money. Of coarse they are not alone in this practice, I noticed that the Nex 7 has the video button, right where your thumb sets, so it gets activated accidentally. Just watch, the Nex 8 will move it to the top, out of the way. Pany did that with the GH1 and fixed it on the GH2.

        Rather than dishonestly taking away and adding features, to get people to buy the next model, I wish someone would take the Ricoh GXR idea to the next level. The interchangeable sensor with a lens permanently attached, isn’t such a great idea, as sensors get outdated and you are left with a nice lens on an old sensor. However, if there was an AF mount, like Ricohs “M”mount, that could be swapped out, as technology advances, that would surely slow the waste of resources, of putting out complete new bodies, every six or eight months and give camera makers an incentive to actually make a body that people could own long enough to have a bond with, like they did in the film days.

        • Mr. Reeee

          I was referring to Olympus. Three 14-42mm and two 45-150mm lenses.

          Refining features, controls and usability for new camera models is all part of the design process.

          For instance, moving the Control Wheel from the front of the GH1 to the back on the GH2 improved usability tremendously. All the controls you work with you can see.

          Swapping out the Control Wheel for a 4-way-how-did-my-settings-change dial is a step backwards.

          3 years. 1 camera appearing with 7 bodies… is suspended animation. ;-)

  • Miroslav

    “The Olympus powerzoom lens will be announced on Wednesday!”

    Another one?

    • admin

      Sorry! Stupid copy and paste error :(

  • 2.8 will do for me, lenses should not be too heavy. Power zoom is obviously popular among film makers, can understand disappointment, but shoots stills. = unchanged highly interested! The 35 – 100 is especially mouthwatering.
    Being more and more impressed by NEX-7 and PanOly must come up with something similar for me to stay with m4/3. Pana are the closest to come up with the first non-concept mirrorless camera. I.e. with excellent ergonomy and simple, logic user interface. Ergonomy and usability like the Nikon 300 (my point of reference)

  • Yun

    That is a big NO for 35-100mm without F2 !
    F2.8 can’t shoot well in low light condition !
    How to compete with the rest of mirrorless packed with bigger sensors ?

    • mahler

      For larger sensor you mostly can’t get a 2.0/24-70mm or 2.0/70-200mm (equiv.) either. However, the announced m4/3 zooms from Panasonic will be lighter smaller and less expensive thn their full frame sibblings. So what is the complaint?

    • Rich

      Must be a funny lot these m4/3 users – so obsessed with low light, either they only ever venture out at night or all live in the polar regions…

      • Mr. Reeee

        Maybe, but shooting with higher shutter speeds rather resorting to boosting the ISO is the goal… AND a pretty big deal.

    • bert

      no problem, get a GH2 and all is well !

  • [rant]
    Guys?!? Heelllooooo?!?

    24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 equivalent are the basic bricks of any professional system. What the f$!k are you braggin’ about for christ sake? Are you a bunch of spoil brats living in Disneyland or what. Just look at all the 17-50 on APS-C. What about the Tokina and Pentax 50-135? They’re all opening at f/2.8. Not happy with the depth-of-field? Well that’s the trade-off for having a more portable system. Live with it.
    These lenses with these specs (f/2.8, weatherproofed, NO POWERZOOM) are THE FIRST MAJOR STEP TOWARDS A PROFESSIONAL M43 SYSTEM!!!
    [/rant]

    • Conrad

      +1

    • FYI: Vincent Laforet recently posted the following on his video & photography blog:

      “… [item #10]: The Canon 24~70mm 2.8 and the Canon 70~200mm 2.8. I’d venture to say that 70% of all of the still images I’ve shot in my career were taken by one of these two lenses. For those starting in HDSLR filmmaking – the 24~70mm is bright enough for almost any environment – and has the absolutely perfect range of focal lengths. … There are two main lenses every photojournalist owns – these two. There are two main lenses every fashion photographs owns – these two. There are two main lenses every sports photographer owns – these two. There are two main lenses every nature photographer owns – these two. I think that makes my point. So while these may be a bit out of some of your budgets – they are definitely lenses to aspire to. You will use them for the rest of your lives on almost every single thing you shoot. …”

      Leaving aside Vincent’s preference for Canon gear, the info about lens focal length & aperture is interesting.

      Vincent’s excellent blog is here:
      http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011/11/24/black-friday-gadget-guide/

    • twoomy

      +100 Thank you!

      I’m perfectly happy with the f/2.8 zooms as well and they match up with the Nikon and Canon 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. Sure there are DoF differences, but these offerings will make ME and several others happy.

      It sounds like there are only three of us who are excited about this lens, so I look forward to not fighting anybody for the first available units. Har har.

    • Reza

      THANK YOU!!!

  • Nick

    Weathersealing + manual zoom + constant f2.8 = a purchase of both for me…

    Slower than f2.8 and I’ll give it a miss…

    • Probably +1 here.

    • JF

      I’d like too but…they will probably be very expensive…12-35 first and maybe 35-100 later…

    • Mike

      f2.5 would be great, constant 2.8 ok – if it’s below 1000€!

  • Ahem

    When Panny manager goes on record it should be taken with a grain of salt, but why then rumors from anonymous sources don’t get that kind of disclaimer?

    • Miroslav

      Obviously, admin has received many rumors from managers and only half of them turned out to be true :).

      And if a source is anonymous, you can’t tell if it’s a manager or not :).

      • Esa Tuunanen

        And those same managers etc. have crazy ideas like that GH2 isn’t important camera model.

  • WT21

    Two predictions: It will be a constant f/4, and I will not buy it.

    • Conrad

      My prediction: the 12-35 will be f/2.5, and the 35-100 wil be f/2.8. Both will vignette wide open though. And yes, I will buy them.

    • Brod1er

      WT21- your prediction can’t be right. The kit lens starts at f3.5 and is longer. There will be a long queue of people NOT buying these lenses at f4!!! Panny is not that stupid…… The 7-14 is f4 but it is vastly smaller/lighter than similar lenses.

  • JF

    That sounds great ! no power zoom + f2.8 + top IQ/colors/contrast would be perfect ! and if possible the flare resistance of 20mm f1.7 :D

    • Rich

      +1 for the flare resistance!

  • Panasonic is going after the new market Olympus made by selling these lenses with a constant 6.3 aperture.

    • Agrivar

      +1

  • uth

    no F2 constant… it doesn’t mean it’s not F2 at 12mm right??

    if it’s 12-35/f2-2.8… i think i’m ok with it ^^

  • No PZ: :)
    No f/2: :(

    • Miroslav

      +1
      And the end result is :-|

  • MikeH

    The new lenses will be F2.00001 and will have superpowerXzoom so technically that manager is correct.

  • Is it not only a habbit from amateur filmers to zoom during a szene? I am watching a lot of movies, i see a lot of cuts, a lot of different “angle of views” playing with focus and – but no zooooms….

    • More like for run and gun type of shooting…

    • Mike

      Do you know the film scenes where you first see a person, then the street, than city, country, continent and finally the whole world?
      So you need a biiiiiiiig zoom. And a nice place on a space station. And a really good shake reduction ;-)

    • Ahem

      Yep, powerzooms are like fish-eye lenses of the motion world: nice to have in your bag, but not necessary for 99.9% of your day-to-day work.

      It’s funny how camera sites get hung up on featuritis.

  • Pavel

    Of course they are not power zooms, it was clear from the beginning! Otherwise they wouldn’t have focal length scale.

  • Olympius

    Well, I, for one, had absolutely NO expectations that these two zooms would be f/2. I’d be perfectly happy with any constant aperture f/4 or less, but I do not expect anything under f/2.5.

    As for the power zoom, not needed in these type of zooms. No doubt they are intended to go up against the 24-70 and 70-200’s that are the workhorses of the full-frame camera world. And those lenses do not have power zoom either.

    While I like power zoom for video, I much prefer manual zooming for still photography.

    – Olympius

  • Mar

    It’s never going to be f2.5 either because it’s not a normalized f-stop and manufacturers love those with the exeption of f1.2 and f1.8 primes (as those numbers seem a lot lower than rounded counterparts).

    Looking at the photos – if those mockups are actual dimensions/scale, I’d say f2.8 for 12-35 and f2.8-4 or constant f4 for 35-100mm.

    • Brod1er

      Maybe, but I think Panny recognise that f2.5 provides a big marketing advantage and even a little more light! Witness the Panny 14mm f2.5 was originally going to be f2.8. It will get one over the f2.8 lenses, offset most of the DOF gap to APSC using f2.8, AND crucially enable Panny to charge ludicrous money for them.

    • I know at least one 2.5/14 prime :)

    • Conrad

      Try a search on “summarit”, you’d be surprised.

  • fos

    shitty camera shitty system m4/3 is noting but shit.

    • JF

      And one shitty comment ! :D :D

    • Brod1er

      Fos, thanks for that illuminating comment. You are clearly a guy who knows his stuff. And dexterous wordplay to boot!

  • Z

    Marketing wise, it would make sense to go f2.8 or f4, as the range on these lenses is the same as the very popular 24-70 and 70-200 of the canon/nikons. Would really show off the m4/3 size advantage!

    The size will be considerably smaller. An f2.8 version should be about the size of a canon/nikon f4. An f4 would be about the size of a fixed f5.6 (though those do not exist).

    I hope for a fixed f2.8… Would still allow for creativity and low light. F4 is too close to kit range, why spend the money? And the new oly would then actually be faster at the wide end haha.

    fixed f2.8 it will be :) [sign me up]

  • Pile

    Who said 2.0?
    Who said GF7 (GX1) will have EVF?

    This kind of false rumor always ended up nothing but a negative campaign for the new product.

  • Joey

    If its not fast then whats the point? We have several slow kit zooms already

  • sacundim

    You know, a bunch of people figured out the no power zoom from the day that the mockups were shown. Just notice that there are focal length markings in the zoom ring.

    I think somebody from Panasonic may have even said so when the mockups were shown—but I sure do remember this being established pretty quickly.

    • Brod1er

      I think people (and me) are confused because of the X lens label. All X lenses have been PZ so far. Maybe X just refers to the fact that the lenses don’t extend when zoomed?? – Although I think the 14-42 does extend a little?
      Certainly will be nice if the new lenses are self contained- will allow the weatherproofing.

      • sacundim

        From DPReview’s preview of the PZ X 14-42mm:

        “Equally notable about the PZ 14-42mm (and the PZ 45-175mm too) is the new ‘X’ branding. Panasonic is keen to point out that while the first lenses with this designation are ‘HD’ powerzooms, that’s not what the ‘X’ means. Instead it simply designates a premium line of high-performance products […] However upcoming ‘X’ lenses could be of any type: prime, power zoom, or conventional mechanical zoom.”

        http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic_x_14-42_3p5-5p6/

  • 12-35 being constant f/2.8 is fine with me. 35-100 is not much of my lens, but I gather for it be useful for me, it would have to be f/2.8-4.0.

    No particular opinion on PZ, as long as the zoom ring is there.

  • mahler

    The GH2 has a faster AF, a significantly better EVF, a different control layout (click wheel), better body finish, more resolution, multiaspect sensor, better burst mode, etc.

    The GH2 is a one release cycle ahead camera with respect to the G2. The G2, however, had already some controls, the GH2 took over from it.

  • SLOtographer

    I’m excited especially about the 35-100. If it is f2.8 or faster with OIS it’ll be really useful. I can see myself using the 35-100 and the 20/1.7 for events/people/portrait type situations. Throw in a UWA zoom and you have an immense range covered. All my gear would fit in a small shoulder bag. What’s not to like?

  • Loren

    Admin: Any ETA for these lenses? I’m trying to stay with the micro 4/3 system, but if the 12-35mm doesn’t come soon I may have to jump on the A77/16-50mm bandwagon…

    • admin

      January!

      • Loren

        Announced in January with immediate availability? Or are we looking at a January press release with availability in April / May?

        • Loren

          As always thanks for your input and for running such a great site! Just getting antsy to get my hands on some new glass :)

  • Howdy! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to
    give a quick shout out and say I really enjoy reading your
    posts. Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums
    that deal with the same topics? Thanks for your time!

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close