Bob Krist states on the website: "Yes, with a permanently fixed Zeiss zoom lens with the 35mm equivalent of a 24-200mm f/2.8 [...]"
This is mathematically wrong. There is a linear relationship between aperture, focal length and sensor size. A lens of with this size on a 1" sensor is not equivalent to 200mm 2.8 in 35mm full-frame terms. This is not an opinion, this is a mathematical fact. And it doesnt matter if Bob is photographer of the year or century, it is still WRONG.
Jon_D have you ever seen in your live a 200mm 2.8 full-frame lense? Maybe there is a reason why they are so big and or do you think they just make it so big and expensive for fun.
Do your homework in basic photography unerstanding before harassing other people on this forum. Thanks
An F 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens regardless of the sensor size, the amount of light it lets in doesn't change by changing the size of the sensor. This camera is equivalent to 24-200mm in 35mm terms and the only thing that is different is the depth of field.
35mm lenses are big because the sensor is big, reduce the size of the sensor and you can reduce the size of the lens.