6 hours ago
 |
TruePoindexter
Lives in
CA, United States
Works as a
Developer
Has a website at
http://www.binaryd.com
Joined on
Oct 2, 2008
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Nismo350Z: Now that FX DSLRs have shrunk a bit (as in the D600), Nikon appears to be heading in the same direction with DX in the form of Coolpix A. Now if they could just add an F-mount to it then it would sell like hotcakes.
If it had an F-mount it would be SLR sized as the F-mount specification requires the distance between the sensor and lens mount. It would definitely not be a pocketable point and shoot.
Zigadiboom: Nikon D5000 - 12mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 72
Nikon D5100 - 16mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 80
Nikon D3200 - 24mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 82
Nikon D5200 - 24mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 84
Canon 550d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 66
Canon 600d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 65
Canon 650d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 62
Canon 100d/700d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 6?
Nikon sensors over time have continously been improving in dynamic range, color depth and high ISO even as the megapixels have been increasing. Canon on the other hand have been relatively stagnant in its sensor innovation and in its inexcsuable that in four iterations at such a competitive segment of the market that it cannot come up with anything better. I'm a Canon man if owning a G1X and a SX260HS counts. However if I'm going to upgrade to an entry or mid tier DSLR based on curent offerings I really cannot see why I would choose Canon over Nikon other than maybe lens selection and shooting video.
@JDThomas: Oh I know that not all of them are - the bulk of the recent sensors have been though.
As for Canon I doubt those are exactly the same sensors - it's very likely that there are numerous small technical changes to that 18mp over the years no one but the engineers at Canon know about. We know for example they have continually put their focus on video quality which is quite good.
In the end I think it's right that those of us who are critical of image quality give Canon a hard time for seemingly standing still. Realistically though a well exposed and shot image will look fantastic on those 18mp sensors. Heck I have old Rebel XTi images that I still marvel at how good they really can be.
Zigadiboom: Nikon D5000 - 12mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 72
Nikon D5100 - 16mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 80
Nikon D3200 - 24mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 82
Nikon D5200 - 24mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 84
Canon 550d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 66
Canon 600d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 65
Canon 650d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 62
Canon 100d/700d - 18mp - DXO Mark sensor score: 6?
Nikon sensors over time have continously been improving in dynamic range, color depth and high ISO even as the megapixels have been increasing. Canon on the other hand have been relatively stagnant in its sensor innovation and in its inexcsuable that in four iterations at such a competitive segment of the market that it cannot come up with anything better. I'm a Canon man if owning a G1X and a SX260HS counts. However if I'm going to upgrade to an entry or mid tier DSLR based on curent offerings I really cannot see why I would choose Canon over Nikon other than maybe lens selection and shooting video.
Being fair Nikon sensors are Sony sensors with Nikon processors behind them. That said Canon has seemingly done nothing to update that 18mp sensor for a long time now.
As for picking what camera system I wouldn't base the decision purely on DXO mark scores. What lenses are available? What features are available? How does the design fit in your hand? I've gone with a Nikon system not based on the DXO scores but rather how the camera more naturally fits in my hand. All modern cameras after all perform admirably in most situations.
lumbatius: Heavy stair-stepped edges, washed out colors and unnatural color rendition is not what I would call good quality images! I do not know if it is because of limited photographic skills of the user or camera capability? What do you think?
Which image are you looking at specifically? I'm not seeing aliasing at 100%.
Plastek: Wonder when they'll release 30 f/1.4 for A-mount.
This practice of delaying every single mount behind EOS and F is frustrating to say at least.
My guess is that they only have two manufacturing lines and in order to produce another mount they have to stop the EF or F lines temporarily. Given the massive market share's that Canon and Nikon have it's a gamble to produce lenses for other mounts.
iudex: How about Pentax? Sigma used to make lenses for K-mount and this one looks like a perfect prime I would possibly buy for my K-30, so why not Pentax?
Given Pentax's small market share it probably doesn't make sense financially.
jonny1976: perfect lens for pentax and it will sell a lot in k mount...unbelievable is not available in kmout but the ff 35 1,4 is.
It would be nice but given the tiny market share it probably doesn't make sense financially.
michi098: Would love the 30mm 1.4 but I have mostly moved to Canon full format sensors. (Still have a 7D but not buying any more APS-C lenses). I think that quite a few people are doing the same. Kind of a shame Sigma is ignoring a growing market with their new lenses.
Given the stellar Sigma 35mm 1.4 that just came out I would hardly say they're ignoring a growing market.
It's an interesting lens. The MSRP is a little high for what it is. At that price point it's dangerously close to the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS which is a good (albeit larger/heavier) lens. That said though I expect real prices to be substantially less than that - probably closer to the $2300-2500 mark.
As this lens appears to be from the pro line and features all of the latest bells and whistles from Nikon it will likely be a good performer and it gives the Nikkor lineup an equivalent to the well regarded if long in the tooth Canon EF L 100-400mm IS USM.
ifi: Minimum shutter speed?
"Achromatic feature minimum shutter speeds of 1/10,000th of a second. "
They support that minimum speed. As someone else pointed out the camera must also be capable of that minimum speed. As for why this exists - industrial/scientific uses immediately come to mind. Any situation where you must photograph something extremely bright but also must maintain optimum clarity (e.g. avoid ND filters and diffraction).
Combatmedic870: Well lets see if they have can beat the D800. It would be nice to see MF above FF again. If not then whats the point.
I hope the MF makers have stepped up their game! I would hate to see MF ghost.
How did the D800 beat MF? Yes the D800 and D800E are on the top of DXO but those tests cover a very wide range of photography. MF cameras are intended for resolution critical deliberate shooting - landscape and studio work almost exclusively. I love my D800 but I carry no delusions that it will rival a well lit studio shot on an IQ180.
The comparison is appreciated but I do wonder about the image quality comparison. It seems meaningless to compare default color, skin tone, and sharpening settings - the entire point of these tools is to adjust the image to your liking with the defaults simply being a starting point. Further most applications allow you to adjust what those defaults are making the whole exercise moot.
A better comparison could be gained by having a user skilled in all three applications try to tweak a set of images to their optimal look. Say a monochrome image, a high contrast saturated landscape, a finally a portrait. The comparison will always be subjective but at least then the comparison would be over the output of the programs and not just the image's initial state.
The price of the 35mm f/2 IS is likely due to the demand the lens will see for videography. The field of view will be appealing on both crop and full frame. We'll have to see if the market is willing to pay that price.
Oh and how nice Canon to finally have pinch caps.
luka3rd: Desirable!
Don't be fooled by the price, though... it is "Art" series... there will probably be pro models which will cost much more!
I assume that Art will be in the "low build quality / high performance" sector.
Er... the point of the new C A S designations from Sigma is to get away from "pro" lenses. Art lenses will be focused on special effects - large apertures and macro. Sports lenses will be focused on telephoto performance and focus speed. Contemporary lenses will be the remaining general purpose zooms. Please read the Sigma announcement.
JackM: As a 35L owner, this just looks like "more of the same" but with a lower price. That is, it looks about as big and heavy as the 35L. I'm way more tempted by the 35/2 IS for the reduced size and weight. Handling my camera with the 35L on it is not that much different than with the 24-70L. I loved the handling with my old 35/2, but I went to the L for the autofocus. Now that the new 35/2 has USM and better MTF, I think I'll switch back and pocket a few bucks.
That's the point of this lens though - an alternative to the Canon/Nikon/Sony/Zeiss lenses at a cost reduction and near equivalent performance. The Canon lens is around $1500. the Nikon is about $1600. The Sony is around $1500. The Zeiss is around $1800. At $900 this lens is very competitive.
Donnie G: Big and heavy Sigma 35mm F/1.4 DG HSM or light and compact Canon 35mm F/2 IS USM? Nice try Sigma, but I'll go with the Canon lens. Thanks anyway.
Comparing an f/2 small prime vs a large f/1.4 prime? That's an odd comparison. Compare this against the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G or Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L because those are its competitors. The point of these larger lenses is the large 1.4 aperture. If you don't need it and are fine with f/2 than these lenses were never a consideration for you anyway.