I think the labels here are misleading for people not reading, carefully, the article. Just saying "ISO 100" is not what it seems here, right? (I'm addressing the dpreview folks here.) Worth fixing with true clarity because the point is terrific and well done!!! Thanks
ThePhilips: I can't understand why there are so few 4.0/100mm macro lenses.
2.8 is useless for the macro, and it only hikes up the price and size of the lenses.
Even if you shoot at f/4 or f/8, focusing and viewing can be easier/better with the f/2.8 option...in my brief experience with the Olympus f/2.0 90mm macro at least.
Tilted Plane: I admire dpreview overall, but doesn't this seem small potatoes compared to the really interesting new lenses out there (some fast wide zooms, some terrific fast primes, etc.)? I mean, you complain that you don't have the resources to get reviews done faster, but now you have time to check out a f/1.8 50mm? Hmmm. Am I alone on this?
OK...I get it. I wasn't being a snob (I hope) but missed the point that the new lens might seem special or better than other 50mm primes out there. Let's hope they review the heck out of it and compare to the Sigma and Zeiss competition. And Nikon's, for kicks. I bow out. Thanks everyone.
But...it doesn't really need a review, does it? A great lens, and cheap, sure...
I admire dpreview overall, but doesn't this seem small potatoes compared to the really interesting new lenses out there (some fast wide zooms, some terrific fast primes, etc.)? I mean, you complain that you don't have the resources to get reviews done faster, but now you have time to check out a f/1.8 50mm? Hmmm. Am I alone on this?
I like the review...and wish there was more (lots more) of this hard core real world stuff on dpreview. Not to mention faster camera reviews.
Tilted Plane: I own this. Huge (!) distortion, corrected well in jpgs. Focuses fast and quiet. Not especially small for an f/2, but light. No image stabilization. In all, very sharp and therefore competent but nothing to write home about for this price. I'm keeping it, but not with particular joy.
Just to clarify on the sharpness--I've not measured it, but my 24mm Zuiko feels sharper on the A7r, and even the 14-24mm Nikon has more apparent snap (sharpness/contrast). It's not Zeiss quality, for sure. But then, this is a $400 lens, and I use it when I don't want to think and it makes a very decent point & shoot street lens.
I own this. Huge (!) distortion, corrected well in jpgs. Focuses fast and quiet. Not especially small for an f/2, but light. No image stabilization. In all, very sharp and therefore competent but nothing to write home about for this price. I'm keeping it, but not with particular joy.
Weird, but it seems ugly to me! But the point is good--some of us want our cameras to look great, too. Yes! Maybe you need a poll/contest for "The camera that takes the best picture"--meaning of course, from the outside.
These are not actually photographs, but photographic contact prints of engravings. (Some might call them photograms.) And they are direct positives on metal, so there is no negative. The dates are approx 1826. The only known existing photograph (in a camera, 8 hour exposure) by Niepce is in Texas, also made in 1826.
Maybe this has been mentioned already in the other notes, but my two cents anyway.
right on...and ditto for Nikon.
The question does linger--is a $900 camera, without a lens, entry level? The Rebel line seems to beg for a true entry level--in terms of price--without having to buy a 2 or 3 year old model. No?
The page of the flare issue is unusually fair and intelligent. Kudos! And thanks!
A pretty careful avoidance of Nikon (or Sony) comparisons, overall. Too bad. Head-to-head comparisons are really (!) helpful. Does this hold up next to a D750? Or even the D610? Or the similarly priced A7II? If so, when, where, under what shooting conditions?
rrr_hhh: I don't get it at all : may be because I'm not a native English speaker ? But really, I would be hard pressed to translate any of these sentence into my own language.
I mean : one can launch a teaser without telling anything about the subject/object coming, but why on earth making such un-understandable statements : which image of Canon do you think they to are offering to their customers ? What I get from it us just that Canon isn't able to communicate, not even at the symbolic level in order to create a positive image of the brand.
Plus, given the avalanche of negative comments targeting those who don't think Canon is able to see the impossible, well, I just feel aggressed/insulted.
Talk about a communication fiasco...
the other replies are right on...and now we know it was a dud! ha.
Macx: English isn't my first language so please bear with me, but is "We see impossible" proper English?
Regardless, it's still complete marketing bullship, akin to "We're giving it 110%", unless of course they're suggesting that they're delusional at Canon.
You can do whatever you want in English...partly why it's such a suggestive and invasive language. There is a "grammar" that most of us follow, but when we break the rules, it's potentially powerful. Of course, much of the time it sounds strained. Canon's ad agency took a chance and great for that (the camera company hasn't been)...but yeah, it's awkward. Supposed to make you think, right? But think what?
Still, it could have been another boring product ad. Impossible to have seen how awful the reception would be to it. I guess they saw that, since it was impossible.
It's true--it's a great example of English at its best, filled with ambiguous implications. Just what ads do well--making the reader go somewhere further. I love the ad. It's over the top, but why not? And it doesn't make "sense" in the way a translator or translation might expect at first. Way beyond facts and clear points. A good thing!! Who knows about the physical results, of course. Nikon might sneak something in using a Sony sensor and Canon, well...
GREAT interview--amazingly candid responses from Sony. Helps to love the brand and have hopes. Thanks all around. In my view Sony will never intrude on Canon and Nikon with DSLR, but mirrorless? The field is wide open. Good for us!
boring pictures...how do some people get included and not others? seems like an editorial slant (probably by accident?)...anyway, it makes the site seem a bit amateurish, frankly. and dpreview is the BEST...don't get me wrong.
I cry foul in principle. You're an Amazon company, no matter how you butter it. Recuse yourself.