samfan: I've read a story about a fake Canon flash about a year ago. The dude bought the flash online and one of the secondary features wasn't working properly, so he took it to a Canon dealer to check it out. They were trying to make the flash work for hours until finally they called a technician who eventually noticed some differences and figured out the flash was fake.
On the other hand, there are rally good really cheap flashes available. I'd guess that if the makers of these fakes don't want to be found out immediately and hurt their business, I'd assume the insides of these fakes would be at least half-decent. But no guarantee of course... It can be the cheapest, most dangerous crap. Flashguns are dangerous stuff.
Also, frankly this wouldn't be such an issue if the original camera maker's wouldn't be so f**king greedy when it comes to accessories. That crap is often so incredibly overpriced it borders on theft.
It's also stupid; they could be selling much more for more reasonable prices but instead they are losing out to cheap alternatives, second hand sales and even fakes.
I hope one of these big guys will figure it out and starts selling accessories for more reasonable prices.
And yes I know the originals are often higher quality, but not always (lens caps anyone?) and 5-10x overpricing is just ridiculous. They really expect us to buy $50 batteries for $400 cameras?
I've read a story about a fake Canon flash about a year ago. The dude bought the flash online and one of the secondary features wasn't working properly, so he took it to a Canon dealer to check it out. They were trying to make the flash work for hours until finally they called a technician who eventually noticed some differences and figured out the flash was fake.
QuarryCat: for that astronomic price a 2.8/16-55 mm VR would do much more sense!
especially for Nikon China-Plastics
I'll be laughing when it turns out that this lens is still f/2.8 on 55mm. I know it's unlikely but wouldn't it be great.
This looks like a good offering, in fact something that should have been here at least 5 years ago.
Hey, stupid question since I haven't kept up: does the electronic diaphragm mean the lens won't work on pre-D300 bodies?
sebastian huvenaars: Turn your nikon into a Sony R1 :) kinda...
Hehe someone else who remembers the R1.
oselimg: Ok, it has f2.8-4, credit given where it's due. This is an "enthusiast" lens not a main stream one therefore $1060 ok. However it's only 1/2 stop faster at the wide end and 1 stop at the long end compared to mainstream alternatives which in most cases is not significant. No wedding photographer will dare shooting with f4 at the longer end. if it had f2.8 throughout it would have made sense especially at the long end and even slightly bigger premium would've been justified if it were, performance wise, the "jack of all trades". With todays sensor performances I think the target audience wouldn't hesitate increasing the ISO one step instead of paying $$$ premium. 7 blades aperture is another Achilles heel for this zoom.
I hate f/5.6 lenses on principle alone. This is finally a replacement for the under-appreciated 18-70/3.5-4.5.
We'll have to see how much this will cost in Europe but if I remember correctly, the 16-85 has cost around 1000 Euros on launch so this price is not excessive, especially considering the better aperture. But we'll see how good the lens is.
Ed Villanueva: P infinity from Nikon is coming out in 2016 that will have 1458x zoom, I believe. http://petapixel.com/2015/04/01/nikon-unveils-the-p%E2%88%9E-the-first-compact-camera-with-a-1458x-zoom-lens/
Haha I made the same joke a year ago http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3651820#forum-post-53456592
samfan: Interestingly, Hasselblad used to be one of the biggest digital innovators, with early digital cameras and scanners, but the management of the time wanted to focus on film.
Who knows where the company would be today if they followed the innovative digital path from the beginning.
That said, I think almost none of us has to care, what's the chance of owning a Hasselblad? People harp on Leica but Hass is something even more unobtainable and more niche.
What I'm talking about is that some companies in the 90's said "yep digital looks like the next big thing, let's do that", while some others went like "film is our cash cow, let's resist the change".
At the time, you really didn't need to do much do make a digital camera, which is why companies like HP and some others that never did cameras managed it. (Mind you, HP even made DSLTs.) Later of course, companies that actually have had experience with making cameras pulled ahead again, but only those that weren't asleep.
Hassy and Kodak, and I think Polaroid as well did fall asleep because they resisted the change even though they already had massive know-how in the digital business. They just didn't want the change to happen. That's different than some small camera makers that obviously didn't have the necessary expertise in digital, but those 3 certainly had. Leica and Fuji also fall into that category, they survived just because making real cameras wasn't their core biz at the time.
It's easy to judge the battle after the war, but I'd say anyone with eyes in their head could know at last in late 1990's that digital is the future of photography.
I remember how I was hunting for a 2nd hand digital camera in around 1998. I was just a consumer and even 640*480 pixel photos were quite enough for postcard-sized prints, or at least the quality was on par with what you could get from a typical film p&s and low-cost processing. Results were immediately available, no need to pay for supplies, no need to pay for bad photos... I had a lot of fun even with some 320*240 web cams and then in early 2000's I could get a 2Mpx camera for the price of a 128MB card (back then).
Yea, I can see why Hassy would think that the digital quality is not enough for wedding pros but I still don't see why would they not leverage their digital know-how. Same for Kodak and some others.
Casio, Pansonic, Sony, HP, Nikon, Canon... They all saw the light even back then.
Wild Light: Look at the picture here. In all respect it's ridiculous and sums up the entire situation. The CEO is begging for your forgiveness with the 500cm in his hand! That horse, the finest stallion known has bolted long ago.
The 500 and 200 models are for photographers, artists. The H looks like the very thing I keep my milk in. It handles like one too. at least my fridge works without having to take the battery out and the back off constantly.
The CFV back is bordering useless for an original owner because of the crop factor. Give us a full frame 645 Back to use on our 500 bodies and commission Zeiss to create an updated range of the old lenses. There is nothing in the world like the 110mm f2 FE and it is bordering on criminal. Create a new version of the original body with a focussing screen that is clear and has modern build tolerances so we can focus high res digital backs.
Come on Hasselblad!
Nicely said. I don't have experience with Hassy so this is a useful insight.
Ah here it is http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstrom/hasselblad-from-the-moon-to-surviving-disruptive-innovation
More like in the early 80's. Check here for example: https://luminous-landscape.com/the-rise-of-digital-imaging-and-the-fall-of-the-old-camera-industry/
I've read an even more thorough essay on that but I can't find it now.
Interestingly, Hasselblad used to be one of the biggest digital innovators, with early digital cameras and scanners, but the management of the time wanted to focus on film.
Taylor Swift is completely crazy when it comes to 'value of music' and 'taking advantage of artists' and whatnot.
The whole world is moving towards more freedom when it comes to copyright but people like that still want to control every thought, every tune and every picture in the world.
Marty4650: Would you buy a lens from a company that can't get their website to work?
Just sayin'.... this is pretty basic marketing. You issue a press release with a website listed. Then the website doesn't work. This doesn't bode well.
"These are the same Chinese that can hack into U.S. Government websites"
The most stupid comment of the month. Yep, those guys who make camera lenses, it's THE SAME GUYS who hack US web sites!
It's a Chinese company. They often have awesome products for even more awesome prices but can't market for crap.
I already have that experience from portable audio (headphones and players). And now other Chinese companies of a similar caliber have been making lenses with the same approach.
So yes I would. Who cares for a web site if you get a fine lens for a low price?
white shadow: What a teaser! No weight, price and how big it is.
I'll help you: It's heavy, huge and expensive.
samfan: One reason why people use primes is that they are tiny. Which reminds me, I'd like to see Sigma go back to doing small lenses. The original 50-150/2.8 I used to have was awesome, the successor is a huge RPG. And all these lenses are behemoths as well.
Thx we are talking about the original 50-150/2.8 (and mark II), not the huge OS version.
Yes the newer OS variant is just as big as 70-200/2.8 therefore pointless.
OVFs and EVFs have each their advantages.
From OVFs, both SLRs and RFs have their advantages.
From EVFs, both large rear LCDs and the small peek EVFs have their advantages.
It's a pity that people start wars over this. It's like arguing whether wide lenses are better than long lenses.
I personally like the immediacy of OVFs but I hope all the current camera formats will survive for a long time. Because what I don't like is taking pics with mobile phones.
One reason why people use primes is that they are tiny. Which reminds me, I'd like to see Sigma go back to doing small lenses. The original 50-150/2.8 I used to have was awesome, the successor is a huge RPG. And all these lenses are behemoths as well.