Karl Gnter Wnsch: Their measurements are so badly screwed - the 100mm f/2 USM lens better than the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM - there is something fishy going on here, and it stinks mighty badly! I can only see one reason in their published data: They seem to take all aperture settings into account which a lens offers - and at f/22 (the maximum the 100mm f/2 can close it's aperture to) the diffraction of the sensor isn't as bad as on the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM where the lens can close to f/32. So these guys basically are morons who have no clue what they do and should be barred from further producing this overload of measurement garbage! Please DPreview - do yourself a favor and drop them from your portfolio of partners, you're better off without them!
I'm quite sure they know what they're doing. The problem is, they 'compress' all their findings into one figure and this makes it actually harder to choose between two similar lenses. A cross table with selectable points of measurement is better i.m.o.
So, all you need is a D800 and a cheap Samyang 85mm f/1.4 and you're in i.q.-heaven? Interesting.
Anyone here, who has this combination?
Hugo808: So the lenses most people are going to use - 18-55, 18-135 - are the worst ones for the camera?
That makes it a tough sell, why can't we have a top performing standard zoom without having to carry around something heavy like the fast L series options?
Just once would be nice.....
Why? Reason 1: Because most people don't want to pay 1.000€ or more for an entry level SLR.Reason 2: Because most people who buy entry level SLRs do not have the need for better lenses.
mathew crow: What's a BlackBerry?
... a smarter phone than other "smart phones".
FoolyCooly: Is it too early to request a shootout?
Panasonic G6 VERSUS Blackmagic Pocket Cinema *FIGHT*
Interested in seeing if Panasonic squeezed any more DR out of the 16MP Live MOS.
BlackMagic shoots RAW Video but it is limited to 30fps.
Just watch the comparison between 5d and Blackmagic (available on the web) and you'll see that G6 will not have much of a chance.
The Blackmagic's sensor is purpose built, while that of G6 is an all-rounder.
RichRMA: Having seen these things in the astronomy world for 30 years, many of us were wondering when they'd release something like it for cameras. Now that it's here, we see the expected shortcomings (added aberrations) and realize it will be mostly a "centre of field" device. But I'm wondering if it even makes sense getting one? You can buy f/1.4 lenses now from 24mm all the way to 85mm and that is pretty fast. Some of them are very sharp, even wide open. There are also lenses that are as fast as f/0.95 (Schneider CCTV lenses, and others, usable on m4/3rds). My guess is most people will find that going up one stop in ISO will be a better idea than using this compressor except in rare circumstances were every last drop of speed is needed. This kind of device would have been far more useful 5 years ago when cameras were much noisier at high ISO.
@Nishi: No, they are not better suited for FF, because they were designed to fit film and not digital sensors. The latter makes them lose sharpness and light in the corners. A 4/3 design crops the best part of the lens, but of course the adapter's glass must be excellent, too.
Just imagine that you had a bunch of Zeiss or Leica lenses worth several thousand Euros. With this adapter you'd be able to make good use of them again - without losing their focal length and even gaining on aperture. The lens centric design of 4/3 should even work better with this adapter.
plasnu: Awful color. Beginners and lower class people usually prefer more saturated color, but this is too much. LOL.
And you really think there's no saturation setting in this camera?
tommy leong: ergonomics would be my first concernfollowed byhow much really smaller it is in real use.
4/3 cameras are small but coupledwith their zoom . the bag they need is not muchsmaller than a rebel.So "small" as a feature for 4/3, is not in real use.
Ad a proper zoom to the equation, put the system on a scale and you know the advantage of 4/3.
If you only use the kit lens and have large hands, a bigger body can be better, of course.
retro76: You can say what you want about Canon's aging 18 megapixel sensor, but I would still rather have this sensor over anything from the likes of Sony, Nikon, or Olympus. Maybe technically the sensor isn't quite up to par on paper, but in the field the color, wb, detail, and tonality are second to none. I have owned the Nikon D7000 and I did recently own the Olympus OM-D and while those systems are wonderful in their own right, they just can't touch on Canon for output. I know it sounds biased, but I have owned just about everything under the sun and the only system that really comes close to accurately capturing the moment is Canon. I never understand why so many fashion photogs and world renowned artistis used Canon until I bought into the system (I thought it was brand snobbery, but I was wrong).
You're lucky that you've found the right system that fits your needs and your taste. Personally, I never liked Canons color rendering much and prefer Olympus and Nikon. Today's technical standards are so high, that there's practically not much difference in image quality between brands. This allows choosing according to taste and other aspects. Isn't this great?
Excellent lens, but the JPGs are not doing it justice.
The RAWs however, are also quite misleading as I found:- strong moiré patterns on the money bills make Nikon A look worse- stronger default sharpening than for other models makes it look better
I took the RAWs of Nikon A and E-M5 and developed them to best sharpness & detail with their supplied RAW converters. My result:Both are practically on par and deliver excellent iq. Some parts of the scene favor E-M5, others Nikon A. Moirés are almost gone.
Another comparison showed that the lens of Nikon A matches that of Oly XZ-1/2. Superb.
Imagefoundry: How I wish that this nonsense with Lightroom would just cease already. Version 7.4 still doesn't work with xtrans, it just doesn't work in a slightly different manner. Talk about procrustean bed....
Using LR output to compare camera brands amounts to partisan tactics, in my honest opinion. Its demosaicing engine is as bad as the user interface and color controls are good; and the output from different cameras is wildly inconsistent.
@Imagefoundry:I don't like/use LR either, but it is very widely spread.Besides: DPR offers RAWs for download, so you can do your own comparisons with your preferred software.
GeorgeZ: Wow, I just saw for the first time what they charge- almost 1.000€.You can get a 5200 with 2 lenses for the same money. I know it's a premium compact but how on earth are these prices calculated? The sensor can't be the reason, the electronics or body neither. Remains the lens, but I doubt it's more expensive to make than a 18-55 kit lens. I guess they just want to make 5x the profit they make with a equally priced DSLR.
@GeorgeZ:The lens is certainly more expensive than a kit version: Better quality and lower quantity.Look at the prices of excellent primes: 500€ and more are not unusual.If you know how prices are calculated you understand that selling prices are largely based in cost per unit. You can also imagine that such a camera has eaten a large chunk of development costs, because it is very different from the other models.
Pablo4: To my eyes, at base ISO (where I shoot 90% of shots) the camera produces mushy RAW pictures. There is definitely some NR going on, or the sensor/lens isn't that great as fanboys would like. Just look at it and compare to the NEX 5N, 7, Olympus XZ-1 or M5. All cameras I had are sharper. Yuck, no thanks.
@Pablo:Wrong impression. You need to read the whole review. A simple RAW comparison cannot tell the truth about the true performance.
santamonica812: No RAW. Therefore, no interest at all for serious photographers looking for a 2nd, lighter and all-in-one, camera to bring on their travels.
@santa:Why don't you look further? Fujifilm offers even better models with RAW.
sarit: I'd like to see the manufacturers put 1" sensor for these bridge cameras or at least 2/3" for god's sake.
@sarit: Yes, you can put this Sigma on a Nikon 1 with the 1-inch sensor, but will lose wide angle.
Just like Frances wrote: The 10x zoom for Nikon 1 is a good measure. Pulling it up to 30x with F2.8 would make it a lot bigger than it already is. I don't think manufacturers are holding anything back. At 300€ this camera is a bargain imo.
Great photo! I like the color contrast and the reflection of its "face".
Problem is, the laws of optics don't like what you like.If you need 1" superzoom you can buy Nikon 1.
Ahender: Image quality blows away my 7D. Take a look at the image of the woman in red at 100%. My 7D has nothing close to that in detail.
Yes, excellent detail, but I guess the sensor only plays a minor role in this particular picture: The strong light an the excellent lens make it happen.
Isit13: The lens is surprisingly small in diameter considering it is a DX sensor, could the relatively high f-stop number for a prime play a part in this?
Very likely so, because I don't assume that Nikon found a way to circumvent the law of physics. :-)