Samuel Dilworth: Page 8: we finally hear the story about the different grips! That’s a weird one. As usual, I prefer the one I can’t get, i.e. the US model. I would love to hear why European customers prefer bulbous grips while Americans prefer style. These camera companies are utterly inscrutable.
You know you’re in Britain when your trade show has a prim little garden. Fantastic.
It is the custom for manufacturers in one country to sell to intermediaries for retailing; these marketing companies may be different in different areas or locations, and, many times, are individually owned. But whether a part of the factory hierarchy or not (I don't know Fuji's distribution structure) decisions are made for each local market.
McDonald's does the same with their restaurants around the world, with additions or deletions from their corporate (USA) menus and local pricing.
JLRX: Pentax should make a couple of leaf shutter lenses, like they had in the past.A flash sync-speed of 1/125 seems very low compared with the competition, 1/800 for Hasselblad or Leica and 1/1600 for PhaseOne/Mamiya.Apart from that... I think it's a great system.
I've got a leaf-shutter 75mm f:2.8 Fa645. Great for fill-flash.
I might accept offers....
Zvonimir Tosic: Tilting screen, same image processor and AF as the K-3 DSLR? Dual SD slots? Weather sealing too? Perhaps even video recording, using some fantastic MF glass?Sounds delicious. If they pull out video somehow, this will be awesome!
To DDWD10 & Zvoni --
My thoughts exactly. I *was* about to spring for a K-3 with Sigma's delicious zoom, but, if firesale prices apply, I might get a chance to use my 645 lenses on a digital MF body.
I don't care about CCD vs. CMOS; it will be for landscapes.
Wow! What a great lens, according to the results of this review. Head and shoulders above the competition. One might even say there is no competition.
I have saved a few thou I'd like to spend to acquire more modern cameras than I now own and the Sony A7s seemed to be, theoretically, at least, what I wanted in a digital camera. This lens' results, on the A7 and A7r, reminded me of another lens/camera pair I had read the results of on DxO: the Sigma 18-35mm f:1.8 Art lens mounted on APS-C Nikon 7100. Yep, the sharpness curves could be overlapped almost exactly!
So, I'm off to buy a new K-3 Pentax body with microprism focusing screen and big, bright optical viewfinder and the Sigma, to replace my K10D and Pentax-DA 16-45mm F:4.
Same resolution results as the Zeiss on an A7r but in a crop sensor, with similar low noise, better RAW formats and more optics available, including some Pentax glass I already own.
Perhaps this will replace the X-trans in future? There seems to be no practical advantage to Fuji's non-Bayer pattern now that most camera makers have taken out the low-pass filters in their Bayer arrays. The Pentax K-3 and Nikon D7100 blow Fuji's APS-C cameras out of the water in resolution, and, according to DPR's samples, have no discernable color moire (although there appears to be a small amount of monochrome moire if the lens' resolution is good enough.)
That leaves no design advantage for Fuji, as I see it.
This design reminds me of the doubled-up photoreceptors in Fuji's S1/2/3... and I suspect Fuji intends this design for the same purpose -- to increase dynamic range, not to reduce noise in small sensors as the article suggests.
Timmbits: crisp resolution will not be the forté of this design
Why so? It seems to me the luminance channel can be used to add to resolution thru software -- RAW conversion.
I disagree with the article's speculation it is to lower noise levels on small sensors, though; it would also work as far as I can tell to increase dynamic range, a goal of Fuji since the S1, if not longer.
dash2k8: I just don't see the $1,000 difference. The real-world tests say that this 58mm lens does indeed do some things very well, but $1,000+ well? I guess users will have to respond with their wallets and purses.
Grevture: You've gotten it.
In a competitive world, pro photographers will not allow themselves to be put at a disadvantage -- especially one that can be cured by (borrowing, probably) more money.
AFAICT (As Far As I Can Tell) smooth bokeh is a result of the absence of spherical aberrations. This takes a lot of skilled time to achieve, being a result of the polishing process. It is doubtful workers can be trained to do this quickly -- my guess it takes years or even decades to perfect. Nikon most likely pays these workers lots of bucks per hour and the work is time-consuming to an extreme.
Is the extra expense worth it? Not to me. But Rollieflex's f:2.8 Xenotars' creamy out-of-focus made more than one fashion photographer's career easier in the fifties and sixties.
Richard Schumer: The more I think of this and the Df -- and certain Sony and Hasselblad models -- the more it seems to me there must be lots of people with the belief that "you get what you pay for."
Even the focal length is retro: Contax, when they designed their first SLR, which had a fixed pentaprism, chose 58mm for their fast standard lens for it (Biotar, a Sonnar design, I believe) because it gave a 100 per cent lifesize view at most distances. Their groundglass had a narrow bevel which gave a "bright line" finder effect. The idea was that, like a good rangefinder camera, one could keep both eyes open while also being aware of the edges of the frame. I doubt this is true for this lens on any Nikon DSLR. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.
I know about that, using one (actually three "Hexacons," but that's another story) when it was current.
For what it's worth....
Go to the Df DPR Review's test image page. Set one of the results panels for Pentax K3. Compare at base ISO.
Now tell me the FF Df's imaging is up to the current standards.
Since you asked, I don't believe this lens is meant for pro photographers at all, but to the newly-enrichened who see old, patinaed Leicas, Canons, Leotaxes, and Topcons selling for outrageous sums on eBay auctions and elsewhere and have decided to buy a new camera, available without much bother from their local store or from Amazon, that looks and seems just like one of the old, valuable gems.
That's why I opened with a discussion of value(s).
And, as I see it, the Df has an ancient but formerly-expensive sensor.
The more I think of this and the Df -- and certain Sony and Hasselblad models -- the more it seems to me there must be lots of people with the belief that "you get what you pay for."
fakuryu: Looks nice but not really impressed. My 30yr old Pentax M 50mm f1.4 albeit a manual lens looks sharper at 1.4 and produces as creamy bokeh and bought it like new for just US$100.
As like what somebody already posted, the 50mm f1.4G looks like a like a bargain compared to this.
I use the same lens, maybe even older (it's a Pentax-M) which I've used for at least 30, probably closer to 40. It's had a rough life, what with the front element's coating wearing off in spots and some scratches and even gouges on the surface.
Nonetheless, it's hugely sharp when stopped down beyond f:2, anyway. It and a Tamrom 90mm macro may be the sharpest lenses I have ever used. Though the old 135mm F:2.5 is up there, too.
tim fisher46: Leica M lenses on the A7R?Is that possible?Does anyone have a link or similar to which adapters might be possible?
Owning 4x new Leica lenses, this sounds like a really good option for a forthcoming project of mine where size of equipment is going to be important, & assuming the adapters are not as impractical and bulky as the above picture, this camera may be a Heaven sent.
Also this for Voigtlander's Leica-M-to-Sony E close-focusing adapter (eventually)
Naveed Akhtar: Pentax always wins my heart .. with their beautiful, highly functional, rigid camera bodies .. and excellent IQ .. one after other .. K7, K5 and now K3!
However a few features are still missing .. and can't switch my boat without these, now a days:
- Continuous AF performance in movie and live view, preferably with touch screen!- A Wifi remote control with live view streaming- Better quality lenses (no doubt they are good, but there is a competition out there with top-end m43 and FF Canikons), you need to work out on some higher end kit-lenses and show some more options!!- I would also add electronic shutter to my wish list here!
Rest it's great!!!
I use both Pentax (K10d) and Olympus (EPL2) cameras. I shoot in raw and use darktable and the gimp under Linux. The reults are very similar even at pixel-peeping magnifications, seeming to be limited by 10Mp and 12Mp respectively. The exceptions are when I use primes like the Pentax 50mm f:4 or Tamron 90mm f:2.5 macros on the Pentax.
I have Oly's kit short zoom, but it seems a bit sharper than Pentax's equivalent on the K10d.s
So far, it seems to me sharpness is very dependent on lenses, with the best ones resolving higher than (so far) the best sensors, regardless of the sensor size.
There are many very sharp m43 primes, and quite a few mediocre lenses with Pentax mounting. But the kit lens for my Oly ranks in sharpness with the famous 50mm f:1.4 Pentax-M when used on the same test subject, processed by my preferred software at each lens's best aperture.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Let's just hope the sale to UK employees' pension plan doesn't mean the end of Kodak film. After all, Ilford went into receivership and now it is going on with their core business. And Italy's Ferrania is rising from the ashes right now. There's still a niche that needs to be filled.Today, still unaware of this news, I bought a T-Max 100 35mm roll for my Olympus OM-2n. I hope it wasn't the last Kodak roll l loaded my camera with. I still haven't tried Tri-X and Ektar...
To Graham and Manuel~:
Sorry. I guess I'm showing my age. I still have a couple of rolls, but never checked to see if it was still being marketed. Ilford made a similar film, ASA 100 that was a close second. Perhaps that's still made.
Both Plus-X and FP perhaps that was its name had a gorgeously smooth tonal range that I never achieved with Tri-X.
When you try Tri-X, discover its basic sharpness with an old-timey developer, too. Rodinal or one of its substitutes (Fomadon) will sharpen the images up considerably while still holding grain to moderate levels. Try dilutions of 50-100:1.
And don't ignore Plus-X, one of the truly underestimated emulsions. Rate it at 160 ISO for best results with Rodinal-like develiopers.
FrankS009: For those of us born after the second world war, it sometimes seems that life up until its end took place in black and white. These photos are not only good images, but a reality check.
"These photos are not only good images, but a reality check."
I assume these shots were on early Kodachrome -- the only film I can imagine being available at the time. It had an ASA (now ISO) rating of 10. To shoot available light on a factory floor on this stuff is more than amazing: It is genius.
I know, I used Kodachrome in the fifties; my Weston Master exposure meter would not measure below EV3 or EV4 so the exposiure must have been a guess.
straylightrun: Big surprise. Next is Micro Four Thirds and eventually APS-C before FF becomes the standard in a few years.
I used to think change will happen fast, but time has shown me how slowly it flows. It may well be that FF (35mm-size format) will win out for technical and artisitic reasons, but IMHO, it will take a long time -- decades perhaps.
Very, very good zooms are being designed and produced for APS-C, even with its technical limitations, like long back-focus lengths. A complex lens to achieve a wide field of view, when mass produced, appears to be cheaper than a less-demanding short-back focus wideangle zoom for either m43 or FF that is in limited production.
For now APS-C is more cost-effective than any other format.
In order to achieve the volume of sales necessary to meet present APS-C accessory lens prices, FF prices will have to fall dramatically, and I don't see that happening soon, if at all.
Many of us need some background on the company's history and its names.
IIRC, after Germany was divided after WWII, part of Carl Zeiss AG was located in Soviet-occupied areas, while other factories were in the "free" zone.
Inevitably, there was a trademark battle and the West German Zeiss operations were called Zeiss IKON while the East German products used the Carl Zeiss label. Reunification brought both trademarks to the company, although, frankly, the Carl Zeiss brand was damaged by variable quality and seen by some (me) as being inferior in design and/or assembly to the West German products.
ZEISS (all caps, no IKON or Carl) will, I expect, solve the branding problem for the future.
zorgon: Since when did dpreview start posting rumours?
Am I crazy, or are there others like myself who would snap up a Leica M 240 without the expensive rangefinder assembly, which doubtless adds thousands to the cost, even if it did not have a red dot or the M-moniker?
They could call it the 1a-2 for all I would care. A FF EVF live-view with the M-mount: so simple. Are you listening Cosina?
Gesture: $1,200 interesting and exciting. Likely cost: 2-3X.
I suspect there will be a Panasonic Lumix version of this; if so, it would likely cost ~$1200.