SirSeth: Yeah, what's the price because if it's similar to the A7 series this is looking very attractive. The Olympus 5-axis is fantastic and I think it has been shown to be engineered well in the E-M1 so this accomplishment in a small FF body is incredible.
I wonder what Olympus gets out of the deal? FF sensors, 4/3rds sensors, better video specs?
@ Alpha: I have *no* inside information, but my guess is patents are involved, not mechanisms. Sony doubtless can manufacture things as well as Olympus.
Richard Craze: Love that Sony now have in body stabilisation. Does that mean they can start to produce smaller and lighter lenses? The size of the Olympus system lenses is just amazing, I know that 35mm lenses are going to be bigger and heaver but we can all remember the size of 35mm lenses before auto focus came along!
I think lens size is now a matter of fashion. Lenses have gotten bigger, that's for sure; they now resemble the status symbols one-inch (25mm) tall and two-and-a-half-inch (65mm) diameter wristwatches are.
OTOH, Pentax's Limited series of FF autofocus lenses are still small. Maybe Sony can persuade Ricoh to sell them a part of Pentax for optics?
Now I think I understand why Sony bought such a big part of Olympus a little while ago....
BuckieJoe: Okay... Am I the only one who thinks that PhaseOne has been seriously trying to lure in the hipsters recently? Their ads, their facebook, everything looks to distance itself from the pro market intentionally. In my view their marketing sucks a lot given that the products themselves hardware and software-wise are very good indeed.Have they found a new niche, are they trying to be like fancy sport car manufacturers now?
"...everything looks to distance itself from the pro market intentionally"
That may be true if the number of wealthy "hipsters" in the wild is greater than the number of pros looking for MF systems.
40daystogo: I felt the Hasselblad-Sony designs were gross. Everything, for me, just reeked of awful design -- the silly wood handles, the amateurish H logo. Why can't they clearly state the Hasselblad name which is what people are paying the bucks for.
I think Hasselblad and Sony should team up on a medium format camera which is Hasselblad's speciality, and make it affordable for regular people.
What a great idea! I can see the headline now: "Sony to rebrand Hassy HVs at a bargain price".
Turnabout is fair.
Why didn't I think of it?
Stigg: no matter what they try it will never equal film
He forgot the <sarcasm> tag.
Albino_BlacMan: How long of an exposure do you need at 0.005 lux. Isn't that an imperative piece of information?
I assume some of the better sensors out there can capture some kind of image at that level if you leave the shutter open long enough.
According to my LunaPro SBC, 0.005 lux will require an exposure of f:1.4 @ 3 minutes with ISO 50,000.
That's not much light at all -- mebbe three or four photons....;0}
<'large-sensor mirrorless could be a solution'>
MrTaikitso: Interesting, we inherited an old Leica from my father (who got it from his father), and it looks like that Hansa. I wonder who influenced who, my history of old gear is not good. I know the Leica had this clever prism that connected to the viewfinder so you could take pictures around corners! Sneaky! I had a water pistol that could do that too, and shot my physics lecturer in the face at point blank range by mistake with it after he stepped out of the staff room in the path of my target! I had to write out lines or something, but it was funny at the time - he was a dufus. Anyway, where were we? Ah yes, Kwanon!
@Greg -- I am going to nit-pick you: The Canons were not "exact" copies of Leicas -- they were improvements in concept and/or execution. Where Leica continued to separate viewfinder and rangefinder functions until the M3 in the late fifties, Canon postwar models, the IV, IVs, and IVs2 had integrated view-rangefinders. Also, the Canon's corners were angled, and IIRC, its back opened in the normal fashion. For exact Leica copies, one could mention Leotax, and several others, but Canon, back then, was into improvements on a proven theme.
BTW: I am not a Canon fanboi. I have owned many camera systems over six decades, but never, once, a Canon. Sheer accident.
mpgxsvcd: Not a ton to praise here but also not a lot to hate on. A nice solid little camera. I still think the Olympus E-PM2 is a better value at $170.
I got my E-Pmini2 a couple of months ago and like it quite well. I also got the 9-18mm and it makes a great pair.
The pictures are simply astounding! The jpgs are good enought that for moderate (8x10 inch) prints no RAW processing is required; but when RAWs are carefully developed, there is enormous headroom in the highlights (compared to my older Pentaxes) and the shadows can be bumped a lot, too.
I am so pleased with the little snaps-only (I thought) camera that I might go m43 when I update my K10D if Oly or Pana made a camera wide enough for a comfortable grip in my hands. Something the size and shape of a Leica I, II, or III with an EVF built in would be nice!
Oh, wait. Fuji has that territory staked out already....
I remember a precedent, perhaps, for this kind of case. There was, in the middle of the last century, a chimpanzee, IIRC, who painted some "works" that were eventially displayed on the walls of museums and sold for appreciable prices.
Perhaps it was that case which caused the law to specify works by nature, or randomness or animals are without copyright protection.
Is there a lawyer in the house who can provide an opinion?
"Do you think Mr. Slater's takedown requests are justified?"
That's actually three questions -- one as to law, one of facts, and one of "fairness."
The law is on Wikipedia's side, clearly. The facts are the photographer owns the camera and distributed the photos, something the animal could not do on its own.
Fairness, like beauty, however, "is in the eye of the beholder."
SirSeth: Why the cost? Just curious. It seems like a good lens but I thought Ricoh was trying to bring affordable medium format to morals.
I have a 645 (film) system with all the FA645 lenses from 45mm to 200 including the leaf-shutter-equipped 75mm, all bought cheaply on eBay some years ago. So, for that range of glass, they are cheaply available. But the 25mm, 35mm and any glass longer than 200mm are very hard to find and very dear.
The 35mm, when available, ran about $3000 used then and the telephotos were likewise not cheap or easy to find; the 25mm is too new to have any bargains show up.
As for zooms, they seem to keep their value pretty well, last I checked. And being MF zoom glass, they are big and heavy.
Big glass requires lots of polishing and inspection, and small quantities mean more hand work, is my guess. Still this lens is far cheaper than its competitors from Hassy and Phase One (Mamiya).
As an alternate, one can use via adapter any Hasselblad-mount lens in manual mode: F'rexample this one: http://www.amazon.com/Hasselblad-40mm-f4-0-Distagon-Zeiss/dp/B004AT4X00
ystein Bach: It works... :-)And very often we simply cant tell the difference!
If by "very often" you mean most movies and TV shows ever made, I'll agree with your understatement.
Backdrops can work invisibly when done with skill and subtlety.
Plus, as portraits are pretty much a photograph of the *relationship between the photographer and subject,* a backdrop can transform a serious photog's home studio family portraits.
zorgon: For some reason, I read "Leica to go under the hammer"
And I read it as if "under the hammer" meant smashed, destroyed, "hammered."
Oh, it means "auctioned."
Phil O Sophical: Just had a thought: To read a curved focal surface with a flat sensor...
If the image was "scanned" by the sensor-read process in a circular fashion as the sensor moved towards the lens during the shot.... This would be easy with a liquid-crystal shutter near the focal "plane"The process starting at the centre as a circle and then becoming an anulus as it radiated to the corners, we should have compensated for our curved field.
The camera could be equipped with the curve parameters of any lens. The sensor moving by piezo or moving-coil actuation may be a limit to higher shutter speeds.
Is this an equally silly idea or the germ of a better one
Sure. But just where does one purchase those "liquid crystal shutters"?
AFAIK they are not an off-the shelf item.
Also, there is the problem of moving the mass of the sensor during 1/8000sec. exposure. Not much mass, to be sure, and not much movement, but not much time to do it in.
Was it 4:20 in your time zone when you came up with this?
Michael Piziak: This lens was ahead of it's time in 1840.
It was good for about 60 years until the Tessar was introduced. That was >100 years ago.
N.B. I am not against old things per se as I am quite an antique myself, and, last time I used film, it was processed in Rodinal, a developer about as old as the Petzval design. I can't understand how this design was, in any way, "ahead of its time." It seems to have been right on its time.
It was dreamed up, kisckstarted, designed and produced by a company which has described its products as toys.
I would like to play with this lens, but I would not use it regularly for a subject or event that was important to me.
John TF: The series 14, 22, 35, 55, 85, 135, 200, 320 employs a constant multiplier of ~1.58 between members of the series. Rounding off to these common focal lengths accounts for slight variations from 1.58. Interesting. Also, is it a coincidence that the APS-C crop factor (1.6) is nearly the same number, or was this another aspect of equivalence which was invoked in the choice of APS-C sensor size? Because an APS-C 55 is in some ways equivalent to a FF 85, the next member in the series, and so on. I'm not sure what the benefit of that arrangement would be, though.
I suspect the presence of the Golden Mean (the Fibonacci spiral) which is ubiquitous in art, mathematics and nature -- 1:1.618https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
5tve: My 85mm f1.4 Samyang on my Sony A6000 with the Camdiox 0.72 Focal Reducer is the equivalent to 92 mm on full frame ( 85*1.5*0.72 ) I love the combination great image quality & fast accurate manual focus with peaking.
I wonder how long it will be before someone makes a APS-C camera with an integral focal reducer & auto focus ?
to @mosc: What you say is true -- no argument there. But, what if the APSC body were mirrorless? With the the mirror gone, a focal reducer could be put there instead.
Instant and permanent compatibility with older, present and future FF lenses.