Super-wide angle + (nearly) flat front lens = heavy vignetting
Applause to Sony.I had expected such a camera from the Nikon with their 1 system, but it appears at the moment Nikon is fully obsessed with putting on and taking off the AA filter.Bravo Sony!
jonikon: A thousand dollar camera body and it doesn't come with a viewfinder? Really? So you have to buy the big ugly VF4 EVF separately for another $300 which makes the camera body $1300 and to top it off, it takes blurry pictures! Who in there right mind would buy the E-P5 when the OM-D E-M5 with an EVF and no blurry pictures can be had for around $900? With designs and marketing like this it is little wonder Olympus is in financial difficulties.
I want to buy it for my wife. She doesn't need it, and without VF the camera is smaller.
ZAnton: I assume there are too many variables to calculate good result. For example LoCAs are distant dependent, so unless we know the distance to ALL objects on the photo, we can't calculate back the initial image. Similar with non-flat focus-plane (field curvature). If the object is blurred by that, one must know the distance to the object for the reverse calculation of the "ideal" image.
Focus point - yes, the rest - no.
Michael Ma: It is being done already somewhat on the MFT system. Open it up on ACR, and it already has already corrected the distortion and aberrations, but not the vignetting, which is unfortunate. DxO corrects all 3, but I much prefer to work with ACR.
LR4 corrects vignetting either.
I assume there are too many variables to calculate good result. For example LoCAs are distant dependent, so unless we know the distance to ALL objects on the photo, we can't calculate back the initial image. Similar with non-flat focus-plane (field curvature). If the object is blurred by that, one must know the distance to the object for the reverse calculation of the "ideal" image.
lem12: Would be much helpful to compare more cameras at this new test scene.
Agree. Put a Nikon D600 as a Nikon's FF benchmark.
Cokin is a virtual company. I am looking for a place where I can buy their PRO filters (in Germany) for 3 years, and still can not find anything. Neither amazon, nor ebay or any other more or less big shop has their products. Their internet page has not functioned for years (is it now?).So dpreview, please delete these news, so that other people would save their time by reading it and searching these phantom filters.
forpetessake: "Low-light performance is bolstered by a blazing fast f/2.0-4.0 glass lens" -- an advanced advertising method known as bold lies. Who would ever call f/9.3-f/18.6 FF zoom blazing fast? Blazing slow is a better description.
you mix recalculation of DOF in FF terms and f-number
Good article. Btw, there is no Canon at all. Hehe...
pdbdeepak: I just love this website...but the combination of the colors used are hurting my eyes really bad!!:(
Please change the colors. Or invert them. Black backdrop with white text is really a bad idea!!
Nope, black BG with white text is much better to read
Please add a Nikon D600 as a Nikon benchmark.
I bet, when you will need a replacement for this carton box one day (and you will), you will get it for like $10.
I would better enhance the wide end than the tele end.
I don't know what is the purpose of this article.Of course DSLR cann't be a "always with me" camera. If I go shooting, I take DSLR, if I go cycling/hiking/walking I take a pocket camera.So that's it.
falconeyes: 20-1200 mm F/16-33
and according to optyczne.pl, it isn't even sharper at F/33 than F/47.
Can't see any other application than bright daylight video from a tripod ...
it is f/2.8-5.9. where do you get 16-33 from?
Same camera & specs with 1/1.7" sensor please.
Nukunukoo: Definitely my next lens... just wished if had OIS.
You don't need IS much on these focal lengths. For people/event photograph exposure times must be at least 1/30sec, better 1/50sec. So you can shoot this lens handheld. For landscapes you do need a tripod anyway.
Also f/1.8 will give you a lot freedom.
Next step - is to make it 24-70 FF equivalent and reduce weight a bit.0.8 kg (Tamron 24-70 VC) is too much even on my FF.
marike6: Very nice performance from the new 18-35 3.5-4.5G. And it couldn't come at a better time as I've recently changed by Tokina 16-28 2.8 for the 28 1.8G. And as good as the 28 1.8G is, it's not all that wide.
Enter the new 18-3G. The slower max aperture is not such a big deal for landscape photography.
Money no object I'd simply add the 14-24 2.8G, but like the Tokina lens I just got rid of, it's large, heavy, pricey and doesn't take filters. The 18-35G seems to be a good compromise on size/weight, price and performance. Thanks guys.
I agree, that the lens is very good,but they should have made it 16mm instead of 18mm on the wide end.