Mike99999: This lens is crazy slow.
Primes are the way to go for mirrorless systems: Olympus 12mm f/2 is the wide angle of choice.
@abortaborttokina 11-16 f/2.8sigma 10-20 f/3.5canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5nikon 10-24 f/3.5-4.5tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5tokina 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5
I wanted to get one of these and I tested both in the shop for quite a long time. Nikon is WAAY better fits a hand. (a friend of mine also tested both and had same opinion).Those 4 seconds for Nikon to process a file is total BS. Although Nikon Is slower, it is just 0,5sec longer than Canon.Optical viewfinder by Canon has no sense - it is so tiny, on the other hand, Nikon tiltable screen can always be rotated so that sun doesn't block the whole image.For me, real disadvantade of Nikon is its slower lens, at was mentioned they have a whole 1 stop difference at 140mm equiv.
ZAnton: I used Corel Draw at work. I wanted to do some very basic things - take PrintScreen with a map, crop it and paint directions from a railway station to the office. After 45 minutes my brain exploded but I still could not do it. With a PS it took me 2 minutes to do that.Corel Draw has THE MOST stupid and illogical interface I EVER used. Even worse that facebook.
Sorry, I meant Corel Photo Paint, or whatever it calls.
I used Corel Draw at work. I wanted to do some very basic things - take PrintScreen with a map, crop it and paint directions from a railway station to the office. After 45 minutes my brain exploded but I still could not do it. With a PS it took me 2 minutes to do that.Corel Draw has THE MOST stupid and illogical interface I EVER used. Even worse that facebook.
Nightwings: No viewfinder = NO SALE
There is already OM-D with EVF
zinedi: External EVF in the middle only, for extra money? Forget it. No built-in VF - no camera for enthusiasts and advanced photographers.
I don't need EVF/OVF on an enthusiast camera.
Tiny 1/2.3" sensor under a dark lens f/3.5-6.3, that will be the most expensive useless camera.
Kodachrome200: I still dont get this. Again we are simply achieving the performance of 2.8 zooms on full frame. And in order to do it we are handicapping the zoom range and making an aps rig big and heavy and expensive. why not shoot full frame. and if you have an aps c body wouldnt you rather have a lens that was pretty good on dof and low light but had a normal zoom range? I mean if you really want lovely bokeh you should look to standard zoom anyway they tend to not have as nice a look as prime lenses do in these ranges. And they are already plenty of primes that offer f/1.8 and even faster.
@mick32this lens will cost same as f/2.8 lens for FF.Size and weight: Compare Canon 5D3 vs. Canon 100SL or Canon 650D or 60D
Why not shoot FF?How about lowest price for FF at 1600 Euro vs. lowest price APS-C 300 Euro?How about weight and size of the camera itself?
DonSantos: If it was for ff I would have died an gone to heaven.
For FF it would be over 2 kilo weight.
ZAnton: With such lens(es) there is little sense in getting FF. APS-C has 1 stop worse ISO noise, but a lens at similar focus distance, size, weight and price will be 1 stop faster. But APS-C and camera is much cheaper, smaller and lighter.Well done Sigma. We were waiting for that for many years.
FF sensors are not cheap, and per definition FF will be ALWAYS significantly (4 times at least) more expensive than APS-C, also there are other mechanical parts such as mirror and shutter.
QuarryCat: makes no sense for me.I use a 35 or 50 mm or even a 28 mm - one alone is enough - my feet are the zoom - no ned for another big, expensive compromise lens.sounds crazy.
a 2,0/35-105 mm would be fantastic and a 4,0/50-300 mm is urgent needed...
You "zoom" doesn't work if you are indoors or if you want to "zoom" a mountain.
With such lens(es) there is little sense in getting FF. APS-C has 1 stop worse ISO noise, but a lens at similar focus distance, size, weight and price will be 1 stop faster. But APS-C and camera is much cheaper, smaller and lighter.Well done Sigma. We were waiting for that for many years.
dopravopat: WANT! :-)
Now will there be a 35 - 70 f1.8 to match this? And eventually a 70 - 200 f2 for APS-C. :-P
@ppastorisFF camera cost much more than APS-C. Price of the lens is roughly same as f/2.8 FF analog.
Yeah, compare them both vs. Canon G1X.They both look a bit overpriced.Yes, Canon is bigger, but it has a zoom lens with f/2.8 at 28mm, tiltable screen and it costs half of Nikon A and 2/3 of Ricoh GR.By the way, it is a shame for Nikon that Ricoh has so much better lens for less price
tkbslc: 4k sounds cool and all, but what am I going to watch it on?
Well, the idea is, that in normal Buyer filter we actually have half of resolution in red, blue and green (green is more than half, but anyway). So 4K video, properly downsized to HD will give "true HD", which is noticeably sharper than common HD.
Slabs: What are the chances of this sensor finding its way into a new generation of superzoom bridge cameras (fixed lens type) soon?
Zero. 1" is too big for a cheap 20x superzoom.
DonSantos: 24-48mm 1.8 zoom for ff please.
For APS-C it weights 810 gr, for FF that will be 1,5-2 kg. to say nothing about price.
I joined 500px 2 years ago, as it was the whole new level. Many really talented authors uploaded their images there. I have never seen photos of that level in that concentration ever before.But now 500px slowly becomes a trash can of crowds. People upload their garbage, family photos, "look I finally got DSLR"-photos etc. It is impossible to dig hundreds and thousands of ugly photos in "upcoming" and "fresh". It is increasingly difficult to find a new author worth seeing. I think they must limit photo upload to 1 photo a week from all newcomers and 2-3 photos a week for those with impact 10000 and more. And that is it. No one on earth makes masterpieses faster than that.
I think DPreview should not kill time by taking new images with "new" Canon cameras. It is enough to write "see corresponding section of our review of Canon 550D".
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review