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.
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".
sarit: I'd like to see the manufacturers put 1" sensor for these bridge cameras or at least 2/3" for god's sake.
or at least 1/1.7" ;)
ZAnton: Dpreview, please add a page with comparison against 650D (600D).
You are right, that will probably be a single line of text.
Rachotilko: Hopefully for Canon (but also for their vendor-locked-in customers) this performs much better in terms of noise floor - ie. the dynamic range - than 650D. In case is does not (and this seems likely), then their trailing behind the competition is truely woeful. But maybe Canon thinks we don't need shadow details @ low ISO.
unfortunately 90% of DSLR users never use RAW, and have no idea what "shadow details" are. Considering a number and success of "Profi-Books", that tell us what DOF is, what aperture does, and how do you use flash (which is extensively explained in the manual), there will never be a need for Canon to make low read-noise at low ISO.
Zvonimir Tosic: Brilliant move from Canon — finally a camera that makes tiny kindergarten fingers happy (Canon had huge complains from kindergartens across the world, that their DSLRs were unusable by 5-year olds). Now, if they could pull out the same trick with their lenses, especially zooms, and shrink them too. O boy, shall we dare to see … 18-55mm f11-f16 for APS-C ! .. now, that would be something!
18-55 f/11-16 for APS-C is a pin-hole ;). You can make it at home.
Dpreview, please add a page with comparison against 650D (600D).
DerbyBill: Still waiting to hear about the 70D...
70D will probably get AF of 7D, while 7Dmk2 will get AF of 5D3. So that's it.
ZAnton: Good circuitry is OK, but why can't they make a proper pixel binning for HD video on an existing sensor?Instead of roughly 6000px*4000px, make a pixel binning 3*3 clusters to appr. 2000*1300px.
OK, not 24MP, then 8 MP, they already have this sensor for a canon C-video camera. If 1Dx is capable of 12fps on 18MP, 24 fps on 8 MP should not be a problem (except of the power required, hehe). Well anyway, as an engineer I am very curios about HD-FF, the ISO performance must be astonishing, but if I were marketologist, I would have some very serious doubts about such product. Using it as a HD-camera for normal filming make no sense - night lighting is very very bad, I mean not intensity, but aestetic attractivity. So only astrophotographers left. How much of them do we have? How many of them would pay astronomical prices for that camera?
Good circuitry is OK, but why can't they make a proper pixel binning for HD video on an existing sensor?Instead of roughly 6000px*4000px, make a pixel binning 3*3 clusters to appr. 2000*1300px.