Excellent camera, but I find 74mm at the long end a bit too short. It was always a weak spor of the LX-series.On a nonchangeable-lens camera I would expect at least 100 or better 120mm.
ZAnton: I don't understand the whining. This is basically a Canon 5Dmk3 with better button layout and a tonns of DR at low ISO, and flipping screeen, and a 1000 $/€ cheaper (Nikons release price vs canon actual price) and a build in flash that works as a trigger, and 1 fps more (and same flash sync).Oh my Goooooood, it doesn't have 1/8000s! :'-( - are you f**** kidding me? Do you want to shoot snow @ f/1.4?Get a freaking polarizer or ND filter for 20 bucks and sh** the **** up!
@Segamanlook on my old stuff. ;-)I also have Oly m4/3 camera.
@david vellaThere is a joke:"Warning: there are counterfeit Christmas balls from China. There is no visible or quality difference to the original ones, but THEY WON'T MAKE YOU HAPPY!!!"
Sorry, my english is not good enopugh to decode so much **** =)
Skulls: When you decrease the number of pixels that increases their individual size and more light is received by the sensor, right? Why then the ISO range is still 12800?6.5 fps in FX mode means 7.5fps in DX mode... well, I have sony a6000 with the same amount of pixels and it can shoot 11fps, with about the same buffer size of 22 shots, 1/4000 max shutter speed, with the same ISO range, it weighs 344 grams and it costs 600 euro. It is APS-C but still... where the price difference comes from?Am I missing something?P.S. And the Sony has got a AEL button which can be programmed to be AF-ON!
Yeah, and my phone can also shoot 7fps, has 20MP blah blah blah... and it can ring, and I can play games...and it is only 150gramm...
I don't understand the whining. This is basically a Canon 5Dmk3 with better button layout and a tonns of DR at low ISO, and flipping screeen, and a 1000 $/€ cheaper (Nikons release price vs canon actual price) and a build in flash that works as a trigger, and 1 fps more (and same flash sync).Oh my Goooooood, it doesn't have 1/8000s! :'-( - are you f**** kidding me? Do you want to shoot snow @ f/1.4?Get a freaking polarizer or ND filter for 20 bucks and sh** the **** up!
raztec: Oh Nikon! Why can you never get it right?Af-ON button and 1/8000 shutter speed would have made this the perfect camera.
No, then you would whine about 6,5 fps instead of 7 or 7.5or about not fully tilted screen
JohnTh: Most probably this throws out Tokina 16-28 F/2.8 and even Canon 16-35 F/2.8. Eager to see the image IQ, distortion charts etc. vs to above and Nikon 14-24.
Why is this not a PJ zoom? Do you KNOW how fast its Af is?This lens competes with Nikon 14-25, and Nikon 17-35, and Canon 16-35, and Tokina 16-28
brendon1000: Should be a stellar lens but but $1599 for an APS-C lens seems rather steep. :P
Wait a year or two.
Sannaborjeson: That is weird.
They show only 3000x2000px samples on their flickr and all the samples are terribly over-sharped. https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/14833959224/
And for some reason CZ bans people from commenting or asking questions on their photo samples.
They have Original Size 3817*5719But you are right. It is oversharped.
Put the freakin' hard buttons back!
Archiver: Interesting that Zeiss have determined the Sony full frame E-mount system to be viable enough to create a whole new lens line, and that the market for manual focus lenses with declickable aperture is also enough.
... and manual focus in 2014, lol.
Boss of Sony: God, photography is expensive nowadays for the latest tools. Think I'll pick up a 2nd hand Pentax K-5 for $300 in mint condition and a new 50mm f1.8 lens (with AF) for $150, and save myself roughly $2,000. Will do exactly the same thing.
Pentax is very good, but FF is a FF.Zeiss was always very expensive. Similar lenses from Canikon cost much less.
strong NR even at ISO200
Mayeye: Would love to hear from some DP members as to how this software stacks up against Lightroom/Photoshop combo or DxO Pro
@FellowpedestrianYes, I will will probably switch to PSP or Gimp. Because of bold Adobe business strategy. But not because PSP is better software (haven't properly worked with Gimp yet).
ZAnton: Have this program on my office computer. Extremely, epically stupid and unlogical user interface. Although I am pretty fluent with PS, I spend 2 hours TRYING to do very simple things. Finally I used a combination of MS Office Picture Manager and PowerPoint instead.The other day it took me 40 minutes to paint dots on the map (print screen) to show the way from a railway station to the office. Then I spent 20 minutes trying to save it (it saved only the BG layer). Failed.Same evening at home, I did same thing with PS in 2 minutes.
It seems that they were thinking like that: "PS has this button bottom left - we'll make it top right! ""PS calls this function "resize" - we'll call it "pixel count variation""
I repeat, I spent hours with PSP, unable to do very basic things. It is all but "simple learning curve".Maybe this software strategy is made so, that it cost you $100, but you have to spent another $600 for an teaching course. Maybe. I don't know.I'm just sharing my experience.PS. I learned CATIA and Ansys ICEM CFD quicker than PSP.
Just a Photographer: Truly amazing that this company still refuses to make their software available for Mac users. As a company they may be even worse then Adobe.
Don't tell me bootcamp or parallels.. Thats not an option. As a Mac user you wanted to be away from the windows experience.
@bfordhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systemson PCs and laptops windows has over 90%.
I don't know where are you from, but in Russia and Germany Mac costs twice as much as the similar PC/laptop from any major brand.Whereas in the USA price difference is about 20-30%. Also in USA the computers (and not only computers) in general cost less.
Mac is only popular in USA because it is so cheap there (no taxes or whatever).In the rest of the world it costs so much, that people who can afford Mac can also afford PS.
h2k: I agree that PaintShop X6 seemed confusing compared to Photoshop, but it may be the case that we are all used to Photosho too much.
I think that a person who never handled either Photoshop or PaintShop would not find PaintShop that much more confusing - maybe a little more confusing.
I guess to get better reviews, Corel needs to make PaintShop more similar to Photoshop, just so that the reviewers used to Photoshop won't scoff at PaintShop's "unconventional" solutions.
Of course then PaintShop may be called a copycat.
Certainly in several areas PaintShop offers at least more than Photoshop Elements, simple things like macro recording and curves.
I don't care if it will be a copycat, as long as it does its job and cost 1/10th of the PS.