rallyfan: I suspect a used X10 would be a more reasonable proposal given the high pricing of this, and the modest IQ.
As to the layout and controls, we are rapidly approaching the stage when neither will have any sort of context, in that generations of photographers are coming that will have never used "classic" controls and will have never used a film camera.
This is great news, because we'll finally break free of the "film" mentality and move forward. The nostalgia is not just pointless, it's counter-productive at times.
Anybody here work as an X-ray tech, an orthopedic, or a radiologist? Do you miss the days of developing and fixing X-ray film and autorads? Do you wish you could get the "feel" and "control" back today, or would you rather use a modern interface and have your patients get their results instantly, with the possibility of further analyses using a computerized interface? Hm...
Why are photographers still stuck when everyone else that uses imaging isn't? Must be hobbyists.
Actually radiology and photography are not similar at all. Radiology is a job where the process is generally uninteresting to the practitioner. Photography is generally intimately tied to process for most photographers. I want to get paid for my work as simply as possible and the traditional dials and layout of film cameras do this with far greater efficiency than a multiplicity of buttons and menus. One does not need endless options, just a few easily accessed ones. Thus I CAN get my work done more quickly.
McQuestion: One of the stats that I find misleading is the "maximum" electronic shutter speed, listed at 1/32,000 sec. That is the maximum exposure rate per scanned line of pixels. However, the actual scan rate per frame is more like 1/10 sec. This hinders any functionality that people usually associate with high shutter speed, freezing action.
I tried this with the XT1, which boasts an even faster electronic shutter speed, any motion registers as a slur across the sensor.
While I agree, the real advantage is for those wanting to shoot wide open in bright sun where the scanning limitations do not come into play. Fuji is very aware of the attractiveness of shooting wide open with its customer base.
This was earlier:http://flashhavoc.com/godox-rs400p-rs600p-xenergizer-released/price is better and it already represents a third generation.
ethanolson: I prefer an integrated head. Yeah... it's not good for handholding but I like 'em better. Also, these are a bit on the expensive side.
I agree on the price as the Chinese already have units out there with specs like this for$500. However I do like the idea of a light weight head and at the poet pack at the bottom of the stand for stability.
fredlord: Well, it's less expensive than the C1 Cube or even the PhotoClam geared heads. I do dislike the Manfrotto QR system though.
Absolutely. Their QR system is nearly useless.
Just a Photographer: More resolution at the cost of image sharpness of everything over f8.0 due to diffraction. People will soon find out that the more megapixels doesn't automatically imply more sharpness and detail.
To start learning about physics and the laws of nature and why diffraction kicks in with this camera. Read this:
FYI. The Canon 5Ds sensor pixel density is 4.1uM.
Yeah, its a gear forum with a storm of noise of repeated anecdote untested or unverified or unobserved by virtually everyone here. Great way to increase the knowledge.
Wow! So many lectures from armchair optical experts! We are so fortunate to have harnessed the collective wisdom of repeated anecdote at every posting of new DPR article. It's like magic!
Francis Sawyer: Canon is so far out in the weeds, it's pathetic.
Still no intervalometers in their cameras (a simple, essentially free feature that every modern camera should have). Their lenses still have shitty servo rings instead of real mechanical focusing action.
They don't even have a reasonable 35mm lens. They have two overpriced boondoggles with IS systems in them. At 35mm? Really?
It's as if no one over there knows anything about photography OR video.
We are waiting for you to save us from the nightmare of Canon's evil rule.
nunatak: priced at more than twice it's weight in silver — it's a steal. :)
Especially since silver has no workmanship. ;)
justmeMN: Canon estimates that they will sell 6.4 million interchangeable lens cameras this year. Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong. :-)
@nekrosoft. So the market is wrong? You might not like their preferences but it is the market demand that gives us things like reality TV the Vege-matic and Canon EOS-Ms.
RichRMA: The FF pleas continue, 24mm isn't "wide" enough. The wide angle fetish that has infected so many photogs continues to plague the hobby. Whatever happened to people shooting landscapes for instance, with 50-100mm lenses? Do we REALLY need more distorted-looking seascapes with long-exposure blurred water?
Use the Rokinon 14. Its plenty sharp and you don't really need to focus.Also cheap.
goshigoo: 3 mm is huge difference in wide angle
F4 is fine as the relative motion at 11mm is less than 14mm by a long shot. And as goshigoo noted the Samyang/Rokinon 14 f2.8 is brilliant for that work IF you need 2.8
When using that lens for astrophotography I found I was using it at f4 as the vignetting was so strong that there was scant advantage to using it.
Ignat Solovey: Someone decided to beat Sigma by four degrees of diagonal field of view eleven years after original 12-24 came out. Several times more expensive and probably better... Until there is 12-24 Art out there... Somewhere... Sometime... I guess there is no other UWA lens to perform as expected on 5DsR, and 126 degree FOV on 51 Mp is yummy-yummy for interiors (less so for landscapes, we need to be careful about viewers brains), but for everyone else, who need JUST wide angle... Nope. Or Sigma.
I owned and used the Sigma for several years. It made money for me for sure but when I switched to the 17 Canon TS-E my clients noticed the difference in my images.
The Sigma WAS soft at the edges and when shooting interiors the sharpness of items near the edge was important. I have no fear of third party lenses and was using them before you were born. The fact is that my clients are making larger and large displays of my work and the gear has to support the output.
Sigma did not, Canon did. Yes, I had to pony up $2500 but it paid for itself in two jobs.$3000 for this lens is an easy justification as I will not worry a client will complain about a chair that is bit soft. Nor will I wrestle with the difficult to correct distortions.In the long run it saves me money.
The 12-24 Sigma was a great achievement but this lens is way better and is a far more credible tool for someone making a living with it.
neo_nights: Let's face it: sensor technology has got to a point where you simply CAN'T decide between cameras based on image quality alone. Unless you pixel peep (which is expected from a gear forum, I know), a picture *well taken* with a Canon 1000D and a Sony A7 is negligible for most people's eyes.
So, while those galleries (by 'galleries' I mean: from all the recent cameras that have been posted on DPR) are nice to give SOME idea about a camera, it can't be the decisive factor.
For all the "differences" we really are nit picking. Virtually any camera will make astounding images. The fact that differences may be noted in the lab is irrelevant to real world photography where those differences disappear.
Bokeh hounds are drooling already.
Of course the bokeh trolls are lying in wait to declare the bokeh busy.
Edgar_in_Indy: Samyang certainly makes some interesting lenses that are good values, but I don't understand why they don't put autofocus in them, even if it's just screw-drive. I think it would certainly broaden their appeal.
I mean, it's not like cheap AF lenses haven't been done before. I'm thinking of lenses like the Quantaray 28-80mm I have in the back of my closet somewhere.
By not adding AF keeps the price down and allows them to offer them in all the mounts with only minimal engineering effort.
We all like shiny stuff
Most of us suffer from GAS and thus a preoccupation with the attributes (real or imagined) of gear in the hope that somehow the new gear will make better images or be more enjoyable to use.
I don't really care if someones fantasy makes them spend money on what I view as an unrealistic endeavor. What is annoying is the huge noise created in defending or attacking the various opinions of photographic orthodoxy.
OK, so people who were never going to even lay a finger on this lens have spoken out.1. No OIS, wah,wah,wah.2. Big and heavy. Physics and metal construction at work.3. F2.8 is not the same as something else that I also don't own.
Hooray, we have heard you. Now hurry off to FB and gloat about how you set us straight.
BeaverTerror: Perplexed about the lack of OIS, given that the wide angle 10-24mm has it. There is now one less compelling reason to purchase this lens over the much faster primes.
OIS most likely requires IQ compromises. A moving element is unlikely to be stable even when the feature is disabled.Note that Canon and Nikon did not add this to this FL in their line as these are standards of the industry.