ThePhilips: Wow. I'm talking about the price: wow.
At that price, instead of taking photographs, it's cheaper to invite the models personally.
While the price is high, it is not the only lens at that price around. Leica has two current lenses at that and higher prices. Exotic Canon f1.0 sells for more as an old used lens with far less performance at any any aperture that the Otus wide open.
What it is, is the first lens designed to mount on Canon and Nikon bodies that is modern and takes no prisoners in the IQ department.
Julian: A shame its only open to "professional photographers".
While there are a zillion accomplished amateurs, this requirement limits the total submissions and prevents the inevitable avalanche of Instagrammed cats.
Fotohein: Im am mainly shooting portraits in Studio and I am using an Oly E-3 DLRS. I am considering moving up to a full frame DLRS to improve image quality. What I would like to see is a comparison of quality between E3 and E M-1 to be able to make the decision of going for the E M-1, which would allow me to retain my 4/3 lenses and save a lot of money or go full frame DLRS.
Portraits are not very challenging in terms of resolution. I started with a Canon 10D at 6MP and never had an issue with resolution even up to 40x60 inch prints.
I still display 30x40 inch prints in my studio made with an 8MP 1DmkII even though I now use the 5DmkIII. You have all the resolution you need with EM-1 and have a ton of great lenses to boot.I am actually getting a m43 kit for weddings and events where discretion and low weight are important. My Daughter's Oly EP-L2 convinced me that the quality was there.
thejohnnerparty: I am a big Nikon fan, but this makes no sense to me. I'm in my 70s and I can appreciate nostalgia, but quite frankly I'd rather see improvements on the D610 - better AF, like 51 point across the entire frame, faster processor, bigger buffer for more continuous shooting, aperture control in live view, live histogram, perhaps better metering, peeking for manual focus and maybe better video - for slow motion. ..... How many MILLIONs of D610s would they sell? Hello Nikon! Are you listening?
Snooked is right. Everybody seems to whine about under specified cameras ( In THEIR opinion) and then talks about how much they would sell if they basically sold their top-of-the-line model for a nickel.
Business doesn't work that way despite what you think.
cboulakia: I like it. I've been waiting for something like this for a long time. Finally, a camera with the features a photographer wants, rather than the features an engineer wants. 5.5 fps are more than enough. So are 39 AF sensors. So are 16 megapixels. I don't need video. I'm sick of insanely solid, insanely huge, insanely heavy cameras with completely programmable control dials where I forget how I programmed it between the times I pick it up. The things I've always wanted in a digital camera: 1) fantastic image quality (check). 2) great low light performance (check). 3) dedicated ISO dial (check). 4) Dedicated aperture and shutter speed dials (check). 5) Dedicated depth of field preview and bracketing buttons (check). 6) Light weight and small (check, I guess). 7) Quiet shutter (check). 8) long battery life (check). 9) Ability to use some of my legacy lenses (like my 55 1.0 which I love) (check). OK, I won't be able to use my contax lenses, but I can live with that.
Shark is pointing out the irony of the comments posted here. He is laughing at the foolishness of the comments.
There, now I have explained the joke.
It looks like they will probably sell a bunch. Just not to the readers of DPR.
marike6: So more or less as well reviewed as the D7100 or EM-1 mainly due to an emphasis on LiveView AF and the new Dual Pixel AF module relevant mainly for video and LiveView with the 2 STM lenses.
No weather sealing, no 100% Pentaprism VF or dual SD cards. And most puzzling is how easily IQ differences vs a class leading camera like the D7100 can be explained away or marginalized with phrases like "in most situations" or "for the majority of users", "the difference in IQ are slight". Really? Most enthusiast users of this class of camera shoot RAW and edit in LR where the latitude of files or RAW headroom are extremely important.
Don't get me wrong, the 70D is a nice camera and Canon is a great system, but when all the cameras get Gold Awards with similar scores in spite of some key differences, it makes these reviews less specific, less useful for researching cameras than they could be.
So, everybody is unimpressed by where we are today in cameras. It must drive the manufacturers nuts trying to make the "average DPR user" happy. The fact that they don't come out with over the top new designs on a monthly basis seems to be cause for great outrage. I foresee a lot of unhappiness in the DPR user world as some wait for perfection( as they see it ) to arrive.
AbrasiveReducer: I'm sure this is an excellent camera but it doesn't seem to really excel in anything except maybe AF. That's fine, but if this gets the gold, what would a real breakthrough camera get? (This is not a "fan" issue; I own Elphs, Rebels, G1X, EOS-M and 5D3.)
Even if it produces results nearly identical to the D7100--and I'm sure it does, to everyone except Nikon fans--that just means both are above average.
What it really means is that by objective standards it is an excellent camera. The fact that most are bored with it says more about us than it says about the camera.
For all the big talk about how indifferent the photos are I am quite sure that they far exceed the quality of the average photo that will be taken by these cameras.The closest so many of you will get to these cameras is to put your fingerprints on one at a camera store and go home to your Casio P&S.
Photomonkey: 1788 comments in 24 hours! Must be a record.
1788 comments in 24 hours! Must be a record.
mas54: I think dpr and all other review sites should refuse to review any more cameras that don't have optical viewfinders. Just consider them non entities. Maybe the camera companies will get the hint.
They will stop making them when you stop buying them.
Mr Fartleberry: Homage to Noct? What marketing pig hooey. Maybe if it was 1.2 or 1.0. It's a 1.4 lense, nothing to see here.
But they sure are hooked on grabbing two thousand dollars for mid-range primes now. The Vampire is back as Hogan would say.
What? Someone complaining about price on DPR? What has happened?
cyclocross: I'm not going to review the previous 730+ comments to see if a comment similar to my comment has already been posted.
I think if Sony is serious about maintaining the A-mount series of cameras then they will have to drop the price of the A99 body to about $2000-$2200. $2800 is way too high compared to the these new e-mounts and the equivalent Nikon DSLRs.
I think Sony should review its pricing structure. As an example one can buy a decent Nikon D7100 kit with several lenses including their 500/f4 for the price of just Sony's 500/f4.
Make everything cheaper!! That's the way to prosperity! Said no one ever.
Trollshavethebestcandy: Needs fast primes.
When the give them to you will you be like everyone else and whine about the price?
The most revealing item to me is how poorly the Sigma focused with PDAF. Mirrors my experience. Great glass that can't AF well or reliably loses a lot of value for me.
While $4000 is a bunch of money, Leica has all sorts of lenses that cost more and won't go on your Canon or Nikon.
I am sure they will still sell quite a few as the people who buy them do not mix with the rest of us.
steelhead3: I like your examples...good shooting. I am wondering why you guys are continuing to show examples of 2005 technology, the world has moved on. No more small sensor Kodak type of unlimited DOF please.
We cower in the shadow of your terrifying opinions.
RobertSigmund: Only 5500 pounds for a 45mm F 2,8 lens, how cheap!
Dear Yabokkie, The world is not reducible to your specious comparisons. If MF was so comparable to other formats it would not exist. In fact it seems it would be worth your time to rent a MF kit and find out what the excitement is about. You may also learn a few things that cannot be inferred by numbers.