Maybe by filing on March 18th, Amazon thought it would become aware to the public on April 1st.I think I'm going to apply for a patent for a particular way to walk where the opposing arm and leg are in the forward position at the same time, therefore ensuring maximum use of energy whilst walking. If I see anyone using my walk that hasn't paid royalties... look out.
So if the adapter was used on a traditional slr APS sized sensor - would the AF performance improve?I have both a 5DMKII and a 60D. At times, I only want to bring one camera and that could often be the 60D especially if I want more reach from my 70-200 2.8. But if I could get 25.6mm at the wide end of my 24-70 2.8 (and at f2.0) that would be pretty cool!
I wonder if they even could make a pure Canon FF to Canon APS adapter. Perhaps this is an impossibility because they can only work with mirrorless cameras??
SheikYerbouti: A zoom lens on a rangefinder type of camera seems to be going against everything that rangefinders were originally designed for. But, as Fuji have demonstrated with their X-Pro1 and X-E1 cameras, it can be done quite elegantly. Still, I'm wondering how useful and how intuitive a zoom will be on these cameras? To me a zoom makes much more sense on an SLR because its through-the-lens view is more suitable for framing and composing an image with a zoom. I think rangefinder photographers are better off with 2, 3 or 4 excellent prime lenses in the bag ...
... which gives me an idea: Wouldn't it be nice if at some point in the future Fuji introduced a high quality, compact, K-5-style SLR that made use of their amazing X-Trans sensor? Maybe Photokina 2014 would be the right time to announce such a camera?
But don't forget that "rangefinder-like" optical viewfinder can also be an EVF which enables 100% viewing in the eyepiece - so a zoom lens can still function well on that camera - if one doesn't like the quircks of the moving framelines/zoomed eyepiece lens.
Couple more thingsI agree for the price... built in ND should be there.
I'm sure it's capable of incredible images, I just wish Sony would look into their Konica heritage and rescue a few gem technologies from the Hexar AF and put them in a modern camera. (as mentioned in my post below)... then the $2800 might seem a bit more reasonable...I'd love one... but probably won't be able to justify buying one at that price.
Is it just me, or with a lens that big... we could handle having a slightly larger body to hang on to? OK... now I'm just nit-picking. Competitors go forth... and compete!
I'm always looking for Sony to deliver a digital Hexar AF clone. While the full frame 35mm f2 leaf shutter along with crazy resolution and sensitivity will deliver wonderful pictures no doubt, I wonder why Sony couldn't have added a few other Hexar AF tricks since they would own of the patents from Konica/Minolta.Like: If it is going to be able to shoot in such darkness, why spoil the moment with an annoying AF assist light when they could have put the Hexar AF's IR focus technology that could focus in pitch blackness... quickly and easily without needing to see contrast. It could have been a hybrid focusing system that used contrast detection in better lighting and IR in low light and low contrast.Add the Fuji rangefiner-like eyepiece system.I wonder if they have used any of the old Hexar AF's flash technology that took perfectly exposed flash pictures, not based on reflectivity, but on guide no. and distance calculation.Add Hexars mid-exposure aperture adjustment for flash
Is it just me... or is this really pushing the limits of a lot of glass out there? If I wanted to exploit the resolution of this camera, I would have to put nothing less than the absolute best glass in front. But well... I suppose everyone already realizes this. I'm probably just a wee bit jealous 'cause I won't be able to afford one. If pixel density continues to be a factor in the amount of noise when shooting in low light, I'm anxious to know how this one performs because cramming 36 mp into the full frame might be making things somewhat tight. Still a lot less crammed than high MP compacts but obviously more crammed than the earlier full frames that were noted for their low noise at high ISO's.Yet... I still drool a bit...
Jogger: Ive been shooting the Nikkor 24-70 for almost 3 years, i dont think ive ever needed IS/VR once. If you are shooting under 1/60, youre going to get motion blur from your subject... so, nice sharp background and blurry subjects.
I've definitely wished I had IS a few times. Whether it be some posed wedding pictures where the subjects are not moving, or taking some lower light scenics in the canyonlands of Utah. We can't always have tripods with us, especially when carrying a baby back pack. I have both the older 28-70 2.8L and the somewhat newer 24.70 2.8L and the 5DMkII and 60D. I use IS all the time with my 70-200 2.8L IS at 70mm (well, throughout the range...) Someone else pointed out... it is nice to have in video mode as well. I say well done Tamron... now I just hope the quality is right up there. I doubt it would be sub $1K though... or does someone know this.