mpgxsvcd: Looks like he is carrying the unreleased 35-100m F2.8 as well. This is the lens that makes m4/3s a legitimate professional camera system.
Focal Length: 89mm ISO: 160 Aperture: f/2.8 Exposure: 1/3200sec
A 200mm standard tele f/5.6 eqiv DOF lens that isn't available yet doesn't sound as appealing as a full frame system camera with a whole host of 'super' tele lenses to choose from that is easily available.At least the lens you mentioned would alleviate some of the pressure from the photographer to shoot shallow DOF at longer focal lengths.I bet he would be looking around him at all the other photogs with more suitable gear, wishing he could have been paid big bucks to use that stuff.
fmian: The only Panasonic 300mm lens I can see is the 100-300 F4-5.6At DOF equivalents of 200mm F/8 and 600mm/F11 will this be able to easily separate the subject from the background like in so many winning shots of athletes? If not, I can't see it being highly considered in this field of photography.Also, someone correct me if my DOF equivalents are wrong.
I was assuming he would be using Panasonic lenses only....Yes, the article states only Panasonic G lenses.So he is limited to deep focus on super tele shots, unless the background is really far away. ie. Can't separate the winning runner from all the other runners behind him.The longest F/2.8 lens they have has a 70mm equiv focal length.Does not seem like the Panasonic system is designed for sports shooters.
The only Panasonic 300mm lens I can see is the 100-300 F4-5.6At DOF equivalents of 200mm F/8 and 600mm/F11 will this be able to easily separate the subject from the background like in so many winning shots of athletes? If not, I can't see it being highly considered in this field of photography.Also, someone correct me if my DOF equivalents are wrong.
PASM should have been on the dial, and there should have been a front control dial to compliment the one on the back.Would have been lovely to see an amalgamation of the G series control system, or even implement a rotating aperture ring on the lenses like the S100. Instead we get an APS-C version of an IXUS camera with interchangeable lenses.A pro model with a more serious control system better be around the corner, and hopefully more small prime lenses. No one needs a slow 18-55 lens.
Chaitanya S: disappointing little camera, sensor is much smaller than recently launched premium compacts.
cgarrard wrote:'Yeah cuz there isn't anything else to consider except sensor size. Slow down, think it through.'
The bigger the glass the more light passes through. The bigger the sensor the greater the optical definition that can be captured.
If we just look at maximum glass size (relative to widest focal length) between some cameras we find:
XZ1: 6.0 / 1.8 = 3.33mmLX7: 4.7 / 1.4 = 3.35mmX10: 7.1 / 2.0 = 3.55mmG1X: 15.1 / 2.8 = 5.39mmRX100: 10.4 / 1.8 = 5.77mm
Assuming all these lenses are sharp wide open, we then take into account that image quality and ISO performance falls drastically as you reduce sensor size, and we can see that Panasonic have a massive uphill battle in getting this camera to compete (in regards to image performance) with others in it's class.
Please also take into account that sensors are 2 dimensional and surface area is much more important than sensor length, and also that the Fuji sensor is an EXR.
Shhhh... did anyone else hear that?
Sounded like Panasonic shooting themselves in the foot!
Just hurry up and make a full frame K-Mount body.And then make a full frame GXR module that takes K-Mount lenses.And then start making more full frame K-Mount lenses. Even if they are the old manual focus designs.This is what people want, and Pentax/Ricoh can easily shoehorn themselves between Canon and Nikon.
Mach Schnell: Holy cow! Are they serious? $1,700. That is 3 times what I paid for the extremely good Sigma 150mm f/2.8. I can't fathom why it would cost so much more. I don't think they'll get many takers at that price.
Just like todays typical consumer. Wants everything for nothing.
Karl Gnter Wnsch: How ironic that the Macbook Pro Retina Display as it is currently used is useless for editing photos as you either can have a sharp picture but impossibly small control elements and unreadable menus or usable control elements but an upscaled picture which isn't rendered sharply...
HCMS:Asus, Dell and HP also make decent panels under the $1000 mark that display a much wider gamut than any Apple screen.Sony made a ~16" laptop a few years ago with a semi high pixel density, and it covered 98% of the Adobe RGB space. ie 10-bit.They make nothing like that now however. I guess when pros are buying into macs on the basis of the 'Guy at the mac store told me it was best for photo editing' then consumer buying patterns dictate what tech we have on the market, and what gets shelved.
cont.The result? Paid people in the industry who don't know what they are doing, and when things are pointed out to them, respond with 'Oh, it's meant to look like that.' Really? That white plate is meant to look orange? etc.I've come across plenty of people like this. From pro wedding photographers, to photography teachers.
Dennis Linden: Not sure if you are replying to me or not, but I have a gen 3 ipad that I bought specifically for the high PPI count to use as a digital portfolio. Even though I shoot film.High pixel density screens are long overdue in the consumer and pro market, and it's true that it brings us closer to print quality viewing. Having said that, colour is also of vital importance to serious photographers, so when a product is touted as being aimed for that market segment, but so conveniently disregards any mention of colour accuracy, then I see that as marketing deception. If a manufacturer truly makes a product that is worthy of pro use, then it is up to their marketing department to educate and inform their customer base on the merits of the product.When a product does not meet said pro requirements, but they will want to market to that segment, then important info will be left out and consumers will be misled.
Interfaces will have to be changed to accommodate the high res screen, which will happen over time.What irks me more is the fact that this is being marketed to the photographic professional, yet does not even cover the entire sRGB colour space and has a glossy coat on the screen. More marketing brainwashing. Same with the iMac screens. Just low end 8-bit IPS panels.
tongki: this is how a professional do the job,perfect gear, perfect tools (chopter) and perfect moments
EOS 1N is the latest EOS film, right ?this one with the eye focus system ?
The EOS 5 has eye focusing. Not sure about other models.The feature pretty much sucks though. I've turned it off on my camera.
Rowbear: It sure is a nice shot :)
replied to wrong comment.
gl2k: The WiFi adapter alone is a very cool selling argument. AFAIK no other vendor makes it so easy to get the pics where the average consumer wants them. No high class prints, no post processing ... just fun on my Android or iPad device.
Very clever Nikon.
Cameras with built in wifi have been around for several years.
Check out the centre of the playing card at ISO 100 RAW.The D3200 completely breaks apart the red, has less contrast, and less sharpness, compared to the D3100.This is completly unnacceptable from a world reknowned camera/lens maker.Nikon should be ashamed of themselves for producing a worse product than the previous model.Suckers are gonna lap up the marketing hype and bigger numbers though. So I can imagine it selling well.
wildbird: When is the last time you had your eyes checked? As good as a 4x5 camera? Wow. Hahaha
gordon lafleur: ewelchYour Nikon 14-24 compared to the 18mm Zeisshttp://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/distagon-18mm.shtml
Autofocus, electronic coupling, equal image quality, and a range of focal lengths that would require 3 Zeiss lenses to match. Only the amateur gear weenies buy ridiculous stuff like these Zeiss lenses, and only because it says Zeiss on it. Same as when there was the Contax/Yashica. I remmember the tests showing that there was nothing special about the Zeiss lenses except the price.
The 14-24 has considerably more distortion than the 15mm and 18mm Zeiss lenses.I would think that for close to $3000 an architectural photographer would find it more compelling to buy a tilt shift lens.The 15mm does seem to be a stellar performer.http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=794&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
I'd really like to see someone attach a few of these to a roomba with motorised height adjustment, add a compositional algorithm, and have them replace your average cookie cutter wedding photographer. Only it would be slightly more useful as it would clean the floors as it went by.Yeah I know, ouch.
Henry M. Hertz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_resolution
the resolution is 4x times that of HDTV... who ever made that 16x should get some basic math education or stop lying.
A 1 X 1 square, extended out to 4 X 4 = 16There are exactly 16 of those 1 X 1 square pieces contained within the 4 X 4 structure. Therefore it's 16 times greater.
You can't just factor in one dimension and call it a day.Have to take both horizontal and vertical into account.
Interesting that they had to custom build a lens that was sharp enough to get all the 33mp detail.Now wondering how the D800, and especially D800E will perform with existing lenses.