Mfritter: The exciting news, at least to me, is a reasonably priced ultra-wide. The Loxia 18 or the Batis 21 are three times the price, and wides don't adapt especially well to the Sonys (Sonies?). I tried the Zeiss 21 f4.5 ZM and the corners were unacceptable, and I'll accept a lot.
I used the Samyang 85mm on Nikon and was very happy with it.
The Zeiss ZM Ultrawides are made for film rangefinders and suffer from the the same problems as most Leica wides. Too many oblique light rays can hit the sensor. Do not compare these lenses with Zeiss designs that are made for Sony FE. The Loxia 21mm is an outstanding performer. Nevertheless, the Samyang 14mm sounds very interesting.
Interesting concept, but maybe, at the time it might hit the market, we will see the next generation of EVFs. I doubt that the future will lie in complex opto-mechanical solutions.
farandhigh: Canon make so ugly cameras.
Seems like all cameras are ugly. In nearly every camera presentation, regardles of manufacturer, at least one poster finds it ugly.I find it much worse to take ugly pictures...
LewToo: Lenses ... the outstanding feature about Pentax.
My collection of lenses dating back to a circa 1955 500mm f4.5 m42 screw mount will still work on their newest cameras. NO other manufacturer can make that claim. In fact for most manufacturers you need a roadmap and a reference book to see what lense will fit what body.
My Pentax lenses also work on my Sony A6000.
Sure, you can use these old lenses on the K-1. But they are no replacement for state-of-the art lenses matching the 36MP sensor in resolution. With fast and precise autofocus, of course. The old lenses are nice additional options if you want to use their imperfections ("character") for artful expression. Let's see Pentax' new lens roadmap, this will finally determine the success of the FF line.
Captain Hook: WTF?!? How can we take any of those comments overhere serious? ;-)I see (at this moment) 42 people claiming "I own it" and 48 people "I had it". This sounds like nonsense to me?
How can one own and/or get rid of a camera that is not even on the market yet?
They had a D5000. Between these cameras is only a "zero" difference.
Zerixos: For concurent 1DX photographers it such a minor upgrade, its almost they want them to shoot video as well. Hopefully they did push the overall quality of the still images, otherwise the "stil"l users might not upgrade there old 1D.
Many 1DX shooters will have to replace their 1DX regularly, no matter if the new model is a major or minor upgrade. After a few years of heavy use even the toughest camera will be rotten. So Canon will find its customers anyway.
Theofix: For street photography nothing can match an optical viewfinder with a bright frame and a view outside the frame. Only three cameras are in my opinion ideal for this purpose : Fujifilm X100T, Fujifilm XPro2 and Leica M.
@Theofix: The advantage of a viewfinder view outside the frame only counts if you are shooting quickly moving subjects. And while this view is significant with 50mm or longer lenses, it becomes narrow with 35mm and nearly non-existent with 28mm lenses. As I never had a Fuji I can speak here for Leica only. IMHO this advantage of a rangefinder-like VF is mostly over-estimated.@digifan: Once I thought the most discreet shooting can be done by a tilted LCD at waist level. I took me, however, much more time to compose the picture compared to an eye-level VF. It might be my personal experience only, but I am much quicker in bringing the camera to the eye and shoot than using the LCD. No matter if at eye or waist level. Shooting fast is essential for being non obvious in many situations.
Aaron801: I like to experiment with different looks, techniques, etc in my photography but all the same, I'm just not all that compelled by what these lenses can do. If I want that kind of radical blur (and there are very few cases where I would) I feel that I can get what I want with software. I'd rather capture the initial image sharp...
A radical blur in software is ok as long as you want to blur the whole image. Images with selective sharpness zones and blurred foreground or background are extremely difficult to make in software (as long as you intend esthetically satisfying results). Especially the transition zones look much more convincing when produced by a real lens.
Nice price, but...A 6 lens in 5 groups construction is very simplistic for a f/1.1 lens. The old Canon FD 1.2 non-L (with mediocre performance) was already more complex. No word about the use of asphericals (the old Leica Noctilux had 6 lenses, but 2 asphericals). I doubt they will be able to produce the needed large diameter asphericals for that price. So don't expect wonders. A cheap conservative design will deliver much spherical abberation - maybe esthetically appealing for those searching for a 'dreamy' look. A guess, of course. Maybe they use cheap molded plastic asphericals and simpliy didn't mention that in their announcement.
Mike99999: I sold all my Olympus gear this year. The image quality is just not there, no matter what the hype says.
I completely agree that high end full frame cameras provide better image quality. But this comes at the cost of size, weight and much money. Not everyone needs gear to produce wall-filling prints. For most purposes the image quality of OM-D is good enough.Olympus is a creative company who was first in many features that are mainstream in ILCs today. I would be sad if Olympus would give up its camera business. So this is good news here.
keepreal: For a while I was considering a Sony but the ultra wide angle lenses I would have wanted are awful. What is the point of a superb camera such as the A7 II with such a mediocre and limited choice of lenses, also less ambitious models? I know you can use an adapter for quality lenses such as from Leica, but then you lose the automation.
Did you give the Sony Zeiss 16-35mm a try ? It is better than Nikon's 16-35 ( I had that lens before switching to Sony) and plays in the same league as Canon's equivalent. For me it is a very good UWA at a reasonable size and weight, even if a bit overpriced. If you need faster full frame UWA or less then 16mm zooms, the lenses get so big that it makes no sense to put it on a small camera anyway. With the Nikon 14-24 or the Sigma 12-24 I would stay with Nikon too.
Lawrencew: A version of this with a fixed 24-70 F2.8 zoom would be very interesting
(yes I could buy a A7RII instead, but this would still be a smaller package)
f/2.8 full frame standard zooms are big and heavy. A FF zoom with good corner to corner sharpness @42 MP would even be bigger and heavier. It makes no sense to build compact cameras with such big lenses. Although a really compact solutuion would be highly desirable, I guess it will will remain on our wish lists forvever.
Truly amazing shot. My congrats.
oselimg: 42 million pixels and 50 million pixels respectively and more than 3K price tags some people still compare the jpeg engines. Internet forums have produced incredible amount of "experts"
Hello Steppenwolf: I completely agree - but is there a need for 42 or 50 megapixel cameras for the shoots you mentioned ?
Felix11: I don't follow the logic of this:
"The lack of colored filters increases the amount of light that reaches the photodiodes compared to a filtered sensor,"
..makes sense so far, but then ...
"and thus the lowest ISO setting the camera offers is ISO 320"
Firstly, to avoid confusion, does 'lowest' ISO setting mean small value, less sensitive, closer to 100? Yes? Good!
In that case shouldn't the lowest setting be less than competitor cameras?e.g. 200 ISO is a common lowest value on APS-C models, and 100 ISO on full frame models.
If more light is able to get to the sensor due to the benefit of not having a CFA then a less sensitive setting (i.e. lower) should be required to avoid over exposure.
Please explain :-)
The camera uses the same sensor as the color version. Thus, the same amount of light will generate the same numeric output. The ISO setting acts like an amplification factor the sensor output. The lack of a Bayer filter in the Monochrome reduces light absorption, therefore more light hits the sensor's photosites. This leads to higher output values, the same effect as if you set ISO to higher values.
Or, form a different point of view: Any 200 ISO base sensivity sensor would have 320 ISO if there wouldn't be the Bayer filter in front of it.
AbrasiveReducer: True, Voigtlander is one of the oldest names in photography, but as you (presumably) know Cosina, maker of current Voigtlander has no connection with the Voigtlander company.
Reminds me of when Kyocera celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Contax, a name they had purchased. They had banners and posters with a crest, lapel pins, the whole deal. Another case where a name was used to convey a legacy which did not exist.
Given that most people have never heard of Voigtlander until recently, I wonder what was wrong with "Cosina"?
Yes, there's nothing wrong with Cosina's products. I had some Zeiss and some Voigtländer branded M-mount lenses and they all were of high optical and mechanical quality. Some of the Voigts are made for "vintage look" - a matter of taste - nothing to win competitions on sharpness or low aberrations. This should not mislead to the opinion, that all Cosina lenses are 2nd tier.
Summi Luchs: $309 seems steep for the adapter. Doesn't it work with any Leica M to E mount adapter ?
Thanks, Samuel. The Voigt adaptor seems to improve the close-focus capabilities of any M-mount lens. Their lens formula, however, is not calculated for closer than rangefinder minimum distances. Did you observe much performance loss using the Zeiss lenses closer than 0,7 meters ?
$309 seems steep for the adapter. Doesn't it work with any Leica M to E mount adapter ?
Yes Nikon, it would have been better to omit the ridiculous 15fps 4K mode. The camera has decent 1080p specs, so this nonsense is absolutely unnecessary.
Otherwise the camera seems to be a big step towards the right direction.The BSI sensor adresses the biggest disadvantage of the 1 system (noise / DR). Tests will show if that move was successful.
I don't understand much of the bashing here. The Nikon 1 system offers really small and capable lenses and one of the best AF systems in the mirrorless world. If the new sensor is good and they manage to bring out a V-model (with EVF) using the new sensor I will buy one.
Xoom: I thought this was a April Fools joke because this has apparently gone viral today...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw72zFX2rsk
I thought too, it was an April Fool, but you can order at least the Rollei at Amazon.