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.
What about the coating (compromising the durability of the glass itself) ?If the material has a transparency of 99.9%, as said, there ist only 0.1% reflection (an attenuation of around 10 F-stops) my guess would be they don't need coatings. OTOH they write of 'superior coatings' in their press release. Then I ask what's the point of extremely durable glass, when the coating gets scratched.
Fogsprig: Epson R-D you again?
@le-alain: Unfortunately the a7 sensor does not work very well with Leica M and Zeiss ZM wideangle lenses. The CMOSIS sensors will do (Leica uses CMOSIS). Let us wait and see if the 'electronic rangefinder' will be a real alternatove to an optical RF.
DVT80111: Sony FE mount would be nice.
Don't think many A7 users want to carry a 1100grams heavy lens. So I guess Tamron will never produce a FE version.
Do selfie-shooters still use cameras ?
agaoo: Nikon was my favourite camera but I'm no longer impressed by it's new cameras. Mirrorless cameras with 4K video, weather-sealed body, sexy design and even technology advanced functionality and durability explain Nikon is still in the past. Good luck Nikon :-)
What do you expect from an entry-level DSLR ? At its price point the D5300 was a very good camera.So it was clear that its successor would come with minor improvements only. As long as sensor technology will not reach a new breakthrough, most improvements in DSLRs will be minor. 4K enabled mirrorless like the Pana GH4 cost much more then Nikon's 5xxx series. Samsungs NX1, Fuji T1 etc. maybe more advanced but niether are entry level cameras. So I find the 5500 a very fair offering.
photolando: I've been shooting jpegs most of my pro career. I have never once had a problem with "jpeg artifacts". I've sold 24"x30" and have seen larger made from jpegs. They look fantastic. And yes, I shoot raw as well if I feel it is needed so lets not start that stupid amateur argument.
Maybe this is aimed at pixel peepers because I've yet to hear anyone really complain all that much about the look of a jpeg image. Ever!
@Lambert: I totally agree, but that's what I said. The M9 renders very good DNG files, and by PS, LR or Capture One you can get very good JPG from it. But the in-camera generated JPG files are at least one quality level below.
Then you are lucky to have a camera with a good jpeg engine There are quite a few cameras out that show lots of artifacts or other problems leading to sub-par image quality. Examples are the Leica M9 (lousy jpg but very good dng output), diverse Sony cameras (artifacts), Panasonic GX7 (too aggressive noise reduction at higher ISO). So some people see these artifacts in their images. I assume, you don't use one of these cameras for your business. But I agree so far, that these problems do not lie in the jpeg format itself. They are caused by the in-camera processing used by their manufacturer.
Kekal B Hollow: sigma dp2Q is the best camera of all time...nothing beats it, no D810, no 645Z, no NX1, no phase one, sigma is the best camera ever made
I assume, this post is a joke.