AllOtherNamesTaken: Kind of useless in practice IMO. $400 for a 1/2.3 camera is an instant deal breaker for many these days, and the reach is nice but a P&S can't track worth a damn, and IQ is garbage above ISO 200, so you won't be getting many BIF's with these. Just seems very gimmicky to me, even though it's a cool idea. They are adding "tracking" features and huge reach to cameras that are the worst possible tools you can use to shoot action - that just screams "marketing ploy".
If you want crazy reach on the cheap with amazing tracking, high FPS, and good IQ, the cheapest solution is something like a J1/V1 and a FT-1, assuming you have some DSLR lenses already.
Not a bad idea for the casual traveler or something, but anyone buying it to shoot action or for its "tracking" features are going to be left very disappointed IMHO.
IMHO the image quality in those samples is quite poor, especially above ISO 200, which is what I said originally. That would not be acceptable to many people. Sensor and AF is where nearly every P&S falls short. They are sold based on zoom & megapixels, which is what the vast majority of low-end camera buyers are looking for - quantitative numbers to compare with other cameras based on limited knowledge and the mindset that "more is better" for both. That is how the marketing works on P&S cameras, and why you see companies release 10X the P&S cameras as they do DSLR's - they are they volume products.
Kind of useless in practice IMO. $400 for a 1/2.3 camera is an instant deal breaker for many these days, and the reach is nice but a P&S can't track worth a damn, and IQ is garbage above ISO 200, so you won't be getting many BIF's with these. Just seems very gimmicky to me, even though it's a cool idea. They are adding "tracking" features and huge reach to cameras that are the worst possible tools you can use to shoot action - that just screams "marketing ploy".
No Markins, Kirk, or Arcatech? Kind of a pointless test to exclude some of the most popular "Titans" in the ballhead world.
Another 1/1.7" sensor for what will probably be $399. No thanks. Too little too late. It's also a near direct copy of several cameras already available.
mermaidkiller: Exactly the same as the Canon 24-105 f/4L.So what does this lens add ?
It may actually be an F4, unlike the Canon 24-105/5.1. Probably sharper too, if the other ART lenses are any indication.
I do wish it was internal zooming and weather sealed though.
AllOtherNamesTaken: So, you still need to manually test every lens for front/back focus? I would have expected that much to be automated. I don't really see the point of this. Basically it just prevents you from having to send your lenses to Sigma for calibration, but instead you pay for it instead of have it done under warranty. It gives some other neat options but I'm not sure how popular this will be.
Every Nikon lens I've ever owned has required zero AF fine tune. I would expect the same if paying big money for one of the nice new Sigmas.
You couldn't be more incorrect about me. I have done extensive fine tuning, using pretty well every method (Focal, dot tune, etc.) and "zero" always produces the best results with the equipment I have. Did I say it was unnecessary for everyone? No. Would I want it as a feature of my body if something happened to my camera in the field or on a job, and I lost my "zero" setting sharpness? Yes. Not sure why you've jumped to such wild conclusions. Every lens does not require fine tuning, or if it does, it does not require it to a degree that is adjustable small enough between 0 and 1 or -1. I'm sorry you've had some bad luck with your lenses.
My point with the Sigma is with in body AF tune, and their excellent warranties, it doesn't give much incentive to buy their device to fine tune. It will be good for some people, but I can't see it being wildly popular. That's all I meant.
So, you still need to manually test every lens for front/back focus? I would have expected that much to be automated. I don't really see the point of this. Basically it just prevents you from having to send your lenses to Sigma for calibration, but instead you pay for it instead of have it done under warranty. It gives some other neat options but I'm not sure how popular this will be.
The cost of the conversion + shipping + taxes will in most cases be more than you would lose selling the lens and getting a new one in the correct mount. I don't think many people will be using this.
I don't mean to be rude, but how is this news? This has been happening since online reviews started, and happens daily in DPreview forums, particularly when new equipment is announced. It is also a contributing factor to various problems or issues being grossly overblown between various camera manufacturers. In the end, only the manufacturer loses, which is unfortunate. Members can have as many accounts as they like, so the same person can put 10 negative comments on 10 forums in 10 threads for the same item. People with an axe to grind wll go to amazing lengths to feel vindicated. Later, unknowing people do a little Googling, and all of a sudden they think that particular "problem" is widespread. It just snowballs over and over.
I don't think anyone needed a study to show that a good percentage of people on the internet are full of sh*t.
Wow, $12,000 and almost a full stop slower than advertised (Just like the 24-105L is T5.1). Not as sharp as a $2,000 Nikon 70-200/2.8 G. Nice lens and all, but grossly overpriced. Don't get me wrong I wouldn't turn one down, but I don't know what Canon is thinking with this one. I would expect a lot more for my $12K.
Every time Leica makes an announcement I have to check if it's April 1. What surprises me even more is people buy them. Literally blows my mind.
marike6: There is something strange a mid range camera with class leading IQ / video quality (D5200 is highest rated crop sensor camera on DxOMark, ever), or an absolutely loaded DSLR like the K-30 (100% Pentaprism VF, 16 mp Exmor sensor, weather sealing) being essentially rated as "Mediocre" by DPR.
What is DPR going to do when it reviews the Canon T5i / 700D, which has essentially the same IQ of the T2i / 550D released 2010? A Bronze Award? Or a Silver Award because it has a touch screen?
If DSLRs of the same class are to be judged by price/performance, you'd think that huge improvements in IQ and video (as we see with the D5200) or top end features like a bright 100% Pentaprism VF or weather sealing (like with the K-30) would put these two cameras at the very top of the low to mid-range of DSLRs. But for some odd reason they are not.
Fortunately most users are smart enough to do their own research and don't rely solely on one review site for answers.
I tend to agree, lowering a rating due to lack of touch screen seems silly. If the T5i gets a Silver as wel with it's 5-7 year old sensor techl, you know the rating scheme is BS. In general, the rating scheme is inconsistent and pointless. I think most people just skip to the conclusion or use the image comparison tool. I also wouldn't be surprised if they are offered money in return for certain ratings.
AllOtherNamesTaken: Aaaaand it's only $6,000 overpriced, lol.
No, overpriced compared to the competition. A built in TC versus taking one off/on is not worth $6,000 to most people.
Aaaaand it's only $6,000 overpriced, lol.
Where's the phase detect AF? They are 2 years behind on the AF front.
With things like the NEX 6, Nikon V2, etc. on the market this is way overpriced IMO.
$500 for 1/1.7"...nooo thank you.
1/2.3" for $400? Pass. Again.
1/2.3", no thanks. Not when things like the RX100 around, and it costs more than a Nikon V1.
Unfortunately, it's still a Q10.
AllOtherNamesTaken: Looks excellent. Lets hope it's priced a little less than some of Nikon's other accessories! Somewhere around $59 maybe?
Wow - just saw the MSRPs haha. Looks like my Vello RF triggers will have to do for now - well made and they work flawlessly for $35. Not quite as compact as the Nikon's though.