Albino_BlacMan: How long of an exposure do you need at 0.005 lux. Isn't that an imperative piece of information?
I assume some of the better sensors out there can capture some kind of image at that level if you leave the shutter open long enough.
I presume they mean for a live view feed.
GabrielZ: I'm not into cine but isn't 78 grand a hell of a lot of money to pay for one lens?
The big news here (forget the bickering about Android v iOS below) is the touch friendly Photoshop that is finally getting announced for Windows...
hip2: Why do they put aperture rings on their video lens but not on their photo lenses ? :(I'd love to have aperture rings on my FE lenses.
For video you need unstepped aperture, for stills you don't. Yes it is very nice to have a control ring on the lens for sure and the new 35mm f1.4 as well, but for video it is needed if you are going to shift aperture during recording.
ChuckTa: I ponder on the remark on Canon 7D mk2 "... it's a pretty major upgrade" and realized that 5 years ago Samsung and Sony mirrorless did not even appear yet. And now there is the crazy spec'd Samsung NX1 and the many Sony mirrorless from the A6000 to A7R.I think both the Samsung NX1 (esp the new pro lens and the 157 cross type point AF) and the Sony FF (the A7 line) have finally spook Canon into seriously thinking about a serious mirrorless.
Yes I find it interesting in the time it has taken to do a single update to a popular DSLR an entire new category of camera have been born, flourished and been honed into quite competitive devices. I'm not sure whether this is an indication of DSLRs being all they can be, or the rapid progress of technology that mirrorless / fully digital design can allow. With everything now moved onto the sensor to handle tasks that required a number of dedicated sensors with a quasi-digital system, progress can be even faster.
wed7: how about a camerawitha glowing LED on it's handgrip? what kind of future is that?
A glorious one?
Fabio Amodeo: The real question to me is: can the NX1 really shoot 15fps with focus tracking? If it can, the demise of DSLR is getting nearer. Both the mirrorless and the DSLR have structural limits: for mirrorless it's processing power, needed by the many functions concentrated on the same circuit; for DSLR it's the mechanical limit of mirror ups and downs. If Samsung has really broken the first limit, the others will have to follow, and soon. So I think the whole industry is asking itself the same question: where will the declining money be in the near future? In my opinion, the vision of Fuji and Samsung (and Leica, but that's another story) is clearer that that of the other players, which seem hesitant on the road to take.
The thing to remember is these things are always 'on paper'. Thing is it might be able to track under ideal lighting conditions and blah blah with certain lenses, but on sensor PDAF has proven not to work terribly well once lights get low and this is unlikely to change without a major change in technology, whether the NX1 is that change remains to be seen, but it is doubtful.
A lot of people are asking for a6000 AF (which has a similar number of points and tracking at 11fps) in an A7, but the A7S for example with its low density sensor still far outperforms the a6000 in low light for AF with its 'lowly' CDAF. Yes on sensor PDAF can help with tracking movement but as it stands these points are only 'assist' points and not terribly sensitive to light.
Having full sensor read out (like the NX1 supposedly does) is also a big plus for AF speed and accuracy.
So you might be right, but also be wary of the claims, I have my doubts for a little while yet.
Every time I read that 'serious Canon mirrorless is coming soon' gets me excited and then remember the 'we are already serious about mirrorless', this just says to me:
EOS-M = Serious New mirrorless = Serious New Mirrorless = More EOS-M
If you want people to believe that you are about to be releasing 'serious mirrorless' don't turn around and say that your laughed-out-of-north-america EOS-M line IS serious.
Black Box: They promised the same for Sony E. Still waiting.
Err what? Could you show me the lens roadmap that wasn't delivered?
marco1974: OK, so now we finally will have a 35/1.4... but it'll be the same size as the 24-240 superzoom! So much for the mirrorless advantage in terms of size and weight.But oh, wait: we also have the more compact 35/2.8, don't we? But then the DOF and the total light-gathering ability is the same as that of a 23/2 on APS-c (which could obviously be much more compact to begin with). So much for the FF advantage in terms of DOF and ISO.Mmmh, it seems that in spite of marketing claims, one just can't beat the laws of physics. Bummer.
Weird, I could have sworn you had a post about the optical qualities of the adapters.
Anyway, agree with pretty much everything you said. The comments about resolution and colour are in response to Marco above saying there isn't any advantage to FF, but did not consider any of those things. Even of they have the same DoF (not even considering roll off or Bokeh but DoF) and low light abilities there is still a significant gap, not just in MP but also real resolution between FF and crop.
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Converters like this actually work rather well when they are designed for the lens and even part of the optical design from the get-go. The Sony ones for the 16mm are said to actually perform better when using the adapters than without. Also cameras like the Ricoh GR tend to perform very well indeed (not perfect mind you) with the WA adapter. Fuji I think did the X100 ones as an afterthought, but are still at least designed for the specific lens so perform really quite decently, I believe the wide adapter more so than the tele. The cheap generic third party ones however are garbage. Sony has a LOT of experience designing them for high end camcorders for the last few decades as well.
I think it's very clever and could prove to work very well. But the proof is in the pudding.
I don't think I've seen anyone speculate on the rest of the roadmap, but two lenses I would like to see are f2.8 zooms with a less ambitious focal range to keep them relatively small, say around 2x vs the usual 3x. Something like a 35-70mm f2.8 and 70-140mm f2.8, around the size of the current f4 lenses but with less range. A 20-35mm f2.8 could be good as well.
The rest could be:
Long telephoto zoom (70-300/400mm)Fast 'portrait' lens (85mm f1.4)Wide angle prime (~17mm ~f2.8-4)Smallish portrait lens (135mm ~f2.3-2.8)Fast wide angle (21-24mm ~f1.4-2)
"We already know small, lightweight f/1.8 or f/2 designs are possible - just take a look at the Canon 35/2 or 85/1.8, or Sony's own 35/2 in the RX1."
And here we have a 28mm f2 to add to the 35mm and 55mm in the 'small primes' range. 28mm can also be adapted to become a 21mm f2, which while biggish, in a bag is relatively small if you're already carrying the 28mm.
Zeisschen: It seems some people expect Sony to catch up to DSLR mounts from 1987 (Canon EF) and 1959 (Nikon F) in less than one year in lens selection, otherwise just whining and complaining... Looking at their own shelves those people probably look at 2-4 lenses they actually bought from which they use 1 lens 90% of the time on their bodies. Still enough to complain about this rediculous Sony who doesn't fit their needs because they only have around 50-70 lenses available per mount.
Some of the best photographers used just one length all their life, and that how they became good.
Today it seems noone can take pictures anymore without F0.95-F1.4 primes and F 2.8 zooms. Those must be really be bad times today for photography...
"Fuji make it, for a couple of years they catch almost the same line as the Canon or Nikon. Without meaningless or recurrent lenses."
Well they are still catching up with the less than a year old Sony FE system for some core lenses, only just announcing a 70-200mm equivalent and still waiting on a 24-70mm equivalent and no true macro even on their roadmap.
So I guess many think that DoF and low light are the only performance benchmarks? What about resolution, dynamic range and colour?
Yes the f1.4 looks big, I wonder how big a 23mm f0.95 for APS-C would be? There goes the size advantage of APS-C... wonder how big the 17.5mm f0.7 would be... there goes the size advantage of m43's...
DouglasGottlieb: I guess they think that a more Fuji X100 style model would cut into M or T sales.
This camera should have an integrated EVF.
Or be much smaller, like the Ricoh GR.
Ok. You win. You win a million happys in your limp trousers. Well done. Don't provide any evidence to what you say, just keep saying it and everyone will believe you, because you are THE authority on all things. Tool.
Chillbert: As a NEX user, am I just paranoid or is Sony basically giving up on developing any more small lightweight E-mount lenses for APS-C size cameras? They seem to be so far behind Fujifilm in terms of lens range and performance, and their roadmap is all bigger FE lenses.
So if I take an a6000 say and put a 'FF' 50mm on there and a 'crop' 50mm on there I am going to get a different picture? Again READ.
Do you really think I am so slow that I don't understand crop factors? There is NO CROP FACTOR if we are talking about using two lenses of the same focal length on the same camera / format. Get it?
A 50mm 'crop' lens will take the same picture as a 50mm medium format lens when used on the same camera will it not?
Yep, just more hearsay from you, because you "know" and I am supposed to just believe you... If you think the 16-50mm can better the GR lens at the same FL you are delusional. Good day.
"As you can see, equivalent lenses for APS-C are significantly smaller and lighter, than their FF counterparts."
As you seem to not be able to read, I said "FF lenses are Longer FL for the same effective FOV which makes them bigger, but FL for FL there isn't a significant difference because FL and aperture determine the physical size of a lens, not crop factor."
Focal length for focal length. A 50mm FF lens is about the same size as a crop only 50mm. The argument here is NOT about 'equivalent lenses', it is deciding whether it is worthwhile or not using FF lenses on a crop body vs crop specific lenses. I CLEARLY stated that FF lenses are bigger for the same FOV.... Maybe read first before letting the rage set in?