Interesting, but it doesn't seem to be able to do more than one row, which would make it useless for high resolution panos.
I've yet to figure out why Sony would go to all the trouble and expense of designing a high quality camera only to ruin the output with lossy compression.
And as for not encountering it for years, that's BS as that would mean they're not shooting at night or indoors, specifically what the new BSI chip is designed for.
All Sony had to do was include an opt out selection and this would not be a problem. But I do so much of my shooting at night that right now this camera would be worthless to me.
Their high prices for ink were driving so many customers to third party inks that Epson probably decided it was better to get into the game than to lose out altogether. The actual net effect will be, of course, to lower the costs of third party inks as their competitors are forced to lower their prices to beat Epson's new lower ones.
Sharpness isn't everything, it's also nice to have a lens that isn't heavy with CA. Too bad about the focus shift, though.
I want one ( just as soon as they fix the compression algorithm).
And just how long is the$11.99 price guaranteed for? Once they have you "hooked" you have to pay up no matter what they charge or lose access to everything.
With a pixel size of 2.2um, diffraction will start to destroy the resolution after f2.8, so I really don't see this having any practical application for regular photographers. Nor do I think any lens currently on the market can shoot at this level of resolution at f2.8. So this is a technical achievement, not a practical one, unless it's considered for it's PR value or for bragging rights.
I'd be far more impressed by Canon increasing the DR of its sensors, which would have practical value, instead of just their MP count.
The last one is great, really creative.
My question is why bother with a mirrorless MF system in the first place? MF systems aren't small or compact anyway so how does the absence of a mirror help?
mike earussi: Never heard of a CPL that can transmit 90% of the light. Wonder how they're pulling that miracle off?
I already own two Hoya HD CPLs. That's why I wasn't sure what the Manfrotto PR release was talking about. ASAIK the Hoya HD CPLs use the best polarizer material available which results in a 1 1/3 stop light loss instead of the usual two.
Joe Mayer: Sure, why not? Because the pro filter market isn't already covered by B+W. There aren't enough (good and great) filter manufacturers. Interesting move on their part unless they think their name will help them and the profit margin is insanely high because I doubt they'll dent the current makers, especially B+W. Of course, I'm biased and think B+W is the best and I wouldn't put anything else on my lenses.
At least it isn't Hasselblad coming out with a rebranded $50 Hoya adding wood trim and charging $500 for it.
Never heard of a CPL that can transmit 90% of the light. Wonder how they're pulling that miracle off?
It's about time, it was an industry wide joke.
Sometimes I get the impression that to Ricoh Pentax is nothing but a joke. Besides, I refuse to buy any camera that isn't covered with chocolate and has a cherry on top.
I guess when you have nothing new to say, the best you can do is to try to say it in a new, more dramatic, way. The end result is a big PR fiasco for Canon.
The main advantage is that Rodger has already gone over the lens before it's sent out, so you know what you purchase is in good shape. No one else does this--and I would trust Roger's lens over a manufacture's refurbished one.
Hey, monkeys have rights, too. It's our culture's anthropocentrism that's causing us to callously destroy the habitats of other creatures who have been on this earth just as long as we have. Maybe the money from its use should go into a wildlife fund for the protection of indigenous species.
I commend Sigma for completely changing their design philosophy. Once known as one of the worse lens manufactures only a few years ago (to the point where Lens Rentals quit carrying their lenses due to so much mechanical failure) they now are producing some of the best lenses around. Only time will tell how durable they are, but hopefully they will prove to be as good mechanically as they are optically.
Dr_Jon: My one concern about this lens is too many people are complaining about AF issues. Is it possible to test it on as many Canon bodies as possible and report what you see? (Canon bodies as you have a Canon version.)
As someone else said, it doesn't matter how sharp it is if it misses focus...
E.g. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx"The bottom line is that, the longer I focus tested this lens, the less sure I was about its focus accuracy.... (a bit removed as I was over the character limit for a post) ...What I learned from the many hours (actually extended into days) spent shooting and analyzing thousands of images is that the 50 Art lens' AF cannot be completely counted on. Sometimes, most images are properly focused and when my shots counted, this lens delivered. But sometimes, more images are out of focus than I am comfortable with."
I trust Brian to have an objective opinion BTW.
No AF system is perfect. Each camera body is unique since there is always a certain amount of tolerance in its construction (see Lens Rental's series of articles if you're not familiar with this topic--http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-1-center-point-single-shot-accuracy).
That's why Sigma's AF Dock is so useful, it enables these variables to be corrected for on a body by body basis. An interesting test would be to compare Canon's 50 f1.4 to Sigma's for AF accuracy after the Sigma has been calibrated using the Dock.
That's what the USB Dock is for, to fine tune AF to your specific camera body. The tester may not have done this.