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.
The question unanswered is are they replacing using the new improved shutters from the D610 or just putting more faulty D600 shutters back in?
The camera market is finally saturated with plenty of good used cameras on the market for sale. Eventually sales will stabilize to replacement levels. The question is which companies can survive at those lower sales levels?
I'm amazed that Hasselblad doesn't realize at how pathetic this comes across and how much it demeans their otherwise excellent brand.
BTW, I have an Argus C3 that I've taped a Leica sticker to that I'd be willing to part with for only $2,000. Any takers?
What's really good about this lens is that it will put pressure on the other lens manufactures to up there game as well, though hopefully at less cost.
gerard boulanger: I hate to say this but "smart" phones and their integrated camera devices are eating some of the market share of the entry level digital cameras.Anywhere you might go in the world, most people take souvenir/family/vacation pictures with their telephones.Now, how to explain the drastic drop in shipment re DSLRs and even on the relatively new concept of mirrorless cameras? Economy, lack of new technology, prices?
Saturation, there are only so many people in the world who actually want dslrs. And since the product has pretty much matured feature and IQ wise there's no real reason for present owners to update. This is a cycle all products go through, for example the PC market with its declining sales.
Actually, I thought she was a manikin.
scrup: Why all these negative comments directed to the newspaper. Markets are changing, newspaper advertising revenue shrinking every year. They need to do what any business will do to survive. They saw an area that could save costs and made a decision.
For those that say quality will be suffer. Is it better to have a crap picture or no picture. News is global and people want to know what is happening around the world and not just their backyard. 27 photogs no matter how many cameras or zoom lenses they have can't be everywhere. A picture is still worth a thousand words no matter who takes it.
Because they should be cutting high salaried management first, not the people who actually do the work.
happypoppeye: So, to sum up to this point...
- Pulitzer is spelled wrong- People think that local newspapers still need paid full time photographers- wow, unions still exist ...I think its time to kill off the rest- People think that although a paper is bleeding money and about to go under they still need to keep a full photography staff- People are still misquoting the CEO of Flickr by using a statement out of context (by the way: a reason to keep writers and fire photogs)
...and a lot more stupid stuff.
I've worked for too many companies where the management screw-ups were blamed on workers below who were then fired. Surprisingly the problems still remained.
There are far more incompetent managers out there than there are workers. The workers have to deal with reality everyday. The management, not having direct experience with the day to day reality, is separated from it and so doesn't really understand it and so base their decisions on false concepts of it.
Jarvis Grant: In time the paper will realize what a stupid decision this was.
Sure, after they've gone bankrupt and the present management having gutted the company financially after escaping on golden parachutes.
Jacques Cornell: In another cost-saving move, the Sun-Times' entire janitorial staff was let go, and the C suite will receive training in germ abatement, spill recovery, and dust relocation using iMops.
Oops, sorry, got that one backwards. The C suite was let go, and the janitorial staff are being trained in CYA, golfing, and phone tag strategies.
The second scenario would also result in improved efficiency, as the janitors probable know how the company should be run better than the present management.
If the paper is losing money then it should fire upper management and the CEO. They don't do anything anyway except collect big paychecks. And I'm sure their combined salaries are more than enough to pay for the photographers they just laid off.
I think they should fire their reporters as well and just use everyone's tweets to fill their pages instead. After all it doesn't take any skill to be a reporter does it?
The real dead weight is the management. The paper would be much better off firing the management and keeping the photographers, who actually produce something useful.
Tapper123: Sad for the photo staff, but from a business POV it does make sense.
To push off photo pros, but it's not something that will ever be applied to them, where one executive may make as much as the entire photo department.
rallyfan: Have fun selling shots at $50 each, boys.
You think they'll get that much?