Sounds like good business practice to me. Sigma makes money, Olympus looks good and the m4/3 system benefits. SOP for the industry.
I stopped photo editing on the iPad when I figured out that iOS has a different colorspace that does not translate well to other systems, so all the photos that I exported directly to a site like Flickr looked 'off' on a desktop or laptop. Is this still true?
Paul Storm: Leica, by innovating absolutely nothing, tried to pull the wool over our eyes by relabelling panasonic, truly pathetic, now hasselblad is following suit with sony.
Their respective CEOs should be ashamed of running these product scams!
Leica and Panny had a real two-way partnership. Panasonic continues to get higher quality glass and I know plenty of brand-conscious dorks who insist on buying the more-expensive but not insane-expensive Leica digicams.
ABM Barry: I have been using Hasselblad for over 30 years! However I will no longer stay with this traditionally respected manufacturer.
Here in OZ The Pirates at HusselBlunder are extorting ridiculous prices for what can only be described as "Ordinary cameras' SONY.
NEX-7 <$900, ... Call it a LUNAR = AUD$8300 Body only !!!RX-100 <$500 ... Call it a STELLAR = AUD1600 - $3200 !!!
Accessories: Matching Handbag & Shoes! $10,000
This sends the message that Sony & Hasselblad have shifted from the very competitive Camera manufacturing business to the very lucrative Fashion and Scam business. What they are doing is simply CHEATING! No other word for it. Do they really think we are that Stupid!, ... I guess they must.
It will be interesting to see just how many Fools float to the surface of the profit sheet!
You were joking about the handbag and shoes...right? I did not read the whole press release.
Kudos to Hassleblad for targeting customers who thought that Sony gear was too moderately priced. The camera would be twice again as awesome if they could engineer a red dot between the lens and the wood grip.
JmaverickPro: I know there is an over abundance of complaining on dpreview...
But really? Of all the things dpreview hasn't reviewed, you choose a body cap lens?
Spending time on stuff like this leaves them zero excuse to delay reviewing the Hasselblad Lunar, for which I have been waiting these many months. It had better be at least times as awesome as the NEX6. Otherwise some starting photographers could get a little grumpy about some advice that I gave them.
Pangloss: I think the key shortcoming here is the very simple fact that one can take exactly the same pictures with the kit zoom at exactly the same focal length and aperture, adding vignetting and distortion effects in postprocessing if one wishes. So the question is, why spend any money on a body cap lens if one already has a kit zoom that can take exactly the same (or better) picture? As I see it, it is both a waste of money *and* more importantly a waste of shooting opportunities.
Because I lost my body cap. And for $40, why the hell not?
Tim F 101: Thanks for the good work, but reviewing this as a lens seems kind of gratuitous and encourages the worst kind of forum trolling. I hope this will go into one of your category comparison articles between, say, this lens, the Holga 25, the pinhole 'lens' and the toy lens for Pentax Q.
In addition, you now have no excuse not to review the Hasselblad Lunar. Must include comprisons between the influence of wood vs leather grips on critical sharpness and bokeh quality.
Dude, seriously. I suggested that dpreview compare the optical qualities of a wood vs leather grip. I might just not be serious.
And no, I do not think the Lunar is cheap (SNORT). Nor do I want one.
Thanks for the good work, but reviewing this as a lens seems kind of gratuitous and encourages the worst kind of forum trolling. I hope this will go into one of your category comparison articles between, say, this lens, the Holga 25, the pinhole 'lens' and the toy lens for Pentax Q.
Zvonimir Tosic: Ricoh is a publicly owned company, with thousands of shareholders, and it just finished its huge restructuring after several rather larger acquisitions.
For those who are interested in more than ignorant rant, it would be good to see what investors and market analysts have suggested to Ricoh for the fiscal 2013: not to aggressively go into the camera market, which is very unstable at the moment. Ricoh already is profitable in its camera divisions, spreading across Pentax and Ricoh brands, and is also noting an increase of market share.
So what we'll see in near future are solid improvements that yield in secure income. Thus projects like the resurrected K-01, made by popular demand, require zero new cost but secure income. There are many who love the camera just because it's quirky, and because it's different than anything else.
A lot of people deride the camera because it put a big unused empty space inside the body in order to keep the same flange distance. This was a lazy move by Pentax, but understandable because a lesser-tier camera company (not a moral judgment; not every one can or should invest all-in like Canon and Nikon) can hardly be expected to sustain development of three non-compatible lens lines. This lets people use their existing lenses, which is nice, but it leaves zero reason to buy the mirrorless body when a K SLR uses the focus mode, PDAF, for which the lenses were designed.
It takes great pictures just like a K-5 or a K-30. So why not buy those? Choosing a very slightly smaller mirrorless forces a bunch of compromises that strike most people as pointlessly masochistic.
It hurts me to say that Pentax must have had this planned for a long time to announce it after they already canceled development on the body. It's blue. Planned for a long time. Yeah, let's all just move on.
Soggoth: Still ugly as hell
You cannot make the mirrorless K's slimmer. Pentax got lazy with this system and kept the flange distance identical with their SLR's so that they would not have to design any new lenses. Of course this leaves a large empthy space in the body which serves no purpose and makes it imossible to design bodies of reasonable size.
This body was a cheap cop-out from conception, justified (in the loosest sense) only by the long shot gamble on a celebrity designer.
Are we still waiting for an app that lets you sync an iphone with an external flash? That seems like it would have a much wider appeal than exploding apple high-speed pics.
The reasons for current 20/1.7 owners to upgrade include...
* Metal finish* Slightly less weight * ?
The press release does not even claim AF speed improvement, which it would do if they found a way to make it even a hair faster. Sounds like an announcement that passed me in the night.
Donnie G: I'm a DSLR fan who has had the pleasure of owning and using Fujifilm fixed lens, rangefinder equipped, medium format film cameras. Loved them! So, even though I'm not in the market for a mirrorless camera of any brand, it's great to see that Fujifilm is on a roll with their APS-C sensor based X-series cameras. Just like their medium format film era cameras, these X-series cameras are functional and handsome devices that I'm sure are capable of delivering excellent image quality. WAY TO GO FUJIFILM!
PS., For those folks who were predicting full frame sensors would somehow kill off APS-C, just take a look at the number of new APS-C based cameras, whether mirrorless or DSLR, that are being brought to market compared to the number of FF models. APS-C is here to stay and the marketplace is better off for it.
Indeed not sir! I crave for image quality, and I say that your 35mm image sensor is naught but a toy.
ManuelVilardeMarcedo: poser. Anyone not using a Phase One or similar medium format back is clearly an amateur. Did Ansel Adams use 35mm for his paid work? I think not. QED, my friend.
How could you spend your time on stuff like this when you STILL have not released a full review of the Hasselblad Lunar with mahogany wood grip?
And why have you not addressed how the new lens would be equivalent if it were used on the latest Wide Field and Planetary Camera (WFPC3) used by the Hubble Space Telescope, the sensor of which measures about 6 cm square? I might need to know that.
Please consider refunding my subscription to this site!
fastlass: Can you just say that this is a 42.5 mm m43 lens. The target audience knows what the photographic characteristics in terms of angle of view, depth of field control, and background blur are for them. Let each standard stand on its own.
@joejack: A full frame f/1.2 lens does not "gather more light" on a micro 4/3 sensor than a f/0.95 lens. It gathers the same light as any other 50mm at f/1.2 and less light than a 50mm-ish at f/0.95. The extra light gathered by a full frame lens falls outside the image sensor and does zero good on a micro four thirds camera, other than adding to light scatter within the camera body.