Decent price with decent quality will sell. Look at how Lee is continuously sold out, despite the high price. They just need to update for modern needs, i.e. NDs, and gradients (no color necessary usually) for photography, and sets of filters for video (effects that are not easy to do in post).
Hoefie: If I have a 77mm lens, what filter should I get: M, L or XL ?As there is an overlap on all sizes; is the size really the only difference between the four ranges ?
Depends on focal length and what body it's on, i.e. the angle of view. You should get the range that covers the lens with your largest front diameter, taking into account the angle of view. I.e. on a tele, you can stack a bunch of 77mm filters with little effect, while on a wide angle, a thick filter (e.g. variable NDs) may already give hard vignetting.
Richard H Goodman: GOOD! Maybe I can finally get a 77mm P series adapter!
What's the problem? For a few $ you get a 77mm adapter ring plus P holder on ebay.
Well, despite the advantages of dSLR, a nice print on good quality film paper should last a long time. In that time you have to keep buying new technology every few years and copy your stuff again and again if you want to save it into the future. Hopefully some new stable technology will come along. I thought CDs and DVDs would last, but seems they don't. (hard drives fail of course routinely).
photonius: What about the Sandisk Eye Fi cards? Is this simply a licensed version of the Eye-Fi card with the same software and features as described here, or are there differences?
Thanks for the info on the Sandisk. Yes, looks like the Eye-Fi itself is not readily available in europe. hmm, if nobody wants to sell a decent product, so be it, they won't get my money then.
Thanks, yes, the Sandisk Eye-Fi cards are slower, but also cheaper. I noticed they are not sold everywhere though. Perhaps licensing issues, or WiFi regulation issues. I'd be interested to have some cheap WiFi capability for a non-WiFi body for test shoots in a home environment, no large data transfers, just avoiding a cable to stumble over.
What about the Sandisk Eye Fi cards? Is this simply a licensed version of the Eye-Fi card with the same software and features as described here, or are there differences?
Timmbits: yet another itty bitty crappy tiny sensor! I wish they would offer these camera with a bigger one - especially at these very long focal lengths, where IQ suffers significantly.
That's the whole point of the small sensor. This lens is 200mm in focal length to give 1200mm FF equivalent field of view. If you make the sensor bigger, you need a bigger lens. For a m43 sized sensor, you need a 600mm lens - look up how big those are.
D1N0: This sensor is useless for people that shoot through the viewfinder. Canon should put it in a mirrorless and focus on superior iso for their dslrs (not just almost on par with Nikon because that won't last very long). Wouldn't you need even better lenses because it is actually a 40mp sensor with only half the pixels actually used for imaging?.
No, there are still only 20 Mp microlenses. It's the sensor under the microlenses that is split into two photosites, so the phase can be read by only reading the left or right one. However, for the image, the signal from both is combined, so the result should be similar to a "simple" 20Mp sensor, unless all the extra electronics makes a lot of extra noise. On the other hand, averaging two photosites will reduce shot noise, so the image could actually be less noisy than a simple 20MP sensor. Dynamic range could suffer, if each of the two photosite would hold less than 50% of photons a single large photosite could hold.
qwertyasdf: I really hope the NX line success with it incredible lensesBut the unnecessary long flangeback distance is like a genetic disorder that will plague generations to come The inability to use m mount lenses and the stupid protruding lens mount killed the deal for me
But it means one should be able to use this fish-eye with an adapter on Sony or Canon mirror-less... ;-)
Jefftan: Sony NEX 10-18 F4 225 gramCanon 11-22mm F4-5.6 220 gram
not as wide, not as bright and same weight
What's going on? Is this the best what Canon can do?Can't understand
Well, look at the photozone review of the Sony lens. It's optical properties are not that great, rather poor at f4. All points towards the Canon being even better than it's well regarded EF-S 10-22. So, I rather prefer Canon's approach, even if on paper Sony's specs seem better.
Just another Canon shooter: Isn't this lens a bit too long for a UWA for a mirrorless camera (shorter flange distance and all that)?
Even though the EOS-M has a much shorter flange distance, ALL mirror-less systems have a flange distance around 20mm (except Pentax Q), which is double the distance for UWAs (around 10mm), so you still need a retrofocus design. And in any lens design, the lens elements take up space, so the retrofocus elements will take up a bit of space before you even come to the part of the lens that needs to collect the light at wide angle at the front. Further, no matter how short the flange distance, the fact is that due sensor design (and the microlenses on it), you cannot have light come in at extremely shallow angles, otherwise the light at the edges will just be lost. So, it seems the rear element is usually not closer than about 20mm to the sensor. That's why there is no 10mm pancake. Theoretically (thin lens), a 10mm lens would only be 10mm away from the sensor, and have a diameter of 10mm for f1.0! The only way to go smaller is with smaller sensors (Nikon, Pentax Q)
ryanshoots: More video sucks. Buggy players, mandatory commercials at the beginning and so on. I'll take a photo by a professional any day over 99% of the punters with an iphone video.
I understand the economics of it, but don't think for a minute that quality is going up.
Youtube is the last place I'd go for a product review, usually 90 % of the time is wasted with useless information that I can read up faster in a text like dpreview.
cool, I keep the old computer and the old version...
Cool, now we can have exactly the same picture a million times over..... In the light of reducing environmental pollution, I suggest only the first person takes the shoot, and shares it with the remaining 999'999...
kimchiflower: Good luck shooting at 1056mm f/6.5
Not sure what's more futile, the megapixel race or the megazoom race?
Well, it might actually not be that bad based on the superzoom bridge cameras, if image stabilization works ok.What's more futile is that at 1056 with aperture f6.5, on such a small sensor, you might actually only get about 2Mp effective resolution due to diffraction.
wallbreaker: I wished it was 1 inch sensor
Then it would only be a 500mm (35mm) equivalent lens at the long end, ignoring also the diameter which will not be big enough to avoid vignetting.
Cameron R Hood: The distortions in that lens must be unbelievable.
That's why it seems that you can't get any RAW files from any of these superzoom bridge cameras. Distortion, CA will be corrected directly in camera.
forpetessake: As it was predicted DSLRs won't surrender to mirrorless without putting up a good fight. This is the first such blow -- a camera almost as light and small as mirrorless, but with the full DSLR advantages with hundreds of DSLR lenses fully compatible.Competition is good, keep them coming!
P.S. It actually beats Olympus OM-D in all respects including weight! See comparison: http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos100d&products=oly_em5
Mirrorless has only the advantage in lenses in the wide-angle range because of the shorter flange distance, so you don't need retrofocus designs in the 20-40mm range. For long focal lenses there does not have to be any advantage at all, if the pixel density is the same (e.g. a 24MP Canon crop, versus 16MP m4/3). Then you just crop the Canon a bit and you have the same resolution as the Olympus. Canon doesn't have a 24mp sensor yet, but Nikon/Sony already have. Well, one can argue that m4/3 can make more MPs on their sensor, but the problem is, you can't shrink pixel size unlimited due to diffraction. Even now 4/3 lenses are already loosing resolution from f5.6 on with a 16mp sensor.