Louis_Dobson: Anyone able to tell me if ISO can be assigned to a dial? Aperture plus exp comp plus ISO on dials would be my perfect camera.
Manual is not clear.
Does this picture answer this question?
Hugo808: Has focusing in live view improved over the D750? That'd be a real bonus and would take away one of the advantages of a mirrorless
If you can calibrate the PDAF with the imaging sensor, it no longer matters for AF i.e. PDAF is essentially as accurate as CDAF whilst retaining its speed advantage.
tinternaut: Ummm.... When did they stop? Where do the latest sensors in Panasonic cameras (e.g. the GX8) come from? What am I missing here?
From Sony, likely.
If one wanted to use this feature to do a quick (relatively) and dirty focus stacking for macro, does it seem logical/possible through the LR path?
Hypothetically, as I understand the feature, the process would be:1) take the shot and then2) use LR to establish up to 30 jpegs, each with a different point of focus. 3) stack the 30 shots in PS or other appropriate editing software4) edit, enhance, etc. the result as needed/desired
Considerations I might consider adding in the process would be:1) convert the first output (the 30 frames) to TIFF or other lossless format before the stacking and editing phase in order to minimize damage to the final output2) as with all macro, plan the shot in advance and use a tripod3) select the frames to be used with care - using all 30 might not add enough to make the processing time and overhead worth it.
Does this seem either doable or desirable? Comments, please.
This is done through changing lens focus. At long distances this hopefully does not change the framing too much but at macro distances it highly depends on the lens. Any focus breathing will make the stacking task quite onerous. 'Normal' slow focus stacking can be done with a combination of lens focus and camera shift so you can even use a lens with focus breathing.
riveredger: The amount of hostility conveyed in some of these threads is simply juvenile. Did you guys get so negative before you were photographers or because you are photographers?
Mainly because of tribalism. Tribalism itself is juvenile enough. Tribalism based on brands of products is beyond juvenile. And yet it is human nature. At least compared with tribalism based on religion, ideology, etc. this does not hurt or kill anyone...
Frank C.: sold all my gear and didn't buy this, just sold all my gear, my iphone is sufficient for my photographic needs, the camera companies and their overpriced hype can stick it anywhere they want
Suppose this won't be too popular, so I liked it.
Sad Joe: Are these the same glass as the Sony / Zeiss BATIS range ? If so strange that on the Sony they are AF but not on Canon or Nikon. Its not like Zeiss could not afford the licence, also it appears to make the BATIS range rather better value for money. Score one for Sony !
The Batis range is available in Japan with a genuine Cosina warranty so could be manufactured by Cosina. There is no overlap between Batis and Milvus so they are not Batis dressed in Milvus clothing.
happypoppeye: Would probably still buy the 25 f/1.4.
It's fairly reasonable to expect them to have 'screwed up the bokeh' or in other words, not set the bokeh as an important design factor. There has to be some design compromise somewhere...
Lenses keep growing in size. 67mm filters for modest aperture normal primes now. Very soon filter companies will be able to remove 52mm and smaller sizes from their catalogs...
Kaso: Can't fix. Lost source code. Must keep using old compiled library.
Strange as this might sound, it's a very rational explanation.
IZO100: ahhh 4/3 ratio... What a silly idea.
A circular sensor has the problem of costing essentially the same (actually more considering the trimming needed) as a square one that fully contains the circle. The processing needed will also be the same as for the larger square sensor, if you want to eventually display a circular image. It's perhaps better to just use a large square sensor that fully contains the image circle anyway and the in-camera software can have auto cropping features for the user to pick and choose. Option 0 - keep the entire circle (which means also keeping the dark corners), option 1 - square format, option 3 - 5:4, etc. until option n: 1:3 or some super wide cinema format. The VF will display the chosen format.
Paul_B Midlands UK: Was interesting to see, especially the benefits of getting f2.8 or wider, last weekend I hit some limitations with my Sony supawide zoom f4 (ouch) with a6000 and slow to focus is poor light rx10. Note no flash allowed .. Nice too see what the better gear or lens at least can do. Here bad light gig shots and BMXing! https://www.flickr.com/photos/127926668@N02/sets/72157656523732600I have no faith to use iso more than 1250 images seem to degrade too much or maybe that's Sony's rather less impressive jpg engine. Its a reason is like to sell up and move in to maybe high qual m4/3.
Looking at the flickr page OP linked to, neither OIS nor IBIS would have been much use as the subjects were moving.
steve_hoge: Would be nice to see the results of pairing these lenses with the OMD EM-5 Mk II body shooting in hi-res (40Mp) mode.
Not with the moving water. HiRez with moving water ouch.
ChrisH37: What happened to the Panasonic 150mm 2.8? Killed off due to the Olympus 40-150 2.8?
The lack of fast-ish telephotos is puzzling, if ever a system was ready made for it then you would think M4/3 would be it, particularly as there are now a number of DSLR style bodies with decent grips.
A 200mm f4 would be nice, for example.
One day there will be an FF 800/13 zoom, or an APSC equivalent both of which of similar weight and size to this lens. Then we will have multiple choices to work with. Until then, these arguments are academic.
ThirstyDursty: The DFD feature could be good for automating macro image stacks. Rather then using a macro slider or manually moving focus...it could do it automatically with no gaps...then choose the start and finish frame and stack in post.
Assuming no focus breathing, which at macro distances could be a problem.
You kill my 150/2.8. I kill your 300/4 back.
Zeisschen: It sounds like a much more simple but at the same time higher resolution approach compared to the Lytro. The difference is, it won't capture just one shot but a short video sequence. That might matter for moving subjects.
Rolling shutter could also be an issue there, but eventually Panasonic sensors are als fast enough like Sony stacked ones to eliminate it.
Good point. And you cannot just make exposures with the lens in continuous focus motion. The lens has to stop at each point to expose a frame, then move to the next point and expose a frame, etc. CDAF lenses are good for this king of thing, but good enough to which point?
CrashMaster: The way technology is going the photographer will be in danger of being made redundant.
This could have been said when almost every technological development was made in cameras and lenses, and yet we still have photographers today, more of them than ever. Specific skills become redundant, but hopefully not the artist.
Peter Heckert2: This might be the end of PDAF and mirror technology.
Not necessarily, the focus distance sweep might miss a moving subject, i.e. it ends up chasing the subject a few paces behind always throughout all the individual images with the subject never in focus.
Shiranai: So far this technology as well as light field technology is still inferior to real bokeh captured by a lens.Afterward bokeh calculations always struggle when it comes to difficult and detailed objects like branches or semi-transparent objects. Light field bokeh has still problems with artifacts, resolution and IQ is rather low.
I'm looking forward to Panasonics approach but I think there has yet to flow a lot of water down the river till we see any major breaktroughs. And even then, people will still prefer lenses for their analogue and retro look.
I don't know about Lytro, but this technology of sweeping through the focus range with a number of individual shots does give 'real bokeh' caused by the analogue properties of lenses.