A 1" sensor, an add-on EVF and a super-zoom??? This is a different line of camera from the G1X's. I'm still using the original 1.5" sensor G1X with its crappy OVF, slow between shot times and great IQ (at modest ISOs). I'll upgrade it one of these years with a suitable replacement. ATM, the LX100 would be leading the race. However, a BUILT-IN high grade EVF is an absolute requirement. I simply don't want an expensive, external, add-on EVF that blocks the flash shoe in use and gets left at home, lost or whatever. An egregiously bad idea. Please give us a complete camera.
Rod McD: This is a fast lens, and may well offer excellent IQ, but 830gm and 15.5cm long in mirror-less mounts? Heck, it's not that far off Fuji's new 50-140/2.8 zoom! It might suit some photographers but not me...... just too big.
Surely irrelevant to the parameters of the lens design?
I would have thought that the Canon FD 135/2 would offer a reasonable comparison given that it was an MF FF lens. It weighed 660gms compared to the Samyang's 830gm, was 90mm long compared to 122mm (for the SLR version), and took a 72mm filter as against a 77mm. Unreasonable?
This is a fast lens, and may well offer excellent IQ, but 830gm and 15.5cm long in mirror-less mounts? Heck, it's not that far off Fuji's new 50-140/2.8 zoom! It might suit some photographers but not me...... just too big.
I must be looking to something different from other buyers of this system. Here we have yet another Sony FE mount 35mm lens - now three : the FE f2.8, the FE f1.4 and the Zeiss Loxia f2. Surely it would have been better to fill out some needed additional FLs before variety in aperture?
To me the obvious uses for a high res, low weight camera like the A7r are landscape and travel, yet until this announcement there's been no lens wider than 35mm. So, it's great that there's finally a 28mm, though I would have thought that if you're only going to do one lens wider than 35mm, a 24mm would have been a more obvious choice.
I still suspect that there must be a difficulty with the A7r micro lenses or some other reason they aren't delivering WA lenses. Good to get the 90 macro but I can't really fathom the lack of an early 85mm portrait lens either.
Genuine sale or publicity ruse? We'll probably never know. Even if slot canyon shots have become heavily marketed in recent times, they're still beautiful. OTOH this one is no more so than any number of others and the concept of a $6.5M price tag defies common sense. Mine anyway.
Hi,Thanks and congratulations. Great example of what stacking can achieve - I couldn't even get close to this DOF with a single shot from a long macro lens.
Congratulations. There are million duckling photos 'out there' but capturing that moment of color makes it an absolute stand out.
Thanks. Some fantastic photographs there - something really different and thought provoking. I guess it's not the usual DPR photographers' fare because in most cases the tools and techniques needed to take shots like these are beyond the reach of most amateur and professional photographers.
Tom Goodman: At the end of the day this is a forgettable photograph, fungible like so many others. Those posters who say it is art have never seen art. Those who criticize critics of the image are simply jealous of the technique, not the vision, which is pedestrian. No matter how impressive the technique, this sort of photograph is the visual equivalent of an internet joke: read 'em (or see 'em in this case) and delete 'em!
There isn't anything indelible here. What most of the enthusiasm for is the how-to. That's great as far as it goes, which in an age of countless and relentless imagery ain't much.
I thought the definition of 'art' was that of work that moves somebody. Anybody. That may not be you. And that's OK, but don't feel the need to disparage those who share their skills and images.I think at least a part of landscape photography is making the most of an image from our moment in time at a place. It's easy to be critical that a more memorable shot might have been possible (given different weather, more spectacular lighting, etc). But we don't necessarily get those opportunities often, and so we shoot our take on the moment. It doesn't matter that it's Half Dome at Yosemite, Big Bend and the Tetons, a Parisienne Street or Uluru. All have been shot a million times before. The value is what it looked like in our moment and how we translate that into a photograph. Obviously some people here find something that resonates in Erez' image.
Hi Erez,Thanks for explaining your technique. I love landscape, but have never been much of PP user, so I greatly appreciate you explaining your thinking here and in your earlier posts. I like this one, but can't help thinking that I would have retained more of the rock to the left and the peak to the right. Their additional height changes the sense of scale. OTOH, it would then leave open the question of exactly how to crop the foreground - ie, what to include of the foreground sands. Perhaps there's an opportunity to take a second image out of the one panorama?
Rod McD: Should we assume that all the existing FE lens image circles are big enough to allow for IBIS?
Isn't it? Do you know that for sure? It may not be an issue at all, but that's an assumption. Pentax's IBIS can shift the sensor by whole millimetres. And in each direction from centre. It's allowed them to use IBIS for concepts that weren't originally envisaged, like levelling, composition adjustment and short term star-tracking. The question needs to be asked.
Should we assume that all the existing FE lens image circles are big enough to allow for IBIS?
For me as a stills photographer the LX100 looks great. The reviewer's "cons" aren't critical. I can live with 12mpx for the output of a compact. I accept the lens range. The EVF tearing will have minimal effect on still composition. I like the dials and aperture ring, and won't worry about reconfiguring controls. I prefer not to have a flip screen or a touch screen. I prefer filter threads and a separate cap. I've always used 'centre point and recompose' for compacts rather than moving the AF point, so - no change. For me the only downer is the power zoom - I'd have preferred a zoom ring on the lens, but we rarely get everything we want..... All good.
lemonadedrinker: It's not enough to talk about the lens and nothing else, when that lens comes from China.Small rant coming up.In the 'free' world you buy the lens and support the owner of the company; in China however, you buy the lens and support the Chicoms buying up another factory in the UK or USA, or killing protesters in Tibet etc etc. Buy nothing from them if you have the choice.
Welcome to humanity. I'm not condoning any of it, but civilisation is a thin veneer and the only thing that changes is who's doing the buying of the factories and the shooting of the protesters and where and when.
Choice is good. Let's give a new manufacturer a break from the conjecture and await some tests and user reports on the lens. (I'd personally be more interested in how their forthcoming 24/1.7 fares.)
This is business, so I suppose that Ricoh wouldn't do this unless it paid the ROI. I can only conclude that I'm just not in the target market.......
The references to the compensation dial being unusual because it turns 'backwards' are a bit odd. The dial is exactly the same as every other Canon Powershot in that you turn the dial anti-clockwise to go into negative compensation. If you're doing it by feel, say if you're using a VF for example, you always scroll the near side of the dial to the right whatever Canon compact you're using. The dial markings may appear to have the scale one way around or the other according to whether the dial is on the left hand side of the camera top plate (eg G10,11,12, or on the right hand side eg G16, G1X, G7x, but it's always an anti-clockwise turn to go negative.
I hate carrying a laptop, even a light one, on extended travels but until someone offers a tablet with real USB capabilities, I guess I'm stuck with it. And no SD slot?
Rod McD: I've had a DSLR. I now have a MILC - which happens to be Fuji - and half a dozen lenses. Often I take only the 18-55 as my minimum kit. If I was in the market for a second smaller, lighter camera, it would be an all-in-one with a retracting lens, not another MILC system.I already have one - the Canon G1X (original). I'm tempted to get a different camera because although the G1X IQ meets my expectations of a compact, it's tunnel OVF is poor, and even if its AF is accurate, it's between-shot times are glacially slow.To me the LX100 appeals because it has 1) a 24mm start to the zoom 2) a good EVF 3) dial exposure controls, 4) dial compensation, and 5) NO touch screen. Its only downer for me is the power zoom (as compared to a manual lens ring) but maybe I could live with that....... No commitments yet, but I'll look at one.
I guess my main point was that since I've got one MILC, I don't need or want another. MILC retracting lenses like the Olympus and Sony products tend to be a lot slower than the retracting lenses in high grade all-in-one cameras. I'm not sure why.I don't want auto self-closing lens caps. They're handy but some have scratched the lens and I've used DSLRs and MILCs for long enough to be comfortable with a separate cap. And it means you get filter threads......There is also another reason that people might buy the camera. An overwhelming one. They might just LIKE it. No-one ever bought a camera for any other reason.