"edge performance is critically rather poor and there's plenty of vignetting. But do I care? Not at all. The lens only cost me $10"
Hmmm. Not sure what your goal is....
Nuno Souto: Here we go again with the insane "optical bench tests"...When will this kind stop being taken for granted? They are destroying photography!
Let me see: a lens adapter mount has a major effect on sharpness, but the entire flip-mirror assembly in a slr doesn't and never has done so?Oh wait: that flipped up piece of gear is the one primarily responsible for focusing said lenses?
Something that gets flicked up and down at high speed, is "inherently" more exact in its sub-micron positioning than a flat ring of metal held firmly in place by 6 or more screws?
Yeah sure. And I am henceforth to be addressed as Santa Claus.
PS: to the "dear Santa" commentators: wake up and start taking photos of real subjects. Not optical benches!
Are you quite sure that you know what exactly the mirror actually does?
Al Perry: Sorry to nitpick, but this is an iceberg, not a glacier. Love the photo.
I am not even sure about 'iceberg', either. How big is the lump of ice? On the order of 1 meter?
But that is nit-picking. The image is beautiful and the article is very instructive.
AndreyT: Your use the term "focal distance" in rather confusing manner. People typically use this term as a synonym for "focal length". You said you changed your focal distance. Meanwhile, it is obvious that you never changed the focal length of your lens but rather refocused it for different distances (at different points of the subject).
In my experience, people do not use focal distance and focal length as synonyms. Where did you pick that up?
OOPSOS: Have I read it right or my poor vision/english?. The tripod ring mount = $224 extra?
Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. Scary price for an accessory. Not that Canons are that much cheaper, but still...
burnymeister: Nice work dpreview! Ignore the old fuddy duddies and they're naysaying - like you pointed out, they're usually wrong in the end. Mobile devices are going to generate 10x or 1000x more photos than the monster DSLR's ever will, and will probably be viewed more too...
Can you personally view 10x or 1000x more photos than now?
Congrats on the new site... I suppose there is interest in something like that?
For me, at least, it is one place where I won't be going in the foreseeable future as I personally can't seem to find any kind of interest in the topic at all.
photophile: The whole vote +1 or -1 thing is puerile & childish for an informative, premiere website such as DPreview - pandering heavily to the teenage facebook/youtube generation. DPreview´s hand has probably been forced by Amazon to include the feature to help with their sales (despite DPrevew telling us they are "independent"). But we do have a choice - just DON´T use it. Let Amazon figure out its own sales strategy and let DPreview feel the full force of ownership by a larger organisation.
Simon, are you saying that there isn't really any use for the voting?
Because that is what I read out of your replies. And then I really wonder why it was put in in the first place?
ralphdaily: I think the new look is great. Also reading the guide for the new design helps. Anyone should read that first before complaining.
Reading the guide first? Hmmm...
Personally, I think a design should be so good as not to require reading a guide first.
But perhaps that's just me?
Just deployed - wishing it would be possible to 'just undeploy', too. This is horrid.
Uses far too much real estate on the screen, both yellow and blue on black are very bad choices of contrast.
Any kind of user or post ranking is a horrid idea. It is far too easy to misuse by any kind of faction. Factions which btw have come around at least in part due to a lack of moderation...
Like is at base nothing but 'a million flies cannot be wrong'. And dislike just adds the possibility of malice to the brew.
What /existing, non-OS/ version? Hasn't that one been unavailable for a while? At least for Sony....
dscottsatx: Your cropping leaves your center of interest way too centered and stagnant. All eye movement stops on him once it reaches him--effectively killing the rest of the image. If he is all we should be looking at, you should have cropped the image much more tightly.
I see the empty space to the right of the man as an very important part. The man, in his position, gives tension to this almost empty space. What is he looking at? What is in that empty space, hidden from us? I think we should be looking at the empty space, not at the man - he is just there to point us at the empty space.
To me, the crop is fine.