 |
thx1138
Lives in
Sydney, Australia
Works as a
Mathematician - Medical Ultrasound
Joined on
Jul 17, 2004
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
yabokkie: a 150mm f/2.8 FourThirds is a 294mm f/5.5 equivalent on 35mm format. compared with Canon and Nikon 300mm f/4 ones, this lens should worth about 750 dollars.
Canon 200 f/2.8 $750 or so. Sigma is $1100 because it's a macro lens with OS, the non OS version is much cheaper.
I couldn't care less about the 70D, what I want to know when we'll see the 7D replacement. Until they have a high pixel count, high frame rate FF, there is an urgent need for a high performance crop camera with the demise of the 1D IV. 7D has 48MP FF equivalent and it'll be a good 3-4 years before we see a FF with that pixel count that can do 8fps and when it does, it'll be a hell of a lot dearer than any 7D APS-C based replacement.
DB3: Ugly? Maybe. But certainly not junk: it could be just the thing in certain circumstances.
I'd be very interested to see a brief review of how it performs.
I wasn't referring to too much DoF, in fact I said nothing about DoF. If you think that's the main problem with these fingernail size toy sensors you would be mistaken.
Red G8R: 4.8-6.7, they must be joking.
I think next they should release an f/8-11 lens, this fast glass from Olympus just has too little DoF. I like everything in focus damn it.
DB3: Ugly? Maybe. But certainly not junk: it could be just the thing in certain circumstances.
I'd be very interested to see a brief review of how it performs.
No, those tiny 1/2.3" sensors and jpg are the pinnacle of the IQ tree.
Marty4650: Does Pentax actually have professional designers on their payroll?
Or were they just trying to create a really ugly camera?
I've seen better looking tape measures.
GPW: The 800mm lens is a company lens or for the very rich. Nikon is heading in the wrong direction in my opinion in terms of expensive lens and sub-par cameras(build quality and MP's). How many 800's are they going to sell, at that price,really and who wants a 36mp camera at 4 fps(huge files), not the average consumer. People have been screaming for an upgrade for the 80-400 and an upgrade for the d300/s and Nikon seems to not give a rats ass about what the average consumer/prosumer wants.
Given Nikon's inability to even be able to supply the current superteles, one can only wonder how few of these insanley expensive 800's they will even manufacture, let alone sell. I agree, it's the last lens they needed to worry about in thier line-up. Producing a a D300s replacement and updating the average at best 80-400 and possibly introducing a 400 f/5.6 VR would be infinitely more sensible from a market perspective.
viking79: $350 for an f/2.8 pancake with no OSS? Sony sure knows how to market lenses. Canon 22mm f/2 is a full stop larger aperture and $100 less :) I imagine the Sony will sell better though.
It looks good though, would look nice on a NEX 6.
Should have been f/2 for that price. Canon's FF 40 f/2.8 is only $150 and IQ is excellent. Hard to see why this worth over 2x the money other than it's a Sony, even if IQ is good.
Alex Notpro: How about diffraction? Light does weird things when you compress it into tighter spaces. I'm surprised in 400 comments no one has mentioned diffraction and how it may affect performance.
No, it's not a miracle worker. It can't undo the effects of diffraction already present at using f/22 or smaller. The extra sharpness might highlight the diffraction better.
mpgxsvcd: The high ISO performance of the 6D is outstanding.
True, but this has been observed in every Sony sensor I've seen that does not use SLT too.
mpgxsvcd: The high ISO performance of the 6D is outstanding.
It certainly is, just a bit better than the 5D III and D600. Interesting how Sony falls behind at high ISO. Nikon always does a better job getting the best out of Sony sensors at higher ISO.
mpgxsvcd: I think Canon should Trademark the slogan "We are just OK and yet you will still love us". They make cameras that are good and visible everywhere.
Eventually, people will try out other cameras and realize that Canon is rehashing their cameras from 3 years ago and not really keeping up with the likes of Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic.
I want to like the Canon cameras but I know they just are not as good a value as they once were.
Ever used a 5D III for say fast action work, sports or wildlife? If you had you realise it's more than just "ok" as you put it. I'd take the 5D III over any other camera bar the 1D X for these types of shooting. The IQ is great and the AF superb. Nikon and Sony excel are ahead on IQ at lowest ISOs, mainly with regard to shadow noise and DR, but 5D III is still excellent and counters with much better AF.
Looking at the jpg test scene, Canon's use too much sharpening, Nikon too little. Sony seems the best balance. 6D looks like it applies a hint more contrast and sharpening than 5D III.
I use ISO 50 when I know contrast is not an issue and I want a slower shutter speed, without the need to stop down past f/16.
I'm curious why ISO 50 doesn't lead to potentially cleaner shadows as this was not mentioned. Should be the reverse of HTP. My images show ISO 50 noise to be at least as good as ISO 100.
Alex Notpro: How about diffraction? Light does weird things when you compress it into tighter spaces. I'm surprised in 400 comments no one has mentioned diffraction and how it may affect performance.
How about diffraction? Did you look at the device. The light is not being passed through a tiny aperture. It's passing through a large (relative to the wavelength) optical element. Any diffraction will already present in the light output from the lens, which will depend on the aperture chosen. This is just focussing down the light further from the objective lens at (back of the attached lens) and has been designed to introduce almost no additional aberrations and reduce the aberrations already present. The MTF curve is actually improved at least in the centre for NEX!
Now of course I'd like to see the real world results, but this is exciting news
thx1138: It's getting horrible even at ISO 400 in RAW. That is upper limit and preferably you stay at ISO 80-200.
Can't wait for the 24-1400 next year.
Yeah, that's why I'd buy a camera like this, just to make webpegs.
Well yeah, if I stay at 64 x 48 pixels it might even look good at ISO 12800
It's getting horrible even at ISO 400 in RAW. That is upper limit and preferably you stay at ISO 80-200.
Can't wait for the 24-1400 next year.
Timmbits: When you're a late entrant into this space, you'd better be offering something better than what is out there, or you're just inconsequential.
Yet another 1/1.7" sensor... good grief! Fuji has been offering a 2/3" for years now, and Sony just came out with 1"... it's about time this category left the smaller sensors behind.
You wish!
Lng0004: "Despite the large 5-inch screen, it is only marginally larger than my Nexus 4"
This made me laugh. The Nexus 4 has a 4.7-inch screen ;P So of course it's only marginally larger lol.
Awesome phone. I've always been a fan of Sony's designs. Can't wait for this to go on sale in the US.
I think he meant to say, that the Sony has less screen wastage and smaller bezels, so it really is only marginally larger, much less than you would expect based on the 0.3" difference.
It offers 4x the resolution, and 16x the number of pixels. Big difference!