bernardf12: This lens could be useful with a 2x converter. Not sure if there is one available though. Too expensive for enthusiasts.
With a 2x converter you'd lose two stops, leaving you with f/8 at the long end.
CopCarSS: There are times when I read DPR that I think the "lens equivalency" discussion causes more chaos and controversy than a Republican Party debate...
People just get confused because full frame lenses can be mounted on APS-C cameras too.
Basically people who haven't used both sensor formats don't realize mounting the same lens on different sensor formats gives different results.
Boomanbb: This statement is just for Dpreview diehards: "giving the same angle-of-view, depth-of-field and total light gathering capability as a ~75-150mm F2.8 lens on full-frame".
In the real world where people are concerned with proper exposure, total light gathering means nothing. F1.8 exposes the same on a crop as it does on a FF. My 70-200mm F2.8 exposed the same on my 5D as it does my 7D MK II. Who is out there concerned with total light gathering?
Its got to be confusing as crap for newbies.
JACS - again, 100mm is not 100mm in practice if you are using different sensor sizes.
21mm on a 1.7" sensor is a moderate telephoto. 21mm on a FF sensor is almost ultrawide.
F1.8 is not F1.8 in practice. Otherwise a cell phone with a f/1.8 lens could handle the same lighting situations as a FF DSLR with a f/1.8 lens.
What matters in the end, as Chris said, is what shutter speed you can get while using the right exposure and keeping noise in check. And in that respect, f/1.8 on APS-C is roughly equivalent to f/2.8 on FF.
Chris - exactly. But you forgot about ISO and noise. With full frame cameras, you can generally push the ISO about one stop higher than you can on APS-C.
So in terms of how fast you can get your shutter speed while not going above some threshold for image noise, a full frame sensor with a f/2.8 lens is about the same as an APS-C camera with a f/2.0 lens.
No, the exposure settings are the same but the light being used is not. Full frame sensors are larger than APS-C, so more light is used by full frame cameras even if the aperture is the same.
marike6: This K-1 beauty got a tepid "Worth the Wait?" headline, and the new Sony A6300 crop sensor got an exuberant "Wow" headline? Now that's funny. All that aside, the Pentax 67 style prism housing looks awesome, looks like a dream camera, this K-1 is easily one of the most interesting releases on a long time. Can we please have a reviewer who won't write that "bulky" nonsense as a con? Many of us want cameras that handle well, and don't care if they fit in our skinny jeans. :-)
The 'wait' was pretty significant though. Pentax is a decade late to the full frame game, so the question is whether they can deliver well enough to overcome that.
chlamchowder: Getting 404 for quite a few of the images on the page. Can this be fixed?
Getting 404 for quite a few of the images on the page. Can this be fixed?
brownie314: I really don't get this product. It is totally "me too" in an already crowded market. Pentax (Ricoh) had something unique in the gr. Why not try a ff version of that bad boy? Love it/hate it - at least it would be different.
This is reminding me of Sony though. They had DSLRs with sensor shift stabilization, and later on more unique things like automatic image stacking to reduce noise. They also had a mechanism to allow quick switching between AF/MF for screw drive lenses. But that didn't move Sony from a distant third behind Canon and Nikon.
I think one of the biggest problems is that AF performance is ridiculously important with high end DSLRs, and Sony lagged behind in that regard.
Why a rangefinder though? Rangefinders don't work well with long telephotos and don't offer the framing accuracy of TTL solutions. I feel like it wouldn't have too much market share
An EVF would probably be a bad idea when a TTL optical finder is possible in that form factor anyways. With an EVF, you'd deal with latency, poor battery life, and poor dynamic range, not to mention the lack of real time preview when burst shooting. Pentax makes pretty good OVFs anyways, so playing to their strengths is better here.
caver3d: Watch out Nikon, Sony may be gaining on you. A7RII anyone?
mschf - the point of the huge battery in the D5 (part of the reason the camera's so bulky) is to give it insane battery life.
I've used a D3s, and that battery would go through all day photo shoots without ever coming close to being low. The D5 might be even better in that regard.
Not really - this camera is targeted towards the people who absolutely must get the shot, even in situations where mirrorless cameras = epic fail. That means a lot of news people, especially sports photographers.
This is definitely a camera with a small audience though. It falls into the "if you don't know why you need it, get something else" category.
tongki: It's Surface competitors not Surface ProSurface Pro use i3 with dGpu performance and above
The Surface Pro line doesn't have dGPUs. Were you referring to the Surface Book?
Also, the Surface Pro 4 has a Core m3 option.
Mike FL: Interesting finding:
"Xiaomi CEO"net worth is estimated to be 35 billion US dollars. In 2011, Lei was ranked #201 on Forbes list of China’s 400 Richest. In 2014, he was named Businessman of the Year by Forbes."
"Xiaomi was co-founded by eight partners on April 6, 2010. In the first round of funding, institutional investors included:
- Temasek Holdings, a Singaporean government-owned investment vehicle, - the Chinese venture capital funds IDG Capital - Qiming Venture Partners,- mobile processor developer Qualcomm.- ...
The company has over 8,000 employees, mainly in mainland China, Malaysia,and Singapore, and is expanding to other countries such as India,Indonesia, the Philippines and Brazil."
"According to IDC Xiaomi is now the third largest smartphone maker."
Well companies will be crying intellectual theft no matter what (patent trolls), so I assume so.
But I really hope we keep making new things, or at the very least develop innovative improvements. It's shameful to just copy...
RidgeRunner22: For those who value a compact lens with excellent build quality and nice handling over really fast apratures. Frankly I don't think manuel focusing anything faster on a highly sensitive ff sensor would be all of that fun. If I were you I wouldn't post any samples from the wider lenses as they are sure to have a bit of field curvature and everyone will complain about how slow and crappy they are
I disagree. I've tried manually focusing f/2 and f/1.4 lenses on a FF DSLR. Despite what some people say, you can achieve very accurate focus even without some specialized focusing screen, as long as your subject isn't moving (if it is, forget manual focus at all).
As for image quality, faster lenses stopped down to f/2.4 are very, very sharp. In general, a slower lens will not match a faster lens at equivalent apertures until you stop down a lot (to f/4 or so), unless the slower lens is really, really good. And if they're asking $480 for a slow manual focus lens, it better be insanely good.
D200_4me: I like a fixed focal length lens now and then, but if it comes down to a situation I can't control and I want to get the shot, a zoom is the best tool for the job. Can someone make great images with only a 35mm lens? Sure...obviously. But that person will obviously be limited to what he/she can come away with. It all depends on what you're willing to accept. If you're subject is 100 feet away and it's not possible to get physically closer, a 35mm is not the right option. I guess that's already common knowledge though, so don't say "tell me something I don't know". :-) For the new(er) shooters though, just be careful not to mistakenly believe a 35 or a 50 or 85 is ALL you need because someone posts great photos from a prime lens. Use the right tool for the task at hand.
I don't think you're giving up anything when you only have a zoom (a decent one), except some pixel-level sharpness and a stop or two of aperture.
Also, getting 2/3 great shots vs 100 good ones has nothing to do with using a fixed or zoom lens, though in general a zoom lens would be better for getting 2 or 3 great shots (you're more likely to achieve better framing with unpredictable opportunities).
Still, I like fixed lenses for the fast aperture and pixel level performance, though admittedly pixel level performance rarely matters. It just feels good :)
NancyP - definitely, but that still means you're possibly missing a lot of good shots. Here's the way I see it:
Fixed lens: You know you're going into a situation that gives you plenty of opportunities to work within that focal length's limitations. Or, you're not responsible for turning anything in, and you're fine with missing a few opportunities. Here, the fixed lens's superior image quality makes it a better choice.
Zoom lens: You don't quite know what you're getting into (or expect some surprises), but want to come out with something to show. Here, you're sacrificing some image quality for flexibility and a better chance at catching opportunities. That's why I'd recommend a zoom to beginners, who might be trying out a lot of different things.
There are exceptions where fixed lenses are better because a zoom lens can't produce acceptable shots (like really low light).