babart: Absolutely terrific images. Traveling to all these places, however, could very well cost more than a new Leica and a slew of lenses. It's great that photographers can reach these areas, and I've been to Iceland myself. I suspect, however, that most landscape photographers would find equally good images close to home if they paid attention. I know. No one looks at anything close to home, right. But there is the place you know best in all it's many varied faces, and it's there one should start.
Too, I'm wondering if landscape photography has become the province of the wealthier among us, just like the latest good equipment. Pardon my mild cynicism, but I'm retired and have to be more frugal. If that sounds envious, well it is, frankly.
An example of workshop prices: I saw an advert for a 12 day workshop in just one location Eastern Tibet costing over $6000 not including the flights. After contacting a few local agencies the same package (sans instruction) would have cost about $400. In the end I ended up choosing private Land Cruiser with driver and interpreter for 16 days and 3500 km of travel, including couple of truly spectacular places seldom visited by westerners. That cost about $3000, and with more on board would have come to less than $1000/each. I hope the workshop instruction was worth $5000 for those who chose that easy route.
Cranny: I hope Fuji comes out with a FF version. Do we ever need more than 24MP?? If so a move to medium format might be a better option then stuffing more MP's in a crop or FF sensor. The new high res Olympus doesn't seem all that great to honest.
"full Frame" sensor is not the holy grail of sensors what comes to overall performance. Why would it be? Bigger would be even better, but very few, extremely few, are ready to pay the penalty in both size and price and slow use, you name it.
It would seem to me that APS-C size is actually now quite near the ideal sensor size what comes to image quality, price of the system, size & weight etc. Not FF anymore.
maxnimo: Why do they call it a 1" sensor when not even the diagonal is even close to 1" in length?
What is now called "full frame" sensor is the same size as 135 format film frame, 24 x 36 mm.
Why that should be called "full frame" is another question altogether, as traditionally 4x5 inch plate was "full frame" and all smaller cameras using film in rolls were more or less "miniature"...
lawamainn: Way too expensive, limited usage (fixed 23mm), low resolution.....Compared to, say, A6000, it seems pretty miserable! Why did Fuji make this camera?
16 MPix low resolution? I just have a show running where all prints are made from the same sensor files (X-Pro1 and X100s), and even in 50x70 cm prints are pin sharp. For wall sized prints some other camera would be better, but even then only a 50-80 MPix MF back would make visible difference.
Zvonimir Tosic: Did they change the lens design finally? Still has irritating focus by wire with no tactile feedback? No butter smooth helicoid focusing?/
"Cameras like the X100 reconnect the rest of us with our photography" ... I don't know how focus by wire can someone connect with photography. Even most basic DSLR kit lens has better feeling in use than this "premium" 23/2.
With "true mechanical focus" I mean a system where the focus ring is mechanically connected with the moving lens units. This makes the moving system much heavier compared to moving the internal parts only (the way practically all AF systems work). Also the moving focus ring would be likely to cause breakages if the movement is blocked on purpose or by accident. Thus it is a choice between good manual focus and fast autofocus, can not have both. Zeiss for example has chosen to make their Otus line of lenses MF only for this reason, while Sigma Art lenses are optimized for AF and MF is by wire.
There are cameras where the focus ring can be decoupled from the internals for AF, and coupled for manual focus. This is necessary for example in video lenses used both with AF and follow focus rigs. In a camera like X100T it would make the lens considerably bigger, maybe that is the reason it was left out.
arndsan: I just went out with my x100s today. So much fun shooting with it. I pray that fujifilm will just carefully refine this camera further without doing some big silly changes. Ok - yes, the lens could be somehow f1.4 and the leaf shutter could have at least 1/2000sec wide open....please!!!
Some basic studying of shutter mechanisms is needed for OP. There are technical limitations on what a leaf shutter can do in real life, accelerations are huge. Also there is the fact that with fast shutter speeds leaf shutter works also as an aperture, needing exposure compensation compared to focal plane shutter. This is because large part of the exposure is not happening with the shutter fully open, but when opening and closing. With longer exposures this can not be noticed, but with the fastest exposures it is.
The problem with true mechanical focus is the weight and stiffness of the mechanism, which would make the AF very slow. So it is not possible to have both and one must be chosen over another. As it is likely that only few buyers or potential buyers would complain about the focus-by-wire, but everybody would complain about slow focus (which would possibly make the camera totally unmarketable), lesser of two evils is chosen here.
Looks like I have to invest even more to Art…
I just hope they do not keep putting these new lenses out too fast.
Demerzel: Interesting camera. I would like to see comparison images of the same scenes from this camera and the 810. Images such as portraits, landscape, low light shots, etc. Enabling me to see the effect of the new filter on regular shooting. This may be an all-round camera and we don't know it.
Interesting! Bit off topic, but I have a pair of mountaineering prescription sunglasses, which were darkened by the optician. They actually came out a bit too dark, and they exhibit this strange phenomenon of dark objects turning brownish-purple. Is this caused by them blocking other colors almost too well making near IR or this H-alpha frequency stand out? Thanks.
TGBN: EOS 5DS = Good news for people from Zeiss :-)
Sigma even more...
fmian: I'd be interested to know what kind of distortion this thing has.Considering the 15mm is called a fisheye and this 11mm is called rectilinear.
All rectiliner lenses distor in the corners, but with normal lenses and longer we do not notice it as it is so slight. With wide angles this problem becomes noticeable, but unfortunately it is not caused by bad design, but the nature of the rectilinear projection itself. So nothing can be done about it optically, or in post (without loosing the rectilinearity itself in the process = getting a fisheye effect).
adhall: ok, I have Nikon gear and have been eyeing the 14-24 for a while. But how good is this?!? Serious Canon envy at the moment...
Nikkor 14-24 is, maybe surprisingly, one of the sharpest, if not The Sharpest, super WA, including primes. Problems are flare (Canon 11-24 looks similar with bulging front element) and bulk/weight. Like I already said, I am switching to 20mm prime, but different people have different needs. Anything wider than 20mm gets a bit difficult to handle for documentary photography, for landscape & architecture, fine.
I assume it is an amazing WA.
I have had the Nikkor 14-24 for over 2 years, and do not use it much at all. Now replacing it with 20mm f/1.8 Nikkor. Lighter, more convenient, wide enough.
Make your conclusions...
star shooter: Ok, all BS aside, why hasn't this camera been designed to work in Space, like the HST?
After all, if one is spending $$$ on this camera, another few mil $$$ could have been spent to launch it into a geo stationary position, 300kms above the planet.
Who's paying, who is manning this beast and by what means?
Geostationary position is 35750 km from the center of the earth (29410 km above surface). Not 6666km.
badi: 7 years to go....
Joke aside... it's a bit sad when you realize the pace these science projects advance... i mean, ok, it is a big project...but 7 years to build... is only one guy building and caring the bricks on the mountain or what...
With Mount Palomar telescope just the molded glass for the mirror took three years to cool down. Then began the grinding and polishing...
fmian: From their website:'APS-C (Both Macro and Normal shooting)Full-frame (Macro shooting only)i.e. Slight vignetting will appear for Full-frame camera at normal shooting, while no impact for Macro shooing'
I was initially under the impression (after only seeing the first line quoted in another article) that the lens would not focus to infinity on full frame.With the note explaining the vignetting does this mean that there is a large variation of magnification when focus is changed from close to far?
When a lens is focused at infinity, it has the widest field of view. If focused to 1:1 it will be twice the focal length away from the sensor, and of course also the field of view will be halved (and image circle size doubled). For this reason there will be no vignetting when shooting macros and relatively close. For the same reason exposure has to increased 2 stops (light falls on 4 times the area), but nowadays cameras take care of this automatically, and apparently using modern cameras does not require any basic knowledge about optics anyway anymore.
Large variation of magnification? At infinity the magnification is zero, at the closest this can shoot twice the real size...
Sangster: Only US$4490!
AF would be slow and need strong motor in a lens with heavy brass focus threads and tight tolerances. Also the optical design was done with total disregard to the weight of the moving element groups. So I would say there would be compromises in one or another direction (slow focus or lesser IQ).
Pixel Pooper: People whining about no AF, this lens is not for you. A good MF shooter should be more accurate than any AF system.
Few points: After some calibration I can now nail the focus with Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art to the eye at closeup distances. 100% accurate.
Longer lenses actually have larger focus movements than shorter focal length lenses, so AF is easier and more accurate with those.
mpgxsvcd: I can't fathom this lens being worth 10 times what a good Nikon 85mm F1.4 is worth. It may be better but it isn't 20 times better.
New f/1.8 85 mm Nikkor is just as good as the faster f/1.4, but cheap.
new boyz: This is what you get when the ultimate goal is to get the highest possible IQ. Other designs compromise IQ with price/AF/etc.
Autofocus might compromise IQ: for fast autofocus now in demand lens needs to have lightweight moving parts, which means either lighter movable lens groups or lighter materials like plastic in lieu of brass, or both. Manual focus lens does not have these design limitations, and the tolerances can be tighter (= stiffer focus movement).