zos xavius: Ok...so with the crop factor you can use a reverse TC and capture more of the glass. That part I get. Will it make it sharper? I don't get that part. Maybe using more of the main glass would yield some resolution, but you have to be loosing some on the tc end. Also, lenses by design are sharper in the center so aps-c hits the sweet spot, though it does challenge the glass harder than ff. So there are little tradeoffs everywhere. I really don't understand how this increases the lens by an fstop. You can add more glass and made things faster. Though I get that by taking more of the circle you are adding light and consolidating it into a smaller area, so is the gain there? A full fstop seems like a lot.
That's exactly how it works. As you can see by their own specifications of limit, if you multiply the maximum input aperture of f1.26 by the factor of the wideconverter 0.71, you get the new f stop of 0.8946 (effectively the lower limit of 0.9).
They also reference the Canon 85mm 1.2 to give the equivalent of a 59mm f0.9
If they have managed to overcome the usual limitations of non-specific lenses, as opposed to dedicated, then it would be a very useful tool for many.
It is just the same maths as using a multiplying teleconverter: an f2.8 with a 1.4x becomes (approx.) f4.0 and with a 2x teleconverter becomes an f5.6
This is in reverse as it is a 0.7x wideconverter, so alters the f stop by that factor. However, I suspect it isn't all going to be roses...
I am sure that someone will be able to explain why we can't have our cake and eat it...
My immediate reaction is why wouldn't the lens manufacturers offer this, along with their existing line up? I presume there is a good reason.
Perhaps I'm being a little slow, but I fail to see the significance of 'Android based'.
Is there going to be a whole range of companies providing customised user interfaces, or the ability to easily make your own?
Even if this would be so, I'd be more concerned as to whether the physical parts performed as necessary, rather than what software is behind the scenes!
Is it reasonable to say that most 'Images were by Oliver Lang, taken on the Samsung Galaxy Camera'?
Although I agree with many of the 'greedy Adobe' comments, one has to appreciate that they are a business after all.
However, I don't understand the sense of using it at all!
If I had been a subscriber recently I would have been stuffed, as my broadband went down for almost 4 days. That would have been totally unacceptable and not even down to Adobe!
Cloud subscription for software is seriously flawed for this reason and I will never sign up.
“By introducing the WonderPana Systems, we are offering photographers and cinematographers the ability to capture images with the right lighting balance and skip the HDR software post production process,” said Drew Strickland...PRO Filters...Multi-Coated UV...???
Perhaps there is a market for some of this, the ND in particular, but the UV does leave me scratching my head, especially with his statement about processing. The two are meaningless together.
I agree with omhaus1, a 10 stop ND would be much better.
aardvark7: I know that photography is expensive, whether a profession or a hobby, but DPReview live in a different world to me if these qualify as 'gifts'!
I think, though, this is probably a true reflection of the vile, consumerist spectacle that Christmas has become with adverts on television and signs appearing in shops, etc. by early October trying to get you to spend on these 'ideal presents'.
It's no wonder the world has got itself into an almighty money tangle and we need to take a cold, hard look at ourselves in terms of what is really important (and before you jump to conclusions, I'm an atheist).
I think you'll find the tradition of a mid-winter feast is fairly universal and variations can be traced back far further than the origins of Christianity.
Indeed, I have no problems at all with having a special time to remind ourselves of our humanity, together with the spirits of kindness and decency, and expressing it with small thoughtful gifts.
Unfortunately, these days, there seems to be little consideration of the 'thoughtful' but rather an emphasis on the cost, the latest 'must-have' and bragging rights.
This is just one more expression of all that is wrong and it saddens me greatly.
I know that photography is expensive, whether a profession or a hobby, but DPReview live in a different world to me if these qualify as 'gifts'!
keaggy220: I noticed earlier this year, after looking at several years of contest results, that western photographers have zero chance at winning the NG photo contest. Is it because western photographers are subpar compard to developing and eastern nation photographers or because western photographers are choosing familiar subjects? Or is it for some other reason? I bring this up because westerners were shut out in this contest as well.
I think it may be a number of reasons.
Mainly though, it is an attitude of mind and a freedom to take photographs.
The 'Eastern hemisphere' to which you refer is most often the less well developed areas. Here we see attitudes that pervaded in the west some decades ago, but now feel to0 constrained against pointing our cameras for fear of objection and ridicule.
I have always felt that all great photographs are the product of opportunity; yes, you need skill and an eye, but without opportunity there are no pictures. You can see that most stikingly in some shots that would be technically very ordinary, but the subjects are great figures of history and turn the shots into something special.
Unfortunately, in the west the opportunities are being lost to us; our creativity is being slowly strangled by the paranoid and politically correct.
A lesser reason is possibly familiarity: we have had so many cameras that have pointed in every direction the subjects here look all too familiar!
I find the start of the conclusion a little 'odd'. Hard to put into words, but it sounds like positively raving over normality: "it matches or exceeds the pixel count of every other full-frame system camera." (in italics to make sure we noticed the stress!) which makes it seem like there are thousands of rivals on the market!Also, it praises the 'flexibility' as though being so much more than anything else, whereas it just sounds to me what might be expected in a camera of this price. I don't want to be to 'extreme', but I could almost imagine they were on the verge of saying " and it has a viewfinder too and a lovely strap!"Come on DPReview! I wouldn't for a second think this is not a spectacularly good camera (it is, after all, the latet technology and thousands of dollars), but can we have a more rounded and balanced conclusion, please?
Soon to be split and parts sold, so a quick 'family' shot with a Panny LX3!
This isn't a story about separating real from fake, it is one of real from absurd! Most are akin to having a hand drawn $50 bill and trying to pass it off as real.
There certainly is an issue about fake pictures in the news and many recent stories concerning those in war zones, but these are just nonsense and dilute the serious debate.
aardvark7: Sorry, but I don't get this idea of 'You can handle it but can't save the images" nonsense.
The result is one can say it is a lens that weighs as much as it says it weighs, it is as big as it states it is big, and it might perform as they claim it could...you don't say???!!!??
Either the manufacturers want to show their new product or they don't. Why all this tip-toeing around I have no idea. It is a waste of everyone's time.
I suspect that this lens will be a great lens, but please, DPR, tell all these companies to take a running jump unless they have something useful to demonstrate.
My curiosity is if the lens is not finished, why show it at all and if there is nothing to show for DPR, why write an article?
The strange thing is that recently Nikon showed the D600 and it was in the shops in days, whereas Sony show the A99 and it has only just started shipping and Canon have the 6D which is yet to appear at all. I simply don't see the reasoning behind these 'non-announcements'.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I am very interested as to why you find a picture of this on a D600 to be 'extremely helpful'?
Given that your second point is accurate then you would never need to see a picture before ordering, surely.
Finally, you have to click to read the preview before determinng the worth. I merely pointed out that they have said or shown anything that the earlier announcement did not.
To Mr. Britton,
I don't mean to be argumentative and please don't take this to be in any way aggressive, but why are 'some comments and a few pictures' better than nothing?
In terms of relevance to those interested in buying this won't assist in any way.
It may be that one instinctively feels such articles are of value, but that is entirely different from the reality, which you must see, surely?
Certainly, being within the trade, I would expect you to jump at the chance of having a first hand look at the lens, but please don't imagine that this is anything other than filling column inches and pandering to a manufacturer.
Even though your comments are positive, they are still no different to the advertising blurb. Until you can show visitors the results and say, "Here are some shots that we've taken. They look fantastic and the lens reaches our best expectations", it dilutes the whole essence of the site, in my opinion.
Sorry, but I don't get this idea of 'You can handle it but can't save the images" nonsense.
I have two observations:
First that image stabilisation is very useful, up to a point, but the main problem is whether the subject moves! In such a case the aperture is far more important (although that has its major limitations too!). I think the manfacturers over-emphasise the importance of this feature and now it's joined the megapixel race! Also, what is the power consumption of this compared to one of lesser ability?
Second, I would put money on, within a few months, many retailers offering a 'free' collar as part of a deal, rather than knocking the price down.
All that said, if it performs well, the pain of the price would be soon forgotten for Nikon users. I can see it now in the forums..."The best $1400 I've ever spent!"...
Denton Taylor: "There are a lot of wannabe fashion and beauty photographers"
I stopped reading there. Why insult people that comprise a large part of your audience?
To Mr. Evening,
While I think that some of the comments are really unpleasant and uncalled for, and accept entirely the accuracy and sense of your article, I do think that you have forgotten the essence of 'branching out' into commercial shooting.
This is not a conscious decision we can just take and then, with good advice, achieve a goal. There are limited opportunities and getting one is often pure chance.
You even admit that you started as an assistant and therein hangs the rub. If you can't find a way in, all the ability, intellect and hard work count for nothing.
Furthermore, you describe a 'typical production'. Unfortunately, that is not typical at all. Perhaps in your world, but not for most of us who have to face the £200 total brigade, day in day out, who not only expect a full shoot but for the photographer to arrange the models, the make-up, do all the artistic direction and the dressing.
Your advice is sound, but most of us will never get the chance to put it to use.
Very interesting, but it highlights the gulf between high-end and the majority!
I always try to impress upon clients the need for preparation and the benefits of a reasonable investment, but the majority expect it all to be done on the spur of the moment and get the models free! I've had so many suggest that such-and-such's daughter/girlfriend is very pretty so they'll be perfect...
Once you get to a level where a client will pay £100+ per hour for each model, plus sensible photography fees and studio rates, only the photographer has themselves to blame if it goes pear-shaped. If, however, they want a whole day's shoot and a full portfolio of shots for £200 in total (believe me I am asked all the time and say no!) then it doesn't matter how talented the photographer is, but they'd still take the flak!
The question should not be "What is your ideal camera?", but rather "What would be the best possible camera for you that would be affordable?"
Primarily as there is little point speculating about what may never be feasible: 20-800mm f1.4 (constant) with clean ISO to 256000, etc.Nor does it make sense to keep 'upping' the specification to what would make it unaffordable, even from a personal perspective. A Nikon D4 is more ideal than what I have now, but I can't afford one!
Once that is in perspective, it becomes clear that the nature of 'ideal' hinges on two elements:
1) the applied limits of a particular camera (i.e. the speed of the LX7 is ideal, but the zoom range is not, or vice versa)
2) the user interface
I can accept the physical limitations, as I appreciate the physics and the economics. However, I have yet to see an 'ideal' interface. There are often too many and limited buttons/dials.
If they made better use of an EVF and joystick (to select and change) I'd be happy.