love_them_all: Great idea. Too bad it's for the EF-M. Please make one for the Canon DSLR.
What? There are quite a few 28mm macro made for the DSLR out there in the market. It is not impossible, and many wides/normal already got close focus capabilities, just not 1:1 yet. Like sem said, the working distance is a problem. Putting LEDs on a macro is also independent to the focal length. They choose a 45mm eq is probably the shorter working distance means the no need for a very powerful light. Food pictures? :)
tkbslc: might be worth picking up one of those dirt cheap original M bodies just to use this. Very cool ideal.
@fmian Exactly. Lighting conditions too.
@tkbslc You don't have to believe anything. But I am speaking from first hand experience and I am stating facts.
Pixel Pooper: Canon makes some bizarre claims about this lens on their website:
"World's first lens with a built in macro lite."
"The world's first autofocus lens capable of focusing to infinity"
WHAT??? Does anyone even make an autofocus lens that is not capable of focusing to infinity?
May be they are referring to the Olympus dental camera set up. It's got macro and built in lights.
Esign: Macro 45? Maybe, with the LEDs. Greater depth of field than with 100-200 macro lenses. I'm most concerned about distortion, because this lens could be useful as "scanner" of old drawings and other larger documents which I now have to first borrow (it's hard to persuade an archivist) and then take to the copy shop for scanning, and I have to pay $300 anyway.
The ring light (kind of, in this case) set up is not really good for documentation of things like drawings. The light fall off would be very serious and the center of the frame would be easily overexposed, creating a hotspot too.
Canon pro DSLR with the 100L. No hunting at all. Sony mirrorless with PDAF is also good.
Be mindful of the slow AF and hunting in macro...
Great idea. Too bad it's for the EF-M. Please make one for the Canon DSLR.
Would have been perfect for me if it has wifi and a EVF port. That way if I can access the menu via the EVF, or proof exposure on a phone or tablet, if needed.
BTW would this camera be as thin as the film M's? I used to hate the digital M because they are too thick :)
AdSR: I'm surprised that such feature wasn't developed earlier. Much earlier. I'm looking at you, Olympus, the self-proclaimed innovator. I've been wondering for a long time why DSLRs couldn't auto-tune AF by some comparison with the actual sensor image. Sending the kit to the service for AF tuning can be troublesome and unreliable.
Well, at least they finally did it.
This should be a standard feature like 5 years ago. Olympus makes mirrorless only so I don't think they care about this that much. Canon engineers must be too busy doing something else to not even thought about such simple solution that only requires very little coding...
love_them_all: Still happily shooting the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and the LAEA4 adapter. I use it mostly on video shooting. Even for stills I don't think the GM is justified for the asking price, compared to the Tamron.
You probably are not familiar with the LAEA4 adapter. I have tested this lens on the A7RII with this adapter vs the LAEA3. The 4's AF is still the fastest, and when doing video and AF-C there is no comparison. It doesn't have as many AF points but it is fast.
Still happily shooting the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and the LAEA4 adapter. I use it mostly on video shooting. Even for stills I don't think the GM is justified for the asking price, compared to the Tamron.
Not a trace of CA? or they are all in camera adjusted? (ok saw some on image 5)
Very clean images.
Anybody knows how to do the last adjustment of the last image? Around 17:52.
How did they do it? LOL Of course by making E mount lenses and figure out how the Sony body communicate with the lens. Only Sigma is the 3rd party lens manufacturer that got the expertise in figuring out how lenses from Canon as well as bodies from Sony behaves.
So these new lenses are now only "designed in Japan".
I would totally buy and try out these cameras if they have a short flange distance mount. With an adaptor I can use 10+ lenses I already have on it.
Would be interesting to see this against the Metabones IV. Let's see if the AF speed can improve.
Everything looks interesting until the price tag bit.
villagranvicent: Remember the Contax AX?? autofocuses by changing the lens-to-film distance. I wonder why nobody else followed that route.
1. May be Kyocera is still holding that patent and not interested in licensing it out.2. I have the AX, back then, it was by no means fast. And the body becomes very bulky. Although I like the extra thickness for grip, it was no small camera. There is also a limit of 85mm or wider lens.I would love to see somebody makes a mirrorless camera with a moving sensor. The best usage for me was doing approximation MF, and let the AF take over for the final focus confirmation. Works like a charm in macro or steady portraits. This kind of AF probably won't be good at shooting moving subjects.
schaki: Leica wasn't the only ones to overprice their cameras. Contax did the same thing with their digital compact cameras before Kyocera which manufactured those, after the design by Contax, decided to withdraw from the camera market.For the Contax TVS Digital which was available in champagne-color and black they charged $899 respectively a grand, $999 for the black in 2003.It shall be said though that Contax included a leather-case and a simple IR remote control. The battery charger was a simple AC-charger with contact which you plug into the camera.The Contax TVSD used a common 5mp 1/1.8" sensor and a pretty much standard, though with near superb performance, 35-105mm f2.8 - 4.8 zoomlens. Most of the camera-body was in Titanium. The Lcd is only 1.6".I didn't buy a TVSD back then but a used one at a much lower price in 2013, I think it was.It is a photographers' camera with a very much intuitive UI and good handling overall.
I own contax gear since mid 90's and you need to realize Contax film bodies were not cheap for the time. The TVS was not a huge hit and it was expensive. Of course the digital ver were even more. Funny that everything is gone but I'm still using my contax lenses, both MM and G, on Sony.