Looking good. About par with the G15 and XZ-2 (LX7 eats ists dust). Colours are more saturated than the xz-2
GIF? JIF? CIF? I call it PNG
When they keep pro at $25.- they won't sell many ad free and doubler accounts. Does paying for no ads also mean that other people won't see them on your account pages? I guess that would be useful for some users. Others can simply use an ad blocker. And who needs more than a TB anyway. Just make different accounts when you are a compulsive uploader of images nobody really wants to see.
By the way. Flickr is not an exclusive mobile service, so when you mark it connect a lot of people won't see the article, because they opt out of connect. Should be under "other news"
seems to be getting chunkier
Beat Traveller: Brace yourself... the 'equivalent aperture' posts are coming.
By your calculation you would need a 33.3mm F0.94 on aps-c to equal an 50mm F1.4
The size of the aperture is relative to the focal length. focal length divided by max apparent aperture (in mm) is f-stop 100mm lens with 50mm aperture is F2. So this lens is f1.8 (it's a fixed aperture zoom) the apparent size is going to be between 10mm and 19.44mm. De amount of light focussed in the image circle stays the same wether at 18 or at 35mm. Per square mm on the sensor it is the exact same amount of light as f1.8 on a Full Frame. Any difference in iq after that is due to the sensor. Come op with a noise/sharpness coefficient (iq) for the sensor, and you can say sensible stuf about overall equivalence.
ofcourse not. That's not what i am saying. I'm just saying that f-stop iq equivalence is nonsensical because there are too many influencing factors you are leaving out of the equation. Want better iq. Just get a full frame.
It is a arbitrary question anyway because modern aps-c camera's do very well at high iso, so in most situations you are going to use this lens in you will have great noiseless pictures. The greatest advantage of this lens is narrow DOF for cute bokeh.
cropping means less image, not les iq. iq is dependent on the sensor. smaller sensors tend to give more noise, because of higher pixel density meaning less foton's per pixel. Cropping is not some kind of magical nd-filter.
The angle of view does not matter since de aperture stays the same. The real difference is sensor characteristics. Which can be multitude. If you take only sensor size as a variable you are ignoring pixel density, pixel sensitivity (cmos, ccd, xtrans cmos?) You'd have to equivalize for all of them. That does not seem sensible to me. Keep lens and sensor separated.
yabokkie. So put it on a full frame dslr and shoot in crop mode. Twice brighter than a F2.8 on the same pixels. So you are going to need a stop less iso , so better iq than a 2.8
also:"By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image."
so it is brighter than a f2.8 (twice) but the sensor is less sensitive. (which does not have to be true so it does not belong in the equation.)
FranciscoJG: Hello Pentax's Creators. Excellent product that is your Pentax K5II. I am your customer and believe that there is a market for a zoom APS-C,a 23-69mm with constant f/2.8 aperture (fulframe equivalent to a 35-105mm).It is not too much, just a 3x zoom. Would be perfect for family photos, often made in the interior.Your weak point is in the range of lenses, you need to think well and produce what the others did not. Going down your own path, the other brands that will behind you, never the other way around.It is too expensive to produce with aperture f/2.8? Ok, f/3.2 or f/3.5 at most.
There is such a lens for pentax. The Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM
mpgxsvcd: The dpreview comments make it sound like this lens will act like an F2.8 lens for light gathering. It will act just like an F1.8 lens for light gathering.
" The total amount of light gathered affects the signal-to-noise ratio and hence IQ."
That's just relative to pixel size. Pixels in a d800 gather less light than in a D4. Because there are more of them. There is no reason why you cannot make an aps-c dslr with the same pixel size as a Nikon D4. You would have less pixels and also less noise. Pixel size is a characteristic of a sensor, not of a lens. It will differ with different camera's with similar sensor sizes.
JDThomas: Sigma breaks a barrier and everyone is complaining that it's not full-frame. :)
Not an issue below 200mm though.
News is news. You're hardly going to call your newspaper to send their Terorrism photographer.
Qwntm: This just SCREAMS Pentax K-5iis. It would be stupid if Sigma didn't make it in Pentax mount.
It's not like the pentax will disintegrate when you use a none weatherproof lens, or that is has to rain in order to shoot with it.
the reason: its the first f1.8 zoom ever you bunch of whiners. it doesnt matter if its crop or if they used a "speed booster" or not. They did it. A lot of people sound hurt here. Whats the matter? that f2.8 zoom suddenly doesnt feel as special? Go ahead an say the equivalency mantra to calm yourself
Not for the aps-c format there aren't. Which is the absolute minimum for any serious photography :p.
sunnycal: A 27-50mm f/1.8 zoom! Are you kidding! If price is right, I might get it for my D800 and shoot in DX mode.
Handrian F1.8 does not make brighter pics on FX than on DX. What is does do is give relatively shallower DOF (since you're not cropping). That's why FX pics have more of a film feel to them.
In camera sharpening in jpeg mode works very well. When you select the k5 in the tool en put it on iso 100 (extra sharpeness) it just trashes everything (of course the k5 II(s) have this setting as well (it's in the natural colour mode settings).
D1N0: so for shooting stills it's actually crap. Gold award. Way to go dvreview
har har har