Sdaniella: Kodachrome 25 ... ISO 25I've been asking for 25/12/6 since Canon offered ISO 50never mind 64/32!
+1. Would love to see these ISOs which would provide the equivalent of 2/3/4 stop NDs without compromising the quality of light as much as a physical filter. 2/3 of a stop isn't significant enough to impact my shooting habits.
Still a fantastic camera mind you.
BarnET: AFAIK the 10-18mm will become.e the cheapest uw for apsc. If it's any good in the corners stopped down a bit this is an great addition to their line-up.
A lot of beginners will like this as to increase their option. UW lenses tend to be rather useful on city trips.
Yes, the depth of field is large... at F4.5! At F2.8, and focused rather close you can achieve enough subject isolation to get the point across - even if the bokeh is not brilliant. And that ignores the low light shooting where the subjects is not static, e.g. how would you use this lens for astrophotography? You would be limited to images with star trails wouldn't you?
Then again, at $300 maybe your options should be limited?
Nobody (least of all me) is arguing that it isn't a good lens, esp. at $300. However, consider this, why do we most often shoot in aperture priority? For creative control. Now, if a lens is only good in a narrow range of apertures does that not in turn limit our creative options?
I'm sorry, but if a lens starts at f4.5/5.6 it better be sharp across the frame even wide open. If it needs further stopping down for optimum performance you only really have 1 or 2 apertures to play with before diffraction starts setting in. It would essentially be a "fixed" aperture lens.
That said, if the 55-250 STM is anything to go by, we could actually see excellent performance even wide open which could be tempting at that price point.
I think I cut myself just on the review.
DPR's tardiness with this review (esp. since it's practically the same camera) rivals Nikon's delay in admitting the sensor oil/dust issue on the D600! :)
Just a small correction. Flash guide no. is 11 at iso 200, 8 at iso 100. You got it right in the specs list but wrong on the first page.
The only disappointing thing about the XT1 is that I probably can't afford one for quite a while... :(
Now this is retro done right! All key controls logically laid out at your finger-tips with a huge VF. Wifi and Tilt-screen are just icing on a very delicious looking cake. With the IQ a known entity, (assuming it's the same X-Trans II sensor as the X-E2/X100s) all that remains to be seen is if the performance is as snappy as expected.
So it's a Frankencamera?
Such a shame to handicap such a great sensor with so-so AF and confused manual controls. I just hope that this is not the last foray into retro design because with a little more thought (e.g. non-locking, better placed dials and removal of the redundant mode dial) the directness of control would have been nice.
Bravo! This is impressive stuff.
Pritzl: Agree with the initial conclusion 100%. Whereas Fuji's retro design works this feels a bit gimmicky. It might have worked better with a smaller form factor and fewer buttons on the back. As it stands though, the Fuji still commands (considerably less of) my money. A shame though, I had high hopes for more viable options in this segment.
Yeah but the ergonomics on the Fuji work. This one seems to be neither here nor there in terms of pure functionality. Still too many fiddly buttons on the back and the "direct" controls are a bit hard to use with your eye to the VF. If anything, I think it does a disservice to the fore-runner it's purporting to emulate.
Love it or hate it, it's better than charging full price + premium for a totally new camera that has only minor differences to the old model (*cough* 700D/D610 *cough*). If Canon really pre-built DPAF hardware into the C100 and are simply enabling it now then it's brilliant future-planning by their engineers. Not sure why they had to test-run it on the 70D first though.
Also keep in mind, that for the target audience $500 is not a lot of money considering the base cost of the camera.
Wonder how much faster AF will get with the new firmware?
plevyadophy: They nearly got it right========================
Well, in my view as far as ergonomics goes, they nearly got it right and it's a sin, stupidity beyond stupidity that they didn't get it right; and as for good looks they have just done a slam dunk.
As far as ergonomics goes, I have always said that if I designed a cam I would design it so that that Aperture, Shutter, ISO, Exposure Compensation, and PASM were all adjusted by external dials ..... and Nikon have done just that. Awesome.
But then there are the flies in the ointment. I think it daft that they put the often used Exp Comp dial on the left (thus forcing you to regularly move your left hand from where it ought to be permanently stationed ..... supporting the lens) and the least used PASM dial on the right. That seems daft beyond stupidity.
contd below .........
No surprise really. Nikon's recent DSLRs have never been good for eye-to-the-VF operation.
Agree with the initial conclusion 100%. Whereas Fuji's retro design works this feels a bit gimmicky. It might have worked better with a smaller form factor and fewer buttons on the back. As it stands though, the Fuji still commands (considerably less of) my money. A shame though, I had high hopes for more viable options in this segment.
iudex: Since I don´t have FF (have Pentax ;-), I would love to see an equivalent for APSC, i.e. 16-70 f2,8 (Art of course). I intend to buy Sigma 18-35-1,8 (when the Pentax mount is finally available), but it´s focal length is a bit limiting. I would trade 1 EV for better FL. Having 16-70 with f2,8 I would never put it off my camera.
That would be nice. I would give up more of the reach for just 1 extra mm on the wide end though, e.g. 15-50mm 2.8. So long as it's sharp wide open, I would buy it in a heart beat.
I am definitely interested. I love the X-series ergonomics and stylish design. Throw in great IQ, a responsive manufacturer and decent AF and I'm sold. Might have to wait a while though before the finances are in place.
Pritzl: OK, time for some common sense:1. Of course LV AF (DPAF or otherwise) is more accurate than OVF AF. It is measuring focus at the sensor rather than by proxy.2. This is a DSLR rather than Canon specific issue.3. It was not somehow introduced by the availability of DPAF. i.e. OVF focusing has always worked this way. 4. The problem is only really present if:a) You are using a very narrow depth of field (large aperture/close focusing distance); andb) Your particular lens + body combination is not perfectly aligned.5. The issue goes away if you apply the necessary AF micro-adjustment/AF fine-tuning to account for the discrepancy.
The only concerns I have with the article, are the lack of usable tracking AF + continuous shooting in LV and, less significantly, the fact that I actually don't see the purported higher accuracy in MF.
On a side note, I wonder if it would be possible to script automatic AFMA based on the discrepancy between OVF and LV phase detect results?
I think you may have misunderstood. I was just disappointed it did not do continuous AF and shooting in live-view. For the manual focus, I think that the samples and/or resolutions did not appear to be demonstrably better to me in MF. Could just be my monitor though.
OK, time for some common sense:1. Of course LV AF (DPAF or otherwise) is more accurate than OVF AF. It is measuring focus at the sensor rather than by proxy.2. This is a DSLR rather than Canon specific issue.3. It was not somehow introduced by the availability of DPAF. i.e. OVF focusing has always worked this way. 4. The problem is only really present if:a) You are using a very narrow depth of field (large aperture/close focusing distance); andb) Your particular lens + body combination is not perfectly aligned.5. The issue goes away if you apply the necessary AF micro-adjustment/AF fine-tuning to account for the discrepancy.
Pritzl: Wonder if the new shutter mechanism includes a fix for adjusting aperture in LV/Video?
You're probably right but I don't understand why they're going through the trouble for an extra 0.5fps? Or is it just about the oil spots?