steelhead3: looks like a nex clone with a smaller sensor, sort of like a pentax Q
Whatever you take, take less of it...
Seeing is believing...
Debankur Mukherjee: Sigma has hardly been able to produce any lens better then Nikkor.......so whats the big news......I don't think this lens will perform exceptional from any aspect.......
*cough* e.g. Sigma 35/1.4 *cough*
Rod McD: I'm with rondom below in thinking that the "FF equivalent DOF" thing is getting out of hand if that's the key goal of lens' design. We do need to give this lens the benefit of the doubt - it's innovative and it may be very good. OTOH I'm a bit dubious about ultra fast lenses. Everyone bangs on about maximum aperture like it's some kind of religion, but they often fail to acknowledge the downsides....... Fast lenses may have more curvature of field, soft corners wide open, vignette more and flare more. And they're sometimes diffraction limited at an earlier aperture than their slower counterparts. And they're larger. And they cost a lot more. Too bad if you're looking for portability, classic even sharp performance and performance at small apertures. For my interests of landscape and travel, some of the sacrifices for lens speed just aren't worth it.
>> And they're sometimes diffraction limited at an earlier aperture than their slower counterparts. <<
Why? When stopping down the lens to a given aperture, the resulting opening has the same size as with slower lenses. And it's the size of the aperture opening generating diffraction effects.
KL Matt: A 2MP full-frame DSLR - now that would be a popular camera.
>> You're right, not for pixel-counting amateurs, but for the medium format using professional <<
Well, actually the medium format professionals prefered sticking to pixel-counting and moved up to 80+ MP digibacks. I hardly think 2 MP would be too compelling for their uses... ;)
rhlpetrus: Well, I don't see the "great jpeg" IQ that DPR sees. There's a definite softening of detail even at base ISO, compared to the other cameras included. RAW is even worse. Am I the only one seeing it that way?
>> First thing I’m going to do is buy a X-E1 and see for myself if it deserves the same score my RX1 received…very anxious to conduct my own review comparisons of these two cameras. <<
Scores across different camera categories ARE NOT comparable. People just see some numbers and they're set.
Anyway, have fun with those two cameras.
Simon Zeev: About the #1: I am sorry for the children, but every military operation can be collateral damages including non involved civilians. Don't forget that the HAMAS terrorists are also civilians and they deserve every bullet.No one saw us running to the shelter at 2:30 am and we don't publish our dead's pictures. Not even the mother of 4 that was killed in the street by a palestinian rocket . In those days of the 2012 conflyct they shoot more than 1000 rockets on Israeli cities.The difference is that when Israel shoots they are collateral damages.Palestinians shoot to kill civilians.
Please stop your propaganda of good vs evil. It's no better than Mr. Hansen's, except he gets paid for doing so.Dead people are dead people, no matter where they come from.
By the way, how about focusing on those poor slave workers at Foxconn for the next "charity infomercial" taken with iPhones sponsored by those oh so caring folks at Apple?
Pictures of people jumping from the roof would work out great with a dramatic instagram vignette in black and white.
KimGreenspan: Wow, some of these comments are just flat out ignorant. Why the need to be so judgmental? The focus should not be on the photo equipment. Watts of Love (a charity) approached Kevin and he agreed to take time away from his family, his business, his life, to fly halfway around the planet so that he could help to change the lives of other people. People who don't have any electricity, no light after dark, and after Kevin's visit they will have a source of light. They don't have any photographs at all, and after this they will have one. A physical memory to look back on years from now, show their children, grandchildren, etc, something they never had before. Try to just put that into perspective for a second.... I think it's a beautiful thing that Kevin and this organization are doing.
No one is saying that mobile is the same or better than dslr. The fact is that mobile photography has become a relevant medium, and many people find it fun and more accessible than a dslr. I think too many people are trying to turn this into something it's not.
You are a great person, Kevin! Safe travels, and I can't wait to see the photos from this amazing experience. XO
>> No one is saying that mobile is the same or better than dslr. <<
Actually, the article states just that - the pictures with the iPhone turned out better than the ones taken with a "DSLR", and they even show a direct comparison.
While I agree on the advantages of a "stealth factor" for some situations (posed weddings not being one of them), I don't agree on having to trim down to a phone in order to get that effect.
Managarm: What is dpreview up to lately? - "Digital photography review site to post 50 articles full of iphone product placements in one day?"Are Amazon's iphone sales really dropping that much?
Please quit this connect nonsense and use the extra manpower for reviewing more real photography gear again instead of wasting resources on things that also happen to have a lens built into them.
..."There's more to photography than gear and measurbating."...
Yeah, and thats why these shots are only possible with an iPhone 4S mentioned in every single sentence I guess...?
I agree that gear is only a small part of photography, one of the reasons why Luminous Landscape is one of my all time favorite photography sites online. They have a wonderful mix of technical and artistic parts of that craft.
But dpreview, as the name suggests, is about reviewing gear and since they hardly ever did anything else than sheer measurbating, thats what they should stick to. And because they do it good and thoroughly, they are renowned for this skill, and definitely not for the artistic part of photography.
Lars, thanks for the hint about blocking Connect content. I'll do so as it is really getting annoying lately.
What is dpreview up to lately? - "Digital photography review site to post 50 articles full of iphone product placements in one day?"Are Amazon's iphone sales really dropping that much?
Some tools are far more effective than others.
If one is doing a lot of pp after using the tool, then the initial tool either isn't so good or the tool user isn't so good.
Or the computer is the real fetish... ;)
JimSab: Peoples comments make me laugh. Yes it's all personal opinion and now you have reason to complain because the JPEG images don't look good at 100%, because ALL of you are going to print 1m wide images from this camera in Jpeg where it will be the only time this "fault" will be visible.
The 5DmkIII's raw images were astounding at all ISO's (bar 102400 because that's stupid).... and it seems that the 6D's images might ALMOST be slightly better at high ISO.. which is fantastic! In Raw that is, I don't care about jpeg.
I still cannot WAIT till I buy this camera. I don't need the "Extra features" of the Nikon, I like Canon and always will. Besides, if the main thing is the lack of focus points - it makes little difference if both cameras' focus points are in a similarly small area of the frame.
I enjoy people's winging though, it makes me laugh, you should go study optimism or something :)
Well, many people also use lower end fullframes for holiday/family snaps and stuff like that and dislike going the RAW route with all those pictures. Yes, quite some people also snap with fullframes, at least I know some of them.Myself not included as I don't care that much for snapshots and am used to, prefer and sometimes even forced (greetings from Sigma cams) doing RAWs.
Anyway, have fun with the 6D in case you get it. ;)Greetings to Ireland and have a nice evening.
Agree regarding auto-modes.Still I see a difference to JPG quality, because most people buying into a new camera first off judge it's image quality through the web and here the material is made up by ~95% of JPG images, not RAWs.So I bet (most) camera manufacturers want their JPG images to look good and for some "good" means noise-free, no matter 'bout the loss in details.When your name is Hasselblad, JPGs won't be of much concern for average costumers, but when your name is Canon it is for sure an important parameter your average costumer will judge. Mentioned costumers like noise-free images, so here the vicious circle closes...
Absolutely agree regarding to shooting and developing RAWs for maximum quality. Pretty much none of my pictures hanging on the wall is a JPG ooc.But that's no excuse for a badly executed JPG-engine. If nobody ever shoots JPGs for anything above 2 MP, then why is a JPG-engine for the fullsize pictures included at all?
If you don't need a camera's 20 MP, then why buy it anyway? But if you need/want it, then those 20 MP should deliver the goods. Preferably not only via RAW but also in the JPGs.
If you ever had the pleasure to work with the new Fuji's fabulous JPG engine, then Canon's overprocessing engine is almost an insult to the eyes.
Will the 6D be a great camera? I sure think so. Will it be capable of wonderful results in RAW? I have no doubts about it.
But the JPG engine simply is subpar compared to most of it's competitor's. The argument of not needing 20 MP anyway isn't valid, because why does it give you 20 MP if this resolution is useless in the first place? That's all I say. ;)
Whoa, the JPG engine is horrible again. Still all about heavy noise reduction and overdone sharpening for getting "nice" looking images? All those bushes and grass reduced to one green textureless blob at ISO 200 - why? That's completely unnecessary, I bet the sensor doesn't need this mistreatment.One really has to wonder if the target audience of such a nice camera per se wants picture output in cellphone quality.No noise at ISO 6400? Great, and no details either. I can't imagine a single situation where I want to take an image of such low quality.Edge performance of the 24-70 II L also is quite underwhelming, even for a lens half it's price. Anyway, don't have to buy that as long as Canon has some of it's very nice prime lenses.
At least bring out some RAWs with decent optics in front of the camera and we will for sure see the image quality that was expected. But this overprocessed JPG mess is not even worth discussing.
esuohe: "reduce the humming noise generated by the camera's stabilization system"
This never used to bother me to begin with, but now that my EM-5 is whisper quiet.. I can't imagine what it sounded like before!
Well, just enable the stabilization system when half pressing the shutter and you'll know again. ;)But I agree, it wasn't a real problem for me either...
The Zipshots are great for having with you all the time on hikes or city strolls for when the situation calls for a tripod (nighttime, long exposures,...). Its meant for small cameras of course, works without any problems with my X100, DP2M and OM-D. I wouldn't use it for my heavier DSLR-rigs and it's also not as flexible as a full fledged tripod with adjustable heights and stuff.
Anyway, taking for example an X100 with you and lugging around a big, heavy, sturdy tripod pretty much destroys the whole point of picking something like the ultra compact X100 in the first place. 255g and 23cm in length of the Zipshot Mini on the other hand fits most small bags and does the job very well.
If a Product Manager for "Professional Products" tells me I can do "serious photography" with a camera, well I guess this has to be true...