wolfie: Another nail into the DSLR coffin ... :))
People here do not have a sense of humor.
Finally a lens that matches my front teeth!
villagranvicent: What's the point of a 12mm 1.4 lens? You are getting basically infinite DoF with it regardless of aperture. In bright sunlight you need to close it down a few stops anyway.
I´ll save my money for the new Hasselblad anyway.
Are you suggesting that the only reason one would get a fast (e.g. f/1.4) lens is for shallow DOF?
Also, take a look at the photo featured above. Infinite DOF, huh?
armandino: Such a lens... on a 40D?????????
You should buy it, adapt it for use on a Sony A7R2, and the sell it in a decade, so others can say "Such a lens... on a A7R2?????????"
MrTaikitso: Professionally done, but visual evidence of why cities are not fit for human occupation. No green spaces or wide walking streets, just the odd tree - unlike cities built hundreds of years ago. So you live on level 50 of a glass tower. No garden to tend, park for the kids to run about in playing football. We appear to be creating a world that will be aesthetically interesting in a video game (and to blow up, such as in Battlefield 4), but that is detrimental to our QOL. (Quality Of Life.)
Anyway, this is a photography forum, so I will get off my high tower and be gone. ;)
Good city planning can fix the issues you speak of. A well planned city is densely populated (especially near transit hubs), with lots of green space scattered throughout. And it's very walkable and transit friendly. Try going to Vancouver, BC, Canada for a great example.
The alternative would be sprawl, resulting in poor public transit and increased carbon emissions.
Bev81 from France: Very nice work, and fascinating cityBut I'm glad I live in a house in a small town (only 3,000)I'm a human, not an ant ! I'm not too positive concerning Human future
If all of humanity lived in densely populated urban centers, the environment would be in much better shape than it is now.
If all of humanity lived in small towns, you can say goodbye to lots of open space, and hello to more carbon emissions.,
quangzizi: Hum let see: http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_24_2p8_is&products=nikon_24_1p8g_ed&products=panasonic_12_1p4
Canon 24 2.8: 7 bladed - 11 elements in 9 groups - No sealing - Plastic construction - Heck, even the 24 1.4 only have 8 blades - 13 elements in 10 groups
Nikon 24 1.8: 7 bladed - 12 elements in 9 groups - No sealing - Plastic construction
Nikon 24 2.8: 1990s lenses - 7 bladed - 9 elements in 9 groups (no ED or any special element, questionable coating compared to modern lense) - No sealing - Plastic construction
Panasonic 12: 9 bladed - 15 elements in 12 groups - Weather sealing - All metal construction
Ah let me throw this in as well. Panasonic gives you a metal hood.
Any objection here?
tko,How about the weights of a FF body and a m43 body? And while your at it, include another couple of FF lenses and m43 lenses and add them all up.
Lassoni: This is the most useless lens for m43, right after olympus macro 30 3.5 or whatever the new lens is.
Why? Because it creates huge disharmony. This lens has nothing to do with a m43, it's just too big. I can understand 42.5 f1.2 , because it's a portrait lens, there's actual need for wide aperture lenses for portraiture.. but I seriously don't see the need in wider-than-1.8 12mm lens.
You know what would make lots of more sense? A 90 or 100mm macro lens for some insect macro, or a 12mm T-S lens or something. If they want make 12mm prime, they could've kept it 1.8 or 2 , keep it smaller and lighter than Nikon 24 1.8 .. why would you want a FF size prime lens on a m43 ??? Might as well get a Sony a7 at that point imo
"Might as well get a Sony a7 at that point imo"
Sure, if you are going to have a one lens arsenal. But if you are going to have many lenses, m43 still makes sense from a portability standpoint, even if one wide, fast lens happens to be huge.
James Benet: The reason they took the plastic and the other bits is because you left a sweat or smell imprint on it. The ants do not eat the leafs or insects they take. They hoard it deep into their nests and let it rot to grow a fungus that is their true food source. The plastic and other parts by having bacteria and human oils and sweat would also help in growing the fungus. As a nature photographer myself the water containers help but are just a starting defense. You need to use White Petrolatum or Vaseline in the tripod legs to stave them off as that is something they easily stick to and thwarts their advance.
I would assume that if enough ants get stuck on the petrolatum, it will allow others to walk over them in order to get to anything else unprotected (e.g. the camera). Ants are social and altruistic, and self-sacrifice for the good of the colony.
Just use TS-E lenses. Faster, easier, immune to wind.
Technology for lItterbugs.
This has the potential of making my Instagram account interesting.
Spectro: LED is a nice addition for any macro. But the 28mm even with the 1.6x factor is just too close. You need a tad longer for insect or live creatures. A short length can be use for static macro which you can control with your own DIY lighting. I guess it will be good for macro flower shots outdoor.
A longer lens with a larger working distance will require more powerful LEDs.
if you double the working distance, you will need to increase output by 4x.
"Two curved flash units surround the front element of the lens, with the ability to illuminate both simultaneously, or one at a time. Users are also able to adjust the brightness of the Macro Lites between “bright” and “dim” settings."
This doesn't really specify, but can bright and dim settings be applied to each LED independently? Or do you have to choose between bright or dim for both, with the option of independently turning each on and off?
There are at least 7 possible configurations for the LEDs, and possibly up to 9. Yet there appears to only be one "light" button. Anyone know how that's supposed to work?
1.2x macro on a 1.6x APS-C body will yield almost 2x equivalent magnification in 35mm terms. Now if only I can figure out what the equivalent aperture would be.
Canon has found that adding LEDs to lenses is easier than improving the dynamic range of their sensors.
Jonathan F/2: Seriously, I think we can stop buying the latest and greatest. I can barely tell the difference between all these modern cameras! They all look good. Sensor tech has plateaued!
"Sensor tech has plateaued!"
Only if you are satisfied with a 5 stop exposure correction in post. I am not so complacent. I am waiting for a sensor so good that I can correct an image that I took with the lens cap still on.
Dester Wallaboo: Judge a photographer by their portfolio and skill.... not by their gear. Next.
"Yes it would be nice to see more portfolio's from the experts in here so we can judge their skills as photographers."
But only if they list what gear they used to take their photos, so we can give credit where credit is due (i.e. the holy sensor).
emfor: What are the most exciting features to test when a 1D X II makes its way through my door?Right! AF performance, framerate, speed, handling, reliability, 4k video, 120fps 1080p, ... Do I get every shot? What is the hit rate? And much more ...
So I'm very excited after DPR tests this new monster.But hey, what is that? Studio tests? Exposure Latitude? ISO Invariance?|-O
"What are the most exciting features to test when a 1D X II makes its way through my door?"
If you are DPReview, you would test the features that give you an opportunity to tell the world how great Sony is.
Can't wait to see how many pros shoot with Sonys at the Olympics this year.