naththo: Ah okay. How about go to proper photo lab then purchase your own printer then? Most photo lab in Australia are still using Fuji Frontier wet lab not dry lab.
Because if large prints are a large part of your business, it can quickly becomes more expensive to pay a lab, than to buy your own large format printer, ink, print heads, and maintenance plans. Which makes more sense depends on how much you print, print size, how often, etc.
BartyLobethal: Wow, 10 inks to waste during 'cleaning' cycles now.
Cleaning cycle waste, in addition to expensive print-head replacement/longevity. No thanks. Epson hands down has produced the best prints for us (HP the worst); however, so far I think Canon is the better business decision over the long haul unless you're printing daily.
I'm interested to know what Epson has changed with these new printers as far as print heads, ink usage, etc.. I hope they've addressed some of the gripes.
Johannes Zander: Looked at the Milvus 100mm design and the 100mm Makro Planar. Is the Milvus just a repackeged Planar?
I was hoping they'd redesign the 100 Makro, take care of all that horrible CA in some situations, colour correct for those who want really accurate colours (I happen to fancy the hint of Zeiss' grayish, purplish, blue). CA is easily worked around, but I expect more from a modern day lens at its respective price point.
GatanoII: NO AF on Zeiss glass is always the same old story, the prices are looking interesting, but without AF most potential buyers will stay away ... also for professional video, now that AF can be used on most modern Canon (and Sony with adapter) even during video and tap to focus on a touchscreen is great and allows professinal rack focus without added complessitiy and cost.
With Autofocus they could probably sell 10 times more glass, almost as much as Sigma and even more once compared only to Sigma top of the line glass, for some Art glass and this new Milvus the price difference is not huge... also Tamron is starting to produce top quality glass with ultrasonic AF and also image stabilization.
I use AF +90% of the time and more than 50% even with macro work, a little less on video, still useful and needed many times, so thanks Zeiss as you don't want my money and I suppose many other peple won't buy you glass just for a feature that was available on cameras almost 40 years ago.
"most pros"... that would depend on what they shoot. For my static work, MF works just fine. Sure AF would be nice, but after years of using MF, it just isn't an issue for me. Even my Nikkor 17-35 2.8 hasn't had a working AF for nearly 10 years, and while there has been times I've grimaced over that fact, most of the time I don't think about it.
I'd rather have a 200 f2 without AF than a 70-200 2.8... it's all about what, when, and how you shoot.
When I'm shooting something that begs for AF, then I just grab the appropriate lens. AF is great, but for me it's not a deal breaker in most cases.
When I researched why no AF some time ago, there seemed to be a legal reason why with something to do with Zeiss would have to have a manufacturing plant in Japan or something like that to qualify to offer AF on Nikon/Canon bodies. Something like that.
Again, the reason (it seemed) was a "protect our own" bureaucratic legal issue.
AF is great, but frankly I find myself using MF anyway most of the time when I need precise focus instead of the AF getting in the way (unless it has a clutch that allows me to take over once it gets the lens most of the way where I want it). I would prefer Zeiss to have AF, but it isn't at all detriment to me that it doesn't.
dash2k8: I'm surprised that the price isn't as astronomical as before.
The price of the new 100mm f/2 is nearly exactly what the old one was selling for. The old version has been discounted as of late due to the incoming new lens(es).
Caerolle: So, I see all these Zeiss manual-focus lenses for dSLRs, and I wonder, how do people use them with modern dSLRs, which aren't very good at manual focus in the OVF?
Do people mostly use them stopped down a good bit, so they *can* be focused in the OVF? Or only use them on tripods with Live View? Or do focus bracketing?
Agreed with Andy Xorx. The Canon 5d2 has an atrocious focus system compared to even old pro bodies which makes using a manual focus lens not hard, but considerably less easy. Any dslr with a competent focus system; more specifically a good focus confirmation system, will allow the manual focus lens to be focused with relative ease.
I shoot the Zeiss at f/2 nearly exclusively and most often it isn't an issue for fine art and or portraiture work. There's been times that I've selected it over the 24-70 2.8 for event work with results that pleased me.
I hardly ever use live view.
stevo23: Should be a nice lens. This new BR element could be very interesting for Canon going forward.
I would have expected Sony/Nikon/Canon to start decreasing their prices on primes after Sigma ART, but apparently they think there's demand for the OEM.
Can't wait to see the scores. But who would have thought the Sony/Zeiss would be less $$?
@stevo23..... That's because there *is* still a great demand for OEM.
bgbs: at this price, this lens better take pictures while I sleep, otherwise no thank you. Besides what's been happening to Canon and Nikon lately? Is their business model to make poor photographers even poorer?
No... Canon/Nikon's goal of course isn't to make poor photographers "poorer" (poor photographers are doing a good enough job at that themselves); but rather to focus on people who buy their gear at certain price points which is the whole idea behind being in business in the first place.
Look at appliances. Today the middle-ground is practically vacant. You basically have high line appliances and low quality junk being sold today. If you want the good stuff then you have to pay for it, otherwise you're left contemplating buying rental-house quality furnishings and appliances. Same with camera gear... If you want the good stuff then you have to pony up. It's not abut the professional- it's about the paying demographic.
QuantumPhysics: I think Canon makes too many engineering choices based on marketing considerations. For example, we pay for IS over and over, when Canon could just stabilize the sensor assembly as we see in the Sony A7 MII.
I love being able to use my 4 Hasselblad V-series lenses on the A7II. The high ISO performance is impressive, and the image is stabilized on three axes, perfect for working in low light. I can also mount FD lenses, notably the FD 300mm f/2.8L, which adapts very well to mirrorless rigs. This flexibility, not to mention sumptuous image quality, is just the ticket. 16:9 stills are glorious. In this camera I have a digital "X-Pan", that can also make motion panoramas of considerable size.
The 50MP Canon brings to mind an old saying. Twice nothing is still nothing. This is definitely true where limits of lens resolving power come into play! If we run out road, optically speaking, won't we get "empty" magnification?
That's what I thought I remembered from some animations of the system years ago. No thanks. The last thing I want is more "stuff" in the camera that I'd rather have in a modular arrangement (IS in lens).
I'm not sure how it's built-in; but I'd bet that the internal stabilization can fail and the sensor be ok. I do not know though.
I do know that most everything on any camera is reliable today, however I'm specifically talking about IF it does break, then what. I'd rather not go through what I'd have to dealing with Canon/Nikon repair. I'd gladly spend $$$ for stabilization in the lens not to have to worry about it.
Stab., goes out in the lens (not likely, but it happens) I just click another lens on and keep shooting. I can't do that IF the stabilization stops. If it's *impossible* for internal stab. to fail, then I'd give it the thumbs up. I just don't think that's the case.
"Very reliable" is great, but if the internal stabilization fails, I don't want to have to send the entire camera in for service. I don't mind paying more money for stabilized lenses.
IF the IS fails on one of my lenses during a shoot in Vermont, I just put on another lens. If an internal stabilization failed it creates problems that I don't want to deal with- (1) I'd be without IS until the camera is fixed. (2) I'm without that particular camera until it can be fixed; which can easily take over a month or two. I hope Canon/Nikon sticks with the external option or design two bodies, one with build-in stabilization and a discounted model without. I'll stick with external :)
jhinkey: Step 1: Admit you have a problemStep 2: Close the Italian design officeStep 3: Fire whomever hatched such a plan and whomever supported itStep 4: Figure out what kind of Med. Format products you can sell to the masses through innovation & strategic partnershipsStep 5: Have lots of patience, 'cause it's gonna take a long time to right the Hassy ship back onto course
I would love to own a lightweight medium format system, but it's always been out of reach $$-wise.
@JordanAT You can buy a *new* Porsche Boxter for the price of a new Jeep Cherokee or Chevy Suburban with Options.
Hey Perry- don't insult my intelligence with the poor excuses (ridiculous tap dancing story that I refuse to believe) why Hasselblad come out with the hideous looking rebadged cameras. How 'bout Hasselblad spend more time making the H line weather sealed, and more reliable! How 'bout focusing on faster electronics, even better software, faster sync speeds/lenses, etc..
Want to wow people, then re-work the old 500 series with AF, metering, great electronics, a mirror that isn't trying to slap itself to death, that takes a re-worked modern FILM back as well as the updated CMOS 50mp digital back... that still looks like the old classic 503. If I owned Hasselblad, I would have fired you.
I don't give a flippity-flop about a "core values" story. I'm about end product, great results, and dollars & cents; core values or not. Create a camera that offers not only eye popping performance and IQ, but at a price point that compels me to reach deep into my purse at the same time!
garyknrd: Kinda curious why anyone would pick this over the new Sony?What are the advantages?
Better 3rd party support. You can walk into almost any camera store, in almost any country, and get things for a Nikon/Canon... One can't do that with Sony.
I my world, if someone in management sanctioned such an outing, I would fire them personally. Canon putting built-in extenders in all their superteles would be a far more interesting and exciting read in my opinion. I'm just not getting the point of this outing, and keep wondering how this outing will translate into dollars and cents gained.
Richard Franiec: Many critical comments are true, but they all are missing the point:Canon gear in "Guinness book of world records" - PRICELESS...
Honestly, only a relative few care about Guinness records today (unlike the 70's when kids would thumb through a Guinness book). Most young people today would rather be on the Forbes list than have an awesome feat recorded in Guinness... unless the feat was to be the first / youngest to amass a Trillion U.S. Dollars in personal, liquid assets. A whoppingly large photo... kinda, pales in comparison ;)
gregzz: Sadly the files are exactly what i've expected, i think it's time for me to switch to nikon.
Who really need 50 mpx?? D810's 36mpx are enough for everything and files are "hands down" better in all aspects, dynamic range, latitude exposure, sharpness, colors, noise,...
I'm afraid that for Canon it will be a long way to match sony sensor
I get the "art critics", curators, art directors, etc... and get the whole "viewing distance" thing, I just don't subscribe to it because museums, curators, art directors, or critics don't represent the general photography viewing public.
We're not talking about billboard prints or pixel peeping. What we're talking about is the obvious difference in size between 36 and 50mp before and after cropping which is especially noticeable when shooting small subject matter. We can agree to disagree. (what makes a cordial forum great!) :)
In my experience I appreciate the latitude that a D800(36mp) can give over my Canon 5D2 (20mp) in macro and portrait photography. Likewise the difference between 36 and 50mp.
What I'm focused on is not the benefits of the latitude that 50mp can offer over 36 for my needs, but rather the seemingly less-than-applaudable 50mp Canon sensor that concerns me.
@gregzz: So you're telling me that (even without ANY post processing at all), you can't tell the difference in a *20x30in* print of a macro of my iris using a 36mp camera, and the same shot done with a 50mp camera? How 'bout printing that same shot 40x50 in?
The problem I think so far with this Canon, is that the full-size samples aren't giving people a warm-n-fuzzy feeling about the camera's image quality. Looking at the samples, I expect something better than that in 2015. While I can easily make a practical case for 50mp in "5D" trim, I get the feeling that Canon put a 2nd-rate sensor in the camera just as it put a 2nd rate focus system in the 5D2 when it could've done a lot better in that case. I hope the 5Ds isn't a repeat of Canon taking the shoddy route as opposed to the high road.
A crop 39mp Hass does not come close to natively spitting out a 20x30in. print, which is the point for *many* (not all) fine art folks wanting to print large. I've been wanting a camera to print natively at 20x30 or larger; currently you can't get that without a digital back. The old 31/39mp Hass, produce beautiful files not much ahead of the D800. Each MF system (phase, Hass, Sinar) has it's own "look" baked in + due to software (focus, etc.)
People parrot "viewing dist." There is no such thing as a "correct distance" to view art. The distance to view art, is the distance most comfortable for the respective viewer to get the best visual experience of the piece which varies per viewer, per piece.
I don't pixel peep or fuss over at 100% crops and I'm not interested in, nor am I talking about tiny A4 prints.
I too have printed "nice" prints 20x30in from my 4mp Nikon & 20mp Canon; doesn't change the fact that size matters & same print looks better (per my goal) shot with 50-80mp.