Can anyone here truthfully claim that they can do a better job than Mr. Oosting?
Why buy a digital Leica rangefinder in the first place? Just get a used M6 and load either B&W or color film as the need arises, scan the film and enjoy the best of both worlds.
If you cannot afford this particular lens and if you can find it, consider the Sima SF lens. It is 100mm F/2.0 macro MF. It employs perfectly circular aperture disks, is low cost, plastic construction and produces interesting results.
Speaking for only myself, I use what works to achieve the desired results.
Be it fog the filter with your breath, grease on a filter, a hole in nylon stockings over the front of the lens, Zeiss soft filters, optical lens designed for the application or a lens with less than perfect optical attributes and post processing.
Over several decades I have found each solution set has its unique strengths and weaknesses. But I never close my mind to new opportunities.
So take it with a grain of salt when you read the other comments that they have found the magic bullet for all applications or put down the Lensbaby 56mm lens without actually testing it for themselves.
Once I receive and mastered the lens I will post some images along with my opinions.
On the subject Sony full frame lenses, where are the Loxia lenses listed on DPReview? I tried both the Sony and Zeiss lens directories and could not find them listed. Thank you in advance.
RC: The 7S is a great camera, I used it during last new year's eve without a flash and the resulting photos are just amazing.HOWEVER: What I am missing, from an amateur's photographer point of view, is a decently fast zoom lens (24-105 or 18-200 mm).
I agree there is a serious lack of lenses and if it were not for the third party adapters I could not recommend purchasing the a7S. Speaking from personal experience with the adapters and a good selection of manual and AF lenses, the lack of Sony lenses is not a issue. If I were in the market for additional lenses the high sensitivity of the a7s no longer forces me to buy fast lenses. Another reason I purchased the camera is for astrophotography. This is where the a7s really out performs all the other cameras I have, since it enables me to accurately focus on stars that I cannot see with my eyes in the sky with heavy light pollution. With a push of a programmed button I can magnify the field of view to such a degree that the slightest touch of the focusing knob makes the faintest stars appear, and another touch they disappear. The result of accurate focusing and a light sensitive camera is very rewarding to me.
d2f: Referencing the comparison table above: Can someone tell me in detail what "self cancelling" means under optical low pass filter for the 5DS R?
So if understand this correctly the net effect of the two filters cancelling each other out is to keep the optical path the same as if only the anti aliasing filter were present. I assume this somehow retains the focus path attributes to the sensor to mitigate the need to have a second level calibration for this particular model. If the halo effect is present I assume it should be measurable with point light sources like stars.
guinanji: Question:How many megapixels is too many? I mean, if there was a 1000 MP camera, who would want it? Who would need it? For the type of photography you do, if there was no limit, how many MP would you want/need, and why?
Will the answers to your questions will make any difference in the end? Technology keeps moving forward independent of any individual opinions. The camera companies are guided by sales and profits. They have a vested interest to push the envelop if only to gain bragging rights and a marketing edge. They are riding on our fear of inadequacy while feeding our pride with their products.
Referencing the comparison table above: Can someone tell me in detail what "self cancelling" means under optical low pass filter for the 5DS R?
d2f: Thank you for the first impression write up and I look forward to the final report. With any luck some if not all of the recommendations mentioned will be included in future models or firmware releases.
Hopefully either camera will bring out the best of any lens attached to it and under the right conditions produce high quality cropped images.
My first impression is either camera would ideally suited for the commercial studio environment.
Two questions; does any digital camera offer electronic anti aliasing filter, by this I mean where the end user can switch it off and on? If not do any of them offer a user replaceable filter (similar to replacing a focusing screen except in front of the sensor)?
To answer your question I Googled the subject and yes the Pentax K3 can physically vibrate the sensor to achieve the desired effect. Another K3 reviewer mentioned the on/off anti-aliasing simulator provides all the benefits of a true optical anti-aliasing filter. I should have clarified my question was not mechanical implementation but electronic solution.
All optical lens designers are constrained by design parameters, the result of which determines the size and weight of any lens design they design. Given the sensor geometry & distance from the lens mounting surface, aperture, focal length and desired image quality it should not be too surprising to find DSLR and mirrorless optics designs are approximately the same as the focal length increases. Other parameters such as construction materials, weather sealing and auto focus implementation also come into play since the larger the optics the greater the weight and larger the motor assembly. That being said the size differences between DSLR and mirrorless lenses may appear in wide angle lenses where rear optics can get closer to the sensor on the order of mm. If that is the case then it would be unrealistic to expect the current FE lenses to be significantly smaller or lighter than their DSLR counterparts.
Congratulations to Nikon for taking their first step into the astrophotography market. I look forward to the review on Cloudy Nights. Meanwhile it will be interesting to see Canon's response, maybe a 6Da is in the works. Also for those who cannot afford the D810a almost any modern digital camera can be modified for astrophotography IR spectrum at a cost of approximately $350. For those who do not want to modify their camera, but are interested in astrophotography they can buy a Sony 5T with the IR modification from eBay for $369.
Looks like Sony has another winner. I have not seen something like this (FF with sensor stabilization) since they released the a900 back in 2008 Back then it cost around $3000 and had issues with sensor noise This reincarnation only goes for $1700, which to me represents a great value albeit expensive and at present a limited quality lens selection. Anyway I look forward to the DPReview full test report.
Thank you for the first impression write up and I look forward to the final report. With any luck some if not all of the recommendations mentioned will be included in future models or firmware releases.
I wonder what will make the new Pentax FF DSLR stand out from the crowd?
No matter how Sony improves their camera FE bodies the lens segment of the system is not keeping up with the customer desires for a wider selection of fast and affordable lenses. By comparison Fuji is listening to their customers and the Fuji XF lens development is addressing the desires of their customer base i.e. 56mm portrait lens and other F1.4 solutions. Maybe Sony believes that this segment will be carried by the third party lens makers like Mitakon, but larger third party lens companies like Sigma will be reluctant to support a niche market until the number of end users increases. And there in lies is the catch 22 for Sony. The only saving grace for Sony shooters are the third party the lens adapters, but that is only a band aid on the problem since I suspect most want modern optical designs with AF and IS attributes as well.
Nice idea but one has to take into account the cost of the color film, processing and printing. Over a period of five years the cost of which could over take the cost of the camera and lens. Speaking only for myself if you are not producing very large prints I do not see a need for any 4x5 camera. If on the other hand you have a need the image quality then I would lean towards a high quality 4x5 camera with all the movements mounted on a solid tripod. A compromise might be a medium format camera like the Mamiya 7 or Fujica GSW 690. But given the recent advances in digital cameras the image quality gap is closing in on medium format film, if not already surpassed it. With that said I think for the most part film cameras are history. Instead just pull out the smartphone and take the shot.
It should be possible to place cameras on a small quad or hex copter and flying it around capturing not only still 360 images but also HD video, without capturing the copter itself. The images could be projected on a semi transparent spherical surface allowing the end user with limited visual range a complete 360 view. Using overlapping image analysis software a near real time 3D images of an area of interest should be possible and viewed using 3D glasses. You could then fly the copter remotely into locations deemed hazardous such as burning buildings, caves, radio active environments or using several copters perform wide area search and rescue operations. Why limit it to the air, how about underwater environments?
Personally I think if a photographer wants to go retro he or she should buy a Nikon F2 with a DE-1 finder, head on out with a decent hand held light meter and a few rolls of TRI-X film. A camera is just a tool which in the right hands and a keen eye can create images that bring meaning to life and changes for the better those who view the images. Having a camera that can take 150,00 images a year does not guarantee any of them are any good. If anything the ease of taking the picture can retard the thought process behind the creation of the image. Thus turning the person capturing the images into a glorified high speed point and shoot photographer who relies on the shotgun approach to getting a "keeper" image and who's subjective image quality is inversely proportional to the cost of their camera gear. Nikon missed the boat with the DF. Adding numerous knobs, buttons and dials does not equate to a better camera, in this case quite the opposite.
It did not make a good first impression on me. Vile was the first word that came to mind. By far the worst looking Nikon I have ever seen in the last 50 years. Come to think about it is the worst looking camera that I have ever seen period. Then to add the flagship title on it and charge so much for it, seems insane. Not even a techno geek shooter or wanna be pro would use this camera in public. No wonder the videos showed a guy shooting in remote locations, away from people. He would have to wear a ski mask it he used it anywhere else.