micksh6: Front element seems to be rather large. 75mm F1.8 lens requires only 42mm front element diameter. This looks close to 50mm probably?
For comparison, Pentax 77mm F1.8 limited lens has 49mm filter thread and its front element is smaller, probably around 43mm.
I wonder why is that. Maybe this lens is a bit faster than F1.8?
I would wager the design is very close to a typical 85mm F1.8 full format lens. It's probably over designed in that respect because you end up with less vignetting and greater sharpness when you are just using the centre of a larger image circle.
I declare victory! they mentioned the effect f/stop
justinintokyo: Most sources are reporting $799 but either way, well worth the money. Can't wait.
@DarkShiftMake sure when you compare it against the Canon lens you only compare a 1/4th image crop of the very center.
This is getting absurd dpreview you should be ashamed.
This listing the focal length "equivalence" right next to unadjusted aperture is border line disingenuous.
It is not a f1.8 150mm "equivalent" lens, it is and forever will be a 75mm lens, it doesn't magically become a 150mm lens just because you put it on a camera with a small sensor.
If you insist on listing "equivalent" figures, list the equivalent aperture right next to it so people don't get the wrong impression.
This lens at f1.8 75mm will produce an image on a micro four thirds camera that will look identical to a F3.5 150mm on a full frame camera, for you to imply it will look like f1.8 150mm is flat out wrong and shameful.
Can it correct bokeh fringing?
paul1508: 1. Too bad that O.I.S only makes it more expensive, larger and heavier and still doesn't help you with your OMD. It would be interesting how cheap/small the same lens without OIS would be.2. What would the aperture have to be on APS-C for FOV equivalence? This is of course a bright zomm, no doubt! But I'm interested in NEX7 or OMD and I want to know which system would be more interesting for FOV photography. Especially with the available and affordable lenses!
If you take that opinion you also need to apply it to focal length, there is no such thing as "equivalent focal length" 12-35mm will ALWAYS be 12-35mm, be it full frame four thirds, APS-C or whatever
The problem and confusion is dpreview putting the equivalent focal length(24-70mm) right next to the unequivalent aperture.
The fact is this lens would look identical to a 24-70mm F5.6 on full frame, yet there is a constant misinformation campaign waged by the micro 4/3rds crowd to confuse people.
Now you may say well aperture is used to determine exposure and if you "convert" the aperture you get a incorrect assumption of light intensity. Well that would be a good point if it wasn't for the fact that aperture is not a measurement of light transmission(T-stop is).
The fact is F/stop is more useful for determining depth of field than exposure so it's totally reasonable to "convert it" if you are already doing such with the focal length.
A lens everybody will want, but nobody could justify.
Man I wish Canon or Nikon/Sony would do this. Leica already had bad high ISO performance but imagine if you did this to a D4 or 1Dx, they would have absolutely untouchable high ISO performance for many many years.
I could swear this came out a week ago...
I wish dpreview would just up and admit that the tilt screens are flat out superior to the tilt and swivel screens. They always have to put some little "however" in the description. "Like all tilt-only screens, though, it adds nothing when shooting stills in portrait format."
How about tilt and swivel screen you put a little text blob that comments how how much smaller the screen is in relation to the area it takes up? Or how about how down right hideous the hinge looks? Or how about you can't tilt the screen up without first swivelling it to the side, thus making it completely indiscreet?
How hard is it to take a self portrait without looking at an LCD screen, just hold it at arms length, point it at your face, and press the button???
I have been using this to process some high contrast images, it really makes me want a D800 instead of my 5dII :( You really can exploit the maximum dynamic range easier and more naturally than before.
Basically I have found that pulling down the highlights typically looks really good, where as pulling up shadows requires much more finesse to not overdo it. Ends up making me want to underexpose my images slightly, but then this requires pushing the image back up, which the 5dII really handles poorly at low ISO.
I think people complaining just need to understand how much art is required in balancing your images, very easy to go to far, but if you pull it back just a little you'll find things look amazing.
I was double processing my images before to get wide dynamic range shots(two raw processes then masking). But I find now that is unneeded and I can do things in one shot.
I forgot Chuck Westfall is not the same person as fake Chuck Westfall, not as funny as I was hoping :(
I'd rather a 1dx with 10bit 2k or 12bit 1080P
I want full frame with the ability to push it HARD in post production, not just the ability to crop it. Cropping is for the guys at EOSHD, they love crop cameras.
Robgo2: All but the most fanatical Nikon fans will have to agree that 24MP for an entry level camera is truly absurd. The phrase "wretched excess" is an understatement in this case.
I don't understand, all the Nikon people were acting like the d800 having over 30+ MP was a gift from god. Now everybody is going crazy, didn't we already establish that more pixels = better everything? The more you downscale the image the less noticeable noise patterns are, this will improve it.
It will be slow as a dog in .Raw mode but noob camera owners don't need to shoot fast(nor should). It's the pros that need the blazing fast performance. Entry cameras should have the highest MP of all cameras because they are the ones that can most afford the slow performance.
Visionaryvoyager: I don’t think the engineers at Blackmagic have ever heard of a concept know as ergonomic design. Or perhaps they think this camera is to be used only on sticks?
Don’t get me wrong, it has many great features and who wouldn’t love to have built in waveform monitoring, but it would be really nice to have a handle!
It's designed to look like something Apple might make, which is a company that doesn't actually give a damn about ergonomics. Not having buttons on a digital movie camera is insane.
DarkShift: Interesting, but I can't understand why this thing uses EF-mount?
MFT mount would be more suited for small sensor and still allow other lenses through adapters.
He's right though, the MFT can be adapted to anything, the EF mount can only be adapted to Nikon and M42 lens, you wouldn't even be able to use Canon FD lens.
tkbslc: It's only slightly higher res than a Canon 600D/ 60D/7D while having a smaller sensor and higher price. Not sure I see the point.
Basically the point is they are willing to put the firmware Canon refuses to put on theirs. I see nothing to imply that this camera won't be electronically inferior in every way to Canons. The only difference is Canon cripples their cameras with firmware that is the bare bare minimum. Canon or Nikon for that matter won't include something like this purely because it would confuse and irritate many of their non-tech savy customers.
Basically black magic is totally opening up what the camera is capable of but they don't have the sophisticated image sensors to back it up. The manufactures that have the real high end technology are not willing to give it all away, so we are forced to hack or turn to something like this.
KAllen: "In short unless you have an interest or need for 4K video then there is no need to look at the 1D C over the 1D X."
OK you don't need 4K, but neither do you need rolling shutter and soft images that the 5DIII and probably X have. Why could we not of had a full spec 1080 clean hdmi output on the X. The gap between the X and C is huge. The 5D and X could of been better without challenging the C. Unless as I suspect there is a 5D C coming along. Which slots between the two.I can see Canon expecting us all to use frame grabs in the future. A real upgrade for spray and pray shooters.
"I can see Canon expecting us all to use frame grabs in the future. A real upgrade for spray and pray shooters."
You say that like it's a bad thing, let me tell you, I've been shooting lots of video with the 5dII and frame grabs rock. not only is this camera going to shoot 8MP pictures at 24FPS, it's going to do it 100% silently.
This would be be an amazing group portrait camera, continuous lights, camera mounted on a tripod, press record, so much less intimidating. You can spend 100% of your time interacting with the subjects. to imply that knowing instinctively when to press a button makes you a great photographer is naive, so much more to it that is more important.
"In short unless you have an interest or need for 4K video then there is no need to look at the 1D C over the 1D X."
I have a firm feeling that the 1DC will have vastly better 1080P video clarity, given how soft the 5dIII footage is I'm not expecting much more from the 1D X.
I don't want 4k i want an upgrade path from the 5dII. I'm hoping that the 1dx can achieve superior 1080P performance given that the sensor is apparently capable of so much more. I have a hard time believing that the duel digic 5+ 1dx is not capable of doing 1080 60P as is.
What's chroma sub sampling?
FastFisher: One day.... 1Dx + Magic Lantern = 1Dc
the 1Dc sounds like a step down from what magic lantern is offering! lose the focus peeking, zebra stripes, waveform during playback(probably), Magic zoom.
I mean wow canon I can capture with a different log gamma then is displayed on an external monitor? wow to bad I can already do that with the 5dII(has the ability to record in a different picture sytle than presents in liveview)