hybert46: So finally what is the more compact, potentially cheapest or easiest lens to produce, a FF 100mm f/4 or a m43 50mm f/2? Both should have a roughly similar size of entrance pupil as it is defined by the ratio of focal length over the f-number. Anyone care to elaborate on this, could be interesting!
hybert46, that all depends on the lens design. The new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is almost 100mm long despite its short focal length. The old manual focus Nikon 105mm f/2.5 was only 78mm long.
Sdaniella: Kodachrome 25 ... ISO 25I've been asking for 25/12/6 since Canon offered ISO 50never mind 64/32!
Pritzl, that 2/3 of a stop should mean a fully usable f/1.4 in broad daylight with 1/8000" shutter speed and no ND filter. To me, that's huge. It should also mean lower noise and more DR.
AndreSJ: RX100 III
this 1" battle is getting interesting
But which is right for you??
Do you realize that only the RX100 and NX Mini have a 1" sensor? The other two cameras in your grouping are APS-C.
SteB: I think that's pretty impressive. Even taking into account down-sizing the other images it's clearly the cleanest from any FF sensor at high ISOs. I think this might have some potential from a macro/close-up photography perspective. Light is always a challenge, and often you have to use flash to freeze motion, or handhold. The big problem with flash in daylight is fall off over distance and black backgrounds. This means the background all has to be close to the subject to prevent it, which restricts how you shoot. I think this type of high ISO performance is maybe getting to the level where with noise reduction software, it might allow a type of photograph previously impossible in field macro photography. We'll have to wait and see if it's there yet. It'd be a lot better if it was A7 price.
What is useable to you? I've gotten plenty of good-enough-for-web use images from my D3S at ISO 51200. I don't like using ISO 100K but I have used it several times.
mister_roboto: That's only a f2-2.8 ff equivelent- pffft ;)
Not quite. The latest Phase One backs are 68% larger than a full frame sensor which equates to a roughly .77x crop (or conversely, full frame is a 1.3x crop of a Phase One). This f/4-5.6 lens on that back is the equivalent (at in DOF terms) of a f/3-4.3 lens on full frame. Nothing special, especially considering the price.
bobbarber: I wonder if people will post about the "affordable" price of FF on this thread. I'm sure the 400 2.8 is an awesome lens, but 12 grand? Really?
Bob, As I'm sure you can deduce for yourself, at $120,000, Nikon is going to sell very, very few 400/2.8 lenses. At $50,000, they might sell a few more. By the time they get to $12,000, they'll sell enough to make the money invested into the development worthwhile. Somewhere between $0 and $12,000 though, they've figured out that while they will sell a few more they won't sell so many more that reducing the price that far was worthwhile.
After all, how many photographers are in the market for an 8lb. lens whether it's $5,000 or $12,000? As much as I'd like one, I have better things to spend $5-12k on. Even at $1000 it would be a very tough sell to me simply because I'd rarely use it. Yet I did buy a 35/1.4 for $1550 and it wasn't a tough sell.
Paul Janders: I would have been happier had Nikon announced a replacement for their excellent 400mm f3.5 lens which was discontinued many years ago. Nikon has no 400mm prime that's even remotely affordable for the vast majority of their customers.
Meanwhile, over at Canon, they have three different versions of 400mm primes that cover a wide spectrum of pricing.
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 plus 1.4X TC = 420mm f/4Nikon 300mm f/4 plus 1.4X TC = 420mm f/5.6Both options are far more affordable than the 400mm f/2.8 yet appear (no personal experience but have seen plenty of images) to offer very good image quality.
No Wifi necessary, just a phone line: http://www.ceiva.com/index.jsp
Henrik Herranen: Is this the first time Nikon (or Canon, for that matter) have produced a zoom lens that is slower than f/5.6? Will this have an effect on the "not focusing with slower than f/5.6 lenses" policy? Nikon cameras limited to f/5.6 AF should not even try to focus with this lens at longer focal lengths, but I very much doubt that this happens.
The D7100 can AF with its center point down to f/8 but it is interesting to note that neither the D3300 or D5300 are touted as being able to AF at apertures smaller than f/5.6, and I have to assume that owners of those cameras are the target audience here. I would expect to see a firmware update from Nikon to address this shortly, or perhaps just a change in their specs.
beavertown: 900 buck for this cheap crap???
digifan, your 150mm mFT lens only gets you to 300mm equivalent. The Nikon lens gets you to 450mm equivalent. Pretty big difference. Considering equivalent apertures, the mFT lens at f/4-5.6 is slower at all focal lengths than this Nikon lens.
Peiasdf: I really don't see the point of these lenses. If you don't care much about IQ, just get a superzoom compact. If you want some IQ and are willing to pay for it, Sony RX10 is much better buy.... way smaller with way faster lens. I think this is for people that wants a DSLR but don't care to learn how to use a DSLR.
Peiasdf: The Sony only does 200mm equivalent. This lens does 450mm equivalent. Comparing equivalent full frame apertures, the Sony is f/7.6 at best and this new Nikon is f/9.5 at worst (f/5.3 at best). If you cropped the Sony to 450mm equivalent, you'd be at f/17.
Does that help you understand this lens better?
Frank_BR: OK, I agree this Zeiss lens is probably as good as the Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 that costs less than $2k. But why does Zeiss have a fixation with the number 9?
T2.9 T1.9 € 44,999 US$ 59,900 € 17,900 US$ 23,900 ...
"T2.9" is the t-stop of the lens, as opposed to the f-stop. T-stop is the light transmission. f-stop is aperture divided by focal length. These are (more than likely_ f/2.8 lenses with a light transmission equivalent to shooting at f/2.9.
rhlpetrus: One more reason for anyone looking for a compact system to go for m43, congrats to the users of the system (and to future ones).
Ulric,the new Sony 35mm f/2.8 is almost exactly the same size, around the same price, but is about a half stop faster (though slightly different focal length).
The Canon 22mm f/2 EOS-M lens is smaller, lighter, far cheaper and about the same speed (though again slightly different focal length).
I'd say this new lens has a lot of competition from larger formats.
Peiasdf: Not super expensive but 20 f/1.7 is likely a way better deal. If this is f/1.4 or f/1.2 then that's different.
How come m4/3 isn't making fast and super-fast normal wide? The smaller sensor size should make it easier than Fuji.
"If you really want much more shallow DOF, you have to go full frame and then you have to deal with quite bigger lenses."
This lens doesn't appear to offer much over the already-expensive Sony 35mm f/2.8. It's slower, about the same price, and seems to be about the same size. Where's that small sensor advantage again?
peevee1: DPR wrote: "compare the E-M10 to a growing list of cameras in our new studio test scene. "
Your comparison is useless, for ISO 25,600 you use f/5.6 1/2500s on E-M10 and f/5.6 1/5000s on E-M1. Whole stop difference in exposure!
RichRMA, how do you conclude that changing light levels masks sensor differences? As long as the lights are well controlled, cutting a stop of exposure from the lighting while adding a stop of exposure time will yield an identical result.
Vlad4D: Not fair comparison. For example on ISO 6400 Olympus has shutter speed 1/2500 but Nikon has 1/4000.
Noise should be compared at identical shutter speed and aperture.With 1/2500 Nikon will get about twice less noise than on 1/4000.
Some companies continue tricking customers and I see that dpreview continues to support it by publishing those unfair tests.
Noise depends on the available light, too. According to Dpreview (read further down in the comments) they adjust the lighting as necessary to keep things even (at least in the specific instance mentioned).
f/8 on 4/3 sensor is well into diffraction territory. Why add another variable to the test by using a different f-stop which presumably offers lower resolution than f/5.6? Total light gathered is what affects noise performance so adding a stop of exposure but cutting the light by 1EV was the proper choice given the limitations imposed by the camera.
jhendrix: Anyone have an example of ISO 204,800? Does it look like pointillism?
Try Google Image search. I found a bunch of images. It's pretty by 204800 (on the D4, not sure about the S) but usable for a small image. I'll take noise over motion blur any day (and have my D3S set to use auto-ISO up to max ISO).
thx1138: Pixels wars are over, ISO wars have begun. Now if only we could get a real ISO 50, with L ISO 25.
Ok, so the shutter opens once. How long does an ISO 6 exposure take on a Kodak DSLR when you otherwise would have needed ISO 100 and f/16 for a 1/100" exposure? A true ISO 6 should only take 1/3 second.
I don't disagree that the ISO 50 available on DSLR's today is fake. But while Kodak's ISO 6 may yield results that look almost just like a real ISO 6, it's not a real ISO 6 and it's nothing you can't accomplish with any other DSLR and some PP software.
Right, multiple sampling of the sensor meaning a bunch of shorter exposure times taken over a significantly longer exposure time than a true ISO 6 would need (due to limitations in frames per second). True base ISO was 160, not 6, which puts it at a higher base ISO than any recent Nikon or Canon DSLR, and barely lower than any Nikon or Canon DSLR ever produced. A real ISO 6 would allow for a single long exposure. Kodak did nothing of the sort. They did all the processing in camera which could be considered novel but it's nothing to can't be done in PS with any camera, giving you more control over the final result.