ttran88: Market leaders Canon and Nikon failed us. Their stubbornness with building OVF rebels and D3xxx cameras that make photography suck is why people bought one and have left it in their closets. Their lack of video just cemented their worthlessness to most people. Good job market LEADERS. Hope the market wises up and new Market LEADERs comes about.
I'm not 'blaming' anyone. Consumers will do what they want, often following illogical paths that must madden even the best market analysts. What is apparently uninspiring is the promise of better photos in terms of noise, sharpness, depth of field control, etc. That's what better cameras offer and what the masses have decided they don't care enough about to own a dedicated camera. Consumers clearly are 'into' photography (or some mass market derivative of it) judging by all the photos taken and uploaded daily.
The market leaders put advanced, very capable cameras that needed little knowledge to operate into the hands of a bunch of people who thought they'd be into photography. Turns out they aren't that into it. No different than the many years before the cheap DSLR came about.
Horshack: "X" went out a year years ago. The new hip letter is "Z". I'm personally waiting for "K" to have its day in the sun.
David, if nothing else, Samyang increased the aperture blades from 8 to 11 on these new Cine lenses versus their current 24 and 85mm still lenses. Fairly certain they did more than that though to justify the massive price increase.
dw2001: 750 for 24/1.8, did the currency just devalued like 75% or so?
Let's see:85/1.8G: $496.9550/1.8G: $216.9535/1.8G: $596.9528/1.8G: $ 696.9520/1.8G: $796.95
The 24/1.8G @ $746.95 follows the pricing trend quite nicely in my opinion.
Smartypants: The new 24-70/f2.8 is a big lens.
Filter Thread Front: 82 mmDimensions: 3.46 x 6.08"Weight: 2.35 lb
I'm not surprised by the big front but 6" long?
Can't wait to see the optical reviews
G1Houston, why are you ignoring the Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR, a lens that while heavier (~170 grams) than the Sony FE 28-70m f/3.5-5.6 is actually shorter than the Sony while being wider, longer, and faster? This new 24-70/2.8 VR is in an entirely different class and anything Sony builds for the A7 series that expects to compete will likely be of similar size.
tinternaut: Because it doesn't make sensors just for itself, Sony is probably the only company that can really drive down the cost of these large chips. I don't see how Canon will be able to compete, without making a loss, while using its own sensor tech*.
* That's not an expression with a problem with Canon, more an observation of economics and economies of scale.
As far as I know, Canon sells more full frame cameras than Nikon. Even with Sony making full frame sensors for Nikon and itself, Sony probably only makes roughly 50% of the full frame sensors out there. That leaves plenty of sensors for Canon to make even if Sony itself starts to make serious inroads into the market.
Hugo808: No lens hood? Shame on you Nikon, you don't want to be cutting cheap corners like that and expecting us to be happy about paying £40 for an optional one. Not when the lens is this pricey anyway!
Like every other modern Nikkor I've ever seen, it comes with a hood: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_16-80mmf_28-4e_ed_vr/spec.htm
An HB-75 in this case.
mcshan: Looks great! I would prefer the classic 35mm but this will still be quite a camera to shoot with. Good for Leica.
Well, no. It will look exactly the same as a 35mm shot assuming both photos are taken from the same distance to the subject. If you don't believe me, grab your wide angle capable zoom (or two primes) and try it for yourself.
J A C S: 28mm seems as an odd choice of a FL. Other than that, it seems to be a great fixed lens camera with IS for those with extra cash.
Does this photo taken with an 18.5mm lens look like it was shot with an ultra-wide angle lens?http://i2.wp.com/www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/20121201-_DSC4901-f1.8.jpg
You don't seem to understand equivalence. Cropping to a 35mm field of view gives you f/2.1 equivalent DOF and reduces MP to ~15. Because you are standing at the same place as you otherwise would for a 'real' 35mm focal length photo, DOF and perspective distortion are exactly the same as the 35mm f/2.1 shot. You may or may not have less MP on your subject depending on which sensor is behind that 35mm lens.
It is a 35mm f/2.1 (equivalent) camera with 15MP resolution, too. Just crop (1.25X to be exact).
And the Leica will still be ahead on equivalent aperture at f/2.1 (f/1.7 x 1.25) vs. f/3 equivalent for the Fuji.
A crop to 35mm from 28mm is a 1.25X crop. That will leave ~15MP from a 24MP sensor.
Nikon, Sigma, and Ricoh all seemed to agree that 28mm makes sense for a fixed focal length camera.
deep7: This could be a good lens. I wonder what the equivalence nerds would make of it? Looking forward to seeing reviews.
Bgmonroe, probably the most important piece of equivalence is that it allows one to compare light gathering capabilites across formats. Total light is the determiner of depth of field and plays a huge part in determining how much noise is in an image. Field of view is an important part as well, of course.
veroman: Until one actually owns a Leica digital, one is really in no position to judge its worth or its capabilities. It's so very easy to denigrate the brand based on price alone and even easier to conclude that other cameras are just as good at a fraction of the price. One poster here says, "Is it better built? Probably." Probably? There's no probably about it. The precision that goes into the design and manufacture of Leica products is unequalled. You need only hold one in your hands and give it one click. Look at the seams, i.e. where a latch door meets the body. The seam is practically invisible. Most of you will own 10 or 15 different cameras by the time a single Leica needs servicing, if it does at all.
'Most of you will own 10 or 15 different cameras by the time a single Leica needs servicing, if it does at all.'
Maybe, maybe not: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8752612172/leica-m9-users-report-sensor-corrosion-issue
Sorry, couldn't resist. I find Leica's quite fascinating and would welcome some time shooting with one, especially the Monochrom.
Deardorff: 5 inches for macro work. What is the magnification factor? Close isn't necessarily 'macro'.
Think about it, on a 24x36mm sensor at 1:1, what is the size of an object that is 18mm across? Is it 18mm or some other value? On a 12x18mm sensor at 1:1, what is the size of that 18mm wide object? Is it 18mm or some other value?
I didn't say that the number of pixels was relevant to the magnification specification. I noted that a 1:1 image is still 1:1 after cropping, but that the pixels will be decreased. Higher pixel density sensors (like a 16mp m4/3 sensor vs. a 16mp full frame sensor) will put more megapixels on a 12x18mm object than the lower pixel density sensor.
Yes, cropping is irrelevant to magnification. 1:1 is still 1:1 no matter how much you crop. Cropping just changes the effective size of the sensor. Just like using a m4/3 sensor is simply cropping from a full frame sensor, only with a m4/3 sensor, you can't ever get back to the full frame size.
1:1 on full frame is still 1:1 on m4/3 or any smaller or larger format. Crop to 1/4 of the frame of a full frame 1:1 image and you'll have a 18 x 12mm image (practically the same square mm's as m4/3). The difference will be how many pixels you put on the subject.
ccclai: Equivalent to F2.8 in full frame?
As Mike99999 points out above, with full frame you just shoot at two stops higher ISO and get roughly the same noise as m4/3s due to the fact that the same 'total light' is being captured. 4X the light on a sensor 1/4 of the size evens things out between the two sensors. Again, the difference with full frame is that you get AF and a cheaper lens.
IBIS is something that could give the m4/3 camera an advantage if the scene was static. No arguing there.
ozturet, the Nikon covers a sensor that is four times larger than a m4/3 lens so it can be up to two stops slower and still capture as much or more light than a m4/3 lens. At f/0.95, this new Voightlander lens is just under two stops faster than the Nikon. Picking a nit really, but the lack of AF and higher price are still real cons.