Square is good, crying for twinning/3DStereo and square sensor. cheap genlock-solution for 3ds-video (gopro 3) already available, not offered by gopro themselves.
SigmaChrome: 80MP, Medium Format ... Really? A Sigma DP1M, 2M or 3M can do very close the the same job for a tiny fraction of the cost.
And why "pounds - lbs"? You are writing for an international audience, Brittany. Most of the world now uses Grams and Kilograms. Pounds and ounces are pretty much passé.
i find more annoying mentioning only camera-types used outside europe. thats a big mess of some members of this forum.
There are or were real "Reihenkameras"-Array-cameras(analoge) which had prisms to cover a large angle i was told by a zeiss-manager.
Crazy not to offer at least exposure-lock. the same problem with cheap and badly produced 6x9 cam with changing lens.yes the bronica is cheaper but heavier. a big con.how about hartblei 1006 with changing hasselblad-backs? lenses from 30 - 250mm.
Hasse Hjortsoe: I had my Epson V700 for less than tree years. I bought it for scanning 6x6 negatives and dias. It was never sharp despite changing negative holders with and whithout anti newton glass. I tested and tested and did not have much use for it. I now use macro gear on an ipad with much better results.A month ago the scanning mecanism finially got stuck. I sendt it via Epson, Denmark for repair. The offered me to solve the problem by changing the Whole scanning mecanism for a little more money that i payed for it almost 3 years ago. I will now send the worthless scanner as a free gift to Epson, Denmark for recycling. V800 looks very much the same, so be carefull.
for very sharp results there is wet-scanning. check google for that. if the original is not of topquality new scanners cannot squeeze better results out of it.
John Nevill: I recently purchased a v850 scanner for archiving old 35mm slides and using with 120 film (i've gone retro). It doesn't do a bad job on 35mm yielding 12-14mp images. However, 120 film doesn't sit flat in the new AN holders. I've tried Kodak, Ilford and Fuji and they all sit slightly curved. I contacted Epson UK and they have dismissed the issue on the grounds that the holders were designed for 6cm wide film. I measured various 120 films and the substrates vary between 61-62mm. I've since asked Epson UK what 120 film they recommend!
the wiki is wrong telling its 61mm. its between 61.2 and 61.5mm. my measurements. a swiss photographic boot is listing 61.5mm for 120-film. i have a 4990. its holder fit. also the 8x10 which is listed somewhere for the 800/850 but i havent seen it in a 800/850-package.What the actual situation with the new 120-holder?
BrianUK: Well I hope the 850 is of better quality than the 750 Pro. I purchased the 750 Pro about 14 months ago and its had very little use only scanning a few slides and some negatives which were sort of ok but but very soft focus. (Which must be why they have redesigned the films holders). However on the first ever scan of a photograph (white back plate in situ) a straight off white line appeared on the full length of scan area. (no scratches on glass or photos etc) Customer services want £180 to effect repair without even seeing the scanner which is about a third of the cost of a new 850. Possibly only internal contamination. I do not expect to pay hundreds of pounds for for piece of equipment that only lasts for around 18 months. Check the web for reports before you buy.I wonder if anyone has an idea what the problem could be?
There are instructions online to get access to the inside to clean the glass.
b+w-peel-apart(664/100iso or 667/3000iso) for packfilm-back 405 are not available anymore? for 4x5 new55 project is on the right way.
nitroman: Am i the only one who wonders why they've never released a 4x5 inch version ?!
go to new55-project.
3dreal: There is a company offering an auto-bellow-system with stacking. link maybe found here in the forum. under 500 usd.
There is a company offering an auto-bellow-system with stacking. link maybe found here in the forum. under 500 usd.
Couscousdelight: I don't care how good that lens will be, i'll never buy a sigma lens again...They refuse to take in charge my U.G.A. lens which is under warranty, they claim than i've chocked that lens.Problem is, i've never shocked it, and that piece of crap has broke when it was mount on my DSLR : the rear optical block from the lens detach itself and falls on my reflex's mirror.go to hell sigma.
When I bought Olympus OM Motordrive in HK in the 70ties and motor broke without me doing anything wrong, european representative told it was dropped. What a lie! later, when i found out that they are delivering second quality lenses to the grey market i switched to contax/zeiss, the latter which is still in use for DSLR later MILC. btw: One could not get cheaper Zeiss in HK so i bought them used.
EssexAsh: i look forward to the independent tests that will really tell us what the dpi is.
did you test-check 8x10 holder from 4990? what is the exact size of the biggest 4x5-holder. my calculations(see old message) say it should match. btw: the 61mm width for 120/220 films you mentioned is wrong. between 61.3-61.5mm or something else but larger than 61mm.
why the hell 0.75 and 0.57x- adapters? to save weight, money or lose quality or all together?
In the 80ties I was testing zeiss 35/1.4 against angenieux 35-70 not wide open handheld and it was like day and night. angenieux which had been highest praised all over again and again.
AdamT: IMO They still keep missing the mark with the focal lengths - the DP1Q should have been moved to 24mm FOV, the DP2 to 35mm, the DP3 fine where it is and then made the DP0 18mm FOV . they seem to insist on oddball focal lengths
I though FOV is measured in °. and FLs in mm.
zoranT: I wonder how this resonates among landscape photographers since Canon and Sony have already launched the high MP attack (A7 R etc.).
comparisons using jpegs would be enough. its only they would not show best quality, right? i used a bad scanner to show lens-differences.
Just a Photographer: This Sigma Art line is another nail in the coffin for Canon lens sales.Really excellent value for what they cost compared to Canon L-glass.
The 35, 50 and now this 24 are all equal or better then their Canon counterparts.
kazuo wants to generate new customers. very clever. hopefully he can control quality. i dont need affordable stuff of lower quality.
AdamT: Why use the 7R shutter shock monster with an adapter attached instead of a proper DSLR like a 6D or D800E? where the samples would have stood a chance . could at least have used a regular A7 with electronic first curtain
yes when the lens is not rocksolid sitting in the adapter, forget it. i have two cheap nikon-canon-adapter. the cheaper one is tight. will do tests with all kind of adapters and prove the problems. will use old very sharp c/y-zeiss-lenses on 10mp-cam. dslr-exchange-adapter was the best. one single adapter mounted with screws on ONE lens.
IvanM: I looked at the roof shot at f2.8 and the corners and more are still very very soft...by f8 things look better but extreme corners still look somewhat soft. I looked at the largest samples.
Of course this could just be the notorious wide angle lens softness in the corners of the Alpha7 cameras when used with a lens adapter....
I suggest DPR rather use a FF DSLR to show us what this lens can do...I think the Alpha7's may be the wrong cameras to test wide angle lenses from third parties.
get zeiss if you need highest quality and use SLR. the old 35/1.4 was terribly sharp even at 2.0 on FF-SLR under low light condition.