Celsus: Wayyyy overpriced. Gimmicky 1-trick lenses don't have more value than the standard version, they have less. I'd like to see it holding a selling price above $500 a year after release.
The Japanese will go crazy for this but why not forget the legendary manufacturer and just make a modern triplet with a 15 blade diaphragm? I suppose a modern lens might be too sharp, but with 3 elements, I doubt it.
Stollen1234: some argue its too expensive compare to nikon or canon lenses..this could be right..both canon and nikon lenses are very good for general use..but if perfection is needed then you look for these lenses like Zeiss or Leica..
there is a reason why they say: you buy what you really need.
If I had a dollar for every company with a slogan that includes "perfection" I could afford multiple sets of Zeiss lenses for each camera body. Even in world where everything is above average, perfection is hard to come by.
Just a Photographer: I know one thing for certain.Fuji takes care of its customers.
For a Autofocus update like this most other camera manufacturers would bring out a new body instead.
More then 40 new features have been added to the Fuji X-T1 since its introduction. No that is not bugfixes, but complete new features that weren't in the camera when it was released.
And for those that want to bash.Then not that this camera always performed as advertised and people bought it upon the specifications as it was released.
I'm sure it's an excellent camera, but has it occurred to you that some or all of these enhancements could and should have been in the camera in the first place?
Stephen Scharf: You've got to feel for Fuji....they do the right thing for customers, and they get bashed for it.
They put out a wonderful and significant enhancement to a superb camera FOR FREE, and they get bashed. They don't put out a free enhancement, and they get bashed.
They must feel they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Fortunately they have a good heart and good spirit, so even though they get bashed either way, they still do the right thing.
Kudos, Fuji....you continue to lead by example!
Fuji is an imaging company; a camera company. Sony is an electronics company and would not even be involved with cameras if they weren't digital and almost entirely electronic. Nothing wrong with either but I doubt it would occur to Sony to design a camera that looks like a Leica M, for example.
brendon1000: Sigh. One more case in point to avoid third party lenses for cameras.
As things get more and more complicated it's just common sense there will be problems with non-OEM lenses (and OEM as well.) At least this one seems fixable. I'm surprised people think Nikon and Canon are under some sort of obligation to make sure somebody else's product works.
vadims: I wonder if Canon will ever fix their lenses that do not work well with Sony bodies (or rather Metabones adapter).
All my Canon lenses except 50/1.4 work fine. The 50 would not autofocus, and that is an expected behavior according to Metabones site.
Come on, Canon, it's time to take care of firmware in your lenses on other companies' bodies...
I'm sure they're eager to deal with issues that arise from the use of another company's product. Or another company's product plus another company's adapter.
MSTR Photography: I think the mistake everyone here is making is not looking at what can keep Hasselblad viable in today's and tomorrows market. There is nothing wrong with branching out into the ILC market or the APS C market or even the full frame market to help the company grow. Instead of trying to bring the bling like Leica does to an over-priced product, they need to consider bringing the quality they are famous for to a reasonably priced product. I don't mean dropping their prices to Sony, Canon or Nikon levels (which are all making great cameras), but following the example of Pentax in making a product which is affordable to the semi-pro photographer while maintaining their ever-present quality standards would go a long way to keeping them in the ever trembling photography market and help to strengthen their position as a top of the line company with both the product and the photographer in mind.
There's a reason the camera industry moved from Europe to Asia long ago. Leica has the cachet and name recognition that has attracted a string of wealthy eccentrics who have propped it up (for now) but with Hasselblad, everything argues against this. Labor costs, technological development, production efficiency, etc.
ProfHankD: Like Canon, but even moreso, Hasselblad is a company somewhat trapped by their historical success; they know they need to evolve, but they know any change will require lots of effort (development cost) and might cost them loyal customers. I'm happy to hear Hasselblad realizing that RED is a real competitor in a variety of ways. Partnering with Sony still makes perfect sense as a way forward, but they have firmly proved that minor tweaks on a Sony product will be seen as "not really Hasselblad" (except for the RX100, which is interestingly where Canon also was able to leverage some Sony guts).
In sum, this all sounds like Hasselblad is finally on the right track, but it also sounds a lot like the same track that led Minolta's camera business to be handed to Sony 2007. Either way, I expect to see some high-framerate sensors in V-like bodies soon.... ;-)
One could say Canon is spoiled by success because no matter what they do (or how little) they sell lots of cameras and make money. Hasselblad is a brand for medium format professionals only, which would be ok except that this is a much smaller group than "photographers" which means everybody.
Anything cheap enough for the non-professional market can't come from Sweden and Hasselblad can't buy in enough quantity to get re-branded products that are sufficiently disguised so that people can't tell they're buying a Fuji or Sony product.
Not a chance. As soon as they start the comparisons to brands that are more well known and products whose function is something almost everybody needs, like a car, it means one of two things. Either (a) they're not getting it or (b) they can't think of a better idea than to piggyback onto somebody else's name recognition.
I remember going to a meeting with an advertising agency that was going to turn around the fortunes of a well known German camera. The guy said "we've made London Fog the most well-known raincoat in the world and we can do the same thing with your $3000 camera!" Then, during a break, he asked me "What makes this camera better than a $1000 Nikon?"
Horshack: If I were to photograph a Taylor Swift concert I would gladly hand over the copyright to my photos in exchange for ear plugs.
Of course it will all depend on who has the better lawyer.
While I can see that super star mega concerts are probably a huge drag, if somebody can make a living from it, seems a lot easier than working in a meat packing plant or coal mine. Then again, if you had to attend a Justin Bieber concert....
Marty4650: Would you buy a lens from a company that can't get their website to work?
Just sayin'.... this is pretty basic marketing. You issue a press release with a website listed. Then the website doesn't work. This doesn't bode well.
I'd still buy an Alpa, with the wooden handles but honestly, if Arca can't manage web page, probably not. As for the Chinese lens, I'd buy several, in the unlikely event there's some variation among them.
The comments about Canon becoming a lens supplier to Sony are amusing, but I can't help thinking that if Canon does move to a better sensor, it's all over. Sony will still handle the "innovation" by making what nobody else does (same for Fuji) but from Canon's point of view, access to all Canon lenses, no adapters, Sony sensor quality, that would pretty much cover SLR users.
Come on Canon, let Sony make the mirrorless electronic wonders and also the sensors in your SLRs so we can have Nikon quality, without having to deal with Nikon.
Looking at the photos, I think they consulted with Roger Corman on the design.
RStyga: Since there are people that pay many thousands to buy primitive cameras like Leica's and still be happy, this one is certainly not bad at all in a general sense: it has more than enough controls and a more than decent sensor to enable any photographer who knows how to take a photo to be merry.
Since they are both similar cameras that cost about the same, the comments above make sense.
rrccad: Even as a non macro lens, having perspective shift is kind of a nice / big deal - the only other lens around this focal is the much more expensive 17mm TS-E.
What makes the 17 TS remarkable is not just that it's 17mm and covers full frame; it's that when you shift, it's still pretty sharp. For comparison, the Rokinon 24 shift is a nice lens and great value if you don't mind mush when you shift.
misolo: 35mm-format image circle, 15mm focal length, 1:1 magnification, 12cm minimum focus distance measured from front element -- don't know much about macro but, just from simple geometry, unless there's enormous focus breathing involved surely something's wrong with these specs?
6mm is quite a bit of shift with a 15mm lens. Do I think it will be sharp when shifted? No. The Rokinon 24 shift which is twice as expensive is mush when you shift.
oselimg: Once again the self righteous gear lovers are in the business wishing Canon vanished from the face of the earth. First of all camera buying people aren't aware that you exist. Secondly if canon or Nikon were go out of business you would pay double the amount of what you pay your favourite camera. Thirdly EF lenses would double in value so you lose again. Be careful what you wish for.
If Rebels were dramatically poor performers in the eyes of most camera buyers (not equipment lovers, camera buyers) no one would buy them. But that doesn't seem to be the way things are working out.
Even legitimate complaints like dynamic range ignore the fact that until recently all digital cameras were worse at this, yet people still bought cameras and still took pictures.
It's like a Toyota Corolla.
Beautiful shots, Rishi. I didn't realize how bad the shutter bounce was in the earlier model. Sony should do the impossible and offer their early adopters a trade-in, now that they've addressed this problem.
veroman: Really? Listening to customers? Then why did Sony transfer all of their DSLR repairs (perhaps repairs for other gear as well) to a company known for many decades for shoddy workmanship and extremely poor service?
Why doesn't Sony have a legitimate service department of their own? Why is it that my A850, which needs a new shutter after only a few thousand clicks, cannot be sent directly to Sony for repair?
Listening to customers? Hardly.
Unfortunately, top-notch, quick turnaround repair departments are very expensive. I had a fairly expensive Minolta Dimage and they sent it to China because it was so much cheaper than servicing it in New Jersey. And I see Leica is sending stuff to Germany so they don't have to maintain service facilities elsewhere.