Sigma's been doing nothing but wonders lately.
rondhamalam: Why stitching 55 images of 2MP while they can make out of only 4 images using D800.
NASA is not that smart.
"NASA is not that smart"So you think you're so smart?try sending a probe with a camera to another planet and transferring the files back to earth.
Ulfric M Douglas: Excuse me but what the heck is this supposed to mean?'"Housed in a sleek yet durable high-intensity magnesium body"
High-intensity magnesium?Nobody proof-reads this guff then?
Despite that, love the max aperture.
your comment made my day! *laughs
until how long does the f/1.8 hold on the lens?
ebosch: does the rx100 able to take smaller size RAW files, e.g @ 12MP instead of 20MP? if it does, it would be a hell of a camera, the low light capabilities would be superb
I see, thank you for the info.
AFAIK, taking a lower res image with the same area of sensor will improve performance because of the 'merging' of more than 1 pixels into 1 pixel thus creating larger photosites, but I'm not so sure myself either
does the rx100 able to take smaller size RAW files, e.g @ 12MP instead of 20MP? if it does, it would be a hell of a camera, the low light capabilities would be superb
Calvin Chann: Sorry, but for me the colour of the thing is a serious point. I haven't bought any of the Oly lenses that are mentioned in this preview, because of the colour of the things. All my camera bodies are black (except a white G3 that I bought by mistake) and to me, a silver lens on a black body is not discrete enough.
Looks like Oly have lost me as a potential customer!
I don't think a silver grip would look good, they definitely should go for the black lenses.
seeing that olympus have managed to build such a magnificent glass (apparently) in a relatively small size, I wonder what the future 100mm/2 to 2.8 would be like?
IMO, the narrow AoV on this lens will require a greater working distance between you and your subject than your average street photo lenses, which is why your subject will not (probably) notice you taking candid shots even with a silver lens.
ebosch: it's almost feels like olympus deliberately doesn't offer black ver of this lens (and the 12mm & 45mm) to crank sales of silver bodies. It worked rather well, the silver om-d sells as well as the black ver, something even olympus did not expect.
nah it's just random thought, so take it with a grain of salt. My point is if only they make it in black.. it would look great on black e-m5 imo.
maybe a second, different version of this very same lens but with power zoom (and hence smaller size) ? This way people would not freak out because of the exclusion of the manual focus-zoom ring, and many enthusiast videographers would be delighted.Imagine a 24-70 2.8 equiv.(yes, I am aware of the DOF equiv. of f5.6) in tiny size, mounted on a GX1 or E-P3. It would be very practical and discreet!
Gully Foyle: This release exposes even more Sony's lack of lenses for its NEXs.
yes, but with an adapter that cost 150$ or 300$ with AF, no stabilization, with added considerable bulk and weight, not to mention the ugly form factor when mounted to NEX cameras (which also lose the point of the NEX compactness). I think panasonic can't help but set the price that high.
it's almost feels like olympus deliberately doesn't offer black ver of this lens (and the 12mm & 45mm) to crank sales of silver bodies. It worked rather well, the silver om-d sells as well as the black ver, something even olympus did not expect.
it's marvelous that sony didn't make this themselves.
plasnu: I think the worst mistake that Fuji made was they didnt share the same mount with Sony NEX system, like M43. If they shared the mount, it would have been win win for both party. Sigh...
obviously because sony wouldn't allow other brand to use the NEX mount to gain max profit -- while failing at it.
Now if only they make a black version of it... and the 12/2 and 45/1.8 too
Bagus banget mas pencahayaannya . .Wonderful Lighting and emotion!
it's a pity.. sony have great camera bodies (5n, 7) but what a shame on the lens lineup. the only lenses worth buying are the 24mm /1.8 zeiss and the 50mm /1.8... a 16-50 /2.8, 30 /1.4 , 85 or 135 /2.0 would be perfect
NeilShah: I am a amateur photographer and planning to get a new camera.
I almost bought Nikon d5100 DSLR and came across mirror less cameras and this article.
Now I am confused btw the two types. I have listed my top needs below. Can you please help me decide.
- I have an infant and planning to use my new camera for photos and videos mainly inside with my little princess.- I am also planning to take photography class and get into next level of photography- I love traveling and I usually take my tripod and Sony dsc3 with me all the time.- my hand shakes a bit whenever I take photos and am looking for appropriate camera which will nullify it.
Thanks a lot for your help.
I have a nikon D5000 and a canon 1D Mk III.looking at your needs, i would personally recommend you the nikon,because a mirrorless camera, while good, isn't ideal for taking photos of kids that moves unpredictably all the time. You're going to miss the precious shots just trying to focus a mirrorless, and while some mirorrless lenses are stabilized, they're not as efficient as DSLRs stabilized lens when it comes to eliminating hand shakes.And when planning to go to the next level of photography, certainly a DSLR is a wise choice. I see that you like travelling, but since you already have a sony dsc3, I wouldn't worry. Besides, nikon D5100 is a small camera already.My take would be the nikon, and buy the 35mm f/1.8 lens. It's cheap, bright, small, and since it's a prime lens, it will train you to be a better photographer.hope it helps.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review