I don't reply to private messages.
jaykumarr: Dpreview, There should be a measure at 500mm. After 400mm jumping 200 mm to 600 does not cut it.
My opinion is, for the price this lens is very good. But 600mm is mere feel good, since at 600mm it just provides 10%-15% more resolution than a 400mm prime. (even comparing with this lens itself, it will bring about 20-25% more detail only zooming from 400 -> 600)
The canon 200-400mm resolves 15% more throughout the range, but too pricey.
@jaykumarr: Many flaws in your analysis. Firstly, no, you won't get the same resolution from cropping 400mm image, a difference is rather significant. Secondly, by cropping you are loosing more than a stop in light and DOF. Thirdly, if you compare 400/5.6 cropped to an equivalent 600/8, the crop is nowhere near in resolution.
RichRMA: Why do they optimize these lenses for use in the lower focal lengths? Does anyone really go around shooting at 150-200mm with such a lens? It would be far better to just make a 400-600mm f/5.6 and avoid the medium telephoto region completely.
Because the longer the FL, the more difficult to keep image circle from expanding and the resolution from degrading.
forpetessake: "12-45mm f/3.5-6.3" -- really? Making such a dim lens with such a small sensor makes no sense. It's f/12.6 FF equivalent! Even the old film days P&S Olympus soap boxes were brighter. This Chinese company is nuttier than a fruitcake.
OMG, the forum is filled with fruitcakes :)Good for Kodak, they can make money of the ignoramuses." There's a sucker born every minute " -- David Hannum
"12-45mm f/3.5-6.3" -- really? Making such a dim lens with such a small sensor makes no sense. It's f/12.6 FF equivalent! Even the old film days P&S Olympus soap boxes were brighter. This Chinese company is nuttier than a fruitcake.
forpetessake: None of those cameras are particularly useful beyond ISO 6400, and until that point A7s is behind everybody else. Going at higher ISO it looks like A7s is cooking its raw, but it's of little use for anybody but videographers.
@noirdesir: you know that the camera is cooking its raw when you see the DR curve crossing the one for the ideal (noiseless) sensor. Why it doesn't work that well in PP? -- It's a good question. But it's not the first case: take Fuji cooked raws and try to get the same from the same sensor in NEX5/6 in PP, and you'll face the same problem.
None of those cameras are particularly useful beyond ISO 6400, and until that point A7s is behind everybody else. Going at higher ISO it looks like A7s is cooking its raw, but it's of little use for anybody but videographers.
Will they finally stop patenting trivialities? Every large company tries to create a mine field of stupid patents hoping to kill everybody who can pose a danger to their domination.
KSV: It was, it is and it will be - lower pixel count = better ISO and DR. No ifs, no buts. Even marginal advantage over Nikon D4/Df (12MP vs 16MP) give Sony the edge. No downsampling mantra can beat low pixel count. Kudos to Sony that found guts to do 12MP sensor in modern day megapixel madness.
"It was, it is and it will be - lower pixel count = better ISO and DR"
And where is that coming from? We had a lot of low pixel count cameras in the past, they all much worse than high count today. Even A7R is better in those regards than A7. In reality, pixel count has no relation to noise or DR -- the active area has.
pew pew: my dream camera :O
I suggest you keep dreaming :-)
tkbslc: Obviously 409600 looks like junk, but up to 51200 and even 102400 look pretty usable. Probably 2 stops better than any other FF competitor.
I don't see anything above 12800 to be acceptable with any of those cameras. And at 12800 there is little difference in noise, lots of difference in resolution. This camera makes sense for video, but for stills it's not really competitive.
As usual, the hype didn't match the reality. There will be lots of preorder cancellations, and lots of returns later. This camera should have been priced close to A7 unless Sony intends it to be a little niche for videographers.
Many people complain this zoom is too dim, and traditionally Tamron superzooms have poor image quality, etc. You are forgetting that Tamron is a business, and as such is measured by profits, they must make the decisions based on those considerations. The stuff that sells and brings profits usually not the best quality. Never confuse saleability with quality.
Prognathous: It's a trap!
Quote from Adobe's membership contract:
"The price of your one-year commitment (as reflected in the monthly installment amounts) may change for your next annual renewal, and we’ll provide you notice of a change by email"
In short, nothing but a teaser price. Get ready to pay through the nose as soon as you've created enough project files and can't properly open them by anything else. Good luck being Adobe's hostage.
Every publisher of the subscription based software reserves the right to modify price or discontinue offering. That's just a common sense. You get a 1 year license and an option to renew it at whatever the new contract would dictate. If you prefer perpetual licenses then subscription is not for you. But even with perpetual licenses they don't really work much longer than the operating system they were released on.
Canon sends mixed messages. On one hand a primitive cheap EOS-M body with no even hints for anything serious to come, outdated sensors, etc. -- all indications EOS-M is dead. On the other hand a new overpriced lens for those two people who bought into the system. What is it, Canon? Where art thou goest?
Before harping about slow f/5.6 you people need to check your faster zooms if they are any good wide open. I recently got Sony 18-105/4 and it turned out a complete piece of something wide open. Never mind it couldn't match Fuji quality at f/4, it took going to f/8 to get something similar Fuji 55-200mm was already demonstrating wide open. If this new Fuji zoom is designed and built to the same standards I'd take a slow f/5.6 on any day vs anything faster and bigger that sucks anyway.
Jorginho: For Fuji users probably good news. A nice addition to already very nice lens setup. Fuji is not letting their users down!
To me personally it also demonstrates why i do not want a APS-c sensor for a mirrorless cam. Because it is a large and heavy lens. Just compare it to the panasonic 14-140. To me, for such bodies, such a lens makes more sense.
Apples vs Oranges all over again. Even putting aside more advanced and complex optical design, weather sealing, advanced image stabilization, Panasonic 14-140/3.5-5.6 is almost a stop behind at equivalent FLs? You can't fool the laws of physics, all the light collected by the lens aperture is transferred to the sensor and to the final image. Once you make lenses equivalent you find out that they have practically the same size and weight no matter what the sensor size is.
forpetessake: Fuji is moving swiftly to become the most respected lens manufacturer in the world: a combination of high quality, affordable price, and compact designs is hard to beat.
@bluevellet - This lens is actually far from unspectacular. If Fuji made it as good as optically as their previous lenses, it's a pretty darn good lens. It's going to be just 1/2 stop slower than their 18-55 kit, but 2.5 times longer, all that in a sealed package, rather small size and weight, priced under $1G. Find anything better or even comparable in the market today.
Fuji is moving swiftly to become the most respected lens manufacturer in the world: a combination of high quality, affordable price, and compact designs is hard to beat.
mosc: I thought it would be f2.8-f4, like the sped up 55-200 they offer. This is just a double price pentax lens. I'm sure it will be a little sharper throughout than the pentax version (which is a much older lens to be fair), I just think Fuji at it's best is pushing APS-C past the capabilities of it's competitors offering a nice niche between the APS and FF products of other lines.
With no FF system to worry about, Fuji's focus on APS-C should mean they can beat the standard offerings. Fuji's a little more expensive but that makes sense if they're delivering brighter apertures on the same size sensor.
@mosc; "f2.8-f4, like the sped up 55-200"
nobody offers such a lens, where did you get it? If Fuji made the 18-135 a stop brighter it would have been 2-3 times heavier and correspondingly more expensive. Not many people would trade it for a stop. Also comparing it to a mediocre Pentax lens is ludicrous.
Jogger: They should just use the Sony A7r as the standard platform for all FF lens tests.
Forget the technical hurdles, assume they do the testing on A7r. And how is that supposed to correlate with the result on Nikon bodies? Or you think that it's Sony users who are buying Nikon G lenses.