I'm surprised to see they made curved big sensors. I'd think that especially cellphone cameras would benefit from simpler lens design and higher sensitbility. And cellphones use fixed lens-sensor units anyway. For me it would be the logical way to beginn small to use the experiences you make in the next step, which would be bigger sensores. Sony is doing the second step first, from my point of view.
Very interesting article. I'd like to see what a modern lens could do on that plates. The resolution of wet collodium should be stellar.
I have no concerns at all. Adobes step makes a lot of sense to me. It seems people think, Adobe wants to erase all the pictures worked on with Photoshop, if you stop paying.Instead of paying a big chunk of money buying the program I pay a monthly fee that don't weigh me down. On the other hand Adobe gets some money all the time, what gives them the cash they need to keep things going. The only one who suffers is the bank, because Adobe won't need to keep a big deposit to pay their staff in times between releases.
I'm quiet happy with MicroFourThirds, but if price doesn't matter I'd like to see a Mamiya7 Digital - mirrorless with a real BIG sensor and a real good EVF and fully compatible with the old Mamiya7 lenses and not bigger or heavier than the original Mamiya7. - Autofocus for me really don't matter. I'm using legacy lenses on my MFT all the time. I found out that even to catch running children with my Canon 85mm F1.2 (wide open) is no problem, if the EVF is good.
Maybe Schneider is a little late. The Zuiko 12mm F2.0 and the SLR Magic Hyperprime 12mm f/1.6 are already on the market and they are not bad at all. 14mm is not so big a difference to 12mm and I don't expect the Schneider lens to be cheap.
There is something I don't understand: Why the pancake has only F2.8? It seems development is going backwards. 20 years ago I used a Zuiko 40mm F2.0 pancake. For the last 3 years I used a Hexanon 40mm F1.8, that I adapted on my Olympus 4/3 camera. I changed it for the Zuiko 40mm F1,4 from the PenF series for my m4/3 Panasonic. All this lenses were made 20-30 years ago, and they are small and very good. Where's the progress, I'm asking.
I still don't understand, why this lens has to be that big. The Canon FD 85mm f1,8 was considerably smaller and had a 52mm filter thread. - and it was (is!) a very fine lens. Probably I'll try to buy one to use it with an FD adapter. Autofocus isn't really important for me. I'm already using the Canon FD 85mm f1,2 L on my 4/3 camera, but sometimes I'd like to have something a little smaller/lighter in my bag.
I don't understand why I'll have to pay US$ 5.700 for a Zeiss 135mm F2.1 when I could buy a Zeiss Sonnar T 135mm F1.8 for US$ 1.800. What makes the Cine Lens so much more expensiv? Can anybody tell me?
Jay Kim: Sigma, please release this lens, your other OS lenses (e.g 50-500mm OS) and some of your other fast primes (e.g. 30 1.4, 50 1.4) and wide lenses (e.g. 8-16, 10-20 3.5) for m4/3!! You would sell so many more than now if you did IMO.
It seems, that this Sigma lens is as big as the 35-100m F2.0 of Olympus. For mFT it should be no problem to build a 50-150mm F2,8 at least half that size. I'm waitin for someone to do it. Until than I will use the old Tamron SP 35-105 F2.8 which is a quiet reasonble lens and much smaller.
Mtsuoka: Dunno why buy I got quite uncomfortable when I saw comments like:
"video qualities of the 5D3 alone worth $3500""clean ISO 12800 video alone worth $3500"
I mainly do still, and I got a feeling that the $3500 is mostly for video features..and I really wanted to like to 5D3
do you have the same feeling?
Actually you don't pay extra money, because any camera offering "LifeView" has all what is needed to record video. The rest is basically more a software- than a hardeware problem. So, if you already have everyting needed for video recording, it would be a great waste of options, not to implant video.
What became of the new "Sharpening Tool" Adobe was working on? I was hoping it would be integrated in PS CS6.
alfpang: Finally the iPad I've been waiting for (Retina or bust!).
If nothing else, it's going to up the game across the whole industry in terms of what "standard" display resolutions can/should be. That can't be bad even for users of competing devices.
4k display? Do you always use a magnifying glass when working on your iPad?????? Without it you wont be able to see a difference!
rgnewell: I own a Panasonic LX3 and was amazed when Sony introduced the NEX with an APS size imager in a body about the same size as my LX3. I had hoped that Sony would have a lens about the same physical size as the 24-60 mm f2 on my LX3, but evidently not. Maybe Sony will surprise me. Until then, I sit on the sidelines.
Sorry to disillusio you! A 24-60mm F2.0 equivalent lens for a APS size sensor would weight more than 1.000g, cost more than 2.000$ and would be 3 times the size of your camera. To have an idea: Llook at the 14-35mm F2.0 (equivalen 28-70mm) of Olympus. Its only for the 4/3 sensor that is smaller than APS. There are physical laws you can't ignore. Sorry again.
Matt1645f4: Really getting very bored of 1/2.3 sensors, would someone please listen and take a leaf out of Canons book and start making large sensor compacts like the GX1, stick a 4/3 with a 28-112mm f2.8 (wide) fixed lens and you would have a winner, yes it would take some sales from the Pen range but the real enthusiasts are more likely to buy such a came as a back up than a Pen, i for one would !!!!
There exist something called natural laws. As long as they are in place, it will be impossible to build a (equivalent) 600mm lens that fits in the palm of your hand. You need to consider that a lens like that for a FullFrame sensor would wight about 25 kg and occupie the most of the backseat of your car. Not to mention the price that would easily buy you a Hummer car. My only real point of criticism: Why cram 16MP on this small sensor. Make ir 6MP and it still would be enough to make some giant prints. 4 years ago most professiomal cameras had a 6MP output and nobody complained with the 30x45cm prints I made of their weddings.
For the price I can buy 3 Lumix GX1 with 20mm F1.7 lenses. I doubt that the difference in IQ is worth that much.
They certainly will sell it in a toy store. For children 0-3 years. At least that's what the design tells me. From the technical side it not seems so bad, only there is no EVF! Someone can tell me why? The body is more than BIG enough and the price is far from cheap.
Anepo: She DOES have a point in someway's just hear me out.
Some people are poor and 3000$ is a no way in hell for them.
Here is what Photographers SHOULD consider:
Some photographers I Know of manage to do 3 weddings in the same day.
Photographers REALLY need to consider:
Are they low, middle or high income family?Is it going to be 1000 people or 100?Do I have to travel 10 miles or 1000 miles?
And calculate based on that not do a "standard" price that can't be changed at all.
As someone who has NEVER made 2000$ in a month in his lifetime and in fact was making 1500$(before 37% taxes) before he lost his job I must say I understand her pain.
Example in my country photographers rent a large area, bring they're own equipment and computers & offer free x-mas photography for the less fortunate.
& we are talking about professional photographers.So honestly I think photographers who do weddings could show a little flexibility every now & then.
*gets ready for hate msg's*
I live in Brazil and understand your point of view. But the point is, that you do not need to taunt photographers that offer their sevice for 3,000$ or more, but this is exactly what this bride did. I'm one of those that offer the "Small Package" - Only register the ceremony and take some pictures in front of the church and hand them the "raw-material" on a DVD for the money they can pay. But there is no way to do a 3,000$ service for 200$. And this is what the brides letter proposes.
Bernd M: Nikki Wagner forgot to mention, that the statistic average liftime or a professional camera is 18 month!!!! People (even photographers) often take for granted, that a 2,500$ camera will live forever. This way they are cheating themseves. In Nikki's case she should count 160$ in for her two Canon 5DII, for every wedding, making it 3,200$ a year.
I was not talking of the "physical" lifetime of the camera but the "statistical" lifetime, that includes loss, damage, theft or simply the fact that the camera becomes "outdated" because of the fast technical development in this market.
Nikki Wagner forgot to mention, that the statistic average liftime or a professional camera is 18 month!!!! People (even photographers) often take for granted, that a 2,500$ camera will live forever. This way they are cheating themseves. In Nikki's case she should count 160$ in for her two Canon 5DII, for every wedding, making it 3,200$ a year.
The fact that Olympus anounced a weather sealed 12-50mm m4/3 lens tells me that Olympus is working on a MFT Pro camera. Maybe they will borrow from the famous OM design. Probably using the aproved Panasonic 16MP sensor and a good EVF in a sturdy, weathersealed body. I would like that.