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.
Camp Freddy: I think it is useable and better than most FT/ mFT so far at higher ISOs. Await raw results. But basically if you are doing shots for fine art 600dpi A3 publications you would have an FF or a H'blad.
Advice to pixel peepers? Use a tripod, it's what the pros do instead of ISO 100 000.
There is actually no camera to match a E-M5 with the 25/0.95 in low light. The only competition would be the Leica M9 with a Noctilux 50/0.95, but this package has 2x the seize, 3x the weight, 7x the price and no image stabilization.
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!
justmeMN: This camera could be a collector's item - the last new camera model that Olympus makes before their camera division is spun off to anther company.
(The company's crown jewel is their endoscope division, where they have a seventy percent market share.)
As far as I know Fujifilm is thinking of join forces with Olympus. Could be a good partnership. I like the sensor technik of Fuji.
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.
rusticus: i buy the FUJI X1 Pro ;)
You can buy 2 OM-Ds for the same price or a OM-D and a Zuiko 12mm F2.0 and a Lumix G 20mm F1,7 what would make a nice outfit for me. Think of it.
ogl: M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 - funny...Why so slow at the long end?f6.3 is already diffraction limit for 16 MP crop 2x sensor.I don't catch the logic - it's only weather sealed lens for m4/3 - right?But so slow.
DOF equivalent at 35 mm - 100/F13...:)
I'm 100% with you. Why this terrible 12-50mm, that is BIG, ugly and slow. They already have a wonderful 12-60mm F2,8-4 for 4/3. If this 12-50mm at least would be small, but it is everything but small. What a pity!!!!!
pabloman: It should've been FULLFRAME.
It just doesn't make sense to put a 3/4 year old crappy PANY sensor into a new camera.
Again the same crappy Pany sensors route. Again watch the NEX line from behind.
You forgot that Olympus don't have any FF autfocus lenses worth mentioning, but they have a considerable line of first class 4/3 and m4/3 lenses. Olympus decided to put their brains in building SMALL cameras. 4/3 with a good lens offers better IQ than 24x36 film ever had. If it would be only about IQ all people would have used Hasselblad or Rollei, but most people prefered 35mm film. Why you did'nt ask Leica why they made no 6x6 camera in the old days? I'm very happy, that Olympus makes fine small cameras. But I understand the desire for maximum quality and who knows, maybe Pentax creates a mirrorless 645D. That would make FF cameras look pale!
Dan Tong: This new Nikon sounds fantastic to me (and I have a large investment in Canon lenses). It seems to me that Nikon has often been much more creative and ahead of the technology race than Canon (for example USB3, focusing technology, DX mode, uncompressed HDMI output etc). The video capabilities are excellent too.
In any case I'm happy for Nikon owners who have invested in Nikon lenses. I hope that Canon rises to the challenge. Competition is great for us customers. Congrats to Nikon!
It seems few people are aware that Canon AND Nikon are "owned" by the Mitsubishi Bank. That tells me that there is no real competition between Nikon and Canon, but a big intrest in making people change from Nikon to Canon and from Canon to Nikon from time to time.