photominion: Can someone tell me how it is that people are willing to spend 3'000-4'000 $ for a camera body that is technically obsolete after 2 years and are NOT ever going to be willing to spend 4 grand on a lens that will last them 10 to 20 years without it being qualitatively surpassed by any other in that time span?
Might be the same thing with ppl spending 4 grand on a flat screen Tv and then buying a 200$ "home theater surround system" even though audio components will last 20 years whereas the Tv value drops 50% per year..
One of the reasons could be that owners have bought into dedicated flash systems that can easely cost around 10-15K and there are many other reasons such as feeling physically comfortable with a camera body. On a different but related issue i would like to mention Mark who lives in Chicago and I follow him on Flickr. He is what I would call a professional amateur who happens to be financially sound and he buys himself the best and the latest when it gets announced.He also has both Oti lenses and I'm jealous. My point here is that Mark incidentally also has a tremendous artistic talent and I am so happy for him to own these wonderful lenses.I look at his images and I enjoy...that's it .
PG Thomas: Nice to see - but I would have preferred a F2.8, like the 14mm, and possibly half the size (and price).
I struggle to see the advantage of sub F2 lenses at this focal length on, what should be a small light camera system. There's not a great deal of differential focus between F1.4 and F2 or F2.8 below 20mm, provided the lens is sharp wide open - which the Fujinons I have, all are.
Still, If I had the cash, I'd be considering it...
Yes…but given the same available light it lets in half the amount of light .
nerd2: I don't think anyone will enter fuji system just for this lens, but I think this lens is at least somewhat comparable to FF f4 alternatives, being APS-C:
D610 + 70-200 f4 VR : $1900+$1400 = $33006D + 70-200 f4L IS: $1900 + $1300 = $3200X-T1 + 50-140 f2.8 OIS : $1300+$1600 = $2900
Disagree…more often consumers with little knowledge end up buying “Mercedes” (In spite of the rep showing them entry level material)…just because they can!? Do you realize how much disposible income baby boomers have on the average?
panpen: Most posts here remind me of my neighbor and his Hyundai.
He always says his 3L engine Hyundai can do as good as my 3L BMW because they are about the same size. He questioned me a few times about the price I paid for my BMW. Every time I tell him the price (close to $45k) he tells me his Hyundai cost him half of that. The thing is, he doesn't know, I know he can't afford a BMW. I always let him believe our cars are 'almost the same'. Ciao
How about and km could pixel peep some more , have a bottle of scotch each and then make woopy to each other?
nerd2: So nothing really new except for the gimmickry 40MP shot mode?
40MP shot mode sounds awesome.... until you realize that you need lens sharp enough to outresolve 160MP FF sensor. I highly doubt any lens out there can do that at all, and without sharp enough lens it's just a lot of wasted pixels.
Does the sensor shift alleviate additional image alignment in post ?
adhall: Would have been nice to also make it equivalent to the Canon/Nikon 24-70s i.e. make it ~f/2.0...
F2.0 ?adhall how much would that lens be? $2400?
Naveed Akhtar: Now three options as general purpose lens on Fuji X-mount system.
This is double the weight and price of 18-55mm without OIS and with WR.
Which one you gonna chose
A) 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R OIS+ surprisingly sharp across the range+ well controlled CA (negligible and only in extreme corners)+ vig (1/4 stop in extreme corners; negligible) + distortion (.3 to -.1)%+ small size (70.4mm x 65mm) and weight (330g)+ well built (plastic with metal barell and mount)+ filter size (58mm)+ OIS (4 stops)+ Fast quite AF+ great bokeh with 7 rounded blades+ EBC coating to reduce flare and ghosting+ reasonably priced, specially in a kit option+ wide aperture range f/2.8 - 4- not macro (0.08 to 0.15)x magnification- no weather sealing
I second ryan2007 because I have the 18-135 and am tired of switching to my 56 or even 16 in low light .Was thinking of selling the 18-135 but hope it distinguishes itself from the 16-55 2.8 and the 50-140 2.8 (both of which I am going to purchase).Right…I know…which one are you going to leave at home when you travel tscholent?
You forgot to mention that none of the cell phones will EVER support a wireless flash system because the frequencies don't allow it…so there goes another botched dinner table shot with a cellular vs.a perfect , all in focus with balance exposure image taken with a dslr (and oh …I forgot…candle light )
groucher: Superb images with er, great foregrounds.
I like people that march to a different tune !
Vergilius: You know, after reading some of the sour comments on this thread, I'm glad that I'm an amateur with little technical knowledge. That way I'm able to just enjoy these photographs just because I think that they are gorgeous. Thanks for sharing!
Your comment appropriately should close this particular forum topic…and remember "You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus" (A.Einstein).
Cane: You have to be brave to post an article to this group of hyenas. It's like serving cold soup at an senior center.
Everyone must be furious at the price they paid to subscribe to this site and then not learn anything because you can't teach experts new tricks.
I just woke up my wife…I was laughing so hard (and you are so right).
fyngyrz: Mm. Looking at the photos, I don't think you can really say either of them lack a foreground element.
But you can certainly make a fine image without one.
Most photographic rules of composition are suitable only for producing cookie-cutter images.
Great images may not be matters of composition at all.
The key questions for a viewer, it seems to me, are:
1 Did the photographer achieve what they intended to? If so, then their achievement should be recognized as a demonstration of at least one element of skill.
2 Does the image dependably instill/evoke in the viewer, whatever the photographer intended to instill/evoke, without prompting? If so, then check off another element of skill.
3 Is the image somehow subject matter unique? And if so, is this a result of the photographer's work, or simply of them being somewhere at the right time? If it is, and the former applies, then check off another element of skill.
Anal-retentive obeisance to canned rules is the mark of the beginner.
The Moment you typed in your "three key questions for a viewer" you put yourself inside the "cookie cutter world"…
I can see where the previous years winners had real quality and deservedly landed in first place but the judges this year must have frequented the local watering hole too many times before casting there vote in a stupor...lol !
forpetessake: Fuji is offering lessons in voyeurism, aka "street photography".
ahem ...Youssef Karsh?
harveysteeves: I actually like #1 but agree, what does it have to do with weather?
Perhaps the folks at the Weather Channel ought to take a reading of DP Review before deciding what constitutes a "Weather shot" (out there in this amazing world of ours...lol).
Wohlf: You nearly ignored Olympus XZ.
Like a lot of families, our use is often travel, sports and family dinner gatherings. The other cameras are slower and usually need flash indoors; to me this pollutes the results with unnatural lighting. With the XZ, I set the flash indoors to 1/4 or 1/16...perfect results. I have a D90 with a 35mm 1.8 lens and I barely use it! The speed of the XZ lens means that one rarely needs over 400 ISO. With the others you can't use the zoom at all and maintain low light capability and they can't easily control flash intensity. Flare just hasn't been a problem.
For sports I set the aperture to 2.5 and have full zoom. At equivalent zoom, the other cameras are at F5.0 or more and need high ISO, that doesn't work well for sports. A DSLR lens with equivalent speed/zoom would be $1000.
Small for travel and fast lens for sports that stays fast at full zoom. Most importantly you get natural lighting results at family gatherings. I think the XZ is the best choice.
I think You did your home work before you bought...smart man!
snake_b: I wish DPR did a re-shoot with the EX1, considering that the lens looked decentered in the original review and many complained about that fact. It's not a perfect camera and essentially, Samsung has abandoned it and not fixed weird firmware holes, but it is a good performer.
I've tried most all in the class and in terms of IQ, it absolutely holds its own. The shooting experience is subjective and some of the firmware holes take away from that (no RAW bracketing, remote use during bracketing not allowed, sometimes slow operation, switching to backlit while in RAW results in lockups, so jpeg must be manually selected, and a host of others).
The SRW files are huge (21megs per shot). The hardware is slow. However, the lens is fantastic and so is the swiveling screen.
what you wrote kind of confirms the fact that mathematically one can crunch 21 megs into a sensor that's a couple of times smaller then say a full frame sensor but should one expect the $900 compact camera's chip to process that amount of info in the same manner and time?
Tord S Eriksson: To me, the winner is the XZ-1, with the VF-2 viewfinder. Amazing camera, and even better if you buy the UW housing, that take 67mm Canon 500D close-up lenses. Versatile and easy to use, decent pictures in even rather low light, due to f1.9 and ISO 3200. Steve Huff likes it, and that says a lot in my book!
forget about Steve Huff...what's important is what you do best with...even if it is a WWII Brownie!
Damage Inc: The Canon G12 seems the one to go with.I've been wanting one next to my SLR, so I could sometimes carry one in my pocket for events like concerts and such.So that I don't have to walk around with a big camera on my neck or on my hip and it doesn't feel so cumbersome.
But it's too bad the price is so ridiculous... I'm not spending that on a secondary compact camera...Also, what's up with the only 5x zoom?? While other compact Canon-cameras with the same or similar lenses such as the SX100 have 10x zoom.These are 2 major points that keep me from buying it...
some of the canon G models (such as my G7)does not have RAW mode where as my venerable "Brick" , the G2 (cost me $1100 Canadian way back when...)but renders excellent RAW material to work on (perhaps because it was a simpler Raw engine design ?).My general opinon on taking RAW shots with any compact is if you don't have time for Harvest or Post Production then shoot JPEG or get a entry level SLR with as big a sensor as possible (thats a tall order I admit).Also .I encounter compact enthusiasts on a weekly base that,when asked, say they are disappointed with the zoom quality and IQ thereof.All Digi zoom should be outlawed ...instead users shoud be given a cd to show them how to adjust the settings for particular light conditions (of course one could also say...read the manual first).I think 90% of compact users would be better off with a fast prime wide angle built in and that is why complete beginners more often come up with "keepers".
If I ever get a shot like this I'll be drinking champagne for a week...CONGRATULATIONS! And Carmel ....GET A LIFE!