Hugo808: I got as far as number 7 before deciding that if I'd taken them they would have gone into the bin and never been seen by anyone!
That's what makes them rare - similar shots taken by others were binned long ago ...
Mateo Miller: For whatever reason the 18-135mm seems to out perform the 16-50mm on the K-3. At least in this small sampling of photos. Noticeably better color and contrast although that could be attributed to the lighting I suppose.
I have the DA*16-50 and I really like it for times when a zoom is needed. But the color and contrast is definitely different on the DA18-135 (and that may be its finest attribute) and the DA*16-50 will never quite match it, so it's possible you'd still prefer it. But the DA*16-50 in combination with the DA*50-135 gives you probably the best two lens set on the market (short of a Full Frame Canon or Nikon with the 24-70 and 70-200).
deep7: You two are expecting a lot of the lens! It's not that bad but not quite up to the sensor.
Right - the DA 18-135 is a good, but not great, lens. It's only a ~$400 lens on a $1300 camera!
Actually the old K28/3.5 MF lens, for a little over $100, would probably do much better.
Gesture: Welcome, welcome upgrade and features to K-5 and a great competitor to Nikon D7100. But what is it with companies and naming. The next camera will be the K-1 and, then, there is no where to go. Others have boxed themselves in with naming everything the X Z and/or 1.
There's still room in FF for a K-6, K-4, K-2, and K-0!
K-2 is my vote for a FF, since it harkens back to the K2, a classic premium film camera.
Good article. This is true for general use most of the time.
However, I fear this fact may cause the public to devalue professional photography even more. People tend to think they can do more than they actually can with their compact camera or smart phone. They can forget reason 5, thinking "I could've got that action shot of my athlete son/daughter. I could have taken that studio portrait. Why would I ever pay for it?" The reality is they lack both the equipment and the skill set. But the illusion is still there.
Imagic Digital: Poor guy...
I think he's actually making more money now ...
Great shot Shawn - you took THE classic muscle car and made it look more incredible than ever!
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Mirrorless, as it is done now, is a path that leads to nowhere. Cropped sensors will never equal full frame. The way to go is the one Sony pointed at with the RX1: full frame mirrorless. Price can be a problem, I know, and then there's the lens size issue, but mirrorless cameras like this one are uncapable of the kind of dynamic range a full frame sensor can offer. I use a mirrorless camera alongside a 35mm film one, so I'm not writing this out of bigotry or cynicism. These are my findings after comparing results.And no viewfinder is an issue, too - although there will always be the X-E1 for those who can't do without one.
A Pentax Q takes quality photos (especially with the Standard Prime lens). It just depends upon what your needs are.
Sometimes an APS-C DSLR is a good idea. Sometimes an 80MP Phase One back is more appropriate.
Sometimes a Phase One back is a horrible idea (in low light, for most sports, or when size or cost is a problem). But in the right conditions it's unbeatable. Again, each tool has its place.
I believe Fujifilm (like everybody else) is seriously considering using a FF sensor in a mirrorless camera, it's just not something they can release yet. They're the only manufacturer that doesn't already have a decent lens collection for their primary mount, so they need to concentrate on that for another year or so.
"Cropped sensors will never equal full frame." This is just the point - it doesn't need to be equal. It only needs to meet the needs of the job at hand.
Kokeen4231: I think the pentax k30/50 should be considered too. Its got pretty great features for its price. I'm sure its below $1000 too.
Just my thoughts.
The K-30 is newer than many of the cameras on this list, and its replacement isn't even available yet. Perhaps 2 months later it would have made the cut.
Besides, every other camera (except the 60D) deserves to be here, so which ones would you remove?
Brentliris: Love Capture One 7, how about supporting more Pentax Lenses?
That would be nice, but look how strong their Pentax camera support has been. They even bother to make new or updated profiles for models like the K-5 or Olympus XZ-1. They seem to prioritize the quality of the camera over its popularity when allocating support resources.
Adobe (which didn't even have very good camera profiles until recently) only supports the current generation DA lenses (plus the FA Ltds). Realistically, 50% or more of a quality Pentax kit may be older glass. In fact, Adobe only covers about 20% of my most-used lenses. If Phase One's going to put the work in they should concentrate on the better glass (which should be relatively easy because it's mostly primes). The best 15-20 lenses among the previous 5 generations are pretty well known - they could just support those.Anyone who cares enough about quality to use Capture One will likely own many of these lenses.
straylightrun: Too bad they didn't include IS. Still, this lens will be a low light machine for Sony/Pentax users. I'm guessing RRP will be at least $2000?
@Benarm - Thanks. Must have been added since dpr initially wrote the article.
However, this is typical - it doesn't mean that Pentax and/or Sony mounts aren't coming later. In fact, if you look at the page, there are two blank rows below Canon, Nikon, and Sigma.
Kodachrome200: at first i was intriuged but the more i think about about it the more i dont get it. its is going to perform essentially like a 28mm-50mm f2.8 full frame lens. witch is kind of an odd focal range. Also taking aps-c lens to this extreme to get similar performance to full frame zoom lenses makes little sense because it going to make the camera bigger heavier and more expensive. witch puts it in a category of full frame. yeah i know it wont be as expensive as a full frame setup but it may be pretty darn close to as big and heavy. so what is the point really. Also this may mirror the relative low light quality of a fullframe zoom and the dof but full frame still offer an inherent increase overall image quality.
My Minolta light meter must be really messed up - it never asks me what size sensor or film I'm using!
tornwald: I hope Sigma wil offer an affordable alternative to the upcomming Zeiss 55 f1.4 Distagon lens. I think they will be able to match it in quality and offer autofocus at the same time. More full frame ART primes please Sigma :)
I seriously doubt the Sigma could beat most Zeiss lenses in the "this image looks beautiful" test. Likewise in comparison to most Leica lenses, as another poster suggested.
Sigma is the opposite of Zeiss and Leica - calling it the 'Art' line doesn't make it produce art.
Krich13: Well, let me guess... A full-frame 25-50 f/2.8 lens with a built-in Metabones-style telecompressor (aka speed booster)?I know, the Metabones design only works without a mirror box. They seem to have modified this idea to accomodate a short mirror of an APS-C. These three rer elements do look suspiciously like a focusing group behind the main lens.
MTF looks great (again, just like the speed booster), and that again could be the effect of compression. BTW, at what spatial frequencies is it measured? For cropped sensor (x1.5) I would expect 15 and 45 cycles/mm. If 10/30 cycles/mm is used -- that's cheating.
Actually it's not revolutional - it's IF and the front element doesn't rotate! ;)
This is all speculative - neither pricing nor mounts have been anounced yet.
sunnycal: A 27-50mm f/1.8 zoom! Are you kidding! If price is right, I might get it for my D800 and shoot in DX mode.
f/1.8 is still 1 1/3 stops faster, so you can still shoot with that much less light on the same camera. Whether the noise and overall effect is considered better in the end is the result of numerous factors, but the fact is you can get proper exposure at maximum ISO with less light on the same camera.
Wilmark: Serious photographers hardly use crop bodies. Sigma announces lenses and take very long to deliver. 1.8 at that focal range is not really so critical - that range is of interest mainly to landscape photographers where smaller fstops are used typically. On the flip side SIgma seem to be taking advantage of an area that is completely neglected by canon and to a lesser extent by nikon. Maybe its in anticipation to the upcoming 7DII. Wonder how it would perform on a FF body - will it vignet?
It's good that you mentioned the 7D, because it's a perfect example of how serious photographers DO use crop bodies!
If this lens can truly deliver the performance it will be unbeatable in many situations where a zoom is needed.
This would be good, but Sigma has never matched the quality of the Sony Zeiss lenses I've used, and I doubt they would here either.
In any case, although I wasn't a Sigma fan, the 8-16 I recently got has really impressed me, so I'll give this new one respect unless it proves otherwise.
D1N0: In camera sharpening in jpeg mode works very well. When you select the k5 in the tool en put it on iso 100 (extra sharpeness) it just trashes everything (of course the k5 II(s) have this setting as well (it's in the natural colour mode settings).
All the K-5 variants are strongest at ISO 80, of course.
Timmbits: lAthough they are following a trend (no OLPF), they clearly do not possess the sensor to do that. The moiré is rather significant.
Actually it wasn't a trend until after Pentax did it - only Nikon (who deserves most of the credit) came before them, and Pentax was the first to completely remove the filter.