The tilt actually makes it worth looking at! The old model didn't have it, making its usefulness limited.
Hopefully Ricoh will deliver more products with high value. Most of their new lenses are expensive, yet some don't deliver on image quality. Historical Pentax tended to deliver AND be less expensive. At least Ricoh's cameras and accessories may continue this tradition of good value. Now here's hoping the recently announced lenses deliver images worthy of their price tags!
DStudio: I hope it's as good as it sounds like.
But I'll reserve judgement until it's out. Canon's had many weak UWA entries, IMO - especially if you don't count the specialty TS-E 17mm lens. This applies to both zooms and primes wider than 24mm on FF (or the equivalent on APS-C).
The 17mm TS-E is nothing new - it's just Canon's (mostly successful) attempt to bring an old camera design to (D)SLRs. And 12mm vs. 11mm? Even at the wide end, 1mm is hardly revolutionary. Now if they can do it with great image quality, THIS will mean something. THIS is what will elevate it above Sigma's offering - not 1mm!
So this brings me back to what I first said - it'd better produce great results! Otherwise it was simply a nice idea.
Canon's been complacent in recent years. They still produce many great pieces of photo gear. But it's no help when people stroke their ego by praising mediocrity, when what they actually need is a kick in the tail.
Expensive new lens designs these days don't necessarily produce beautiful images. Not that all premiums lenses ever achieved this ideal - but historically, most at least tried.
Today, good numbers in "objective" measurements are so important (at least many cynical marketeers believe so) that beauty is left out of the picture.
Recently Zeiss has managed to walk a very fine line between great measurements and beautiful images - attempting to sacrifice neither while achieving both. I'm not sure they've quite done it, but they're close.
The 16-35/4 L is a measurement-oriented design. It doesn't pick up the beauty of the light like better lenses do. I've seen the images from it. I don't want them coming out of my camera.
The 16-35/4 L IS (I presume that's what "16-24" meant) is an improvement, but still fairly average. Canon's certainly going to have to do better than it on this lens. It's supposedly "good," but hasn't shown me anything that would make me want one. It's more of a concession - if you have a Canon body, it may be your best choice. Which is a sad statement on the state of Canon UWA lenses, frankly.
Can you please explain to me which of these lenses impresses you so much? Is it the entry level EF-S, or the available-some-places EF-M which fits a body Canon sort-of sells?
I hope it's as good as it sounds like.
Sdaniella: FF: fov - Rectilinear ultra wideangle (not WA 'fisheye')11-24mm F4L USM
APS-H: 1.3x (Canon)14.3-31.2mm eq.fov
APS-C: 1.5x (Others)16.5-36mm eq.fov
APS-C: 1.6x (Canon)17.6-38.4mm eq.fov
Metabones Speedbooster: EF-to-SonyE (1.5x 0.71x)11.7-25.6mm F4.3 eq.fov
easily covers my favorite 24mm eq.fov across many system sizes:)
Heie2, I think Sdaniella was referring to what FOV (in 35mm terms) this lens will give when mounted to various cameras, not which focal lengths a lens would need on other cameras to equal this one.
The point was that - since Sdaniella likes 24mm on FF so much - this lens would do the job on almost any camera.
But I don't think this is the appropriate lens if that's your objective. It's too big, and it's not very cost effective. It will be difficult enough to justify its purchase for APS-C, let alone 4/3. It's really meant for FF cameras.
Where are the sample images from this lens?
Because everyone on this forum seems to already know how great it is, and how it compares to the competition.
Aaron801: I can't claim to understand the specifics of copyright law. Still, it seems to me that one image influenced another and if you want to use that idea of "influence" as a yardstick for copyright violation then there's going to be a whole lot more of it. It isn't a direct copy of the image or even a tracing of said image. They're both in slightly different poses anyway (with the original having a bent leg). It's not only a different original shot but the silhouette/logo treatment that's done with it is an entirely different presentation than a straight up photo. If we were to apply this standard to music then rather than having grounds to sue over unauthorized sampling or directly copying a melody, the Beatles could sue thousands of musicians who they've obviously influenced.
Nike took the photographer's original image, which was very orchestrated and staged into a position MJ had to practice for 1/2 an hour even to learn, and took the photographer and his assistants much longer than that to devise, setup, and re-hearse with a stand-in before MJ even showed up. This was legally established by the courts in 1985, when they said the derivative - a connived, created pose which Nike or MJ never would have stumbled upon on their own - had to be licensed as if it were the original. Photographs don't have to be registered, so the fact that he registered it in 2014 is irrelevant, and there's absolutely no doubt about its origin, ownership, or the original court ruling. Nike decided to overstep the 2 year license terms as if it was their own image, and deliberately didn't re-license it. I don't know why the photographer waited so long, but they own him big money.
No love for Vista and Lion? What a travesty! ;)
The camera looks fine. Perhaps still not getting as much out of their own sensors as Nikon and Pentax do, but good enough. Especially considering almost any lens can be mounted with image stabilization.
It's the lenses I'm not convinced about. I'm not sure these FE-mount lenses match up to their excellent A-mount counterparts - the 16-35 and 70-200/2.8 lenses. I realize these lenses cost a little less, but they're still expensive enough. And at f/4, they'd better cost less! But they should still come close in image quality, and I'm afraid they don't. This is unacceptable in my view, considering how great many of Sony's other lenses are.
It seems like they release an updated body about every six weeks. Perhaps it's time to let us know how serious they are about the FE mount by concentrating on producing lenses people will still want in 2020.
JoePhoto: I think these are terrible images ... (not the cameras fault) !!!
Were they shot by a 2-year old ???
The WIRE in the sunset shot ??? give me a break
Not only are these adequate, but what makes you so sure they share their best shots in the samples gallery? I wouldn't.
canonpro: Seems Phase One is still giving 645z users the middle finger due to the pricing from Pentax undercutting them. Thank god for lightroom :)
It's just because it's a direct competitor. It has nothing to do with the price. They don't support Hasselblad either.
AllOtherNamesTaken: Pretty crazy that the 5DM3 is still priced anywhere near $3,000. You'd have to be out of your mind to pay that in this environment unless you absolutely needed one for a job or something.
Yeah, or if you're crazy enough to want to use the Canon lenses you already own! /S
DStudio: It's frustrating to read most of the comments here, trying to compare this ALPA technical camera to others which are nothing like it.
Perhaps it's largely Phase One's fault, for not making this distinction in their press release. Perhaps they're assuming the target audience will already understand this, but in fact many of them don't. In fact, even in their certification training they fail to explain it very well. This is too bad, because the people who buy one understand its virtues. They aren't buying one as a "status symbol."
I think the Pentax lenses are pretty good quality.
Most of the ALPA cameras natively have this Tilt Shift capability, although this one doesn't. This is the "Travel" model. So I guess that's part of the confusion.
This will still allow you to use your excellent wide angle lenses, still with good edge performance, but lacking the ability to move the focal plate around (without an adapter).
zakaria: Great work dpr. The XT 1 is a beautiful camera but still expensive. I wonder how the mirror less cameras are expensive and near the price of some wonderful full frame cameras. Still wondering why manufacturers of mirror less cameras insist on the small size of the body whereas the lenses are huge.
zakaria, get a grip! (really)
It's frustrating to read most of the comments here, trying to compare this ALPA technical camera to others which are nothing like it.
ogl: 645z is 8500 USD.
This is a technical camera - not a general purpose camera (the 645z being probably the most "general purpose" of all the digital MF cameras).
The ALPA has specific purposes:
iAPX: I still don't understand how someone could spend so much into a camera and then use a non-calibrated iPhone display on it. Non-sense!
The Calibration on the iPhone 6 isn't that far off anyway - it's the best smartphone display available:
fmian: The shot in the video with the row of planes appears to apply an effect that looks like the plane of focus has tilted. How is this done?Apologies if it is mentioned in the audio for the video. I don't have speakers on the computer I am using at the moment.
Surprisingly, there will be other jobs if that time comes - including ones that are equally interesting. Might be a good time to move on anyway.
So, a little risk and worry vs. the guarantee of a mundane existence? I suppose most of us do this in some area of our lives, but it's seldom the better choice.
Some people would rather have an interesting, stimulating job than to spend their time making sure they don't lose their mediocre one. Perhaps it's to you we should say "poor fellow."