Scott Eaton: I'm comparing the studio samples of XT-1 -vs- the entry level Canon and Nikon offerings, and would like to know why everybody is raving about the image quality?
Entire swaths of color detail are missing in the XT-1, edges of detailed objects look like they are being over-processed with grain reduction techniques, and the image quality is mushy, non-distinct, and looks synthetic. While the XT-1 does a good job with noise reduction, it looks no different than Nikon / Canon sensors with luminance reduction cranked to some absurd levels in post.
DPR can rave about skin tones all they want. Pretty much all skin tones I'm looking at are identical because of the low color sensitivity of the sensor. What ever attraction this camera has is likely due to the name on the front, or some other intangible nostalgia.
Are you looking at the JPEG or RAW studio samples? Daylight or low light?
It's well established that Adobe handles Fuji sensors' RAW files much worse than their competitors (i.e. Capture One and others) do. And as important as JPEG files are in some shooting scenarios, I wouldn't use them to judge the absolute quality of one camera vs. another.
Can you please explain what you're seeing, and a specific location or two where you see it? Perhaps you have a very good point, but I'd like to know where it is.
Really? "It's usually in the last place you look for it?"
Besides the fact that it's my line, how can this product be taken seriously with a lead-in like that? If it weren't for the Kickstarter page, I wouldn't believe this at all!
gsum: This camera isn't medium format - it is MFDX. To describe it as MF is misleading. Looks good though and is almost free of the usual useless 'features' that afflict modern cameras.
FX and DX are based on well established film standards - each with a single, specific size. Not so with MF.
Furthermore, the difference in size amongst MF sensors is much less. FX is about 2.25x the size of DX; larger MF sensors are only 1.5x bigger than this one.
ArcaSwiss: It would cost me $16,000 to upgrade my IQ140 back to IQ250. Same sensor. Need I say more ?
Correction: Pentax has two legacy manual focus Leaf Shutter lenses - 75mm and 135mm - that allow 1/500s flash sync. But they are both out of production, which is probably why Pentax only advertises the 1/125s flash sync you'll get with their other lenses.
Brigcam: Might be better call this 55mm, the term medium format is getting a bit to nebulous
As others are stating, MF cameras always shot a variety of frame sizes on film, unlike 35mm, where only one size was common.
A FF 35mm sensor is 2.25x the size of an APS-C sensor (even more with Canon); The largest MF sensors are only 1.5x the size of this one. So it's not that much of a "crop" compared to the largest MF sensors. But again, I'm not sure that term is fair, given that MF has always encompassed a wide range.
Ayoh: Pretty impressive. It is much better specified on all accounts than its rivals and costs less than 1/3 the price. Why would anyone buy a $30k Hasselblad or PhaseOne?
See my post above for a few examples. Each system has its strengths.
But the fact that it has a much lower price while also being the strongest offering in a number of areas makes it a very good option.
Dave Luttmann: Sony, Nikon and Pentax have pulled ahead of Canon so much it is rather sad.
Except I understand that Ricoh, Canon, and Fuji (I believe) have the most financial strength. Sony has had trouble for a while in many markets, and Nikon doesn't reach very far outside of consumer camera and optical markets, as far as I know - so they're vulnerable that way.
But while Canon's doing well in DSLR equipment sales, I believe they're in danger of remaining relatively stagnant. They've not done enough in the last few years, and it may begin to catch up with them.
rfsIII: Wow. Didn't see that coming. This is an exciting camera for those of us who need high pixel counts but don't want to deal with the complications of buying from the other two MF manufacturers.But who let them name their wireless system after a sometimes-deadly infectious disease? Flucard is a hilarious name until Grandma contracts H1N1 and keels over dead.
The Flucard was already designed and marketed by another company, as announced on this site at the time. Ricoh simply asked them to make an enhanced version that would extend the capabilities of the latest Pentax cameras. It may not be an ideal solution, but it's better than not having the functionality, and it allowed Ricoh to focus their engineering resources on improving other aspects of their cameras (which they did quite well, IMO).
So Ricoh didn't pick the name.
iae aa eia: I think it was supposed to be already mirroless, with a nice EVF, and its sensor 56 x 41.5mm, as it was the 645 film frame area. 33 x 44mm looks like what the APS format is to the 135 full-frame, a cropped sensor to cut their investment some slack. Not a true medium-medium. Just medium.
This same sensor is being embraced by Phase One and Hasselblad as well, and it's been a standard MF sensor size for a while. Leica and Sony may even use it in future cameras.
Every MF sensor I'm aware of is cropped, though some are cropped a little less than this. But it's not some vastly inferior size - it's a standard MF size, as stated above.
RichRMA: This is not a sports camera. Time for Pentax to go mirror-less here.
It's not a dedicated sports camera, but it actually has the parts that should make it viable for sports. The improvements in the K-3 (from which it gets many of its parts) already proves this. It's certainly not as good as the best sports cameras out there, but the K-3 can do the job. The problems DPR had with the K-3 AF tests were largely due to the fact that they didn't use the right lenses (because most of the best lenses are legacy screw-drive AF glass). So the 645Z could potentially do well with its "legacy" FA glass above, and with the advantages of its resolution, sensor size, and ISO capability, it shouldn't be written off until it's tried.
The strengths of the other systems would depend on a particular photographer's needs. But for example, Phase One's has the excellent Capture One software (which includes tethering capabilities), but it doesn't work with other MF systems (only smaller DSLRs). Phase One also allows use with technical cameras, and offers options like Tilt-shift and 1/1600s flash sync.
While Pentax makes some of the better lenses on the market, some people really love Hasselblad lenses - one of their great strengths. Hasselblad bodies are also generally considered better than the standard Phase One body.
Both Pentax and Hasselblad have weak or brand new tethering software - they won't be able to compete here. Pentax only has 1/125s flash sync. Hasselblad allows 1/800s flash sync (which is also its max shutter speed - slower than the competition).
So each system has its advantages.
For about the same price as the Phase One IQ250 back with the body and an 80mm lens, you can get the 645Z and all 13 lenses listed here! And that's if you pay full retail price for these lenses - the reality is they're readily available used for much less. And of course they overlap a bit, so most photographers would only need to buy 4 to 8 of these lenses. In other words, the complete system costs half the price of the competition's body and sensor alone.
Phase One and Hasselblad each have their strengths, but this is a pretty compelling argument.
Wow, very impressive - looks very useful.
BTW (for those who haven't used it) that's a great lens, too!
Edymagno: I had high hopes for this lens performance but the "lowly" price under $1k will keep my expectations at bay. There's no way the Sigma will approach the Otus IQ. After all, you get what you pay. I truly hope to be proven wrong. Maybe Canon will get it right at around $2k.
Nonsense, Chris Yates. Equal to or better than the Zeiss? Did someone tell you this, or are you actually looking at the photos?
Underdog 3000: Too bad it's not available for Pentax. This with the K-3's sensor and IBIS would make for a great portrait rig.
At least not yet.
Not to worry, the DA*55/1.4 probably produces more dimensional-looking portraits, with a nicer appearance. Just take care with the backgrounds - occasionally they come out harsh-looking.
But if you don't believe me, I imagine you'll get your wish soon enough anyway.
andrewD2: Was in the market for this but won't buy anything with a US to UK exchange rate that weak. Convert to UK pounds and add 20% VAT and you get £680. Have to see where street prices end up.
Then you don't really need one. If you did, you'd buy it anyway.
kelvinjay: Price sounds good. Lens looks sharp. LOCA still seems an issue, as shown in this sample shot: http://www.cnet.com/uk/pictures/sigma-50mm-f14-photo-samples/3/
I'm still interested, just a little less enthusiastic after seeing that.
I wasn't planning on getting one - but after seeing these samples, I know I don't want one.
Can anyone please explain to me which of these 8 photos is supposed to show off this lens? Which one is interesting? Some other lenses would make these exact same compositions look nicer - perhaps even compelling - but certainly not as bland.
After looking at the various links here to sample photos, I can see the Sigma isn't the equal of the Zeiss OTUS. The Zeiss produces more 3D images, more colorful images, more beautiful images.
Also, as is common, this Sigma isn't as sharp wide-open as the lens it claims to replace.
This is one of Sigma's best efforts yet, but it still plays second fiddle.
misolo: Nice to see Sigma become competitive in the high end, Canon, NIkon and Zeiss really needed the competition. I'm eagerly waiting for a Sigma 24/1.4 A.
Except the last time Sigma made 20/24/28mm f/1.8 lenses (the ones they currently sell) the IQ was ... well, some people like it - but most people?
iudex: Another great lens that is not available with Pentax mount. :-(I have been waiting for Sigma 18-35 for 6 months or so; Sigma promised the K-mount would be available by the end of 2013, it´s April now and still nothing. Sigma USA wrote first shipments were expected in late April, but I am sceptical.
I wish these manufacturers would be quicker at shipping perfectly executed examples of their revolutionary products!