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! ;)
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?
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.
forpetessake: Don't fret the moire: most lenses just don't have sufficient resolution, most scenes don't have regular high special frequency patterns, in many cases focusing is off just enough to eliminate them, and finally the noise reduction takes resolution down quite a bit to eliminate any traces of the high frequencies. On the other hand, if you notice moire in your pictures, you can be proud of the quality of your lenses and your camera :-)
I agree that in most cases you don't have to fret the moire, but most of my lenses yield noticeably better resolution on the K-5 IIs compared to any other Pentax body.
halai: As an owner of the K-5, I would like to see the AFC comparison of the two cameras. I have kids so would love to see if Pentax improved on this segment.
I find AF-C is improved when the expanded AF area mode is off as well.
DarylK: Not a big deal, but as the owner of a K-5, I'd be interested to see if the image quality is much different/improved between an old K-5 and the new K-5II.
@jaad75 - on what evidence do you base this remark? My real-world results show otherwise.
Additionally, it doesn't seem to have much to do with additional effective EV, but rather defines the absolute minimum usable shutter speed, regardless of conditions.
AFAIK the reduced mass being the reason for the improvement is just speculative - I'd love to see DPR do some comparisons among the K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs to see if both the II and IIs show improvements in SR. Interestingly, the focal length doesn't seem to be a big factor in SR performance (at least within the normal range of around 16-100mm). Rather, it's a simple matter of how slow the shutter speed can go (e.g. 1/6s vs. 1/13s).
wkay: I realize in the US that all photgraphs are automatically protected by copyright, but your right to claim damages is quite limited if you never formally file for copyright. DPReview should be nervous now that they have published the image, as their pockets are probably much deeper.
The rules are completely different when the photo is used in a news story, as DPR has here. They have nothing to worry about.
I don't know what Nikon's thinking with the slow lens speeds on these new premium Coolpix models. In the final analysis this may be their only major downside, but it's a big one.
Wutwut: Nikon has gotta be kidding. @ $1100 here is what the specs sheet SHOULD look like:DX sensor28mm f1.4 lens with filter threads2.3M dot EVF built-inbuilt in ND filter
$450 for an add-on OVF and $130 for a filter adapter?! pfhahahahaha I'd drop a few more coins for a RX100.
and lastly....Coolpix? Really?
You must be kidding, asking for a DX 19mm f/1.4 lens at this price! But 24mm f/2 might work. They certainly could have done better than this.
vodanh1982: "The cameras' wireless capabilities allow users to remotely capture and view images from iOS devices" No Android or PC?
iOS devices are an overwhelming favorite within their target clientele. They also have a much smaller number of models with well-know hardware differences, and all iPads have relatively good quality screens. So the product can be much better optimized to iOS devices.
In any case, if you need the capability you just go buy an iPad. If you still prefer Android for your everyday/home use, then fine.
It's pretty simple - there might be some minor detail here or there that looks nicer on ACR 7.4, but with C1 they look more like real 3D objects, both indoors and out.
It's still good to see that Adobe has made some much-needed improvements.
Jeff Greenberg: "Artist Susanna Kraus, daughter of original IMAGO1:1 co-inventor Werner Kraus is seeking £95,000 (~$150,000, €112,000)..."
Why doesn't she bloody work for it like the rest of us?
Sounds like she's doing all the work - I guess someone else can do the complaining.
According to the kickstarter link she's already put all her money into it, and along with her friends and family they've already financed half the cost.
skytripper: "...once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch.'"
Could not disagree more.
This statement is not technically sound at all - it's just a way of discounting every single competitor Canon has in one fell swoop.
He should just say 'm4/3 is no good, 1" is junk, 1/1.7" is a waste - no, Canon hasn't missed the boat, every other major manufacturer and all their customers are just dumb!'
Adrian Van: Nice to know that DXO did very well in this review from DPreview especially next to Lightroom. Most wedding photographers I talk to, use Adobe Lightroom and I have been using DXO for 4 years.For image quality DXO Pro 8 according to this review had the winners in certain image quality categories or tied.1. TWO-WAY TIE: Capture One Pro 7 and DxO Optics Pro 8 consistently provide natural, pleasing skin tones (from Portrait tests, may depend on camera though)2. WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 typically provides more pleasing saturation at its default settings.3. WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 offers crisp default settings and superior results in the image corners. (default sharpening test, with lens / camera modules)4.WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8, with some manual adjustments produces very good high ISO detail while retaining more color data than the competition. (noise reduction test)Lightroom certainly did better in some tests as did Capture One, but I really like my DXO and its smart interface.
I was just having fun with it. I guess I was posting a bit too late at night - didn't realize I'd strike some nerves (sorry about that).
I knew my comments wouldn't apply to anyone who'd actually read this article on DPR.
My point was simply that some (I shouldn't have said "many") people act like it's a simple formula, rather than a serious craft. I find it annoying that a few seem to act as if all that's needed is a couple of Canons or Nikons, 2 zoom lenses, LR and a few plug-ins. No research or thought required. There are many options, and I'd like to know that the photographer at least considered them.
I think those who responded mostly agree with me. I was simply posting based on my observation that some wedding photographers keep passing the word on to one another to simply "use LR," with many never questioning the advice.