Are you sure you didn't mean '11mm diagonal sensor (which would be classed as a 1/2.3"-type)'?
It will be interesting to see whether Fuji can elevate this class of lens by better design and manufacturing, like they have with some others.
Prairie Pal: yawn
Funny how just one word can open you up to so much criticism, isn't it?
But you have plenty of confidence and humility, so I'm sure it didn't bother you.
JordanAT: That's one big lens (and big pricetag) for something as (optically) pedestrian as a 35/1.8. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were making the lenses intentionally larger and heavier than they needed to be to justify the price and make the photogs feel like they had a "big"lens.
Alastair, the saying was fairly common in the film days. I heard it quite a few times before I was even involved in photography (beyond using a 35mm compact) so I'm surprised you hadn't!
I wasn't being ironic at all; I was talking about the mid-range lineup as a group. But I'm not convinced about the 35/2 IS either. While I haven't been able to study photos from this new 35/1.8 yet, I'd say the Nikon 35/1.8 DX lens, and possibly even the similar Sony 35/1.8, already produce nicer looking images. Canon mid-range lenses look like they use cheaper glass, and they probably do. They produce what looks very much like flat, plain photographs - they don't capture something "extra:" neither beauty, nor dimensionality, nor interesting or compelling lighting.
But there always seem to be those who are anxious to justify Canon's under-performance in this area.
Alan Jervis: What a strange new world we're in when the lens to beat is a Sigma and the Nikkor struggles!
As is a world where we can judge which lens is better merely on paper.
It's an FX lens with a built-in AF motor, after all.
Nikon offers something Canon is almost completely devoid of: a mid-range line with appropriately high image quality.
This is the reason for the old saying "Nikon has better lenses than Canon." It's certainly not based on the high-end, where either one could be preferred.
This is good, but will there be some photos coming so we can actually evaluate the lens?
I'd rather have photos than measurements, if I had to choose. DPR frequently takes photos designed to show off (or show up) the characteristics of a lens.
Danny: Very beautiful, but these kind of images could have been done much easier imho, studio shots with some wind and wires, then post processing, if done well no-one will ever tell the difference.
@wlad - those are impressive, but they're still not as good as photographs, and they're much more difficult to create!
Honestly, the majority of your photos could use better composition. He went underwater to a specific spot with costumes and a whole diving crew. You seem reluctant to simply move yourself or your camera a few feet over.
Spectro: Those models are most impressive, they have to hold their breath and wait for the photographer to adjust their settings and take test shots.... And everybody else has an oxygen tank but them, I see one photo where they are getting oxygen feed.
Not sure why he is using the d90 when he usually use a d800, must didn't have an underwater case for the d800.
He did have a backup - he has friends!
Gosman: It is so nice to have Photoshop CC. So many improvements! You Sixers out there will soon be left behind!
Me too Danny. I still have a 20MB hard disk in my computer, and it's more storage than I'll ever need.
I wonder why they didn't use a faster aperture? The price may have gone up, but f/2 or f/1.8 would have been nice.
Of course, if it performs really well wide open that's better than the way Sigma used to do it - creating lenses that needed to be stopped down a stop or more anyway! Their "f/1.8" 20/24/28mm DSLR lenses were among the most notorious examples of this.
Thanks for the article Barney. It gives us an idea what to expect and why you're excited about it - an understanding that could be difficult to glean from a standard announcement and a preview alone.
Now that we have the 08 wide and the 06 lenses it puts a little different perspective on this camera. The IQ is very good on both of these, as it is with the 01 prime. This shows (once again) the strength of an ILC, and the camera covers the whole range with nice IQ. These give it an advantage over most of the cameras mentioned as comparisons in the review, and over all of them (and any other smallish ILCs I can think of) in the wide area.
So while the compared cameras may have looked better at the time of the review, over time the Q reveals itself to be a system which keeps getting better.
BTW, DPR, could you please re-do the Studio Scenes with the 01 lens? It (as well as the 06 and 08) are SO much better in IQ than the 02 zoom (especially considering the level of detail people will look at with the studio shots)!
pgphoto_ca: Be carefull....it's not a f2.8-f4 with this sensor (2.7x crop)....it's f5.6-f8 or more.......the crop factor need also to be apply to the aperture :)
A real 400mm f4...is much bigger ! :)
It's important to talk about the true aperture (not just the "equivalent" DOF aperture) because of the light gathering ability. It gives an advantage in faster shutter speeds, as others have mentioned. But then you also have to consider the fact that the sensor noise is much greater at higher ISOs than a DSLR (just look at the RAW examples in the Studio Scene), which offsets this advantage. So in the end you have to weigh all these factors.
Nevertheless, the focal length range and relatively high image quality you can get (in good light) with such a lightweight, affordable package is still impressive.
B1ackhat: Well accurate color is a lost cause with either camera, so that's a wash. The better sensor is almost inevitably going to be found in the Sony. Panasonic, however, is (imho) a far better camera maker. And that price is very reasonable!
If you *really* care about color that much you shouldn't mind shooting in RAW, so you can just get an editor with a good color profile, or create your own.
Also, I don't know why you'd assume the Sony sensor would be better. A quick glance at the Studio Scene in the preview suggests that both the sensor and the lens may be better (in the Panasonic).
EthanP99: Just so we're clear, f4 is now considered "fast lens" ?
Did we mention that it has a 1" sensor? Makes a difference in the lens design.
photoguy622: Those pictures are atrocious. I thought the Olympus was bad at detail retention, the Nikon is even worse.
"My Canon A570 FROM MANY YEARS AGO ..."
I rest my case.
peevee1: "it offers a 24-120mm equiv. lens, ... Among its peers it offers the widest lens"
Olympus TG-850 is 21mm at the wide end. With tilting screen, I think it is the most suitable for snorkeling, even more so than their flagship TG-3.
Has the article been changed, because it says "Among nearly all of its peers ...?"
I'm pretty sure your blind grandmother couldn't care less.
But I suspect your grandmother with good vision (perhaps wearing glasses) would say it's impressive how good it looks - "even close up." "It never looked this good in 4x6 (or rather 3 1/2 x5) prints!" Perhaps the blindness of a child of the digital age is at play.
The bottom line is the Olympus and Ricoh have the better lens. Then just choose which features and JPEG engine you want. The Nikon lens isn't performing well wide open - quite noticeable near the borders. The Canon lens is so much slower I'm not sure it's even a fair comparison - they're apparently embarrassed to even advertise their lens speed!