BeaverTerror: Incorrect headline, very poor journalism by DPreview staff, maliciously done on purpose to generate page views?
Not the world's shortest zoom lens by a long shot. As the footnote indicates, it's only the shortest DSLR zoom lens.
Actually the kit zoom was badly in need of updating. They used to dominate the competition in kit lens image quality, but not so much any more - now Pentax needed to do their refresh as well.
birdseed007: The truth is that the Pentax 645Z blows this and every other Canon or Nikon camera into the weeds for image quality and weather sealing which is why DpReview haven't reviewed it and nor have DXO Mark because they don't want to upset Canon and Nikon who pay the bulk of their advertising dollars.
The 645Z isn't for everyone (sports shooters) but it has brought the cost of superior image quality into levels that serious enthusiasts and professionals can realistically afford. With a range of 16 lenses covering extreme wide angle to 400mm telephoto it can do pretty much everything.
Canon is facing an onslaught from powerful new upstarts like Samsung and Sony plus a revitalised Pentax who under Ricoh have a turnover twice the size of Nikon.
Canon sales of DSLRs/ILC down 17%Compact cameras down 32%and those numbers got worse in Q4, the Christmas selling quarter.
Canon have been resting on their laurels for too long, fortunately the competition is acting as a spur to innovation
"... And it's not really a 645 format camera..."
Tell that to Phase One and Hasselblad.
Which BTW are the ones approaching "the extreme end of speciality equipment." The 645Z is actually a DSLR, making the comparison quite appropriate.
The Hasselblad and Phase One implementations of this sensor have their distinct advantages, but the 645Z is the more approachable MF camera. And if you consider that the lenses available (both new and legacy) are already designed for ~50MP+ resolutions, don't be surprised if the system cost is cheaper in the end than buying more, updated lenses for the Canon. Many lenses that fit the 645Z are available for less than most Canon L glass.
It really depends on what your needs and shooting scenarios are.
DStudio: "Even more oddly, a Canon representative openly described this limitation as ‘arbitrary'. This is strange because the EOS 7D Mark II (remember the pixel pitch of its sensor is almost the same) can confidently shoot at ISO sensitivity settings up to 51,200."
The reason it's arbitrary is this isn't the flagship model - it's a 5D.
Its price tag may catch us off guard at first, but there's likely going to be a higher model with better high-ISO performance down the road. After all, creating a new sensor isn't cheap. How many new sensors do you think they can create at once? Especially when the sales volume is lower (than a typical APS-C model).
They're probably going to re-purpose this sensor in another model(s) over the next couple of years, at least.
I really don't have any of those thoughts that were apparently just attributed to me.
I just came up with a logical explanation as to why the sensor is arbitrarily capped at 6400/12800.
I still think it makes the most sense. Sensor development is costly. Just ask Phase One. They have to get a lot of mileage out of each new sensor they develop/commission. And they can only develop one at a time. Canon has deeper pockets, but it's still costly.
My remark about the price tag was simply to say that, as it nears $4000, we might forget it's still just a 5D - that is, a mid-range FF camera. "Off guard" because older-gen high-end pro models come down toward that price level, blurring the lines.
So yes - I believe a tremendous amount of effort's been put into this sensor, and they're not letting us see its full capabilities yet. High-ISO performance is extremely useful in some situations, especially for Pros. I believe they're segmenting the lineup by imposing this limitation.
DStudio: Why create a 50MP sensor and then "pre-blur" the image with an AA filter? The applications for the non-R model seem rather limited.
Perhaps Canon shooters are different, but I doubt it. They'll probably go the same way as buyers of the other three brands.
Not sure they need to test the market a fourth time.
jimrpdx: DPR streak is safe, you simply cannot wrote a Pentax note without a barb. It's insulting to the brand and to readers. No Canon articles about the M-series features not implemented in later announcements, no Olympus reports that note how you cannot tell them apart from six feet away. Pentax put LEDs on one camera that could flash in specific instances, and could be turned off.. yet the stigma will outlive the current writers and no doubt will come up again in 2045. Absurdity reigns.
The reality is that for years DPR has had to go out of their way to get review samples of some Pentax products, when Pentax should've been knocking their door down to give it to them. This was probably due mostly to Hoya. In any case, I've seen them give very fair reviews of Pentax products. If anything, they may have been slightly generous at times.
Anyone who's passionate about photography equipment is going to want to see innovation and competition. So anytime a company like Pentax, Sony, Olympus or Panasonic comes up with something good they're going to want to highlight it.
Some of its owners really like the K-S1, but most of us just scratched our heads when it came out.
I guess I haven't been following this debate closely enough. "Fake Detail" sound like something a Canon loyalist would come up with, to defend their position. "Nikon, Pentax, and Sony, they're all idiots - they don't know what they're doing!" Perhaps I'm an idiot too - I've just been too busy getting good results from one of these filter-less cameras for over two years.
The more I think about it, the more I think Canon's being just silly here. Nikon proved you don't need an AA filter; Pentax proved you can remove it completely. With the K-3, Pentax provided an AA-simulation option that rarely gets used. And with the D810, Nikon realized you don't even need the option. Now Canon wants to revert back to Nikon's original design of "cancelling out" of a filter that's not even needed?
Here is Canon, in a post-Columbus, post-Magellan world, and they're still afraid to set sail for the horizon for fear they might fall off the edge of our flat earth!
"Even more oddly, a Canon representative openly described this limitation as ‘arbitrary'. This is strange because the EOS 7D Mark II (remember the pixel pitch of its sensor is almost the same) can confidently shoot at ISO sensitivity settings up to 51,200."
Why create a 50MP sensor and then "pre-blur" the image with an AA filter? The applications for the non-R model seem rather limited.
I thought it was funny.
After all, Ricoh seemed to think it was a "feature" in the previous camera.
ThatCamFan: It screams internal dust magnet.
Well it's a WR dust magnet, so that should keep much of the dust out.
A little dust inside doesn't ruin photos anyway.
iae aa eia: Now, Ricoh, I challenge you to make an 18-55mm ƒ/3.4-4.8 no longer than the shortest 18-55mm ƒ/4-5.6 (or 3.5-5.6) from the competition. You'll see making this lens no shorter but "just" half stop less dark will impress much more.
It's just a KIT lens, after all!
As far as I'm concerned, all it has to do is produce better images than the previous kit lens (which was already pretty good).
I don't think the DA18-55 stays at f/3.5 very long anyway (only for a few mm of focal length; then it goes to f/4).
If starting at f/4 made it more compact, it was a good decision. Anyone "serious" about their image quality will upgrade anyway. This looks like a really good way to start, however.
It's common for the product category (DSLRs, in case you were unsure ;) ) to be implied in such statements.
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.