dprived prev: to those amateur photographers (here or anywhere) who start bragging about the !!! superiority !!! of a mirrorless camera over an SLR first, but then quit doing so once they receive their proper answers from the pros or other knowledgeable and more experienced advanced amateurs; no offense, but:
Mirror, mirror on the wall,Who's the dumbest of all?Must be the girlie photog,Who can't handle a large cam?!Or maybe it is that obese m`am!?
It wasn't long ago that some diehards were saying that live view is for noobs and wouldn't make it's way to pro cams. Then the Canon 1D Mark III came along with..........................live view!
Then we had the disparaging remarks about face detection being needed only by soccer mums with their point-and-shoots. And we now have, and have had for some time now, face detection on the flagship pro cams ( even though Nikon were too scared at first to call it what it was so gave it some smarty pants techie sounding name).
Leica, probably the industry's most primitive minded company, now has a pro camera with an electronic viewfinder.
So it won't be long before Canon and Nikon both have electronic viewfinders in their flagship cameras ( I reckon, no longer than three more body updates and more likely just two )
RPJG: "However, the +/- exposure compensation button on the top plate doesn't work in M mode"
How does something like that get past the QA and "common sense check" processes? Seems ludicrous.
@RPJGYes they did, I have both cams. In fact I have three 1D series models and each one has something the other doesn't, which pi**es me off considering that there is no good reason why for example the 1D X couldn't have kept the features of the other two given that the features are not driven by a particular button having to be in a particular spot; they are firmware features.
And the stupidly of it is, the much older 1Ds Mark II isn't that great beyond ISO 1600 yet it is able to bracket exposure by way of ISO setting. Yet the 1D X, which has a far more capable ISO range, is devoid of that feature. Nuts!
The EC button issue is the one thing that SERIOUSLY pi**es me off about the 1D X. It is stupid beyond belief.
Another thing that annoys me is that they have removed the useful option, an option found in the old 1Ds Mark II, of setting Exposure Bracketing by varying ISO instead of shutter speed.
PhotoKhan: I can't understand how these fidgety, tiny AF point selections joysticks keep flying with pros.
I know AF point selection may alternatively be controlled with the quick dial but why does Canon keep including a dedicated control that is so difficult to...well...control.
I wonder how many more 1D/5D interactions we must have before it is finally realized that a track-ball with a "click-in-to-select" is the obvious way to go.
(Eye-tracking, of course, would be better still but I am not holding my breath over it.)
A Trackball might be a disaster.
Remember, those things were all the rage at one point for keyboard "mouse/cursor" navigation and they have been mostly abandoned ( mainly due, I think, to them being dust magnets that then transfer that crud to the innards of the Trackball assembly and cause problems)
LJ - Eljot: 1.: No, you must be wrong with that. "The speed of the Ethernet port has been increased from 100Mbps to 330Mbps" That makes no sense. There is no 330Mbps ethernet standard. And also the 1D X has gigabit ethernet.
2.:"the +/- exposure compensation button on the top plate doesn't work in M mode" congratulations Canon! That is wtf, even with a prototype model. This will be fixed in production hopefully.
3.:"reverting to the older packs will see the maximum continuous shooting rate from from 14 fps (with 16 fps in live view) back to the 12/14 fps rate offered by the original 1D X" Because the older battery does not have enough power for the motor to advance the film fast enough? I don't get it.
Your point number 2 regarding the "+/-" compensation button is also an issue with the original 1D X, and drives me mad; and the Canon solution for this problem ( to use the SET button and top scroll wheel ) is even more stupid.
Scottelly: Well it's about time! They wait until Canon introduces a 50 MP camera to push the limits like this? Seriously, the type of photography medium format cameras are used for called for this a long time ago. Finally there's something that has twice the horizontal and vertical resolution vs. what was available ten years ago. It took long enough! (I think it should have taken only about 3 or 4 years, considering the chips have still been doubling in speed every 18 months or so, to handle the data.) It's not like medium format cameras have been getting a lot cheaper or something (except that new line from Pentax).
From a user perspective you are right but from a manufacturing perspective wrong.
This, as far as I am aware, is only the second Sony tech medium format sensor. Prior to that medium format cams were relying on CCD sensors which are FAR more expensive to produce.
Second, it is only recently that Panasonic and Sony have been able to do electronic (first curtain) shutters reasonably well for their CMOS sensors ( it's far easier and usually more effective when done on CCD sensors).
Phase One have had an 80 Mpx sensor digital back for a good while now.
Finally, producing at such low volumes makes it extremely difficult for the medium format companies to introduce new tech at reasonable prices.
So it seems that ith all that in mind this 100 Mpx cam has come at about the right time.
Prognathous: Impressive camera, though I'm sure 50K USD is going to be difficult to justify to pros who currently use other medium format digital cameras and consider an upgrade.
An improved Pentax 645Z + Pixel Shift Resolution mode (like their K-3 II) would provide similar, if not better, results and would likely cost 8K USD or less. For still life in the studio, Pixel Shift won't pose an issue, given that the subject is, well, still.
Very true, but if you want or need (or think you need) 100 Mpx for a moving subject then this Phase One cam is the only option for now ( perhaps Hasselblad will respond this year with a system that is, if not better, then certainly as innovative as this XF system by Phase One; trouble is, Hassy haven't been very innovative for years and run the risk of joining Kodak)
Peiasdf: A7RII and 5Ds R + Zeiss Otus are hurting medium I see. Good. Medium that's 10 times the cost of FF is as ridiculous as field camera going for quarter million.
Like far too many people your calculations are way off because you have forgotten something.
The Pentax medium format camera is basically their APS-C cameras on steroids; with same menus, pretty much same insides etc.
Basically, Pentax can afford to make MF so cheap because they are in essence using parts and technology from their spare parts inventory. Thus the costs of many of the components in their MF cam is spread over a vast number of camera models; none of the the other MF companies have that luxury.
The only way that MF cams can get much cheaper is if they get bought by one of the massive camera or electronic companies e.g. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic. We can rule Panny out because of their relationship with Leica.
plevyadophy: Have all the Pentax fans actually considered the fact that this thing is NOT really medium format; it's not true medium format in sensor size nor is it digital medium format.
It's more like the medium format equivalent of a Leica M8 or Canon 1D with their APS-H sized sensors, and some have even gone as far as referring to this new Pentax's sensor size as Medium Format DX.
Really, in my view, things only matter when the diagonal of the sensor/film roughlydoubles/halves. So going from micro Four Thirds to 35mm,and then from 35mm to 645 or 6 x 6, and then up to 10 x 8 all make a significant difference. For those going from Pentax APS-C sensor cams to this Pentax 645Z there's gonna be a MASSIVE difference but I don't think it's worth bothering with if you already own say a Nikon D800e.
The camera body is superb though, the best on the market in my view. It's just a pity that they didn't provide a fully articulating rear LCD instead of the mere flip up and flip down variety.
Hi,What I meant was, that many people need to REALLY understand what is required in terms of shot discipline when shooting medium format, and yet others need to gain an understand of what REAL differences can be obtained and easily observed by use of different formats.
Sometimes, the Nirvana some seek can never be realised ( e.g. One is not shooting subject matter or displaying on a medium that will show off the goodness one thought one was paying for ) or perhaps the effort involved is more than one really wants to put up with ( e.g. Lugging a tripod with you on every shoot, slower raw processing, purchase of a new computer to cope with the huge files and so on )
Perhap, a little bit of a reality check can be found here: http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/29/review-the-pentax-645z-part-ii-medium-format-shootout/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=9047&relatedposts_position=0
montoniphotography: who is he?
pedromeyer: So why not a full frame sensor? couldn't they get an idea from Sony, to resolve this? From all the video of how they polish the aluminum for 45 min, I was left with the sense, that no sooner I would work with such a camera, that it would be filled with all sorts of nicks and tarnishes to the body, given that it looks so overly delicate. In other words, a work horse this is not.
You, in a roundabout way, agree with my cynical/terse analysis and then suggest I have a chip on my shoulder. Strange.
No chip, just telling it as it is; calling out pretentiousness (Owners of the Mickey Mouse Noctilux gushing about the lens' "glow" when in actual fact the glow was/is a flaw; brassing, yet another flaw, which you just admitted is a flaw; and how about the most infamous, the M8 and it's need for an ir cut filter? Yet another flaw that Leica themselves laughingly tried to convince folk was a virtue and I won't bother listing the flaws of the Leica S/S2). Without the "red dot" those things would be seen for what they are, failings.
brownie314: "The theory of 'Marginal Gains' states that if you make tiny improvements in all aspects of your performance, then these improvements will all add up and create a significant overall improvement."
That is not the way I understood marginal gains. The way I understood it is - once the "low hanging fruit" is gotten (i.e. now you have a DSLR and a good lens) the improvements to be made after that are increasingly harder and more expensive to get and make "marginal" improvements.
And your interpretation is EXACTLY how I have understood the marginal gains theory to work, and it is applicable in a number of fields e.g. fast car > performance car > racing car. Going from one to other results in HUGE costs out of all proportion to the performance gains acheived.
I strongly suspect, and I may well be corrected, that the author has been a bit "creative" with the interpretation and application of the marginal gains theory.
rdscibilia: I suggest we use the same calculator for eugenics studies. Why should we have to suffer with people who don't have the right look?
Your suggestion marks you out as being far braver than I. :o)
Yes, exactly. As I suggested, a silly affectation "conveniently" acquired to make up for a flaw.
Leica's brass way way way too easily.
@T3Leica owners don't like "brassing", they simply pretend to; they've spent insane money on the camera, it is poorly painted so they make a virtue out of a flaw by pretending that "brassing" is cool.
Just as the old Noctilux was rubbish, but owners talked of its "glow" as if it was some virtue, when in actual fact that "glow" comes about as a result of uncorrected lens abberations.
Have all the Pentax fans actually considered the fact that this thing is NOT really medium format; it's not true medium format in sensor size nor is it digital medium format.
BozillaNZ: So int he end Pentax still can't produce any full-sized sensor cameras! It's either Cropped 35mm or cropped 645, Pentax is for Croppers! It's sensor is far smaller than theactual '645' model number suggests, no matter how you fans spin it.
It's my understanding that the actual recorded image area on 645 film was around 42 x 56mm. None of the digital medium format sensors from the cams you mentioned are that large.
I have avoided saying this but this preview has prompted me to ask "and where on earth is the Review of the Canon 1D X???!!!!"
It used to be that DPReview's excuse for not reviewing certain cams, e.g. the Leica S2 and S, was that they were super expensive and/or not likely to be products purchased by many of the readers of DPReivew.
Well, this cam might be cheap by medium format standards but it is considerably more expensive than a Canon 1D X, and therefore, surely?, must fall into the category of "product not likely to be purchased by many of the readers of DPReview"
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.
@DStudioGo to SLRGear.com, they've extensively reviewed BOTH lenses AND have made comparisons to each other in the respective reviews.
My take on the reviews is that, purely based on optical performance, the Otus is the better lens overall. However, the Sigma Art is equal to it and very close to it in many parameters as well as having the advantage of autofocus, that it's a no-brainer for most people to buy the Sigma Art given the price difference.