I used to have the original LC-A camera. The whole camera back then cost about $20 (early 1990s).
Doughnut bokeh... Ugh!
nunatak: this is the second year in a row the DPreview interview with Nikon comes across as weak. this despite a number of concerns expressed by readers last year, and Barney blaming the interpreters.
for the N1 series alone, Nikon could have been pressed on why so many batteries for different models? why no CLS or hotshoe? why no N1 lens roadmap?
just a thought, but perhaps next time DPreview will open the floor to let readers ask some of the questions, and hire journalists with a bit more spine to press the questions?
If you press harder you'll hear the same "no comment", AND probably won't get an interview at all the next time around. You just have to learn to read between the lines.
neod: Why not post the same images as out-of-camera JPEGs to see what kind of barrel distortion corrections the camera makes?
@ brendon1000: if you shoot raw, then the converters support all the same functions via the lens profiles. Adobe even offers free software to make your own profile for any lens!
PaulNYC: So Texas is saying to buy a zoom lens.
It's not that difficult to simply block the view from 15 feet, so I would not count on zooming.
mpgxsvcd: I have to say that the GF7 looks outstanding for its sensor size at ISO 6400. Compare it to the E-M5 MK II. I actually think the GF7 handles the noise better in RAW images at ISO 6400 than the E-M5 MK II does.
I think the raw files are really hard, if not impossible to tell apart.
dahod: As a 4/3 user, I have to admit I'm interested in this lens. Even though Olympus had it on their roadmap for a long time, they never came through with it. I do have the 50mm f2.0 but something longer would be nice and manual is fine.
Maybe somebody can help me out here. The stated magnification is 1:1 for this lens (full frame). What would it be on the four thirds sensor?
@ComPas you are correct that for a 1:1 macro lens the proportion of the filled frame will be different for different sensor sizes, but that proportion is not considered in the magnification ratio that is reported by the manufacturers.
If you want to know the fraction of the frame filled you can easily figure it out from knowing the size of the object and the size of your frame.
PerL: Weight 586 g = combined with a m43 Olympus OM-D E-M1, 497g = 1.080 g
And as comparison:
Nikon 20 1,8G, 357g, combined with a FF Nikon D750, 750g = 1.107 g
Or you could mount it on Olympus PM-2 for a total weight of 855g, or Panasonic GM-5 for 797g.
1:1 means that the image projection on the plane of the sensor is the same size as the real object. It does not depend on the sensor size. If you take a picture of a bug 10mm long, it's projection on the sensor will also be 10mm long.
MarkMonckton: DPreview gave the X100s 81% Gold Award.X100T 81% Silver Award?????
This has been covered in the past: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained
Scroll down for the explanation of the awards.
Ayoh: Its a shame the interviewer didn't call him out on the nonsense about the 300mm lens being the same as a 600mm lens on full frame. The "effective focal length" is obviously just a function of pixel density and not sensor size. A full frame sensor with the same pixel density as the four thirds camera has the same resolution.
May be the interviewer decided against confrontaton because he wasn't raised by wolves.
Sarge_: I just wish there were a way to convert the optical effects to what you would see from a medium or large format sensor, to eliminate the distortion.
As a pro who shoots a lot of architecture, that's my biggest beef with shooting wide on a 35mm body; there's not much value as things get so ridiculously distorted.
Has anyone found any filters or software in general that can overcome the 'wide angle' distortion from these wide lenses?
Take a look at Hugin. Here's a tutorial for architectural use: http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/architectural/en.shtml
Notice, that although the tutorial suggests rectilinear projection, you have some other good options for architecture, e.g., Panini, equirectangular, and cylindrical.
Androole: I've always wondered why people are so obsessive about having a lens that's rectilinear "in-the-glass" in this focal range. The perspective distortion is already so radical and surreal in the 11-15mm range that you might as well just digitally de-fish (using an open-source program like Hugin) and get an even wider image.
I guess the rectilinear lens has somewhat higher resolution in the corners, and makes framing easier. But for a 10x higher pricetag, I can deal with those compromises, thanks...
I am not even sure that rectilinear projection is the most pleasing at angles of view this wide. A cylindrical projection might be more natural looking. Weren't there dedicated panorama cameras with a cylindrical projection image?
The horizontal angle of view is 117.8 deg, and vertical is 94.6. It means that if one takes a picture from the corner of a rectangular room, then even in the portrait orientation both adjacent walls would be visible in the frame. I imagine the real estate photographers will go gaga over this.
Frankly, I am very upset by real estate pictures that look like a palatial ball room in the photo, and like a broom closet in real life.
The Davinator: Not sure why people automatically think landscape = wide.
May be because when we a see a view in the nature, it's typically a wide vista, rather than a narrow tunnel?
Valiant Thor: I'm very curious as to which market segment this camera is supposed to be competing in?
Zvonimir Tosic: Still, the camera using them need not be 'mirrorless'. I am all for OVF, however it is delivered.Still, how one makes, with a "flat" surface, lenses of different focal lengths?
The focal distance can be changed by a different arrangement of the "antennae" on the surface.
aquarta: When you look at mirrorless cameras from your competitors, what scares you the most?
"Looking at all of the mirrorless cameras out there, there’s nothing that really frightens us. "
That's a very frightening comment
I think some questions in this interview were asked in a very inappropriate form. In the Asian cultures saving face and dignity is very important, and there was simply no other way for Mr. Maeda to answer that question. Someone at DPReview should learn a little about cultural expectations if they want their questions to be more effective.
Riquez: It actually seems like the mayor didn't like the dark side of his town shown & has tried to find some way to discredit. I think Troilo has pushed his creative licence a bit but there doesn't seem like any gross cheating. 1 photo was in the wrong town, that is why he was disqualified.
How much is "a bit" and how much is too much? It seems that the issue the mayor had was presenting some marginal phenomena as the essential features of the town. It's not a "dark heart", it's a regular town, and as any other town has some unsavory fringes that were presented as the most salient ones.
quiquae: Can someone enlighten me as to why the photo shown in the article was chosen as a winner in the first place? It looks totally uninspiring except for the rather obviously enhanced sky color, which could just as well be atmospheric reflections from neon signs. Second and third place entries look much better.
Because the winner was selected based not on a single photo, but on a complete photo essay. It's not about a lone inspiring photo, it's about the ability to pick several images that tell a compelling story. If the story wasn't so far fetched, it would have been a good one to share.