tjwaggoner: Why wasnt he asked if he had any info on when BSI sensors would migrate to the larger formats? This is a question that intrigues me, as I think it may be the next big leap in sensor performance over the very marginal increases you get from most modern sensors today. Just my opinion, maybe some of you are more informed on the issue?
BSI just gets the wiring out of the way of photon capture. This is helpful in small sensors with high MP because the pixels are so dense and the wiring takes up x amount of space regardless of pixel size. Proportionally more blockage on tightly packed pixels.
With large pixels, the amount wiring in the way is proportionally very small compared to that on smaller sensors. BSI would not offer the same benefit to larger sensors unless with very large MP counts.
jacketpotato: Monochrome sensor ?
Would perhaps be what Nikon sees as "Pure Photography"
Sets Df apart from D6xx D8xx not just cosmetically but also internally.
You are mistaking Nikon for a company that has interest in creating something original/unique.
CBuff: I thought that I was not part of the 2.9M affected users. Yesterday, I received an email from Adobe asking me to change my account information. Basically, I have been misled for a couple of weeks, believing that my information with Adobe was safe.
Oh man ...
It took them THAT long to find out how many user were impacted ? and it took that THAT long to inform us ?
Epic fail !
There was a day when the Adobe brand was cherished by photographers worldwide. It moved from positive to neutral to negative. Don't even mention the name Adobe to me
HarryLally: So what is it? Andy Westlake or Andrew Westlake?
@Andyrew: Everything is of the utmost importance. On the internet.
l_d_allan: Roger Cicala at LensRentals wrote an interesting article about:"There Is No Free Lunch, Episode 763: Lens Adapters"http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters
Overall, he notes that any adapter will detract from image quality. He was writing about non-optical adapters that are hollow.
In the subsequent comments, the question came up about Sony adapters for the A7 series. My reading is that you could count of some image quality degradation.
How much? The article wasn't encouraging, but it depends on your expectations. It certainly put a damper on this Canon owner's interest with a significant investment in EF lenses.
I couldn't tell if the Sony adapters were optical (with one or more lenses) or hollow, and functioning as a "pass-thru" for electrical signals.
Meh. All I read into that is that we as customers need to push to have higher quality adapters available. I'd gladly pay $40-50 for a simple dumb adapter + proper baffling.
YiannisPP: It never fails to annoy me when I see the US dollar and OK pound pricing being almost the same number...And I will not stop writing about it, in case more Europeans wake up and see that companies are trying to rip them off just because we let them get away with it. A pound has been around 1.6 dollars for years now. And the tax differences amount to around 15-20%. So anybody with a brain has to wonder why on Earth do those companies ask 50-60% more in Europe than the US, for the same product made in Japan or China. My last purchase was based primarly on this consideration. I bought the Sony RX100 exactly because it was the only camera in that category that was offered at a fair price in Europe compared to the US. That is it was about 15% more expensive in Europe. Not 50% or 60% as the rest were. If more of us start thinking like this then maybe these companies will realise that you Europeans are not as rich/stupid as they think you are. EDIT: If I wasn't clear, this lens is 2560$ in UK
Compared to the US it costs a wheelbarrow full of cash to import something to the UK. I won't say that this accounts for the full difference, but if you expect anything to cost equally judging by the exchange rate you're flat deluded.
ryansholl: Just an FYI to all, and hopefully some will upvote this so others see it:
Hear me out on this - It makes no sense to buy these, and here's why:
These are the same lenses available for other mounts. The 14/2.8 is, for example, the exact same lens as my Sony A-mount 14/2.8, but with a much shorter registration distance simply because they've moved the mount back. The lens itself is dumb (100% manual). It makes no difference to the lens or camera if this lens is designed for the mount or if there's a cheap adapter stuck in between. There are no electrical contacts, it doesn't know the difference.
So, by all means DO buy these lenses - they're great lenses - just realize that if you buy an E mount version you will not be able to use the lenses on any other mount because of flange distance.
Instead, if you buy a Canon, Alpha, Nikon, whatever mount version of these lenses you can then use them with BOTH that mount and equally well on the E mount with a very inexpensive adapter.
That's just it, though (except that it's almost exactly 1 inch, at least for A to E mounts): Samyang did not build a separate version of the lens for Canon, or Nikon, or Sony - they merely built a lens that would sit out far enough that every native lens mount would fit behind it and then extended each version of the lens backward to fit the lens mount. Customizing each lens to each mount to minimize the overall length would require new optical designs, more engineering, completely separate production lines, etc. They're all the same lens, and the E-mount version is very likely to just be extended even further back - about an inch longer. In other words every single one has a built-in adapter.
That, or they created a new optical design and put in place five different new production lines just to shave an inch off the E-mount lens. I think that's VERY unlikely.
And - last time - yes these are awesome lenses. Couple them with peaking and it's hard to justify buying AF!
Absolutely. Until we see some mention of it otherwise, kinda have to assume that they haven't.
Again, these are great lenses, and probably the best bang-for-buck you'll find anywhere. Just give thought to whether you might ever WANT a Nikon, or a Canon, or if you think you might ever sell it how much easier to move it will be if someone else can slap it on their Canikon rig.
ZeevK: This makes the price of the A7 even more appealing to me... At least two of the five are very attractive to me - 14mm f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.4. If of good quality - these would be high on my list.
These are the exact same lenses available for other mounts and are largely considered to be THE bang for buck options available currently.
Trollshavethebestcandy: Needs fast primes.
No, photomonkey. Then they'll be too big.
Not to mention that with a couple hours' practice with peaking any of the billion or so fast primes out there will fit this camera and work about as well as any AF system, o the zeiss 50/1.4 or $400 Sigma 50/1.4 that WILL provide AF with the cheaper of Sony's adapters (the nex version: <$100.).
Just an FYI to all, and hopefully some will upvote this so others see it:
RStyga: There is nothing small about this system if you include the traditionally-huge Sony/Zeiss lenses. The prices of the latter are not attractive, either.
Some just don't get it.
Back-compatible to all Alpha glass, not just ZeissBack-compatible to essentially all legacy glassFully compatible with all existing E mount glass (including pancakes and the 16-50 power zoom
Small when you want it to be, and a full frame behemoth if you need it to be.
Thoughts: Meanwhile, Sony put a full frame sensor into a body that has similar size of G16. Canon is dreaming...in Japan only
I am amused. The homepage:
Sony full frame this, sony full frame that5 new sony lensesSony 1" constant 2.8 superzoomSony smartphone with P&S sensorCanon releases two new colors to limited market
marike6: One of the more obvious design ripoffs in recent times. The lens is a clone of the 10-30 VR and the body of the J1. Nikon should win this suit easily.
Yeah... I don't know what the uproar is for. When I saw that Polaroid announcement I very literally thought it was a 100% Nikon camera licensed under the polaroid name.
Of course, things being what they are in the business world, it may have been, and the lawsuit is actually over some stupid contractual obligation. Who knows. Who cares.
ryansholl: Between all of the comments that a curved phone is more difficult than a flat phone to fit in a pocket, I've deduced that this is one seriously overweight forum.
Yes, if measuring from a flat surface such as a table or a roundish object with a very large radius - like an extremely large person. Not if measuring from the surface when the object it actually spends most of its time against has a similar radius, such as the body of a fit individual.
No, it's not the 6" screen. Very specifically referring to curving and nothing else. Browse below to find the comments I'm referring to.
And I certainly do have pants that could fit a curved phone in the front pockets. They'll fit an enormous flat phone as well, but the edges lift 1/2 inch or more away from my leg, are uncomfortable, and look ridiculous.
Between all of the comments that a curved phone is more difficult than a flat phone to fit in a pocket, I've deduced that this is one seriously overweight forum.
GabrielZ: Except maybe slightly increased comfort, for talking on next to your face or storing in a large bum pocket, what's the advantage of such a design? Seems a bit gimmicky to me, a case of doing something with new technology just for the sake of doing it, no matter how Samsung tries to spin it.
1. Lots of people (most, maybe) who utilize a smartphone spend barely any time talking on the thing, myself included
2. If you want to sit on a thousand dollar device, that's up to you. I think it's safe to say that most don't, and that those that do don't have the necessary body mass to have a butt without a curve.
I've got a small smartphone because I'm thin and bigger phones fit really badly in my front pockets. I want this.
Valentinian: Well done for Nikon, except.... its marketing stinks because you cannot buy just the AW1 and the 10mm (equiv. 27mm) ONLY.Underwater snorkeling I would use the 27mm equivalent ONLY -is that me, or anybody else agrees?(also a flash would be useful)
Anything but remote flashes are pretty much useless underwater because they illuminate every. single. little. piece of everything directly in front of the camera.
If they had the foresight to include means to trigger a strobe, I'll be surprised/impressed