If it would be with a viewfinder i'd understand how it would be more stable and more enjoyable to shoot with than simple "knuckles to skull" shooting. I do not see why it has such a grip, but there must be a reason, until i understand i will not mock it, but when i do, i just might.
Well at least rotational shake is minimized with such a wide grip, especially for a left eye shooter, other than that i don't know.
Simply put i'm sure many agree, these are images, not photos.
D800.. which one is measured here, the camera or the lens itself? Pretty hard to compare lenses when the tests are done on different formats and cameras altogether.
Must have some sort of a standard, as in same camera for every lens.
Volkan Ersoy: Looking at samples in Steve Huff's review, it's sharp enough wide-open in the centre. However it has a strange bokeh character with blurred highlights having a swirling effect. Many viewers say it gives dizziness. Also, the lower parts of bokeh halos are missing, compared to Leica's Nocti. Huff claims it is close to Noctilux and Hyperime in 3D pop and sharpness though bokeh can get odd at times.
Indeed, get close enough and nail the focus or you could stay shooting studio if bothered with OOF things.
"Bokeh shmokeh" as they say, stop it down and bokeh no longer bothers if there is enough light. Bokeh seems to be some sort of sensor size thingy these days, smartphone users want it, slr users bother more than ever in the film days about it.
Robert Soderlund: This is in my opinion how people should do photography these days, not censor out things with bokeh and unrealistic post processing which makes pictures graphics and not photographs.
Photography is about catching the moment, not feed people your own ideas how things in the world "should" or how you would "want" them to look.
I think you are trying to be funny there with your statement on the bokeh. Seriously speaking we cannot "oust them from photo" only time will ultimately show us what photography is all about.
This is in my opinion how people should do photography these days, not censor out things with bokeh and unrealistic post processing which makes pictures graphics and not photographs.
I rely on lenstip myself, waiting for their review.
Perhaps we can see something that is "Nothing to carp about" and "simply sensational" along with "deserves our praise" or to have "any reservations".
Joking about the wording, but lenstip tests without sharpening.
What is going on, i see complete discussions deleted at least one where i was active
webrunner5: Crap skin tones and crap video and it gets a 80 score??? Wow, someone at DPR REALLY likes Fuji's.
Ultimate image quality is always number one in thousand dollar cameras, no sane person invests that amount to just take snapshots.
I just will not believe that there is 5 high ranking people in Canon that REQUIRE translation, are not the higher ranking ones usually quite knowledgeable of english, since its kind of useful to know especially in the marketing department.
jon404: 3X the price of the new Pentax 645D-II... same 50 MP sensor? What am I missing here?
A hell of alot of people in this world do not eat much anywhere except what they can, going out to eat and riding bicycles is not even everyones luxury.
Therefore it is obvious that this camera is marketed for people with too much money, that find Pentax to be just a soup kitchen.
Marty4650: A dream job, if ever there was one for a photo enthusiast.
And he actually gets paid to do it!
For some being in a basement AND working AND getting paid is all that matters, for others they simply get bored too easily.
zither: OK, everybody acknowledges the sharpness (score) is partially because of the A7R 36mp sensor. But what about A7? I think it's more fair to compare this FE 55/f1.8 on A7 with 50/f1.4 on Canon 6D and Nikon D610. They are the most popular (affordable) FF cameras + standard prime lens bundles and the overall prices are in the similar price range as well.
It has more to do with pixel density over the area the image itself is cast, smaller circles tend to be sharper (micro 4/3) than full frame image circles. In the end the result is what matters, full frame is less densely populated with pixels (often).
If we would measure purely resolving power, a microscope lens would obviously outresolve a large format lens.
Samuel Dilworth: This rampant kitsch (which runs amok on sites like 500px) is destroying our ability to see. It’s like the ‘loudness war’ in music: everything is turned up to eleven to attract attention. More is without exception more in this world.
So it follows that if a dog is good, and a pot-bellied toddler is good, putting the two of them together at sunset on a misty farm is even better. (Duh!) If you formulaically combine:
• fluffy pets• children• sunsets• snow• backlit mist• flowers• bucolic artefacts• fabrics blowing in the wind• blurred backgrounds• very warm, highly saturated colours
… you arrive, as Shumilova did, at the apogee of this aesthetic – the equation can’t be denied! – even though you’ve truthfully created an absurd parody of beauty.
As this garish view of the world becomes normalised, it becomes harder for people to see other, better possibilities.
I agree fully with Samuel. Once you start to mess around with the truth and modify the real thing to what people want to see, you no longer are a photographer but an impostor that believes beauty equals fairy tales or similar.
I cannot help but compare over done PP pictures with reality TV, where you cut out the truth and leave the drama, stitch clips together to deliver your own cliche view on viewers cannot think for themselves.
Robert Soderlund: Fine looking photos, but all unrealistic and should be considered as art photography.
Photography is not just emotional or artistic art, it should also include truth, honesty, and documentary, and be able to show the world we live in, sometimes in the most true way possible.
You mean one of the challenges on the site yes? Indeed it sounds inviting.
Fine looking photos, but all unrealistic and should be considered as art photography.
I just do not understand it, on full frame if one wants close ups with background visible to some extent, it just needs F22 at least, diffraction or not, F16 is low considering its a 58mm lens. Just compare to 35mm 1.8dx, that stops down to f22 which of course is rarely used especially on DX format but nonetheless i think F16 on this and the Zeiss Otus is worth mentioning as a bit limited for some special occasions.
OneGuy: A very difficult shot that taxes any cam. Very bright cloudy sky for a substantial part of the frame does not throw K-3 exposure. No purple at sharp sky-subject transitions. Nice
Check again. The tree in the upper right corner show significant purple. With some prime lens this shot would've looked better, this one is a superzoom after all.
Wouldn't a video maker want the lowest vignetting, the lowest CA on the expense of sharpness that photographers want? If these are just copies of the photo models, then all i can see is the smooth t-stop and its probable 0.1 increment on stops in the camera, but that is just a mechanics advantage.
On top of that, video lenses could benefit from stopping down further than photo ones, due to diffraction not always taking the same toll on sharpness.
I wonder, it seems like it is not possible to make the lenses faster then, by compromising sharpness? 1920x1080 video should not require photolens resolution figures, if we talk 4K then of course its a different situation, but even that does not reach extreme resolutions that photo's today have.