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.
rossdoyle: If this does well, we might start to see Gucci, Prada, and Louis Vuitton get into the camera business.
If that is your view of what a lady is, and believe that it is good to keep such people happy with non functional things as brands, i do not know what planet you are from.
Tim McClanahan: This could be a good match for the new Sony A7 and A7r.
Although not fully relevant to the discussion, i like nose heavy lenses purely for support, since any shake i do is minimized with being able to support the lens in its front, if the weight is all in the back.. and holding purely the camera or a light lens, any slight tremble makes me nervous to attempt a shot, even with stabilized lenses.
With a heavy enough lens and camera combo, one simply cannot shake and tremble so easily.
I'm a Nikon shooter, but i'm very interested in Pentax, its one of the few brands that does not artificially limit their cameras and instead give you what they can in a certain price point. Their lenses are just confusing to me though for some reason.
This might be the D7100 equal, price point seems to be slightly higher though if im not wrong.
And that on sensor image stabilization is probably wonderful with old lenses.
fyngyrz: I have another perspective.
I wonder how many people are like me, where I see the f/2.8 and react "just another slow lens" and never even consider purchasing?
I want to see f/1.4 or better yet, f/1.2. /Then/ I'm thinking of cracking the cookie jar.
Half of each day, on average, is spent in the dark. And just because it's dark doesn't mean subject matter will hold still. So slow lenses are not of interest.
And before someone says "f/2.8 isn't slow", you come back and tell me that after you've shot in the dark with an f/1.2 lens like Canon's 50mm or 85mm. If you do, I'll know you haven't actually used a fast lens. :)
This however is a zoom lens and should not be compared to fast primes. "Wanting to see" f/1.4 or f/f1.2 on a zoom lens like this does not make sense, who wouldnt?. My reasoning is, if its dark, get a flash, or even a flashlight or try make your subject stay still, better yet get some skills to expose at the right moment. The lens does not do the photo, you do. If night shots is all you do theres the 58mm Noct Nikkor for Nikon, and probably a similiar for Canon. f/2.8 constant in this zoom range is FAST in my opinion
For me, "bokeh" usually translates into "censored, i want you to see this only". This is only my opinion since i do not want to spoon feed people subjects and mostly i tend to follow realism over expression, i want people to see and choose the appropriate subject in a photo. There are of course situations where the picture would get too cluttered without a certain spot focused in on. I find this f/4 a welcome addition over the gap that exists currently (2.8-5.6), enough lux power without going heavily into fast sport territory while keeping the size/weight down a bit.
How it actually performs is another story, looks damn good on paper!
Robert Soderlund: The shot presented here has no sports value in my book whatsoever, it simply shows the extreme performance of the lens, which is probably suited more to nature photography.
The expression on the face of this swimmer in that specific time tells us nothing of how he feels, yet there are some that insist on "faking" sportsmens expressions way too often, slow motion for example since the 80's showing how runners pant and how loose their facial skin is. Its all fine for fooling around, but in the end, dont we want to see the sportsman doing what he does, and not how many centimeters of water comes into his mouth at a given occasion?
Do we photographers try to make ourselves differ from others by this? Is it not the idea of photography to capture what actually happens?
No you have misunderstood, its not a photo of faking, please read my comment fully before stating "faking" out of context.
The shot presented here has no sports value in my book whatsoever, it simply shows the extreme performance of the lens, which is probably suited more to nature photography.