Lucas_: Although a bit heavy for an f4, the 70-200 would be a great option for Sony folks, if priced right. Currently there are only huge/expensive f2.8 choices on that range from Sony, Sigma and Tamron.
The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is 1112g/201mm vs this Tokina lens at 1020g/168mm, so barely any size/weight gain.
yabokkie: Sony E20/2.8 is equivalent to about 31mm f/4.3 on 35mm format. Sony E24/1.8 is about 37mm f/2.8, Canon M22/2 is about 35mm f/3.2, and Pana G20/1.7 is about 39mm f/3.3.
compared to the last three, E20/2.8 is wider and darker. all these lenses are very easy and very cheap to make, and I think they are all quite handy to use, even for indoor if you don't mind IQ.
Any exposure benefit you get from using a 1.7 lens on M43 vs a 2.8 lens on APS-C is pretty much moot, because sony's APS-C sensors give you on average about 1 stop better ISO performance than the best M43 sensors.
So a M43rds 20mm lens at 2.0 and iso 800 and an APS-C 20mm lens at 2.8 and ISO 1600 are generally going to take the same photo in terms of quality, noise, dof, etc. All things being equal of course(lens quality, you'll have to step back a little with the M43 to get the same framing).
So the 20/1.7 gives you a half stop benefit. Hooray!
My mirrorless camera is an OMD with 20/1.7 + 45/1.8 btw, just so you guys don't think I'm hating on M43. I do understand the differences though, and I think its important, if a bit esoteric.
With static scenes the IBIS on Oly cameras makes a much much bigger difference than a 1.7 M43 and 2.8 APS lens. On Pana bodies, its moot(unless you have an OS lens). With moving subjects, its moot.
Jefftan: biggest problem is no OSSno use at high ISO at night
So you carry around a tripod, with your pocket sized camera and lenses? What is the point then? Just bring a DSLR if you're going to be lugging around a tripod.
HubertChen: I shoot regularly with Pentax prime lenses on Sony NEX. This is already fun and image quality is superb and comparable to what my friend shoots with his Canon 5D, which will make the NEX / Pentax Prime combo look like a dwarf. This adapter would shift favors even more to the NEX. I am wondering why the Pentax K-Mount is not considered yet. They have excellent primes at diminishing size and low cots. Ideal for NEX and Metabones adapter.
You can get a cheap PK to EF adapter and use it with the Canon version of this adapter, as long as your PK lens has an aperture ring.
Same with Olympus OM, M42 screw mount, Contax/Yashica C/Y mount, Kodak/Voigtlander DKL mount, Leica R, and probably a few more, all with infinity focus. Really anything that can be converted to EF mount without correct glass will work.
No AF though obviously.
vassilis gazelos: Hi all, I'm trying to decide on a new compact/bridge camera and this review came out on time even though it doesn't inlcude the bridge/large zoom cameras! I don't have first hand real life experience of either of these so I'm trying to narrow down the selection from the reviews and comments. I'm looking for the best image quality, full manual control, widest angle 24mm/25mm, long exposure, braketing. I was considering the FZ200 or SX50HS however these have significnalty smaller sensors than the ones reviewed in this article. Could anyone assist me with some real life experience and regardless of the budget how these different types compare. Is the image quality (and Depth of Field) of the comeras here noticeably better? P.S> The only reference I have is via a friend's Canon older Gseries which produced some relay good results (I don't rememer the widest angle though). My experience ranges from a SLR Canon F1 (multiple lenses) to a point a shoot Sony DSC T7 Thank you
when you compare M43 vs NEX with similar lenses, the M43 combo is almost universally smaller. Say M43 with 45/1.8 vs Nex with 50/1.8, M43 with 20/1.7 pancake vs NEX with 35/1.8, 24/2 or 30/2.8. Even when you compare larger bodies like the OMD vs the Tiny Nex 3/5 the M43 is about the same size or smaller with similar lenses. If you take the compact M43 bodies the size is smaller than NEX. Sure the NEX may be smaller in height, but what does that give you with a large lens attached? The Sony 16-50mm and the not very good 16mm prime lenses are the only NEX lenses that really compete on size.
itsastickup: Totally hopeless bokeh test.
For me it's a deal-breaker: bad bokeh means unusable portraits.
Closing down the aperture can get rid of hard edged rings but also double-line 'nissen' bokeh which make for poor/disturbing bokeh as in the two pics (I would call this bokeh 'poor' and unusable). Typically I shoot f1.4 lenses at f2 for bokeh reasons. But in addition, you are more likely to get rings where the focus is at a distance and the blur moderate, as with these pics, while at close portrait distances the rings may not be so hard; which is the type of photos I am most interested in.
On top of that: a closed down aperture can be useful (one doesn;t always want obliteration-bokeh) but the bokeh can deteriorate.
So effectively we need a range of apertures and distance to know what the bokeh situation is.
Bokeh is so neglected that I have to do a lot of research to work out whether a lens is any good. It's a pain.
Compare the sigma's bokeh to other common 35/1.4 lens, in any situation where the sigma's bokeh looks bad, it would look bad with the 35L, Nikon 35/1.4, CZ etc. None of these fast wides provide amazing bokeh and busy backgrounds will make them all look bad. You have to compare the sigma subjectively to other lenses, IE: taking photos of the same thing, same camera, same settings. You can find bad bokeh examples of any 35/1.4 if thats what you're looking for. The Sigma may be very slightly worse than other 35/1.4's, but unusable is a huge overstatement.
RStyga: An upper IQ limit of ISP 6400, and then it gets visibly worse than the competition.
Typical Sony DSLR IQ... strong sensor manufacturer but somehow they mess up when using them in their DSLR.. it doesn't make sense...
Sony has IBIS so in certain situations with certain lenses(IE fast primes which hardly any of canon or nikon's lenses come with IS) you'll be able to use a couple stops lower ISO. Not for fast moving subjects of course but it still helps in a lot of situations.
So a 1/2 stop iso penalty can be overcome by IBIS.
I used to shoot canon and now sony, the IBIS is a huge advantage.
IcyVeins: "Sony does not have good lens selection" is code for "Sony doesn't have exotic 600mm telephoto lens or exotic tilt shift lens or 26 thousand versions of a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom"
If you only compare "Sony" brand lenses to Nikon or Canon, Sony has a lot less lenses. If you also compare Minolta AF(which most Sony shooters would consider "first party") lenses its not that big of a difference, sure most of the Minolta lenses are very old designs, but you can say the same for a large portion Canon/Nikon's lens selection as well.
Tilt/shift, and some rectilinear primes wider than 16mm would probably be the biggest gap in the Sony/Minolta system. The tele end is fine: Minolta 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 300/4, 400/4.5, 500/8 af mirror(no other system has one) 600/4, Sony 300/2.8G, Sony 500/4.0G.
Though buying used telephoto lenses like these may not be everyone's thing, all of the Minolta's are discontinued so if thats the case you're better off with Canon/Nikon.
HeezDeadJim: For those suggesting that all this camera is, is shooting at a small aperture where everything is in focus, and then blurring it in post-pro...I just tried all the "blurring" techniques in PS5 (smart, gaussian, box, etc.) to replicate some "in focus" christmas lights into fake bokeh ones.
Alas, I could not get it to even remotely look like a melted orb (with the typical haloing) with such tools. Selective blurring is not any way, shape or form, the same as how the lens distorts the shape of out of focus objects. You're talking about edges of objects intersecting into other objects, depending how far/close it is from the focused area and creating our shallow DOF.
If I'm missing a method in PS to mimic this look fairly easy (not 5+ layers and 2 hours later easy), someone please tell me so I can experiment with it some more.
I understand that this camera isn't faking it(I've read the whitepapers etc) but what you're looking for is:
filter-> blur -> lens blur. You can even pick the number of aperture blades(3 to 8) to reproduce a specific type of bokeh
Its fairly processor intensive though, and works best if you have some sort of "depth" map in the alpha channel of your image, though you can simply copy a layer, blur, and mask - it's not nearly as effective then.
If the lytro could capture depth data(not sure) this would actually be a very robust solution.
Prognathous: I agree that the welded-lensor concept doesn't make much sense (at least not with APS-C sensors). Ricoh should focus on a adding more mount modules, with K-mount being the obvious first choice, now that they've bought Pentax.
As for the claim that flange distance from the lens mount to the sensor makes such modules too large, the solution is simple - make it collapsible. When the camera is turned off, the module should fold back for "coat-pocketability" with pancake lenses. When the camera is turned on, the module should expand for correct focusing all the way to infinity.
The same folding mechanism can be used with manual focus lenses to provide AF (by moving the mount back and forth).
Lastly, with new lenses designed specifically for this mount the module can stay folded and still provide focus to infinity, without compromising size.
In short, Ricoh can and should use existing mounts - even with long flange distance. Compact size can be maintained with the above solution.
While I agree that your idea is sound in theory, I believe the reality of producing such a product would be too complex and prone to failure to be viable for an entry level consumer product.
I also believe you are overstating the desire for a K mount mirrorless, I feel there would be much more interest for a mirrorless system with quality pentax lenses designed specifically for the system.
Also, many Pentax K AF lenses are in-fact screw AF driven lenses, making any sort of auto focus that much harder to engineer. The selection of internal-focusing K lenses certainly wouldn't make up for all the other problems you run into, and supporting the screw drive would be expensive and complex to engineer as well as much more prone to failure with a collapsible system as you suggest. Pentax's most attractive pancake lenses are screw mount as well.
If you end up with a product that has a full-K flange, screw drive AF support, I dont see why you wouldn't just use a Pentax DSLR.
Not to mention that if you really want to, you can simply use a M->M42 or M->K mount to use your Takumar or Pentax K glass on the Ricoh M module.
Film does not inherently have narrower DOF, it is the size of the film plane or image sensor that determines DOF. For example a medium format digital sensor has a narrower DOF than 35mm film.
APS-C does have a wider DOF than 35mm film, but simply saying "film is actually *more* critical than digital when it comes to flange distance, because of the much shallower DOF." is inaccurate.
I think the K mount idea presents too many problems with too few benefits. The Leica M mount on the other hand makes a lot of sense because:A. Leica M mount is already a compact short-flange mountB. Leica digital bodies are very expensiveC. Leica lenses are noted for their legendary quality
On the other hand:A. K mount has a large flange distanceB. Pentax K mount DSLRs are not expensive, and coming out with a K module would only mean competing with your own product.C. Pentax K glass is not lusted after in the same sense that Leica, Zeiss, etc glass is.
VeijoM: The GXR mount A12 -module would be ideal opportunity for Ricoh and Pentax to introduce the bigger Pentax mirrorless mount (not K-mount) that they are working on. Having option to use GXR and different Pentax mirrorless bodies for the same lenses sounds good and would support each other. And more importantly, Ricoh can now do it, why would they not?
Disagree all you like, its basic math. The 45.5mm flange distance of K mount means a camera 20mm+ longer than any other compact mirrorless system.
The only way you'll ever see a DSLR the size of a Pentax MX is if someone designs an LCD screen + imaging sensor that is as thin as film. You're talking at min. an extra 10mm for screen + sensor, so 55mm is the smallest depth it would physically be possible to use the K mount. A pentax MX/ME is just a few MM deeper than the K's flange, but its simply not possible with a DSLR, at-least not with current technology.
Even then, you end up with a modular system that is basically the same depth as an entry level pentax DSLR. So who is this system for? The 3 people in the world who A. Have a GXR body. B. Own a lot of pentax K lenses and C. Do not already own a Pentax DSLR? Talk about niche.
Because of the flange distance, a K mount mirrorless would be pretty useless, I mean it would be the same size as a regular DSLR. If Ricoh/Pentax are going to put out a larger-sensor mirrorless system, its going to need a new mount, niether Q or K would be suitable.
Just look at a K mount adaptor for a Sony Nex or something and you'll understand.
A new lens mount, and an adaptor to K that supports AF for legacy lens users would make more sense.
If you want to use your K lenses, you're better off just using a full sized DSLR. a mirrorless camera with the same lens mount would be only marginally smaller.
ismailfaruqi: people always say NEX lenses are huge, the Zeiss lens is too big etc etc but look at Samsung lenses, 60mm, 18-5mm, 85mm, those are gigantic!
Samsung offers 3 pancakes, 16mm, 20mm and 30mm all 2.8 or faster. With a 55mm 1.8 pancake rumored to be coming in 2012.
High end lenses like an 85mm 1.4 on APS-C are going to be large no matter who is making them. Samsung gives you the choice of inexpensive tiny pancakes, or expensive large pro-level lenses.
Sony has one 16mm 2.8 pancake. Thats it, one small lens for the entire system, and its a too odd/wide of a focal length to be used as a general purpose lens for most people.
Ctesiphon: Dear DP Review, Dear Richard Butler,Nice preview, however the remarks on depth of field are wrong.The X10 sensor has a surface four times smaller (diagonal twice smaller, or crop factor of x2) than Four Thirds/micro Four Thirds sensors. Thus its depth-of-field is 2 full stops more than FT/mFT.
In other words, the X10 focal and depth-of-field are equivalent to:- 14-57/4-5.6 on FT/mFT- 18-75/5.6-8 on APS-C(one can check on Cambridge in Colour's website: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm)
Most ILC/DSLR kit zooms are f/3.5-5.6, thus offering greater control (shallower depth-of-field) than the X10 (1/3 stop better for PEN Mini, 1 1/3 stop for APS).
Finally, Olympus XZ-1 offers f/1.8-2.5 on a 1/1.63" sensor (0.61"); this gives a (marginally) shallower depth-of-field than Fuji X10's f/2-2.8 on 2/3" (0.67").
Besides this mistakes (four sentences in the article), good job! I'm looking forward to the full review (with the errors corrected).
Refering to "real photography" as if anyone who understands the technical aspects of photography somehow isn't a real photographer, and simply a nerd is extremely condescending. Any good photographer understands the artistic aspects and the technical aspects equally as well.
When arbitrary comparisons are made, without proper explanation, you begin to lose credibility.
The simple fact that you need to write paragraph after paragraph justifying the statement proves that it is at minimum confusing and misleading, and again, if you read the actual quote, simply factually incorrect.
In "real photography" the perspective is completely different when comparing two different focal lengths as well. This is also important, in "real photography". ~85mm is a pretty classical portrait range, while longer can add unnatural compression.
"Its bright lens also means that the X10 offers slightly shallower depth-of-field" - The statement being made is that the bright lens creates a narrower DOF, which is incorrect, it is also the act of comparing different focal lengths that allows you to get a similarly narrow DOF, not simply the brightness of the lens.
It just doesn't make much sense to compare different focal lengths and make definitive statements that are poorly explained. Whats next, the ground breaking story that a 135/1.8 offers narrower DOF than a 85/1.8?
Whether you're comparing to a mythical or completely real lens, the fact of the matter is that the statement
"Its bright lens also means that the X10 offers slightly shallower depth-of-field than a DSLR or large-sensor mirrorless camera with a typical kit zoom (e.g. 18-55mm F3.5-5.6)."
is 100% factually incorrect. A DSLR with even a slow zoom lens still offers much narrower DOF.
Compared to an equivilant sensor size compact, and F2 lens gives narrower DOF than an F2.8 lens, but not a DSLR(not anywhere close) as stated in your preview.