MAubrey: I remember a day when 645 meant that 35mm was an ultra-wide...
The Mamiya Sekor 35mm f/3.5 N was a definite favorite.
Androole: It seems equivalence is unkind to larger sensors as well as to small ones.
"$1500 for a 28mm f2.8? Who would ever buy that?"
It's perhaps an exaggeration, but it does say something that despite the 645Z's bargain price tag as far as digital medium format is concerned, it's still not a great value proposition unless you really, really need it. Especially since the 5DS has the same resolution, and the A7r II (and undoubtedly the D820) are nipping close at its heels.
On film it would be equivalent to a 21mm f/2.
I remember a day when 645 meant that 35mm was an ultra-wide...
MAubrey: I have a feeling they're not going to implement this in the original A7...highly disappointing.
"If you get depressed so easily quit digital and move to film."Yeah, that wasn't intended to be taken literally.
But I do shoot film. 35mm, 120, and 4x5.
It's depressing when "pretty old" is used to refer to a camera released less than three years ago that has the exact same sensor and focusing system as the one in this article.
I have a feeling they're not going to implement this in the original A7...highly disappointing.
MAubrey: I never thought there would be a time when I'd think:
"Meh. I'll pass. My Nikon 200mm f/2 AI-S was cheaper and weighs less, too."
To answer Marksphoto, it's comparable in its physical aperture: 135mm f/1.4 = 96.4mm vs. 200mm f/2 = 100mm.
They're also comparable in its function: both are fast medium telephoto lenses. How are they *not* comparable? What would you use a 135mm f/1.4 for that you couldn't use a 200mm f/2 for?
Anyway, my original comment was a joke in any case. Maybe that was less clear on the interwebs...
I never thought there would be a time when I'd think:
PVCdroid: The odd thing about this is that current Sony users have been content with Sony's compressed raw. This article indicates otherwise. It really doesn't please anyone because only anti-sony types were bitching about it. ....for the most part..
Well, I'll still be happy to have the option...
venkat reddy: Exactly. This isn't a pro camera. It's still a variant of the a7 series.
So what you're saying, En Trance, is that the definition of "pro" is "you use the right gear"?
halfwaythere: Looking through samples available online, yours included, it seems like only performance wide open at 24mm could be called sub-par.
If they manage to somehow improve their AF accuracy and consistency this is going to sell very well.
And it will only 'crush' lenses in a technical sense: the per pixel level. The linear and areal resolution of the image as a whole will increase for all lenses across the board.
That means you'll automatically have a sharper image at normal presentational sizes (whether in print or on screen).
AkashRana: i would say the comparison is lopsided, as it would have been better to compare the Otus with Canon 85mm f1.2 or Nikkor 85mm f1.4 as the price difference between Otus and other two is huge. As a matter of fact even Sony 85mm f1.4 also happens to be a great lens which has been ignored completely.
Wouldn't that have destroyed their stated point?
Pandimonium: In the film days you could use a camera for decades and always have the newest sensor (film). Nowadays it's lifespan is much shorter because of fast changing technology. In ten years this camera will just be an obsolete dust gathering piece of tech in your cupboard. No sense in spending so much money on it.
Up until 2014, I was still shooting with the original canon 5D. And if I hadn't switched to another brand, I still would be. Heh, now that it's in my mind, I might have to go pick one up now...
"Autofocus tracking is really very impressive."
I'm really surprised to hear this. Would you guys be able to say more? Surely it isn't competitive with PDAF yet...or is it? How does it rate against the E-M1 or the GH4?
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I don't see the need for this kind of aperture on an ultra wide-angle lens. It might be useful for shooting in dimly lit locations with no tripod or flash, but aren't wide-angle lenses supposed to keep everything sharp? I surely need good depth of field when I shoot landscapes and interiors. I'd trade f/0.95 for f/22.The bokeh mania is driving people nuts.
Anyone who wants the DOF of a 20mm f/1.8 will be happy about this lens.
MAubrey: Well, I have to say, at the very least, the quality of that single shot with the 35mm f/1.4 sold me on the lens. That'll still have to wait to be a 2016 purchase. No budget this year.
Yeah, I don't upgrade bodies often. I'm perfectly happy with my regular A7. The next time I get a new body, it'll replace my E-M5...which currently has about 30,000 on the shutter.
Well, I have to say, at the very least, the quality of that single shot with the 35mm f/1.4 sold me on the lens. That'll still have to wait to be a 2016 purchase. No budget this year.
mpgxsvcd: I am starting to think that a Canon Camera, with a Sony Sensor, Nikon Processing, Panasonic Videos capabilities, Fuji Hybrid Viewfinder, and Olympus 5 axis stabilization would pretty be the end all be all.
If only they would all collaborate on one camera together the world would be a better place.
And Leica's lenses?
mgm2: This is a nice interview, but the sad truth is that their imaging division just doesn't make money and hasn't for several years. That must say something about the demand for their cameras and lenses.
Medical imaging does fine and so much of the tech in their camera/lens division overlaps with the medical division that the financial value in investment exists regardless.
Fuji makes the *vast* majority of its money these days in medical research, particularly with drug patents, but it's camera division still gets funded.
bluevellet: Around or less than 1/60 would not make the high res function usable in all situations, but it could be used hand-held in decent light at wide and normal lenses with human subjects not moving much.
For landscape, I'd say these are the primary types of lenses a μ43 user would be interested in using with it. With the exception of perhaps the 45mm f/1.8...which just might still be useable at 1/60th, telephotos for landscape, while useful, are much more rare than the wide and normal end.
Beyond that, I think the big thing 1/60th could provide is taking care of subject motion in landscapes (trees, etc.).