Much better. I have been reading all articles in my thunderbird as news-feed because there I have black text on white. Now just change the text to black and it will be fine. By the way, I like the original theme, it is just a little bit hard to read.
naththo: I am so unsure with your ACR files, some of the blue skies are green cast when processed with ACR. I think it might be the DCP Adobe Standard is pretty much off in that term of colour. I looked at your original JPG and the JPG one render blue skies much better. Maybe that needs to process with different DCP or use different software that could do much better job. I do know that A7 Camera Standard is truly well off in green cast but in Adobe Standard is not that bad. I tried processed with Capture One and find it is bit better though. Sometimes when opening ACR the highlight often blownout compare to JPG looks fine with conserved highlight.
I agree. It is better.
In image 96 the sky is sky blue. The water is blue with is bit green in it. Just like see water often looks. I have not been there, therefor I can not say if it is realistic or not.
I only took a look at the jpgs. They are in sRGB. Blue Sky looks often better in wider colour spaces, but here I don't have a comparison. It looks blue and has no greenish colour cast.
Looks good at my Eizo ColorEdge.
Jhaakas: It is not a 24-600 f2.4-4 .. but look closely, it is a 8-200 mm lens. The equivalent fstop is f7.2-12 (not 2.4- 4)and it is what it is.
The quality of still pics is great compared to a PS camera, however pretty ordinary compared to a APSC dslr. Zoomed photos have poor contrast, low sharpness and sort of a whitish opaqueness. Even a basic Nikon d3300 or a Pentax K-50 with a 55-200 zoom has much better pic quality.Video is where the RX10 will have the upper hand.. and those capabilities are amazing. However you might get them also in a dedicated video camera for much less price.
The IQ of the Zuiko 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 is dissapionting indeed. The M.Zuiko 75-300mm F4.8-6.7 is also not that great. The 75-300mm F4.8-6.7 II is said to be OK to quite good. I have not tested it so far, but I am going to. The Zuiko 90-250mm F2.8 should be qite good. But I have not tested it by now and probalbly never will. I am quite content with my Zuiko 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 + EC-14. But it is pretty big compared to the smaller zooms.
I don't think that the IQ of the two 300mm Olympus lenses is that bad. The Zuiko 300mm 2.8 and the M.Zuiko 300mm 4 are not that bad in my opinion.
RMGoodLight: When I see those pictures I wish cameras would be more standarized like PCs. I would like to change the sensor of the X100T with the one of the Samsung NX500 or a Sigma Merril. This will not work unfortunately.
I changed CPU on laptops several times. No problem. GPU is not changeble on most laptops. But last time I changed CPU I did it on an now over 6 years old model.
Androole: Honestly guys, while it's expensive, I'm not sure all the sore comments about pricing are reasonable.
It's not a 70-200/2.8. Those already cost $2000. So that's the starting point, but this is a 90-280mm, and the ending aperture is still a fast f/4.
Ultimately, this is somewhere on the spectrum between a CaNikon 70-200/2.8 @ $2000 and a CaNikon 200-400/f4 @ $7,000-$10,000. Obviously it's not as extreme as the latter lenses, but they're the only higher-end reference point there is for this, because no major OEM makes a lens like this.
Honestly, does anyone here believe that if Canon or Nikon were to release a 100-300/f2.8-f4 IS USM VR IF ED II that it would cost a penny under $4000 or even $5000?
So yeah, I'm sure there's a bit of a Leica tax associated with it. But at least it's an innovative lens that does what nothing else on the market does.
(and please don't suggest adding a 1.4x TC to a 70-200/2.8. The optical degradation takes that out of serious contention instantly)
Olympus 90-250mm f/2.8 ED is listed at B&H at $6000.
Dave Oddie: 60mm f.ov. equivalent on 4/3? Can't think of a more useless focal length.
It's not a standard lens giving a natural field of view and it's not short tele either.
On aps-c at 45mm equivalent it is almost the ideal standard lens focal length to give that natural viewpoint so makes much more sense.
Adding a 4/3 version seems like an afterthought. If I were a 4/3 user I'd get something like the Oly 45mm F1.8. The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is minimal and not worth the compromise in my opinion.
In the 90th I used the Micro-Nikkor 60mm 1:2,8D as a standard lens.
Finally! Without the ‘accentuated red line’ I would have absolutly no clue that they are intended for photo-quality printing.
Onur Otlu: "..and features a new XA (extreme aspherical) element which has been rendered even more aspherical in this lens by being cut in half."
This was my favourite of them all - along with "ugly bokeh".
Thanks for the humor, and Rishi was right - you've *got* to keep this going!
I thought a spherical lens would inavitably have spherical abarration. Thats why it is called spherical aberration. The focal lenght of an spherical lens depends on the distants from the center of the lens. And all the other abberations, coma, astigmatism, curvature of field, distortion are inherrant for spherical lenses. The best you can get with a single lens is the combination of a two aspherical surfaces like the design of the Visby lenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_lenses It it said that two of them are pretty good. Very low spherical abberation and low distortion almost to the edge. But I think you can not correct chromathic abberation with just one lens.
kineticdg: I have to say I'm a little disappointed in this post. Haven't we said for years that it's not the camera that matters, it's the photographer? Couldn't you find a single photographer who was cut in half for this show? Oh well, maybe next year.
That would be a thing for Gunther von Hagens. Or did he do that allready?
MikeF4Black: "Leather effect cover". Classy.
Fox leather was not available, I guess. But on the other hand: It's Asia, isn't it?
noirdesir: I wonder whether the popularity of the so-far released Art lenses and the professed desire for Art lenses covering lens types well-covered by first-party lenses is based more on their great IQ or them being cheaper alternatives to first-party lenses that mostly are very good already.
Most Art lenses released so far provide a very high-quality version where none existed from Nikon and Canon (50 mm f/1.4, 24 & 35 mm f/1.4 to some degree) or provide lens types that didn't exist before (18-35 mm f/1.8, 24-35 mm f/2, 20 mm f/1.4, 50-100 mm f/1.8).
But the lenses most people seem to be asking for are 24-70 mm f/2.8, 70-200 mm f/2.8 and 85 mm f/1.4 where the first-party lenses are mostly pretty good already and the biggest complaint is usually their hight price. Art versions of those would be of the type: similar or somewhat better while noticeably cheaper.
For me the 24-70 and campareble lenses are completely stupid. I use focal length around 70mm or corresponding lengths on other formats. So have to switch at 70mm is very annoying. The Olympus 12-60mm 2.8-4.0 is the lens that suits me best at the moment. Unfortunatly it is not that fast. I once had the Nikon 35-105mm. That was a good range. It had a good macro mode. You had to press a botton to unlock the zoom ring to switch it in macro mode. Unfortunatly it was not that fast (3.5-4.5) and was not very sharp either. I would love to see that in 2.8 and sharp. 50-135mm would also be an interessting range, but not for APS-C.
ThePhilips: It look to me that somebody tried to shoot at 800mm eq FL hand-held. Pretty brave.
And the old Zuiko Digital 70-300mm is really not a very good lens.
Sylwiusz: 30mm f1.4 - the first Sigma aimed at enthusiast mirrorless users. We are waiting for more small, EVIL-dedicated lenses with parameters good enough for most of photography-lovers :-) I'd love to see 75mm f2.0, 13mm f2.8. Any other suggestions?
Well, it depends if you refer to APS-C or mft. On mft the 60mm is allright and a 75mm 1.8 exists. Very good and a bit expensive.
The 60mm F2.8 DN is absolutly stellar and costs next to nothing. (Ok, 180€ is not really nothing, but still very reasonable.) And it's best perfomance is at 2.8. If this 30mm is nearly as good at 2.8 and half as good at 1.4 it would be a must buy.
Jonathan F/2: The question is to get the 30mm 1.4 Art for M43 or E mount?
If you have a E-mount camera I would not recommend to buy the m4/3 version.