Do any of them have leather stitched with HIPSTER in giant letters across it?
I still have no idea how I can look through that viewfinder with my left eye and hold it with my right hand.
Jason Haven: I have to assume a lot of digital lens corrections will need to be applied considering the distance from the relatively tiny rear element to the sensor. Any word on that from reps, DPR?
I was always told flange distance was a problem because it required the colors to be compressed so they don't diffuse between the lens and the sensor. Shorter flange distance helps.
mosc: A used Canon 400mm f4 is like half this price and offers similar capabilities with modern AF.
Al wants a bagel, I just people understood what this lens can and can't do. Companies don't sell super-tiny f-stop lenses anymore but they used to be more common and it can be hard for inexperienced people to transition back and forth. They might say "wow, 1200mm full frame! How come nobody makes that anymore?" when in all honestly it's trounced by a modern tele with a teleconverter. Aperture equivalence, as much as it is berated on here, is extremely useful for comparing these lenses.
Andy G: Wait until the seller discovers that PayPal will simply place his funds in pending, for no particular reason other than to make some interest. He will regret using ebay. :-)
It's true. Dealing with getting money in and out of EBAY is hell these days.
Plenty of pictures taken over 220 degree field of views to match it, they just come from stitching together multiple shots or from multiple cameras/lenses wired together. 220 degrees is arguably more niche than 1.1 degrees (the 1200mm lens in the article)
If you use the 1.4x AND the 2.0x on the 400 f4, which you'd be far from the first person to do, you'd get a manual focus 1120mm f11.2. Pretty close to 1200 f11. Plus it zooms out by removing the converters, costs less, and is far shorter/lighter.
This lens is only of "vintage" interest and the price is rather steep for that.
Gediminas 8: I can offer my MTO 1100/8 lens for 20% less... And even a 2x TC for few dollars more;)
Isn't it 1100mm f10.5 not f8?
Also I hardly consider a mirror lens equivalent to a refractor.
A 2x teleconverter on the canon, which they make, leaves it a quite reasonable 800 f8. A pairing that can even be autofocused on some canon FF DSLR's. 800 and 1200 are pretty close. Even with the teleconverter on, it's almost a stop faster which is generally worth the 0.5x crop in terms of pixel level noise over the same field of view.
A used Canon 400mm f4 is like half this price and offers similar capabilities with modern AF.
Jim Salvas: The leaf shutter both gives and takes away. You get that nice 1/2000 sync speed, but you get a slow fps rate. The lenses are also slow (36/2.8 equivalent for the 45mm) and you can't adapt other lenses to the body because it doesn't have a shutter. And you can forget about doing other mirrorless tricks, like in-camera focus stacking or a hi-res mode. Right now, a lowly Olympus E-M5 II in hi-res would compete against it well for product photography.
I can see this for fashion photographers and well-heeled landscapers, but it appears to be boxed out of most other applications by those shutters.
Rolling shutter effects are only present in electronic shutters when they're slow to read. With fast enough CMOS, there should be no rolling shutter effect. Electronic shutters will soon render mechanical shutters obsolete.
sneakyracer: Bravo Hasselblad but the Design seems a bit clumsy. Specially the Hot Shoe / EVF eyepiece. Would have preferred a Lecia SL1 EVF and an circular eyepice. The protruding lens mount is also a bit odd. The body would have still remained quite thin with it not protruding. Also a Mechanical Focal Plane Shutter would have opened up a HUGE range of lenses and resulted in MUCH higher sales volume.
It has such little flange distance, isn't it possible they release an adapter for other systems with a shutter in the adapter?
I sort of agree but the niche of fasion photography alone is sizable money and this paired with that 90mm is what most of those folks have been dreaming of for decades.
kalpeshmodi: Pentax K-01 ..... in MF
It has a viewfinder?
All this camera does is make me want the RX10m2. It's maximum aperture at 200mm is a full stop brighter which is worth about a 0.5x zoom to me by itself. Sure the m3 goes past even that by a good bit but shooting past 300mm seems very niche for a stop slower 35-200mm.
Anybody wanting to "upgrade" want to sell me their m2?
can you add that maximum macro magnification to the spec comparison?
mosc: Where's the 1/2.33" sensor? There's plenty on other phones with similar physical dimensions.
Sony Xperia line since like 2013.
Kamox: Note to the Dpreview editors: you should definitely produce a comparison video for über-geeks featuring:- this lens;- the Zeiss 1700/4 (you might have to fly to Qatar);- the Sigma 200-500/2.8;- the Canon 1200/5.6;- the Nikon 1200-1700/5.6-8.If you can find those lenses, that is.
aperture makes more sense for lenses designed to focus at infinity. You're talking 7-8.5" refractors except for the 5200mm canon and the zeis (I didn't know that one existed).
I've used the clark 10" refractor at Bucknell University which works pretty well with a 35mm camera and 130 year old glass. Not much younger Clark would make a 40" refractor in 1897 which is still in use in Wisconsin. I'd love to see some saturn pictures through that onto a modern digital camera back.
Here's a state of the art view of the moon through it from before the turn of the last century:http://astro.uchicago.edu/vtour/40inch/40inchseesmoon.jpg
TonyTguy: This is easily a $1000-$1500 lens
Fuji's 16mm f1.4 is $699 and is a "1st party lens"
mosc: Lenses should not be sold with focal lengths and f-stops.
They should be sold with field of views and aperture sizes.
This is a 53 degree 8.6mm AF prime m43 lens.
Everything else is meaningless without context of the sensor behind the lens. If the lens was flawless, 53 degrees and 8.6mm aperture would tell you everything about it's optical performance and those numbers are easy to compare against any other system.
The field of view of a 100mm lens is unknown. The focal length of a 53 degree field of view is also unknown. The difference is the 53 degree field of view is actual information where the focal length independent of sensor size is not.
Also, Diffraction doesn't care about your insistence on ISO invariance. The physical aperture of 8.6mm and the field of view of 53 degrees ALONE will limit resolution. Not to 16 or 20mp no but as you stop down the PHYSICAL APERTURE will tell you when diffraction comes clouding, not the f-stop.