The reason this camera went for so low, was because of the auction house. Not very well known place to buy a rare camera.
yabokkie: climate should be blamed, the uncertain economy in China. also in Japan and China, fake Leica copies often sold at higher prices than genuin ones, that genuinity may also be blamed.
what the flack are you talking about??? Clueless as always...
Canon decided to make Pale-White camera in honor of their Marketing Department, after they saw projected End of Year sales figures.
stevens37y: Perhaps an old type in Apple compatible white color.Nikon is teasing the retro guys Canon the Apple guys.
yes, because Apple's secret for success is the white color. Newer-mind they turned the world upside-down and revolutionized the industry, showing the way for everyone to follow.
But back to Canon - looks like another FAIL.
Wow, once again Nikon releasing a bandaid camera to stop the bleeding, and yet again its not going to work. Looks like they forgot one little component, which is innovation.
Nikon is playing safe and trying to make an omelet without breaking any eggs and I don't think its going to work. (Nikon-1 was a great example of that)
They have to understand they are not loosing market share to Retro design, they loosing market share to Innovation and size/weight reduction.
They will sell some, and it might even become a little cult camera for a few people, but it will not stop the a matures and photo enthusiast moving from Nikon to Mirrorless (retro and modern) systems. It reminds me of Panasonic L1 / Leica D3 back in 4/3 era, nice cameras but nothing ground breaking or highly popular.
Tom Goodman: I am as in favor of advancements in technology as the next person but this is just getting out of hand. I don't yearn for the days of old. I don't go to exhibitions because the images were made on a cellphone. And I certainly don't give a hoot whether the photographer used pure rainwater for the final bath or devised a new sharpening tool that takes voice commands. I just want images to change my perceptions and understandings. Let me put this another way: when is the last time you saw an announcement for an exhibition of paintings at MOMA or the Met that said the show will feature work done only with horse hair brushes?
I agree with you, but you forgetting that this is not the art site. This website designed with only one goal in mind, and that is to sell product. This site originated as flamboyant Canikon lover site, but eventually, after it got bought out by corporation, they became closeted multisexual, that love everything for the sake of advertisement. Anything goes, as long as it generates traffic and sales. I'm not saying its bad, its just what they do. You want art, go elsewhere.
Its Canon's desperate cry for attention...
DotCom Editor: Pretty dumb.
don't be so hard on yourself.
Good job Nikon... nice rebound after Nikon-1 fiasco...
yabokkie: no matter who makes the lens how much does it worth if it can have similar resolution and aberrations as say Canon 135/2L?
135/2L got a 1.4 stops larger aperture (the difference of focal lengths also considered), more elements thus costs more to make. but if we ignore the internal formula issue, the lens should worth 1.4 stops less than 135/2L thus 989 * 2 ^ (-1.4) = 375 US.
@yabokkie,for 4x5 you can use Schneider 150/2.8, Cooke 162/2.5, Dallmeyer 200/2.9 or if thats not enough try Ernostar 165/2 or Dallmeyer SS 200/1.9
Really? Yes, I made a typo, but can you even tell the difference between 135mm and 147mm if you look at pictures??? I know I can't.
CollBaxter: Ieeeeesh I thought I was on a rumors site.
This happens all the time with all brands. Olympus has done it before with the ZD 70-300 and a few others . Its a optical copy of the Sigma 70-300. But that's about where it stops you can't really compare the two . Things like glass quality , components, materials , QC , manufacturing processes etc. give you the final product. There are different grades of optical glass at massively varying prices and quality also coatings etc.
It not does mean because you can design it you can build . Although Sigma seem to have upped their game and have excellent lenses. They may even have built it. (75mm) who knows and no one is telling.
@yabokkie,even if Olympus manufactures in China, so what?Are you implying that Japanese workers are superior to Chinese? Are you saying that your Karate is stronger than their Kung-fu?Are you racist yabokkie?
Plastek: Hahaha, and Oly fanboys used this lens as a prime example on how great Olympus engineers are.fail
Any engineer with optical software can design more less decent lens in todays' world. 100 years ago only lucky few were good enough, most were PhDs in Optical design, could design a nice lens. Most of today's lenses are derived from older designs and this one not an exception. If Sigma good enough to design the sharpest 35mm DSLR lens, they are good enough to design anything in my book.
@yabokkie,you don't need Olympus to gather more light. I can say the same about Canon FF lenses, they need to gather more light, because last time I mounted one on my 4x5 they did not do sh*t...Different formats, you know...
@zaurus,first of all, what is wrong with 135mm f3.5 equivalent??? Have you ever shot FF at f2.0??? I had numerous FF f1.4 and f2 lenses and I did stop them down in 99% of the time.
In the beginning of last century when FF was introduced, people also were skeptical and it was considered an amateur format, but eventually people realized that there are PLUSES to FF as opposed to Large or Medium format. One of those important pluses was actually LESS shallow DOF, yes LESS shallow can be super good for shooting at darker situations, also SIZE and WEIGHT, shooting handheld.And remember the diffirence between FF and m4/3 is about x2 in diameter. The difference between 4x5 format and FF is about x4. Ansel Adams did travel for a while with both 4x5 and Leica FF.
Vadimka: Who cares who designed it. If you really want to know who designed it, just give credit to mr Taylor, who designed Cooke Triplet well over 100 years ago. This lens is heavily modified Triplet Derivative.
So thank you mr Taylor and TTH Cooke company. Also huge thank you to Dr. H. Lee also of TTH Cooke company, who designed a Double Gauss f2 lens in 1920, commonly used today on most 50mm fast lenses, including Noctilux.
@Frank,yes, Hexanon is asymmetrical double gauss design. (word "symmetrical" was an autocorrect typo) But anyways, yes, diffirent lenses, just because booth have many elements don't mean they are the same :)
I liked 135/2 and FF combination a lot, but I'm not going to carry it anymore. I chose a smaller format and I'm aware of limitations. If you can't isolate your object with m4/3 and 75/1.8, you have some serious problems with your skill.
To me Oly 75mm = 300g vs Canon 135mm = 750g. The diffirence = 2.5 means that Canon should cost around $360 (oh wait, I DON"T CARE, ITS TOO BIG AND TOO HEAVY, I DONT WANT IT at any price point) Now that we got this out of the way, how are you doing my friend? did you take any pictures lately?
@Frank_BR,that Hexanon was symmetrical lens design, therefore a Double Gauss derivative. This lens has no symmetry, its more of a tele design, closer to Canon 135mm f2 which is in turn an Ernostar = Cooke Triplet derivative.
@marike,Yes we could say that every lens is a derivative of either Cooke Triplet, Gauss, etc... And its not just me who say it, people with PhDs in optical engineering saying that as well. So lets give them credit, not me.
You are wrong. Sonnar was not derived from Tessar design. (and your link does not support your statement, read it again, plus wiki is not exactly a reliable source, I'd prefer published books on optical design from optical experts)
Tessar is a different desing type, separate classification (along with Gauss and Triplets, etc) Sonnar was derived from Ernostar design, and Ernostar desing was derived from Cooke Triplet. Therefore Sonnar derived from Cooke Triplet.
You want me to admit that Oly 75mm is 100% Sigma design. OK, I admit it a big possibility. But why do you make it sound like its a bad thing? They used famous and common lens design as the base.
Also why Cooke Triplet derived lens is a bad thing? Best lens Canon makes is 135/2 is based on CT Ernostar.
vodanh1982: Wow. the 75mm f/1.8 is the sharpest m43 lens and Sigma made it.
@marike, so what you saying that Canon is too greedy to outsource some great designs and stick to what they have in their system (even thou some of them are not that great) Please tell me how many innovative truly new (not refresh) lenses that Canon announced in the past 10 years. Not many....Now look at Olymus 4/3 and m4/3 - probably looking at 30-40 lenses and most of them of extreme good photo quality. So if 3 or 4 out of those 40 were outsourced from other company, so what??? As long as they are excellent lenses, More power to Olympus.
@Starkiller, yes some macros and teles that Canon makes are sharper than Sigma 35/1.4, wow OK,, they better be... or they really have a problem...
@marike6,number of elements are not everything when it comes to lens design. Therefore a name Derivative. Triplet does not mean it only has three elements. Elements are added to accommodate for brightness and aberration corrections, etc...Sonnar for example is also triplet derivative and it doesn't have 3 elements.
And Marike, skateboards are not modified motorcycles, seriously, what are you smoking?
Yes. But the funnier part is 35/1.4 the sharpest Canon and Nikon mount lens and Sigma also made it. :)