18 hours ago
 |
mapgraphs
Lives in
AK, United States
Works as a
Illustrator, cartographer and graphic designer
Joined on
Dec 15, 2011
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Never underestimate the ability of a software or hardware company marketing VP to propose something idiotic and upper management to agree.
A subscription model is mass market. Businesses prefer leases and seat fees. The prospect of continuous enterprise-wide upgrades at the whim of some marketing genius probably scares the c**p out of the average IT department.
This is mass market. If it works, if the revenue stream is sufficient, all the rest of Adobe's products could go the same route (IMHO).
crow24: Dang, I'm really-really irritated. So, I guess that you cannot touch (other than move or delete) your PSD files when you aren't subscribed...next they will embed file death code...no current subscription...PSD's eventually timeout never to be recovered.
"wait for the OS upgrade cycle to take care of the pre-cloud users. anyone still using your 16-bit Windows 95 software?"
Yes.
PaintShop Pro 6 (released 2000 for 95, 98 & ME) on win7.
Blackmagic:
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera
Sorry, but I just have to ask it…
While I understand the teenage crush some of the staff have with the Fuji X line (and it a very decent line), are you guys honestly saying that the images you’ve shown for wide open, center and edge sharpness and vignette make this a Gold Award “fast” ultra wide?
For the vignette, I could see it if the lens was an f/1.4 and perhaps f/1.8 but that amount of vignette for an f/2.8? Come on.
Doing the “It's not bad at F2.8” is an opinion, not supported by what your review offers. Shooting at f/4 kind of defeats the intent of “fast” Ultra Wide doesn’t it? At f/4 one could pick up a Heliar, get better sharpness and less vignette and save some money. From what the review offers it seems like a very decent consumer grade “fast” ultra wide. But your review hasn’t shown anything to put it into a class above that.
mapgraphs: It would seem that the decision to build a 4/3 sensor system wasn't such a bad idea after all; perhaps given that the original 35mm film Cine cameras were based on such a format (thanks to Thomas Edison I believe - from Wikipedia):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/3011840
Blackmagic CineCamera:
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/
Francis Carver:
“I did not get the connection between the Edison Kinetoscope, on the one hand, and the Blackmagic camera”
Well, for an industry standard format that has been in place since before 1909 at least, continuity does play a small part. As movie house projectors go digital I suppose filmmakers are going to look to companies like Panasonic, BMC, Cosina, Zeiss and others to provide the tools to supply content.
Edison's Motion Picture Patents Trust standardized the 35mm gauge in 1909. The 35mm standard for movies was set at four perforations per frame or 16 frames per foot of film.
It would seem that the decision to build a 4/3 sensor system wasn't such a bad idea after all; perhaps given that the original 35mm film Cine cameras were based on such a format (thanks to Thomas Edison I believe - from Wikipedia):
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/3011840
Blackmagic CineCamera:
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/
A bread slicer is an invention.
Sliced bread is a product.
“Sliced bread is better than unsliced bread” is marketing.
In 1903 Kodak sold the 9 ½” x 4 3/4 x 1 7/8” model 3A as a Folding Pocket Camera.
Obviously the 1 V1 sold well enough for Nikon to think about upgrading the 1 line.
It's a Nikon.
It fits in your hand.
You can take photos of the kids at the soccer match.
The lenses are interchangeable.
It's a Nikon.
(You can swap out "Canon" for Nikon and get the same effect)
It isn't going to replace my e-pm1 but if it takes 14mp photos with decent glass, what's to complain about?
magneto shot: my heart stopped at "4k camera" but then i realized...whats the point of a 4k video that have no shallow DOF. next...
"no shallow DOF"
A short trip to DOFMaster (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) and using the equipment shows that small sensor equipment has shallower DOF, for example:
Nikon D4, 35mm, f8 at 10ft = 18.1ft of DOF
Sony Nex7, 35mm, f8 at 10ft = 9.31ft of DOF
A related story perhaps is the rescue of the 20x24 large format Polariod camera system.
http://www.20x24studio.com/
mapgraphs: The story of the comments sections:
"Example: 14-35 f/2 ($2300, 2lbs) vs Canon 24-105 f/4 ($950, 1.5lbs); 35-100 f/2 ($2500, 3.6 lbs) vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS ($1200, 1.7 lbs)."
Lets compare an f2 lens to an f4 lens and claim parity of value.
Everyone who uses SHG or HG glass and undersands what it is, raise your hands.
dbateman, you probably lost them when you mentioned "light meter"
It's unlikely any of them shot 135, 120 and half frame using a light meter. The concept of shooting plus X on all three formats, using the same exposure with different lenses, is not something bracketeers are going to understand. Probably ever.
The story of the comments sections:
"Example: 14-35 f/2 ($2300, 2lbs) vs Canon 24-105 f/4 ($950, 1.5lbs); 35-100 f/2 ($2500, 3.6 lbs) vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS ($1200, 1.7 lbs)."
Lets compare an f2 lens to an f4 lens and claim parity of value.
Everyone who uses SHG or HG glass and undersands what it is, raise your hands.
A few reasons why Olympus might consider building an E-7
Zuiko Digital ED 14-35mm F2.0 SWD
Zuiko Digital ED 7-14mm F4.0 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm F2.0 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 90-250mm F2.8 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 150mm F2.0 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 300mm F2.8 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm F2.8-3.5 SWD lens
Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD lens
Zuiko Digital ED 11-22mm F2.8-3.5 lens
Zuiko Digital ED 50mm F2.0 Macro lens
Zuiko Digital 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 II lens
Moving on to 1200 (and counting :~)
I would say, as a recent m4/3 adopter, that there are Canon owners out there who are going to be adding this with a body cap, plus an adapter to their bag. A very good entry model from the looks of the specs. Screen resolution is impressive considering that I'm using 1/4 of what this has - and I'm not complaining much. The right way to do it is with a new mount. The approach is probably going to appeal to the upcoming generation of future pros whose only knowledge of photography right now is a cell phone.
At the right price point and with the right adapters, I'd be looking seriously at this line.
Ropo16: Forget this hatchet job. Look at Robin Wong real world samples:
http://robinwong.blogspot.co.uk/
Maybe Olympus shold be sending their lenses to Robin to review. Impressive photos, never mind the lens, and the lens output in his hands is very impressive.
mapgraphs: Apparently the Equivalent magic wand works like this:
A 75mm f1.8 lens magically has different specs when placed on different camera bodies. You would think that this lens would remain a 75mm f1.8 lens when placed on an 8x10 view, 4x5, 645 or a 135 camera body. But it doesn’t. The Equivalents tell us that on a 135 camera body this lens is magically physically transformed into a 75mm f3.5 lens.
Does that mean a FF mount 75mm f1.8 lens become a 75mm f0.9 Equivalent when placed on a m4/3 body? I like the idea of magic Equivalent lenses.
Guys, a 2x crop factor doesn’t change the physical size of a lens or magically create an Equivalent aperture or Equivalent depth of field. The f1.8 maximum aperture is relative to the focal length of the lens, not the area of the film/sensor plane. The physical size of the glass or the aperture does not change. No matter where the lens goes, except perhaps in the Equivalent Space Time Continuum, this lens is and always will be a 75mm f1.8 lens.
@R Butler – it’s hard to do tongue-in-cheek equivalent without tags. Field of view equivalent is understood by most I think, but then there are those who want to multiply or divide, usually divide, everything. :-)
Apparently the Equivalent magic wand works like this:
A 75mm f1.8 lens magically has different specs when placed on different camera bodies. You would think that this lens would remain a 75mm f1.8 lens when placed on an 8x10 view, 4x5, 645 or a 135 camera body. But it doesn’t. The Equivalents tell us that on a 135 camera body this lens is magically physically transformed into a 75mm f3.5 lens.
Does that mean a FF mount 75mm f1.8 lens become a 75mm f0.9 Equivalent when placed on a m4/3 body? I like the idea of magic Equivalent lenses.
Guys, a 2x crop factor doesn’t change the physical size of a lens or magically create an Equivalent aperture or Equivalent depth of field. The f1.8 maximum aperture is relative to the focal length of the lens, not the area of the film/sensor plane. The physical size of the glass or the aperture does not change. No matter where the lens goes, except perhaps in the Equivalent Space Time Continuum, this lens is and always will be a 75mm f1.8 lens.
JonB1975: To all the equivalency people:
What do you use to calculate exposure?
- ISO setting, shutter speed, f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is described as f1.8 - so the camera behaves the way people expect.
What do you use to calculate depth of field?
- focal length and f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is listed as 75mm, again so depth of field calculations would be correct - if it was listed as 150mm naysayers would REALLY be up in arms!
Equivalency apparently means different things to different people at different times. I come from 135 and 2 1/4 film mostly. I'm not interested in what a full frame sensor does at this point. The issue for me is what a particular lens is going to do with regards to a 4/3 or m4/3 camera. The point is that f1.8 = f1.8.
And in over 45 years of shooting and printing, I've never needed or seen a need for less depth of field. I wish there was something out there that went to f128 like my Kodak 3a did.
JonB1975: To all the equivalency people:
What do you use to calculate exposure?
- ISO setting, shutter speed, f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is described as f1.8 - so the camera behaves the way people expect.
What do you use to calculate depth of field?
- focal length and f-stop. This is the reason why the lens is listed as 75mm, again so depth of field calculations would be correct - if it was listed as 150mm naysayers would REALLY be up in arms!
A simple experiment might help illuminate the aperture/equivalency discussion relating to 4/3 and m4/3 systems.
I took a 40-150 f3.5/4.5 zoom, set it to about 135mm, set the camera to Aperture priority framed a shot and got a reading of f4.3 at 1/80 – took shot and replaced the lens with a Nikon 135mm f2.8 with adaptor, framed the same shot and took a reading wide open at f2.8 and got a shutter speed of 1/320. Dialing the aperture down to f4.5 gave a reading of 1/80. Both shots matched the first shot.
Long story short, focal length equivalency (to a traditional 35mm film format lens) for 4/3 is 2x. Or as with the above example 135mm = 270mm and f2.8 = f2.8. So, a M.Zuiko 150mm (equivalent) f1.8 High Grade lens for a grand is not a stretch by any means.
I wish I had a business reason to drop 1k on such a lens, or a 16mp camera for that matter. Let alone 3k on a “full frame” body. One can still appreciate the craftsmanship… And thank DPR for the news and reviews.
supeyugin1: This lens is equivalent to 24-70/5.6 on FF. How much such lens costs for FF? Maybe $200. Panasonic is going to sell those for at least $500, if not more.
You do the math.
Actually, if it is a 12-35 on a m4/3 body, it is the focal length equivalent of a 24-70 on the m4/3 body and would be a 12-35 on a Full Frame body. In either case it is f2.8.
For example, the maximum aperture on a 50mm f2.8 lens on a Full Frame camera is f2.8. The same lens attached to an APS-C camera body with an adaptor becomes a 75mm or 80mm f2.8 lens. The same lens attached to a m4/3 camera with an adaptor becomes a 100mm f2.8 lens. An f2.8 lens is always f2.8. Focal Length Equivalency is a sensor size “crop” factor not an aperture factor.