f/2.8 and no VR = showstopper (for my uses). 1/2000 shutter, but nothing about a built-in ND filter?
This sounds like a potentially great idea that has enough things "up" with it to drive a lot of potential purchasers away. Like how the OVF costs more than the Oly/Panny/Sony add-on EVFs, for example, and I agree wholeheartedly with other posts that a 35mm EFOV lens would have more appeal.
Gothmoth: i hope it kills the overpriced EF 35mm f2.
Why would anyone *hope* such a thing?
The 35/2 has IS and costs less (though the "street" price of the Sigma may be lower). It's one stop slower in *theoretical* light-gathering/action-stopping power but the 4-stop IS makes it usable in 3EV less light (I say theoretical because the vignetting is unknown for the Canon)
Personally I think competition (and choice) is a good thing; why you do not is beyond me.
"One big question here is why you'd choose the 24-70mm f/4 over the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, which may be 7 years old, but offers a more versatile zoom range at a current street price around £850 / €900."
One word: *corners*
I just bought and almost immediately returned a 24-105L because the corners were shockingly bad all the way from 24-50mm. In its defense it *was* sharp on center, even wide open, but got rather soft and "dreamy" at 105mm. If I want "soft and dreamy" I'll shoot a 50-year-old Russian RF lens. And yes, I did my research - I wasn't expecting miracles but I wasn't expecting total, illegible mush 1/3 of the way into the frame either. The 15-85IS on a 7D killed the 24-105/5DIII in every way.
If the new 24-70L IS is sharp into the corners wide open (and f/4 is not *really* very wide open...) it will be worth every cent. Ditto for the new 35/2 IS - I can't wait to get my hands on one of these - if it performs like the new 24 & 28 IS lenses it will be a winner, IMO.
diforbes: Is there lens correction support for Panasonic and Olympus MFT lenses yet?
@R Butler - yeah, but precisely because of that, you can't turn it off! CA correction is fine, but distortion correction is always destructive (though in the case of the Panny 20/1.7 a lot less than I expected). It would be nice to at least have the option; in some instances the distortion may be unnoticeable but the improvement in edge sharpness won't be... or to choose some intermediate value. There are plenty of reasons why I think the "embedded" lens profiles are a bad idea. Other than that Lr rocks!
km25: Leaf shutters are good for flash sync.. But for very day use FP is so much better. I saw this "change" coming. In the olden days, Rolli came out with a 1/800 electro leaf shutter, it had the same caveats. This camera was not well thouht out.
@Raist3d - I know, you can get decent results in pretty low light using a FF camera with a 50/1.4 lens cranked to about ISO3200. Street shooting is about as far from my bag as you could get (well almost) - but for an all-round travel/hiking camera, I have been in plenty of situations where IS is a huge asset (e.g. caves at EV 3), as freezing subject motion is irrelevant and you at least have the *option* of keeping the ISO under control... otherwise you might as well be using an EOS-M with a stabilized zoom lens at ISO800. Everyone's needs are different, I just wish there was room in the Sonnar for OIS.
The use of a leaf shutter with it s extremley low vibration may go some way to mitigate the lack of any kind of stabilization, which IMO is an extraordinary omission at this pricepoint, and the one thing (besides price!) that would probably be a "show-stopper" for me with this camera. YMMV.
JacquesBalthazar: I agree with others this is going to be a hard sell, as both Nikon and Canon have really excellent AF alternatives at that same focal length and aperture.
CZ's 100mm f2 Makro-Planar is more unique, and makes more sense.
But I do not agree that manual focus is that difficult even with current high res DSLRs. Would be better with a proper ground glass screen, but it is not that hard, and, in Nikon's case anyway, the electronic rangefinder is not as useless as some seem to think. A bit quirky, but there are "tricks". I do not find I need Liveview for conistent focus.
Agreed - MF is a lot easier with longer lenses than short ones, because subject details are magnified making it easier to see them on the focusing screen. At least in my experience...
And yes the 100/2 is an awesome lens :)
D1N0: I have a bokeh monster for that. Cheaper.
DOF is *inversely* proportional to the square of the FL. A 100mm lens will have 1/4 the DOF of a 50mm at the same aperture and shooting distance. Longer FL = Less DOF = better background separation (but you need to move back to keep the same framing)
semorg: MTF @ f/4 looks amazing http://www.zeiss.com/C12578B8004E8E1D/0/F2C77C92BD6CA27EC1257A72004157CB/$file/apo_sonnar_2_135.pdf
Indeed it does!
Thx for the link!
unlearny: It looks awesome proving once again that Fujifilm still knows what a real camera looks like... I wish they'd stop hinting around with the stylistic nods and just start making a Digital GW690, wouldn't that be brainmeltingly great? Wouldn't you pay 6000 bucks for one? I probably would, sadly.
Brainmeltingly great, yes!!! (I love my GW690III, I just will never understand why they did not put a meter in it)
At $6k, probably not ;) unless it had a MF-sized sensor to go with it (I assume that's what you meant). Even then it would have to have some *serious* chops in the IQ department to justify such expense.
Their current GF670W chassis with its 55mm lens and the Pentax 44 x 33mm 40MP sensor would make an awesome camera, though with a smaller area to cover than 56 x 70mm I'm sure they could make a faster lens and keep it to a similar size... I can dream! :)
Welll now it's looks like it's down to the X-E1 or the NEX-6 for me. I already have a Novoflex NEX-MD adapter so that's a plus, but I really dig the form-factor of the X-E1. If: - Fuji can provide a top-notch SDK for 3rd-party RAW converters*and*- the stabilized kit zoom is really, really good (like, the Nikkor 16-85VR)*and especially*- if the price is not insane...count me in! :)
Harlz: Australia isn't on the list, awwww... looks like fun for those involved!
Sydney Opera House, anyone???
3a: Auto Exposure Bracketing is still 3 images :(when i saw '... significantly improves ...' i expected a better AEB for HDR shooters.
Agreed. My G2 (Panny) has the option of 5- and 7-shot brackets, but unfortunately you can't choose how many EV apart they are (too close IMO). I am absolutely in love with the extended burst, though - it's *exactly* what I need!
lukx: It's good feeling that the camera we bought is so good they after 3 years Canon though that it doesn't need better hardware and only software adjustments !
There's no "hidden memory" and I seriously doubt the 7D was crippled (which I admit cannot be said for some other bodies)
CF Rev 5.0 and 6.0 have both appeared since the 7D was launched. It's most likely that the new FW takes advantage of these standards e.g. 32MB block transfer speeds vs. 128kB which is *huge*.
Read this release for Rev 5.1:http://compactflash.org/2010/compactflash-association-announces-new-cf5-1-specification/
Now where's the Nikon FW update for my D700... ;)
topstuff: All very lovely, but this is'nt really an F2.8 lens is it, compared to APSC or FF?
What would be the equivalent APSC lens? A 17-50 I guess? And if my understanding is correct, would this 4/3 lens have to be a F1.4 to have the same light gathering as a F2.8 in larger sensors?
As said somewhere below, I don't think it is a simple as simply doubling the focal length to get a "FF equivalent" and keeping the max aperture the same.
I am not sure if this really a f2.8 as we know it. I am sure the people at DPR can clarify !
A lovely thing though I am sure, especially with an OMD EM5.
Okay, so, the total light is 4x greater for a 24-70/2.8 lens in 135-format. But... wait for it... the sensor is 864mm^2 vs. 225mm^2, (26%), so the *luminous flux per unit area of the sensor* is only 4% different - in fact, it's (slightly) in favour of 4/3.
Consdier this: if I cut a 17.3 x 13mm section out of a 24x36mm negative (yes, film), the exposure is (obviously) still the same. The degradation in image quality is related to other factors (relatively coarser grain structure, tonality, etc.), not "total light gathered". The difference in sensor tech makes such a direct comparison between different format (or manufacturer or generation) digital cameras a dubious exercise.
The only *real* difference worth worrying about for actual shooting comes from DOF considerations, which cannot be wangled away.
How about the Kodak DSC Pro 14n from way back in 2003? 24x36mm, 4,500 x 3,000 pixels, and also available as a monochrome version?
I am sure the M-M will be a very nice camera and it's also a relief to see the price has not blasted off into the stratosphere like the new APO-Summicron. But I would really like to see one of the mainstream mfrs to bring out a dedicated monochrome DSLR. Like Canon, for example, who already have the 60Da... wouldn't it be nice to have a "60Dm" for under $2k?
Raist3d: I must say fuji came out with this in record time. Doing new hardware revisions is not easy. I am assuming new x10s are heading to retail as we speak?
Just occurred to me when I read your post - will the new X10s be easily distinguishable somehow from the originals, either by a suffix to the serial no. or some obvious indication on the packaging?
If Fuji provides a swapout-upgrade for existing X10 owners they deseve the absolute maximum props for dealing with this by actually *fixing* it insead of fobbing people off with firmware band-aids and unworkable work-arounds.
If they *don't*, well... this might just create a flaming-torch-and-pitchfork-wielding mob of justifiably infuriated X10 owners.
Which will they choose???
Once again, "no good deed goes unpunished"!
Rubenski: I sympathize with the 'other' brands and mostly they offer great value for what they ask but you'll never get the best results. If you can afford it buy the best, you'll feel much better with every shot!
In this particular case, this is "the best" - by definition, since neither Nikon nor Canon have seen fit to put VR/IS in their f/2.8 standard zooms. One can only hope it's optically up to snuff. Even if it only gets *really* good from f/4 on up (throughout the range), I would still seriously consider this lens as the VR ought to be good for at least 3 stops which would make it far more useful (for what I shoot) than a "perfect" 2.8 zoom with no IS. YMMV, of course...