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... ;)
Is that like "flair" from Office Space?
Much like how o-rings and spaghetti seals are now "lips and bungs" - I will restrain myself from commenting further on this colorful and suggestive turn of phrase ;)
This looks like a great camera, especially for the price. My only disappointment is the small RAW buffer but that will only affect a tiny percentage of buyers (though with RAM being so cheap nowadays you can't help but wonder if buffer size is artifically "adjusted" to provide more model differentiation)
I also like the colors - they have an Imperial Stormtrooper version, how about olive drab, camo or day-glo orange? That would look way cool! :)
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.
An articulated screen designed for taking Facebook-style arm's-length self-portraits seems like the most pointlessly hipster-oriented "feature" I've seen on a camera since "art filters" (it ought to come with a "duck-face" AF detection mode). I would rather they made the camera simpler (and cheaper) with a fixed screen than do it this way, or do it properly and make it a reversible, side-hinged tilt-swivel screen like Panasonic and Canon (and some Olys and Nikons).
What I *really* want to see is the NEX-F5 come with a built-in EVF rather than a huge, expensive plug-in wart that costs more than half as much as the body (even if it's 800x600x3 SVGA rather than XGA). I don't care if the body is plastic or magnesium. The 16MP sensor is great and works better with wide-angle RF lenses than the 24MP. Price it like the A57 (why not - there's a lot less in a NEX than even a basic DSLR) and I'll be there!
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...
designdef: This may be a great camera but... it is badly let down by it's 'retro-rangefinder' styling. What is it with the Japanese? Designers are being churned out of educational establishments by the million and all Fujifilm can come up with is more 'I wanna look like a Leica'. This has just go to stop, put your faith in new and talented designers, stop churning out this retro rubbish, create a product that is worthy of the technology inside! (please:)
You mean like Pentax did with the K-01? (cough-cough)
scott_mcleod: Slightly OT but is it safe to assume that since you're using the new 85/1.8G for the still-life shots, a full test of this lens is coming (soon)? The published MTFs are just unreal for a $500 lens...
Thanks for the detailed D4 info - I look forward to the full review even though I'm not in the market for one!
Awesome - thanks! IMO, DPR lens reviews present what you really need to know to make buying decisions - without getting any weird/unpleasant surprises - in a very usable way.
Slightly OT but is it safe to assume that since you're using the new 85/1.8G for the still-life shots, a full test of this lens is coming (soon)? The published MTFs are just unreal for a $500 lens...