fmian: The 3-4 Metz flashes I have handled recently (modern models) felt incredibly bad. Poor component fitting. Loose door covers. Cheap feeling external materials. High price though.If that's the first impression I got after using YongNuo and Canon flashes, then I'm sure other potential customers got the same impression.
Having said that, I've seen some old Metz flashes that were quite nice.
I don't know what is like Metz products today but my Metz of 38 years ago still feels solid and going strong. They told me don't expect a long service life from flash because of the degrading of the capacity - accumulator - well I don't know what kind of capacitor Metz used in their flashes but needless to say no degrading none whatsoever. Most flashes of the same vintage would refuse to accept any more charge.
May go and grab a Mecablitz for my D800 before they all sold out, my SB-600 is long in the tooth now.
toomanycanons: When's the last time any of you bought a Metz product?
1978 - when I bought my automatic Metz 45 CT-1 and it is still working perfectly today needing 6 AA batteries - no wonder why the company goes to the wall. It was one of the most powerful flash for amateur - and a joy to use consider it will cover a distance of 17 meters or 55ft @ F4 on ISO 200, never fails. Cost me a grand sum of AUD$160 - a lot of money back then.
mais51: Now where is that Nikon 80-400 ? in stratosphere somewhere - wake up Nikon @1.5 times the cost of the similarly spec Canon is just not acceptable.
Nah, Nikon is not the only manufacturer where lens rotating backward Pentax is also in Nikon camp - when I switched from Pentax to Nikon the lens focus and zooming actions exactly the same other manufacturer in Nikon camp is Voigtlander.Back in the film days even if we could pick and choose the right film for the job majority of the shooters stuck to one manufacturer - Kodak or Fujifilm or Agfa.Currently the only universal lens mount is the Sony where with proper adapter you could use Nikon or Canon or other's lens on their camera body
Of course I would not change to Canon just for this lens, to me 100 or 80 is not that critical, most of us would have either a 70-200 or 70-300 or even 24-120 so as you said we buy this kind of lens for the long end. Look like Canon's has a much better spec sheet than Nikon's - slightly shorter, focus much closer and of course cheaper by $500 (in Aust the price different is approximately the same in AUD)
Look - this Canon lens is smaller than the new Nikon 80-400, focus much closer @ ~1m against the Nikon 1.75 m, shorter and cheaper, if I were a Canon shooter it would definitely be on my wish list - let's see how it performs
Now where is that Nikon 80-400 ? in stratosphere somewhere - wake up Nikon @1.5 times the cost of the similarly spec Canon is just not acceptable.
Stacey_K: " and successive cameras".... well that is unless Olympus decides to change the lens mount again. I'm done trusting this company to support the customers who invest in their system.
Through corporate mis-management and a partnership with a crappy sensor manufacturer (panasonic), Olympus killed the 4/3 mount right as they had a sensor (the one used in the OMD) in their hands that would have made their lovely ZD 4/3 optics shine. Instead they pull this bait and switch to m4/3. I give then 3-4 years before they bail on this format and switch to yet another mount.
Olympus's problem has never been their optics, and I'm sure these will be fantastic lenses. But I'm willing to bet they will decide in the future the 4/3 sensor is too small and ditch this mount, leaving anyone who buys these lenses left in an orphaned system. I would never trust this company again after what they did with 4/3.
The sensor may be produced by Panasonic but the 4/3 system was a joint effort by Olympus and Kodak back in 2001http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1261925083/kodakolympus
You are right, 4/3 also the format in Cine 4/3" as the Wilki article says but with today sensor technology the 4/3" is no longer necessary nor required. Silicon waffles were extremely expensive when Olympus devised this format. They were trying to get more sensors yield but now everyone is jumping on the FX bandwagon and even Nikon seemingly leaving the high end DX. Who knows it may be abandoned soon in favor of a bigger sensor
Yes 4/3 is the aspect ratio - the 4/3 sensor's image size is 17.3 x 13 mm or 4:3 ratio. The sensor itself is 30 to 40% smaller than the APS-C sensor and similar in size to the 110 film format - and you all know how tiny it is when compare to the 35mm film or FX sensor. Current 4/3 camera users can select other aspect ratio such as 3:2 or 16:9 at the expense of sensor real estate.
Just don't like the format - full stop I resize all my 4/3 to 2/3 matching my Nikon format - i sometimes use 16/9 for panoramic effect but I can not see any thing matching the 4/3 not the widescreen 24/27" computer monitors nor HD TVs.
mais51: Great photoOn the other hand it shows up a few dust bunniesWho say Canon don't have dust on sensor
Having noticed those dots I too want to know what are they. They could be birds at a distant - if Savolio could look at the original photo and identify them as the winning photo has been reduced in size to fit the challenge requirement.
Of course it is on the sensor, any dust on the lens will be blurred - dust on the sensor is sharp and well defined because they are on the focusing plane meaning they are ...well focused.
Great photoOn the other hand it shows up a few dust bunniesWho say Canon don't have dust on sensor
LensBeginner: Wow, if it's authentic then it's a mind-bending discovery!Scott's story is made of the stuff of legends...
Why, the sun rises in the morning and sets in the afternoon never fails.
Karl Summers: Truly amazing, the first recorded selfie?
Come on - lighten up we all do selfie or self portrait - I remember setting up my trusty Pentax Spotmatic on tripod sat myself on a chairin front of the camera and did a seftimed portrait of myself in B&W - that was back in 1971 when I first got my SLR. Still have that image and I look as young as ever !
Laslen: Why is DPReview covering this? Are you sponsored by this company? This an idiotic product. If something like this was released for Canon or Nikon, it would be laughed at and immediately dismissed.
I am waiting for some third party company producing metal lens mount for the majority of Nikon DX lenses. Now this a problem looking for a solution - the Sony plastic shim is a complete beat up. I am sure is it far more expensive for Sony to come up with this two-piece lens mount rather than just a simple one piece solution. I hope someone from Sony chime in to explain the reason. The plastic bit could act as a shock absorber - there should be no wobble if it is properly installed. After all you just can't compress the plastic/composite shim. As for installation of the new lens mount I would -cover the sensor with a plastic cut out - not cardboard or paper-use magnetized screw driver -if possible work from a vertical plane.
pictureAngst: Does it come with a lens hood?
I'm not getting one if it doesn't - I'm fed up with being ripped off.
Get you credit card ready, yes it comes with a square lens hood.http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/cine_lenses/CS_50-1000_T5.0-8.9_EF/profile/CTZ039_586x486.jpg
dialstatic: Many (hopefully) sarcastic comments here about how this lens would be a poor choice for an APS-C photo camera like 'it's not f/2.8', but I truly don't understand. Not being a video shooter, I wonder why this lens is so desirable for video. That's not a value judgment by the way: I know next to nothing about video and I'm honestly hoping to learn something here. Is it the incredible range? I would think videographers would use multiple lenses (as in the 7D mk video). What would be a typical use for a huge zoom like this one? And while I understand enough physics to see why they don't make a 50-1000 zoom 2.8, I wonder why this slow (...compared to photo zooms) aperture is apparently unproblematic for video. Can anyone explain?
Remember the day when multiple lens of different focal lengths were mounted on a rotating wheel - yes in live broadcast there is no time to stop and change lens - but then any decent live broadcast would have multiple cameras at different locations and angles and the broadcasting controller will have the luxury of calling any shots at any angle closer-up or far away
mais51: Now you know why you have to pay $15 for a movie ticket. Wonder how many layers of diamond elements in that lens.
The lens is relatively cheap in the scheme of thing - when we talk about multimillion dollars budgets - the lens cost is pale into insignificant - On the other hand more and more movies are made using computer generated imagery (CGI) the need for superbly accurate mechanical/optical lens may not be that pressing. I suppose there is a need in documentary type productions where real images must be taken - but then how much some or any of the real images are retained after post production and editing.