Interesting - I thought there were some pretty significant points raised but it seems Nikon considers them irrelevent.
dahod: As a 4/3 user, I have to admit I'm interested in this lens. Even though Olympus had it on their roadmap for a long time, they never came through with it. I do have the 50mm f2.0 but something longer would be nice and manual is fine.
Maybe somebody can help me out here. The stated magnification is 1:1 for this lens (full frame). What would it be on the four thirds sensor?
Thanks for the input.If I understand it correctly, the 1:1 is constant for the given lens, focal length and minimum focusing distance but the apparent magnification is greater on the 4/3 sensor because of the narrower field of view. You'd have to move back to get the whole FF image onto a 4/3 sensor.
As a 4/3 user, I have to admit I'm interested in this lens. Even though Olympus had it on their roadmap for a long time, they never came through with it. I do have the 50mm f2.0 but something longer would be nice and manual is fine.
As others have commented regarding landscape and studio applications I wonder if Canon is intentionally trying to take on the medium format market (like the Pentax 645Z etc) with this camera.
I don't know if they've checked all the boxes to make this legitimate at this time (it doesn't seem to have the low iso or dynamic range you might expect) but it would be an interesting strategy.
Hopefully others will correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't an uncompressed RAW file from a 50MP file at 14 bit be around 88Mb? (50x14/8) and I don't know what the TIFF's would be. I guess this it the world a lot of photographers live in but unfortunately I don't have the hardware that would let me post-process and print these files with any reasonable speed.
I guess you should never say never but I'm thinking that I'm not the intended target for this camera.
Horshack: I went to Samsung's booth at CES to play with the NX1. I was very impressed both with the camera and the competence of the Samsung rep - he knew the camera front to back and was able to answer every question I had, including some very technical questions.
I must be missing something then - sorry. Not bashing Samsung - just didn't see the lens offerings you're mentioning (web site goes as high as 150mm in the zooms and 45mm on the primes). Is there a preferred portrait lense? Also, 150mm is still a long way from extreme telephoto. Can you point me to the lineup you're thinking of?
Agreed- the camera is impressive
Now they need to be equally impressive with respect to lens offerings and customer service.
PazinBoise: I think the last technical hurdle that mirrorless cameras need to clear in order to surpass DSLRs is AF tracking. Mirrorless camera's AF tracking has gotten a lot better but most DSLRs systems are still better at tracking moving subjects. Once they are on par with DSLRs in that functionality I don't think DSLRs will have much left to offer?
Lens selections? Lenses can be made to fit new mounts. Optical Viewfinders? Each generation of EVFs gets better and better and the advantages they offer over a OVF are great. Weather sealing and build quality? Oly OM-D E-M1 and Fuji XT-1.
I really can't think of other features that DSLR offer that can't be integrated (or have already been integrated) into mirrorless systems.
I could be wrong but my understanding is that Olympus uses in-camera software correction to help keep the size and costs of their mirrorless lenses down.
If that's the direction everyone's going then the days of cross-platform lens sharing might be over (unless the companies are sharing software which I doubt)
I haven't seen any optical bench testing of just the lenses (only system testing with the camera) so I have no idea how good the lenses by themselves (without in-camera correction) would be on a different camera. Maybe somebody else has better information??
justmeMN: Whatever. Samsung is just another miniscule-market-share player scrambling for leftovers in a shrinking market.
Good point (Mr. Olympian)
I didn't realize the size of Samsung. According to Michael Reichmann's review of the NX1 Samsung had annual revenues (didn't say what year) of $175B USD making it the 13th largest company in the world (Sony and Panasonic at #105 & #106 respectively). I think Canon's total sales for 2013 was $36B USD and Nikon (2013) was $11B USD.
Seems that Samsung has the pockets to be serious if they want.
Samsung has the deep pockets to make this work and I'm rooting for them but I'm guessing most users (myself included) aren't going to do anything serious until they see a full lineup of lens offerings - not roadmaps and mockups.
I got burnt on Olympus 4/3 and still trying to dig myself out of that experience.
bluevellet: I've considered the Pentax 645Z. I think Pentax did a great job making the price reasonable (for medium format) and coming up with a decent amount of lenses, particularly how niche this product is,
One major hurdle is (almost) no retailer presence. Even online, it's hard to find and I have to go abroad for it. I'm not comfortable buying something this expensive without even a test drive.
I mean, just look at DPR, no link to buy it anywhere.
Agreed - difficult to make this kind of committment without touching it. Apparently BH Photo has them in stock ($US 8500 - body only)
Michael Reichmann just posted his first impressions in an article on Lumnous Landscape - pretty impressive - their own 28Mp APS-C back side illumination sensor, apparently good glass, weathersealing plus other goodies. Raw to DNG conversion is through a free utility and he notes the USB charging problem as well.
It was an Interesting article and well worth reading. One point I didn't realize was the size of Samsung. Apparently it had annual revenues (didn't say what year) of $175B USD making it the 13th largest company in the world (Sony and Panasonic at #105 & #106 respectively). I think Canon's total sales for 2013 was $36B USD and Nikon (2013) was $11B USD.
I was ready to pull the trigger on a replacement but maybe I'll wait for a bit.
slippedcurve623: And based on the mtf charts it does look really good, besting even the 70-200 f/2.8 ii but if the sigma sport has fast af (enough for bif) and sharp at the long end (unlike my tamron 150-600) then i would still have to reconsider lol but competition is always good more options for the buyer :-)
I'm still trying to understand mtf so maybe you can help me out. Is the mtf you mention "system mtf" (that is with test target and camera combined) or optical bench mtf.The reason I ask is that increasingly we're seeing sensors and software correction skewing the lens results so it makes lens comparisons difficult.
Somebody once said you can focus a pop bottle if you know the optical path.
Just in case Canon is monitoring this forum
1) The photo community naturally assumed it was aimed at us and Canon allowed that perception to continue - bad decision and continues to feed the growing disconnect between Canon the company and their faithful following.
2) Has anybody tried that website? It took forever to load on my computer and then took me to a confusing interface that ultimately allowed me to connect with the pre-existing Canon website. Unfortunately I'm missing the point of it all - maybe we're supposed to "stay tuned" for Phase ll.
3) Whoever at Canon thought this was a good idea needs to reassess their priorities. I'm sure Canon has bigger issues to spend their time and resources on.
4) If it was even remotely groundbreaking we could probably cut them some slack but there are lots of examples of better done interactive websites out there that they could have used for ideas. Hopefully they didn't pay too much for this.
Sorry Canon - 0 kernels out of 5
I wonder what Ansel Adams would have said?
It will be interesting to see how Olympus chooses to support their legacy user base on this. Time will tell but history doesn't make me very optimistic. Hopefully I'm wrong.
dahod: I've been thinking about Fuji for a bit but seem to recall there was an issue with post-processing X-Trans RAW files and 3rd party software support. Can someone please tell me if that's been adressed?
Thanks Jeremy - I see that Mark Soon (FStop Lounge) has posted examples of "smudged details" in LightRoom 5.4 vs Iridient Developer 2.4 (http://fstoplounge.com/2014/05/fuji-x-tran-raw-processing-done-right/). Is this something that you've encountered? Also, others seem to be using workarounds (ie conversion outside to TIFF and importing to LR. I have LR 4 so would I have to upgrade to LR 5?
I've been thinking about Fuji for a bit but seem to recall there was an issue with post-processing X-Trans RAW files and 3rd party software support. Can someone please tell me if that's been adressed?
Photo Pete: No gloss optimiser. Vast tonal range and gloss differential too!
Not interested until Epson make a pigment printer with 3 black shades, matt black which doesn't need ink to be purged before use and which has a gloss optimiser. Oh, and which only purges the cartridge which was replaced when one runs out rather than all of them.
Perhaps even with an Epson own brand continuous ink system.
There are a lot of things Epson could have improved in a new printer.,, black density was very low on my list.
Great points - my sentiments as well.
RRJackson: Here's something I don't understand at all. Metering on modern cameras can break the frame down into thousands of segments for complex metering calculations...but nobody can seem to make a metering system that prevents highlight clipping. No way at all to reduce the exposure if the highlights are clipping? Really? In 2014 we can't make that happen? The system can analyze 91,000 segments of the frame, but can't tell if one of them is clipping?
Whether Olympus takes this anywhere is another question but the following DPR article from March 2014 indicates they're pursuing "selective exposure". I wish them all the best and hope they can finally address the sudden clipping of blown highlights with digital sensors and more closely model the smoother transition that we saw with film.
Here's the linkhttp://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/03/15/olympus-patent-hints-at-selective-exposure-in-live-time-mode?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=news-list&utm_medium=text&ref=title_54
I guess it would have been to too much to ask to include the phase detect from the E-M1. They went to all the trouble to develop it and show their commitment to 4/3 and then leave it off the next camera they release?