MichaelKJ: "This highlight capability is paid for in the shadows, where the RX1R clips to black rather sooner than some of its rivals."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the graph would appear to indicate that the only camera that doesn't clip to black as soon as the RX1R is the D600.
"There are more cameras on heaven and earth, my dear Horatio, than the three we've picked in the default comparison window ;)"
How bloody patronising is that, wink or not! Out of order Barney Britton.
The primes are all (bar the CZ 24) the wrong focal length to my mind.
Why persist with 50mm focal as a portrait lens? Back in the day of film there was plenty of debate if 85mm was a bit too short for a portrait lens never mind 75mm.
Sony had the luxury of starting from scratch with the E system so no need to press gang old 50mm standard lenses into service as a portrait lens. Yet they still seem to pander to outmoded focal lengths. The 50mm should be a 60mm, the 20 mm ought to be 17mm and so on.
Why not be more radical and offer a standard lens focal length related to the diagonal of the sensor? A true standard.
Look at Oly. 45mm portrait lens with f.o.v of 90mm on FF. That is how you do it!
And no I aint an Oly user but an A-mount user.
I don't think its helpful they changed the size of the sensor. If you buy a lens because it's a 28-85 you don't want it it to be a 24-70.
I suppose some people may prefer it or might not mind but every lens I ever bought was because of its f.o.v on the sensor of my camera.
Dave Oddie: One day fuji will put a tilt-able LCD and an EVF on a camera in this line and then I might be tempted to buy one!
Wafting a camera about to use a rear LCD is no more ergonomic a way to do it now that it's ever been for normal shooting particularly vertical shots. Cameras with viewfinders are so much easier to use.
However an LCD that tilts when you are faced with awkward angles or want to get down low is great. So fixed LCD's on these kind of cameras are equally annoying.
Oly are just as bad. With the ELP5 you have buy a separate EVF which ruins the cameras compactness.
Someone please take the design to its logical conclusion and give us a built in EVF like the XE-1 and a tilt-able LCD the XM-1 in the same camera.
>>"With the ELP5 you have buy a separate EVF which ruins the cameras compactness."
>Here's a bit of magic for you: you remove the Oly EVF, and suddenly the camera is compact again! Not a big deal.
T3, that's not magic. It's a camera without a VF again.
And I prefer the excellent view through modern EVF's over using an LCD in bright sunlight in particular. Don't want to faff about attaching one every time its sunny.
The XE-2 Andy mentioned would be great combining best of both worlds and I do find it funny people seem to take issue with a suggested improvement.
I'd love Oly to do it in an ELP camera as I prefer IBIS over in-lens stabilization but it looks like Oly are wedded to add-on EVF's for the ELP's.
The Fuji XE-1 is very compact with its EVF and the LCD on the XM-1 doesn't add much so it seems as I said the logical conclusion without sacrificing compactness.
One day fuji will put a tilt-able LCD and an EVF on a camera in this line and then I might be tempted to buy one!
I think the concept of being able to control a camera via an operating system as Android is fantastic. Third party apps could make the camera a flexible as high-end DLSR's.
From a marketing point of view that might actually limit peoples desire to upgrade. If they can just buy an app to add functionality why buy a new camera?
The biggest drawback I can see in this camera is the fact the EVF is a bit of an afterthought.
I use a Sony A77 and the fact the EVF displays the same as the LCD means I can change settings without moving the camera from my eye and it also allows me to do so in bright sunlight when the LCD is hard to see.
I virtually only ever use the LCD for reviewing and for taking shots at odd angles with it articulated (another omission from the NX).
Ergonomically the A77 is bang on. I don't think the Samsung is as regard the EVF. Maybe they could not replicate the LCD view in the EVF sensibly but if so then the UI design is wrong.
Proper VF's are not outmoded!
tko: $1265, all manual, 760g.
Canon 85MM F/1.8 = $365, all auto, 425 G
Less performance, more expensive, and heavier. A whopping 0.3" smaller in one dimension, 0.1 in the others.
A perfect example of how M34rds rips of the unsuspecting buyers who think that a F0.95 lens is amazing, and close their eyes to the real specs.
No wonder M43rds doesn't want equivalence spec published - they reveal the sham.
"A perfect example of how M34rds rips of the unsuspecting buyers who think that a F0.95 lens is amazing, and close their eyes to the real specs."
What is your problem? The "real spec" is it is a 42.5mm F0.95 lens. That imbues it with certain characteristics on a M4/3 camera which is a depth of field roughly the same as an 85mm F1.8 on FF.
However it's still an F0.95 lens so its two stops faster than the 1.8 which means either lower ISO shooting or two stops faster shutter speed.
Now I am sure you will say the FF sensor is at least two stops better at high ISO but then the camera is twice the size as well.
If you have a m4/3 system this lens adds some capability.
I myself wouldn't buy it at that price but I won't pay that for a CZ lens for my Sony A77 either.
In the UK making someone redundant and then giving their job to someone else is illegal.
It's the position not the person that must be redundant.
BJN: Wondering why the cropped performance is featured first on a full frame lens review?
And to potential buyers: why would you buy this zoom range for APS-C?
But wouldn't sacrificing the 24mm enable them to go longer at the long end and still get the F2.8?
I wasn't suggesting a 24-85 F2.8 but a 28-85 F2.8. 70mm seems a bit of a none focal length to me. I don't favour 16-50's on aps-c for the same reason.
I also don't think F2.8 is that fast and would even favour a 28-90 with a variable aperture of F2.8 to F4 on FF given the generally excellent high ISO performance you get on FF these days.
When I had my Olympus film cameras my standard lens was a 35-105 Zuiko zoom. It was a very sharp lens but this was 30 years ago!
As such I tend to agree on aps-c starting at 36mm equivalent limits the appeal.
What I don't understand though is not is aps-c application but why full frame users like lenses like this that stop at 70mm.
When standard zooms first came out you even got 35-70 lenses simply because it was hard optically to make one with a wider range but again this was 30 years ago.
Why is the 70mm "long" end a standard these days? 85mm was considered the minimum for portraits so surely something like a 28-85 or 28-90 would be far more useful leaving wider to something like a 20mm prime?
Petka: Serious question: Why a constant aperture zoom with built-in converter, not a longer 200-560mm zoom with maximum aperture going from f/4 to f/5.6 in the long end?
This lens is really two lenses in one: 200-400mm f/4 and 280-560 f/5.6. It is not possible to zoom past 400 without flipping a switch and loosing one f-stop at that moment. With a 200-560mm you would start loosing speed after 400, but would hit f/5.6 at 560mm, before it it would be faster.
I also believe that it is possible to make a similar quality 200-560 f/4-5.6 zoom lighter, cheaper and mechanically more reliable.
Was this just a blunder from Canon design department ("I have this great idea, let's have a built-in extender!") or is it a marketing and brand image decision? Would a f/4-5.6 200-560mm lens look less "professional", even if in practice it would be more convenient and even slightly faster for 400-560mm range?
I think they have not really thought this over, even if it is a great lens.
@Petka "From the answers so far I get the feeling that people here have not really grasped my question..."
I think you are right and it is a very reasonable question.
People seem to be thinking how clever to include the switch-able TC but going back to first principles as you have done and asking why do it this way is valid.
I think it is a very sensible question to ask, why not just produce a 200-560?
Canon may well have a very compelling answer but it doesn't make the question any less valid and anyone who has a go at you for asking it is, in my opinion, an idiot.
Greg Gebhardt: Like it or not is IS the most advanced smart phone on earth! I want to play with it before giving up my iPhone. One thing Apple better be listening to is that we want the option of a larger screened iPhone. The small long screen is not cutting it.
"The small long screen is not cutting it."
Why not? The ever increasing size of phone screens means they become increasingly cumbersome to carry no matter how thin they become. If you just want a phone with some smart features the smaller Apple's are far more convenient for carrying around as a phone. If you want a bigger screen I don't see the point of 5 inch screens and yo may as well go the whole hog and stick a (much cheaper) 7 inch tablet in the briefcase.
io_bg: Should've been 28mm f/2 instead of 18.5mm f/2.8...
I agree. If you are going to make a fixed lens aps-c camera 28mm focal length is the way to go (42mm equivalent).
In the days of film the really nice (full frame) range-finder cameras Olympus and Minolta used to make nearly all had 38mm or 40mm lenses on them. There was a good reason for that.
Also yet another digital camera that doesn't have a tilting LCD. Do companies like Nikon not realise how useful this is and how easy it is to do in the digital age?
They are not the only ones and the manufacturers seem obsessed with making camera that mimic old film range-finders to the extent they leave off this genuinely useful feature. Fuji are just as bad with their aps-c interchangeable lens cameras.
Tom_A: I have the camera since October, with the 35mm lens. I pretty much agree with most of the observations.In my experience, the image quality is indeed very good, and jpg is indeed so convincing that I only bother with raw when the light is difficult. Usually my camera is set to Velvia, and I use aperture priority with spotmetering, very classic usage in fact. The end result barely needs further touching up, and I save so much time.The quality is so good that i don t need FF. Rhe 35 mm has nice enough bokeh already.
I am not very interested in video so that deficiency doesn t bother me.
2 wishes for an xe2:A lock on the exposure conpensation dial. It is currently too easy to accidently turn.A tiltable screen, making Rolleiflex-style belly height pictures more comfortable to accomplish.
"A tiltable screen, making Rolleiflex-style belly height pictures more comfortable to accomplish."
It looks a very nice camera but it never ceases to amaze me that any high end digital camera doesn't have a tiltable screen these days.
My main camera is a Sony A77 and the tiltable screen on that is amazing and doesn't add much to the dimensions. Being able to shoot waste level is great. A camera like this little Fuji would be perfect if it had one in my opinion.
I know the Nex cameras have such screens but given the choice of an"Xe2" with tiltable screen and any of the Nex's I'd go for the Fuji because of the lenses.
iaredatsun: Sony have tried, but that list of cons says a lot. An example of a company who have pressed all the right (consumer-led) designer-engineer buttons but haven't got their priorities quite right.
Aside from that, I've used it's smaller sister camera and Sony never feel like they quite understand how to make a camera that is good to use. I can only hope this one does better in that sense.
I'm waiting for that company who know how to make great cameras to step up before I buy an interchangeable compact.
"Sony never feel like they quite understand how to make a camera that is good to use."
Well given my A77 is the best camera ergonomically I have ever used (and I have been into photography for over 35 years) I would say your sweeping generalisation should be ignored.
How good cameras are from a usability point of view is largely personal preference but my comments on the A77 are largely echoed by other users. Now granted this comment section is about a different camera and one I have never used myself but I could not let your sweeping and inaccurate generalisation go by without comment
Jahled: Jesus, the usual brand war in the comments. Fair play to Nikon for addressing the issue and offering their customers support over something they obviously didn't anticipate. I've just been reminded why I seldom visit this place anymore.
How have Nikon addressed the issue? No explanation as to why the D600 is more prone to this problem and no fix other than getting it cleaned at a Nikon service centre which is of course inconvenient for users.
From the press release:
"Sony extends the range of A-mount interchangeable lenses with three new models to satisfy the most demanding enthusiasts and photo professionals."
Extends the range? They already have lenses of these exact focal lengths in the range. The two zooms replace existing lenses and even if they keep the existing Sony 50mm 1.4 in production (which I doubt they will) then having two 50mm F1.4 lenses doesn't count as extending the range.
If they has introduced a F2.8-F4 standard FF zoom or 35mm F2 or whatever then they would be extending the range.
At least it shows some commitment to the A mount but they really do need to start actually extending the range not just replace existing lenses.
JJ Rodin: So 'Pascal' was used to code this first released version, does anyone know what computer language is used now (OO?) and what is their 'primary' development OS/platform?
PS: The first few releases of Lightroom were VERY 'Mac' like (too click intensive), unfortunately! They did not have the double click to reset the sliders for ex. It was not until they got the crew from Pixmantec (rawshooter) did they get a 'reasonable' UI, and LR has gotten better ever since!!
Of course it is. It's also much easier to cause one than in more modern languages.
You would have to be a bit of a masochist to choose C++ to develop a desktop application these days.
C++? Good grief, the language that invented the memory leak.
SantaFeBill: Once more with feeling ...In response to what seems to be a misunderstanding that has shown up in several posts here (and I see in others on DPR):
An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens, period. F-values are a measure of the size of the aperture vs.the focal length of the lens. Or: Fstop=focal length/aperture. These are the _only_ two factors determining a given f-number. The size of the sensor that the lens will cover is irrelevant as far as the f-stop is concerned.
So a FF 150mm f/2.8 lens mounted on an m4/3 body via an adapter will have exactly the same maximum f-stop as an m4/3 lens on that body, provided the adapter doesn't change the effective focal length of the FF lens. (Assuming the lenses are correctly spec'd by the makers.)
Actual light transmission is measured in T-stops, of course, which is why pro video shooters use lenses calibrated that way.
If you want more detail, of if you think I'm wrong, Google 'f-stops' or 'f-number' and read the articles.
"Almost every compact camera comes with 'equivalent focal lengths' printed on the packaging. You might not like it, but it is here and you cannot ignore it."
That relates to field of view. Nothing else. I thought everyone understood that simple fact. Obviously not!
"Any noise difference between different sensor sizes will be exist over the whole ISO range (of course that is a simplification). It is just that at base ISO you really have to lift shadows significantly (and view large enough) to see the difference."
There is no practical difference at all at lower ISO's. You can theorise all you want but for this ridiculous notion of aperture equivalence to hold there would have to be a completely linear relationship noise-wise at all ISO's with aps-c demonstrably two stops worse at ISO 100 as opposed to 3200 (for example). There clearly isn't that linear relationship.
The ever improving noise performance of smaller sensors makes this equivalence theory completely irrelevant.