 |
NetMage
Lives in
Danville, AK, United States
Works as a
Systems Manager
Has a website at
http://scw.us
Joined on
Jan 22, 2006
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
razadaz: I am surprised at the amount of people here who are buying into this subscription model thinking it’s a good thing. They seem to be missing the point. If you wish to buy into subscription, fine, as long as there are alternatives. Once you have no alternatives Adobe have you in their control. Whether they want to up the price, introduce 5 year leases, or introduce more difficult and restrictive terms, it makes no difference. And it’s not just about alternative options to Adobe. People invest hundreds of hours learning their applications, so it’s rather like a pianist leasing a piano and saying he could always move to the harp if you cannot afford the rent. Anyone, who like myself, has used Photoshop professionally and intensively over the years will know how locked into its workings you become.
Why do you think 32-bit CS will stop working?
Next time you cut and paste an article, you may want to search for the old model - I don't think a preview or specs of the G5 is what we care about.
moimoi: 18 is not wide enough on APS-C. But Sigma is clearly putting an interesting new set of lenses.
While I think that should have been "you will need an f/1.2", the other point is still correct.
On a FF camera, raising the ISO one stop over the APS-C camera will give an f/2.8 the same shutter speed, the same DOF and the same noise level as this lens at f/1.8.
IOW, it's not just DOF but also IQ that is equivalent with an f/2.8 on FF versus an f/1.8 on APS-C, as the preview article makes clear.
Photato: Here is the real equivalence.
Canon 6D + CanonEF24-70 f2.8= $3700
Canon 60D+ Sigma18-35 f1.8= $1760 ($660+(1100)?
About $2000 left for other lenses and accessories...
And yet the 6D body can't control external flash nor has an articulated screen.
With the Sigma 24-70 being about $825, hopefully this will price about the same.
dopravopat: WANT! :-)
Now will there be a 35 - 70 f1.8 to match this? And eventually a 70 - 200 f2 for APS-C. :-P
I don't think comparing a 6D to a 7D is very fair - try comparing the 6D (cheapest FF) to a 60D or T5i and the realize the street price for 24-70 is running $1800 - $2000 and you see the APS-C savings. now, if all your lenses are going to be FF equivalents, that difference should be less important but it doesn't go away.
yabokkie: I have a problem with the word "super-fast". it isn't. this lens is an equivalent of 24.6-53.7mm f/2.8 on Nikon and Sony APS-Cs. it's just as fast as an f/2.8 zoom on 35mm format.
p.s., it's a 25.8-56.4mm f/2.9 on Canon APS-Cs.
the real range and f-number may be different that we will likely have a slightly narrower range and less fast zoom.
Does no one remember that FF has a large noise advantage versus APS-C at high ISO? if you are shooting your APS-C at ISO 100, you can shoot your FF at ISO 225 for the same noise level - but now the APS-C shooter needs an f/1.8 to match your f/2.8 at the same shutter speed. Everything is equivalent - DOF, perspective, framing, exposure and picture SNR.
But if the scene has shutter speed to burn, the FF user can drop to ISO 100, have a better SNR where the APS-C user is out of options.
paulski66: Makes me almost want to buy a DX camera again...
Just use a 24-70 f/2.8 at ISO 200 and be happy, though I hope at a more expensive price.
The A-Team: You get a 28 1.8, 35 1.8, and 50 1.8 all in one lens? BEAST.
That would be the FF equivalent focal lengths...
sunnycal: A 27-50mm f/1.8 zoom! Are you kidding! If price is right, I might get it for my D800 and shoot in DX mode.
For high ISO pictures, the noise will be higher for a given picture (I.e. equal perspective) in DX mode than in FX mode - consider the same proportion of pixels will be noise (I.e. meaningless) but the whole picture has fewer pixels, hence the DX SNR is higher e.g. the picture is noisier.
At low ISO, the 1.8 on DX gains a disproportionate advantage since your are correct there - assuming you don't have any low exposure areas such as shadows in your picture.
acidic: I just noticed the weight. 810g for APS-C lens? Holy Shatner!
Okay, I know it's super fast and all that, but if it's seriously supposed to convince FF shooters to go APS-C, it's measly 2x zoom range isn't helping any, considering that it's FF counterparts don't weigh much more and have closer to 3x zoom range. Of course if it's significantly cheaper, say in the $900 range, it could be a winner.
But the Canon and Nikon 24-70 are around $2000 street and no FF body is as cheap as an APS-C body. So the setup will still be $1k cheaper at least, and possibly more.
Spectro: wow a first f1.8 zoom, go sigma.
And by 35mm (equiv), its an f/2.8 while this is 1.8 past 50mm - if it is low distortion/ca it could be a prime competitor.
Disappointed there weren't any images looking for moire.
tommy leong: perhaps Nikon was too conservative with the OLPF ommission sensor?
Others have shown better results without the AA filter.
btw, isn't AA filter or bayer filter an easier term than "OLPF ommission"
The Bayer filter is not the same thing - it is still there, since the camera takes color pictures.
rhlpetrus: I compared it to the new Nikon 7700. What's the problem with the Panny? Both JPEGs or Raws, the detail is missing, the noise is higher. The IQ of this camera is really horrible, unless DPR did something wrong with it. Or maybe the sensor here is much smaller, is that correct?
Barney, is this IQ really worth of an 80% score, even for a compact camera?
With the P7700 at $450 and the RX100 at $650, seems like there is room for it.
Andrew Booth: A feature no-one needs, paid for with poor picture quality.
This will always have 10x lower resolution than a normal camera. Not good.
Used with a 41MP sensor like the Nokia that would result in pretty good web pictures.
VadymA: The description is quite misleading as in reality you can only shift the background by a couple of millimetres; so it's not very useful at all. And with the focus shift, is there any way to see everything in focus on the picture? I find the out-of-focus area on Lytro samples rather flat and unpleasing (no fall off at all) and noticed that I would rather prefer everything in focus, especially on their macro shots. I could not find how to do that, so another disappointment.
In general, they might be just slightly ahead of time with this invention. I am guessing this technology could be much more suitable for 3D screens...
Lytro has demonstrated all in focus and stated it will be added at some point to their software. This could really be useful for pseudo macro shots.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of the softness at telephoto at 300mm compared to cropping (and losing MP) of the Tamron 270mm and Sigma 250mm - if they are sharp enough with their reduced range, cropping may give better results.
Some typos or rough grammar on page 2:
"but not to an extend that interferes"
"The lens also has a zoom lock switch to inadvertent extension"
And the Full screen and compare links don't work on the widget.
Are there no apertures between f/11 and f/32?
The Help for the new Lens Reviews doesn't explain the X axis for the chromatic aberration chart. What does the X axis represent?
Andrew Booth: This concept sucks and will always suck.
You trade resolution, noise and dynamic range performance off for this post-shot focussing gimmick. They're never going to resolve that issue, because they'll always need multiple directional photosensors for each pixel.
Did you also think small sensors had a megapixel limit?
The Nokia Pureview 808 at 41MP shows what could be the future of this technology - a very high resolution sensor but instead of trading the resolution for low light capability, trade it for light field capture and have a 2.5MP camera that can do any focus, any DOF or (slight) 3D imaging from a single image capture.