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?
Obviously most of the comments here simply reveal that very few DPR readers have any idea how much broadcast equipment costs.
Presumably illegal to use these in UK urban environments without cumbersome legal requirements?
"BeyondRAID"Which tells you all you need to know really.
!00% guaranteed anti-climax to follow.
The race to the bottom continues.
mwstebbins: Please no NOT use the sexist 'he' when reviewing your camreas: in your article Photographer = he! Please use s/he or she/he or even he/she. Let's be inclusive. m2cw
mwstebbinsHow are you going to handle it if you encounter something that's actually a serious problem?
Achimogata: Good looking for me, even if some photos seem a bit overexposed.
The one at the head of this page seems to have been exposed to favour the window frame... I haven't looked at any others since just about every camera produced in the last few years is capable of outputting files that are more than adequate - if used competently. The whole subject of photographic hardware is becoming a huge bore.
KW Phua: 7D II is a action capture gear. Help you capture the moment. Responsive is the most importance factor for this type of camera. The photographer need to anticipate and trigger at the right time + high fps increase the chances to get the right moment. EVF may be very advance but a slight slag may cost you miss something that may not be repeated in the rest of your life time. Most of the time even in good light I still seldom set the ISO at base in order to increase the Shuttle Speed. If you are not a wild life or sport photographer, if will not understand what I said. Get the right gear for the fight photography. Cheers
The "slag" will get you every time you try to "capture the moment" no matter how low you set the "shuttle speed" when you're doing that "fight photography". Phew; it's all so awesome.
phazelag: It seems you either get these cameras or you don't. I finally dipped my toe in the DP waters with a DP3 Merrill and I love it. The images are worth it and the shooting experience is pure photography. I want this series. I will get all three eventually.
"Never give a sucker an even break"W.C. Fields
The continuing sheer absurdity of this line shows up the irrational market for photographic products .
Joe Ogiba: The Samyang 85mm F1.4 costs less than the NJ 7% sales tax on this lens .
The Samyang lens is also probably 93% as good. I think that Zeiss should have named this lens range "Priapus" rather than "Otus".
Simon97: These lenses will cost you deep in the purse. You shall have the better of them and I shall have the worst.
Unfortunately, like the rest of us, you're getting older: the quote is from "Matty Groves", not "Tam Lin". Both songs rendered wonderfully by Fairport Convention in their prime. Is it just me that feels that Richard Thompson has hardly written a memorable song since leaving them?
cgarrard: Cool camera for cat shots.
":) Maybe its Schrodinger's cat ?"Possibly: the camera certainly uses a "Heisenberg" sensor.
Having been creating spherical panos for many years - quite a bit of it commercially, I'll believe this works properly when I see it. Unless it defeats the laws of optics - namely parallax errors - it's impossible to get accurate stitches if there are foreground elements. To do so requires rotation around, or at least close to, the no-parallax point of the lens. Even with the best stitchers such as PTGui or Autopano this is required.No doubt this will work after a fashion, with horrible stitching errors visible, which may well satisfy the selfie obsessed knuckle-draggers.
I'd buy this without hesitation for its unparalleled shallow DOF ability were it not for the fact that nowadays I shoot MFT and I think that adding an adaptor would make the whole rig a bit unwieldy.
Looks to me like a ludicrously expensive way of creating a fairly small amount of RAID storage in a cosmetic package. I can see that some people might need this for highly critical location work but it doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out ways of getting the job done at a fraction of the cost.
Well, whoever's responsible is certainly going to give it a rest for a while now that the news is being broadcast that Mr. Plod's on their trail. They can then resume once the hue and cry has died down...
Barend: Reading all the comments I think that my Nikon D700 still does a decent job.
" once you get used to the "fat" files from the D800 there is no going back :-)"So don't bother going "forward" then.
stevo23: Innovation is when someone provides a solution to a known issue. Like Polaroid - provided instant images on paper. People wanted that. Like automatic transmissions (I don't use one) - people didn't have to fiddle with shifting gears. Like autofocus - people realized that they could get more keepers and better focus if somehow the camera could do it.
It's usually something that people thought about but didn't think was possible. But I can't think of anyone ever thinking it would be cool to be able to change the focus point of an image after it's captured - and that with sub-critical focus and poor image quality. It's not an innovation, it's just a novel idea but with no real market interest. It's not solving anything that people were looking for and it replaces nothing.
This is not the future for photographers. It's a novel idea looking for an interested party. I can't really think of anyone or any application for this that makes it invaluable. Can you?
That's about right. The almost complete failure of 3D TV in favour of higher resolution, and hence larger screens, is a similar phenomenon. However if demand existed solely for what is actually useful, there's be a lot less junk out there. However demand is often created when there's something to be sold.
SeeRoy: The camera market is simply evolving to resemble many other sectors of the consumer goods market - watches would be a typical example. The function of any given watch is almost identical to any other. An inexpensive quartz watch is likely to be more accurate than the most expensive chronometer-grade mechanical example from Rolex, Patek or Omega. No one questions this any more. These products are primarily signifiers and their function secondary.
Function. All watches are timepieces. They're only incidentally male jewellery (we're talking men's watches, in the main.) All the other differentiation (mechanical complexity) is a way of justifying high prices. I own a few old mechanical watches - back to the 1920s - and they're all usable but need periodic and expensive servicing. Practicality or better fitness for purpose isn't their justification.The average new Rolex - to take a single typical example - is manufactured in huge numbers and depreciates by about 50% as the punter leaves the shop.Cars, TVs, furniture, clothing all would have equally been examples of the decadence in the consumer goods marketplace. Essentially identical items differentiated by advertising in order to appeal to an artificially stimulated status anxiety.