WayneHuangPhoto: $3,400? Wow. I'll just get a Samyang when they release their own FF UWA prime.
$3400 for a *sharp-in-the-corners* 11mm FF lens is a bargain.
Samyang won't do one, it is out of their price league. It cannot be made cheap because there are too many technical burdens to be overcome (aspherical, super ED, coating etc.). Nikon's 13mm Holy Grail was *much* more expensive, Sigma's 12mm isn't useful in the corners. Maybe, Sigma could do a 11mm Art now, but it won't come cheap.
Samyang's 10mm are cropped which is easy to do. In the affordable range anyway, it may be better to use a fisheye lens and convert to rectilinear in software (as pano software does). However, it still does lead to blurry corners when going to extreme UWA.
mjordan1: Please, please! No more reference to "fluorine" coatings. Fluorine is a gas at room temperature and very reactive. The coatings used are " fluoride" coatings e.g. calcium/magnesium fluoride, both of which are ionic compounds and not elements like fluorine.
There are names for elements and names for molecules. First is physics, second is chemistry.
RichRMA, yes, correct. But as I said, fluorine simply is the more generic term for anything containing the element F. Fluoride can be more accurate in some instances, fluorite in others (e.g., if used for the element's glass composition itself).
It is like talking about a magnesium alloy shell. Nobody thinks the shell would be made of pure magnesium. Same for a fluorine coating, nobody thinks it is made of pure fluorine anyway ...
Fluorine is an element (F). If it is contained in a coating, like a fluorite coating, it is technically correct to call it fluorine coating (well "coating containg fluorine" to be precise). Less accurate than fluorite (CaF2) coating, but not wrong.
Dvlee: Thumbs up for the real circular flash tube instead of a pair of tubes under a diffuser or a ring a LEDs.
Thumbs down to no TTL.
Besides freezing the motion of constantly moving little creatures or flowers swaying in the breeze, one of the advantages of using a flash for macro is being able to hand hold the camera while stalking bugs flitting from flower to flower. At a close working distance a small variation in the distance between the light and the subject can result in a large difference in the brightenss of the light.
I used a manual flash for macro for many years, but TTL has been a game changer! No more fiddling with apertures and power settings between shots.
If I have to weigh having a true ring flash tube against TTL, I'd choose TTL. It seems like a half decent unit otherwise. A bit pricey for no TTL.
Dvlee, I agree on the false advertizing from Adorama.It is in their press release, full text e.g. here:http://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2015-03/33087966-flashpoint-adds-the-new-ring-li-on-ring-flash-to-collection-of-battery-powered-strobes-flashpoint-s-ring-li-on-is-a-lithium-powered-self-contained-256.htm
Dvlee, you seem to confuse what this thing is.
It is a studio ring strobe, also usable outdoor, e.g., for fashion shots against the sun. Strobes are gauged in Ws and are way more powerful. Studio strobe users almost always shoot manual.
It is NO camera flash, there already are ring flashes out there (e.g., Sigma). Flashes are gauged by their guide number. Almost all flashes support TTL.
I use the Bowen ringlight converter BW-1790 in my studio to great success. It is cheaper and lets me keep my studio strobe system and its remote control integration, including ability to shoot 1/8000s at full power. I.e., this Adorama flash would be both more expensive and less value for me.
Maybe, it is an overlooked option, here's a review:http://www.wexphotographic.com/?/saves/reviews/bowens_ringlight.html
He says, between high end compacts, mirrorless and entry dSLRs, the race is open.
I share this opinion although not expressed very often.
It may be that high end compacts eventually take over the current mirrorless and entry dSLR markets. Leaving high end SLR and system cameras with full frame and larger sensors for the interchangeable lens market.
Already now, the A7 seems to drive the system camera segment rather than the small mirrorless ones it all started with.
Did he really say "photojournalsts" rather than photographers?
Did he really mix up pixel level quality and image quality?
Aur: Sigma and Carl Zeiss need to force Nikon and Canon to open their autofocus patents or drop them stone cold. Many people have a bad experience with Sigma autofocus and never buy one again.
I remember Carl Zeiss ranting about it a few years ago when a person asked why none of their lenses for Nikon autofocus. Their response was one of anger with Nikon and Canon, Nikon and Canon refuse to let any other manufacturer use their autofucs system.
Sigma and Car Zeiss should make it clear to Nikon and Canon and they're not the ones with dropping sales and losses. Nikon and Canon are more irrelevant every day and Sigma and Carl Zeiss have many other avenues and OEM who aren't stupid and who do allow them to access their autofocus system.
It could be worth a DPR article ...
IIRC, the Japanese optical industry has decided NOT to license patents to anybody outside Japan after some lost legal battle (about autofocus, I believe) with some US corporation.
This leaves Sigma building AF lenses while Zeiss and Samyang don't.
The camera market belongs to China.
The only things which will remain strong outside of China are:- optics (which saves companies with proprietary mounts (FE, F, EF, K)- image sensors (Sony)- high end pro bodies
It is simply too easy to build, e.g., a good mFT body to have any defense line against China. It has happened before, when Japan took over the German camera industry.
Yxa: Why is it called Super 35 its smaller than the still 35mmIt should be called sub par 35 (that would be more true)
@Yxa, the only one promoting confusion is you.Super 35mm is a standard size in video just like 35mm in still. The fact you didn't know it doesn't mean anybody tries to confuse you.
Eric Nepean: Capture One Pro is another good alternative. In the big picture, I think vendors should separate the DAM function from the editing function, allow various editors to plugin into a DAM framework which not only manages the images but also the editing history. IMO Apples problem with Aperture was that they had a very good DAM solution but couldn't keep up the pace regarding editor and RAW conversion features.
@Eric, you are correct, that could be done. But you would have no access to editing meta information except by opening the editor.I believe i like the current approach by LR better. It is no full DAM tool, just images and a tad movies. But I can avoid the cluttering of sidecars and I can open its database with open source tools. It allows me to manipulate images which are offline, something I do depend on on the road and a less integrated tool wouldn't allow me to do.Any editor opened from LR could write its editing history into the LR catalog (or a sidecar), so most of what you suggest is there already.I see where you are coming from but at the end of the day, you would still depend on a single DAM tool when it comes to your meta data. So again, we would need some standards first.
Provia_fan: Current experience with Serif software for image editing as a user and teacher is a no go folks.Stick to Adobe. Crashes behind crashes and weird memory bugs, plus memory munching for the simplest of things. Stick to Adobe.My two cents worth.
@Provia_fanSoftware isn't patentable, not according to EU law which is applicable to Serif from Nottingham, UK. Moreover, code which handles CMYK can be written by any IT professional with a proper degree.While your experience with PhotoPlus is valuable and worrysome wrt Affinity Photo (AP), I assume AP is a complete rewrite based on prior experience with things like PhotoPlus. Let's hope they learned their lesson.
P.S.Innovative enough algorithms are patentable, even in the EU. Things like the SIFT key extraction in panorama software. But they must be licensed by anybody, Adobe included ...
Glen Barrington: I wonder how this differs from Photo Plus?
From what I see from Serif documentation about PhotoPlus, Affinity Photo and Photo Plus are two entirely different beasts!
Photo Plus is an express tool for amateur photograhers, more like the Develop module of LR if at all.
Affinity Photo is meant to replace PS for people now using PS.
waffel and co: People just like to stick to what they know but never really give a new process a fair go and even when they do most refuse to grow with it. Photoshop promotes mediocrity but most here feel safe within those confines it is just easier hence the anti smartphone as a photographic toll cult
I disagree. PS is extremely powerful and only true masters of PS know all of its power and are able to compare. E.g., Gimp is a far cry from PS. That's why it has been so unlikely anything replaces PS anytime soon. This is what makes me excited about Affinity. The first time I see a serious attempt to match the complexity of PS over time.
C1 Pro would be an alternative to LR, not PS, I guess.
The real challenge is a PS competitor because PS is so complex. LR is fairly cheap to reprogram. What's exciting about Affinity is that they decided to compete with Adobe head to head, rather than escape their competition into a niche.
BTW, there is no standard for editing history. Therefore, you cannot decouple destruction-free editing from the archiving part. Well, a vendor could spread it across products, but you can't spread across vendors. Theoretically, you could use XMP sidecars or DNG. But that's Adobe then.
spontaneousservices: Can it do focus stacking? and "panorama" stitching?
Focus stacking and pano stitching is better left to specialist apps like Helicon and Kolor Autopano - even if one owns PS.
OLD NEWS FROM 2010
(as posted by "Just a Photographer" below)DPR should add a note to its article that Canon recycled 54 month old news at CP+.
light_bulb: What they did not tell is that this sensor has been designed on behalf of the NSA.
Good find, I repeat the comment higher up.