linux99: Has anyone seen a photograph taken with an equivalent of one of these whihc 1 looks good 2 isn't in the "what lenses for your DSLR" section of a beginners photography book?
Cant see thye point of this at all - 2 -3 novelty shots then it's an expensive way to counterweight your gear bag.
I use the wide end of my Canon 10-22 quite often for very ordinary, non-novelty shots in confined situations. Try walking round Venice for a few hours and you'll soon get the idea. And the novelty shots can be fun too, if you don't overdo it.
What I don't get about this lens, though, is what it offers that the much more convenient ultrawide zooms don't offer. It's only one stop faster than the slowest of them (the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6) and there can't be many situations where that one stop is really needed.
And it looks like it doesn't take filters which further limits its appeal.
It will have to be very, very good and no more than half the price of the Sigma if it's not to end up in the remainder bins.
gl2k: The first example image with the couple is a joke. Hopefully. No serious photog would ever place the main subject so close to the edge of the frame. Especially on a wide angle lens.
The second example can be done easily with PS which every serious photog has.
So the question remains : What is the reason to buy this extra piece of software which then has to be incorporated into the workflow.
But it is a joke. The example attempts to hide the inescapable fact that the wall in the 'corrected' version is curved and would look dreadful if not cropped away. It's basically a dishonest representation of what the software does.
And as already said by others, this is old technology packaged up at an extortionate price.
pierpa: From 2.1 to 2.9 there's 0.93 stops, not 1.
Not necessarily. T-numbers are rounded after measurement, not before, so it's perfectly possible for two lenses which are exactly one stop different to be labelled T2.1 and T2.9.
E.g. T2.070 and T2.927 are (to three places) exactly one stop apart.
HowaboutRAW: Dear DPReview, the Leica M8 and the Epson R-D1 predate the introduction of whatever y'all are calling the first interchangeable lens mirrorless, and that Epson by a lot.
But a rangefinder camera inherently has no mirror, because the viewfinder and focusing don't work through the main lens. Calling a rangefinder "mirrorless" is like calling a cow "wingless".
The Smudger: 1:1 @ 18.5 inches/47cm working distance!!!!!!!!
Focusing distance, not working distance. To get the working distance, subtract the length of the lens and the distance from the mount to the sensor (44 mm for Canon EF)
So, 470 - 204 - 44 = 222 mm.
Still very good of course!
onlooker: Canon's solution to a design defect? "exchange affected cameras regardless of the warranty status". Other companies listening?
And that's within a week of announcing new/improved features for 7D owners, completely free of charge via a firmware upgrade. This is not the Canon we know...
Pleased to see this but one feature I really hoped for is missing - crop video mode.
Chris Crevasse: Thanks for the link, dpreview, and for the other valuable information you provide.
Because it strikes me as odd that Canon would make a pancake lens apparently designed for full-frame cameras when their current full-frame cameras are not at all small, is this new lens perhaps an indication that Canon has a compact, full-frame, mirrorless camera (in other words, my ideal camera) in the works?
Not mirrorless, because a mirrorless body would surely not be handicapped by the EF mount with its 44 mm registration distance. But otherwise I agree.
Paul Farace: Happy to see a $199 price... didn't the press release put the price initially around $550??? Now at $199 I might lose my fortitude and buy it if it makes my Rebel or 50D slim and trim...
No logical reason to have it, but it looks fun and I've lusted after Pentax's pancake for years, especially when it was mounted on my ME SUPER... oh those were the days!
$550 was the 18-135 STM. The 40 mm pancake was announced at $199.
Felix E Klee: A camera with apps would be incredible!
Just one use case that I had recently: Overlay an image on top of live view. In the end I had to revert to my Android phone with an app called Camera ZOOM FX and its Composite effect. Of course there are firmware hacks, e.g. for Canon cameras, that add features, but these hacks are comparatively primitive.
Polaroid announced an Android powered camera earlier this year:
Canon's Remote Capture can do this, I use it quite often when I want to copy the setup of a previous pack shot. But having it on the camera could be handy too.
The difficult thing is drawing the line between silly toys (adding flowery borders) and genuinely useful (picking the best faces for a group shot - if it's seamless enough). And of course my 'toy' is another person's must-have feature.
Sorry for yet another negative post, but I agree with the others. Real books cost money to print and distribute, the distributors and retailers have to make a profit, and all those remaindered books cost money too. But a PDF costs practically nothing. And this one is a measly 90 pages, on a subject that requires very little investment from the authors. At a generous one hour per page that's just two weeks work.
And if you want the images to practice on, you have to pay even more!!
Yeah I know, write one yourself and see whether it's easy or not... :-)
iudex: It is pleasing to read about a producer from my country on DPR. However the site needs to be finished in order to look more professional.P.S. I think the correct adjective is "slovak", not "slovakian".
As I understand it - Slovak is the name of the language or people, Slovakian is an adjective which means "of Slovakia". "Slovak is the Slovakian language" you might say.
What's with the tags at the top of the page? Samsung (who ballsed up) but not Richard Franiec (who created the fix)?
And well done Franiec for offering this gadget at a fair price - makes a pleasant change in this industry.
Lovely, really made me smile. But I don't really see anything unique about them - they are simply cartoon strips recorded on film instead of by the talent of an illustrator. What's more they are 'objets trouvés'. Some people have a talent for spotting these things of course, but it's like finding an attractively shaped piece of driftwood - how much credit can you take for choosing it?
It's the kind of book I like to buy - but for its humour, not its photography.
Is that a knob to hold the lens hood in place on the 75/1.8? Seems very clumsy if it is.
Also I had to laugh at the label "LENS HOOD". Do Olympus bodies have "BODY" written on them so owners know what they are?
Extraordinary. A mirrorless camera with NONE of the advantages of a mirrorless camera. Plus no viewfinder and no proper grip. And a name which is so ill-advised that they have to explain the pronunciation! I could just about understand this if it was a student project at the local arts and technology college but from a "respected product designer"??????????????
T3: Kodak prepares for bankruptcy while Fujifilm introduces a slew of new digital cameras. Wow, what a contrast. Clearly, one film company was able to make the digital transition, while the other did not.
Yes, it struck me as rather ironic that the Kodak announcement was very nearly pushed off the bottom of dpreview's news menu before I'd even noticed it - by THIRTEEN Fuji news items.
Kagetsu: Going by the measurements (4K being 3840 x 2160) and by what the presentation tonight showed how it recorded with the bayer filter, and if it's recorded at 4K on the APS-H part of the sensor this would be 66mp. (I doubt it) but either way, that's what would be indicated by the announcements today. (ie, if it was a native 8K sensor)
Miscalculation there I think. There are several "4K" resolutions but using yours, and a horizontal crop factor of 1.3, that would be a 16MP sensor.
Handy little review but where are the sizes in cm? Has dpreview completely forgotten there is a world outside the USA???
Octane: Funny, I just bought and used one of those yesterday. Very useful and helpful to get the exact exposure in different situations.
The one drawback I could see was due to the polarizer. The sky was getting really dark towards one corner of the image. Landscape photographers need to be careful.
To get the misty water effect of a very long exposure.