mikeSF: wow, impressive performance with the pixel shift. Admittedly, I have pixel shift on my K3II but have never used it. For still life/product work, it looks fantastic.
I think the verdict is still out on Motion Control with Pixel Shift. Several real world examples are showing moving objects (trees) with the same strange artifacts that the K-3ii had.
I love that the K-1 exists right now, but I also wish that they would update the trifecta of limited primes to make them WR and with silent focusing.
neo_nights: I'm feeling kinda bad for companies like Fuji, Pentax (and even Nikon) that honestly want to stay focused on STILL images but have been "forced" to add video. Not only that, they have to split their resources (human and money) to develop video further.
Also those who were attached to a company hoping for it to develop stills but went the video route instead (I'm looking at you, Sony!) felt a bit disappointed to say the least.
Of course, the more things your camera can do the better.And I understand that dSLRs and high-end mirrorless have been great for the video crowd mainly for costing a lot less than 'real' camcoders.
But.... that video obsession is getting a bit out of hand.Specially when you see a hell of a camera like a Canon 7D Mk II and people complain because it doesn't do 4k...... really, people? Really?
I don't see the problem. That's just the nature of the market and the technology. Stills and video cameras are converging and so are their users.
The same can be said for the market and technology converging to mirrorless. "I feel bad for Canon, Nikon, and Pentax who have been forced to go into mirrorless. I mean, that Canon 7dmk2 is a hell of a camera, but people complain that it has a mirror box?....really, people? really?" :)
Marty4650: I just don't get it, as many others have rightfully pointed out.
Since this is a single focal point fixed lens camera, why wouldn't an optical viewfinder that slid into the hot shoe make more sense? Like the ones Leica and Voigtlander make for rangefinder cameras, or the one Olympus made for their 17mm f/2.8 lens?
Of course it would... but that would be simpler, cheaper, and much less grotesque. Which would defeat the whole "Quattro Concept." And it wouldn't get enough laughs.
The camera does have a hot shoe, so why not provide a slide on EVF like so many other manufacturers have? That would also be simpler, cheaper and much less grotesque, and it would provide an eye level EVF that would provide the added benefit of tilting upwards.
Because with an OVF attachment, you don't know what the camera actually focused on, unless you're only shooting hyperfocal.
nicolaiecostel: Well, it''s not really going to be as good as the nikkor, nor as good as the canon. i tested them both and they are really good. I also tested the 85 1.4 AFs nikon and it's stunning, a bit better than my sigma 85 1.4. The canons are also very good, with some CA wide open though. This sigma will be nicely sharp at 1.4, with minimal CA and spherical aberration, decent color rendition. The nikkor will render color better, will have better contrast wide open, will have less CA and you will probably never have to worry about calibration on it. At twice the price. The choice is really up to the user, and since I cannot afford or justify the nikkor, and my 35 f/2 is limiting me somewhat, this 35 sigma seems like a logical choice.
you mean you tested the sigma 35 1.4 yourself against the canon and nikons?
luka3rd: Desirable!Don't be fooled by the price, though... it is "Art" series... there will probably be pro models which will cost much more!I assume that Art will be in the "low build quality / high performance" sector.
Sigma President interview at Photokina 2012: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44P2tckjEms
Art line = focused on best image qualityContemporary line = highest possible optical performance that can be accomplished in a compact size (size seems to be the priority)Sports line = action photography