RPJG: "offering the attractive option of a 25-49mm equivalent F1.3 lens (F2.5 equivalent in full frame terms)."
When describing equivalence for f numbers, I wish you'd separate out the two separate factors, i.e. exposure equivalence and DoF equivalence.
I think you're all over-complicating things. "ISO invariance" aside, there is a correct exposure for a certain aperture etc.
Sure, a smaller sensor will have more noise, but again, that's not the point.
G-D: Can't say I'm blown away by JPEG IQ. I've seen better JPEGs from Canon. Colors are OK, but images look grainy at base ISO, blotchy, lack of detail... Hopefully RAW + PP will be better, but for that kind of money JPEG quality should have been outstanding...
Can't help but think that Canon put an underpowered processor into the G3 X for managing all those pixels...
So now we have an RX10 with a lens that's great but too short (IMO), an FZ1000 which is great (with 4K!) but too big (IMO), and the G3 X with so-so JPEGs (IMO), lacks a builtin EVF and is way too expensive (IMO).
Oh well, maybe next year...
Yeah, because everyone was forced to buy every version.
Francis Carver: "The Speed Booster is essentially a backwards teleconverter... shortening the focal length of the lens.. as a 0.71x focal length multiplier lens... combined with the 2x crop of a Four Thirds sized sensor gives a net effective crop of 1.4x, so a 50mm lens becomes a 35.5mm lens when the adapter is added. Then ... this 35.5mm lens offers a field-of-view equivalent to a 71mm lens on full frame."
Wow, how wonderful, Metabones & Co. Who would give $649 for the privilege of giving up ultra wide angle perspectives? This product makes zero sense. You can get a pretty good lens, maybe even a pair of lenses, for that much money.
I think you know what I mean.
"offering the attractive option of a 25-49mm equivalent F1.3 lens (F2.5 equivalent in full frame terms)."
"These modes act as a 0.71x focal length multiplier lens. This, combined with the 2x crop of a Four Thirds sized sensor gives a net effective crop of 1.4x so that, for example, a 50mm lens becomes a 35.5mm lens when the adapter is added. Then the sensor size means that this 35.5mm lens offers a field-of-view equivalent to a 71mm lens on full frame."
Is it just me, or is that an abysmally-worded paragraph?
Fancy that!! Cameras are compromises, even if the level of compromise gets reduced a little bit each year :-)
Peter Galbavy: * Don't forget, to these people *you* are not the customer. They mean the retailers. You and I are "end users". Our opinions are only slightly more important than something they step in on the street by accident.
That seems to be a very flawed analysis. Sure, technically, the distributors/retailers are their customers. But obviously, he means us final consumers when he refers to customers.
Retailers don't give a rat's @rse about the camera's abilities, whereas the customers obviously do.
RedFox88: Author: you need to reexamine your thought process if you really think a barely noticeable rock is very important to the image. I did not notice it until I read your mention of it being "important".
The foreground is dead fish not a dark, little, and barely noticeable rock!
Same for me - I would have hardly noticed the rock unless it was mentioned.
Does anyone else find that the edges of the rock are "too sharp", so that it almost looks like it's been Photoshopped in there? Obviously I'm not saying it was, it just looks a little out of place next to the softer fish?
Rawmeister: I already have a 24-70 F2.8. So why would I want a 24-35 F2 exactly?And please don't say for the extra stop of speed.With Image stabalization and clean 1000 ISO these days, my shutter speed is plenty fast enough?Seems ridiculous to me.
You mean, the original poster's IQ? :-)
DigitalWalnut: I really wish this was a 20-35mm (or even a 20-30mm) for those situations where the wide end of a 24-70mm isn't quite wide enough or has too much distortion. Still, it's nice to see Sigma pull of an f/2 full frame zoom. I hope there are more to come.
They already have it, it's called the 18-35/1.8.
Olympuser: 1.5x zoom rato is too short. Make it at least 2x. This new lens is a nice progress for sure, but the great advance would be 24-70 F2 OS or 24-50 F1.4 OS. Then, 70-200 F2 OS or 50-100 F1.4 OS. Also, ultrawides as 10-24 F2 OS or 12-24 F1.4 OS.
Of course, those lenses would be huge, heavy and very expensive, but many FF owners would drool over and even buy them. And Sigma would punch in the face of Nikon and Canon with great strength!
Hugo808: 24-35. Big deal. A 28 would cover that, cost less, be cheaper and have better IQ.
Still, if you can't be bothered to take a step backwards or forwards...
Ah. I misread.
Hold it guys - perspective doesn't change with focal length, it changes with distance from the subject. A crop is just a crop, it doesn't change the perspective.
There's always one.
You can't always take a step back or forwards. If you have so little imagination, why comment?
bigdaddave: So now users who won't agree to pay Adobe regularly are OFFICIALLY second class. How telling that is.
Adobe are simply vile.
No. They offer two separate products, LR6 and LR CC. Get over it.
mcshan: I never believed the many rumors about it having a larger sensor.
Gionni Dorelli: Once I have sold my phase one system few years ago, I never looked back.I just rent them sometimes when I really have to.When do I really have to?When we need to print the photos for cosmetics and jewelry Ads for large displays to be used in luxury shopping malls and in the rare eventual case that an AD push for using one. Or for shooting "groupage" with many models.
The big draw back of these systems are that even with the highest Mp resolution, because of their slowness in Af and operation, they will give you way less keepers and most of the images will not be not tack sharp if the models are moving even so slightly. Negating most of the advantages of the high MP count.No mentioning that Schneider lenses or the Fujinon design of the Hasselblads lenses deliver a very nervous and aseptic look and bokhe.
Fair enough, but:
I'd have thought that for this type of photography, the photogs would be working towards an actual DoF (e.g. 2cm or whatever) regardless of the system. In other words, they'd choose the aperture to suit the DoF they want, not just get a DoF that resulted from a random lens and f/ selection - is that a false assumption?
And you refer to AF... surely almost no-one uses AF for this type of photography?
If so, that leaves shutter lag and relatively-low shutter speeds as the main problems they have to face with these systems. Is that correct?
"they will give you way less keepers and most of the images will not be not tack sharp if the models are moving even so slightly"
That makes no sense - slight movement is rendered irrelevant by the simple expedient of a high-enough shutter speed, regardless of the size of the camera/sensor.
For clarity, does the 8mm's:
- "minimum *focus* distance" of 12cm refer to distance from the sensor, and
- "minimum *working* distance of 2.5cm" refer to distance from the front of the lens?
Are these standard terms for all photography, or at least for DPReview?