Martin Datzinger: I wonder why they just couldn't let go of the retro theme and choose a more ergonomic design principle a la Olympus E-1: Remove everything on the left side of the lens mount, give it half an inch more air on the right hand side and install a whacking big default grip and battery underneath it.
If that means - for the sake of keeping everything centered - using a smaller LCD: Fine! Having such a great EVF, why bother spending so much real estate on something so redundant anyway? The ISO dial could be sneezed on the left side of the EVF housing just as well. Oh and btw, without 1/3 or even 1/2 steps, pretty please (in times of RAW, you really don't need such fine exposure adjustments anymore)
And by the way ... with the added flexibility of an EVF: Please move it much further back to help guys with noses in their faces and take properly care of the eyepoint for those wearing glasses.
I wonder why they just couldn't let go of the retro theme and choose a more ergonomic design principle a la Olympus E-1: Remove everything on the left side of the lens mount, give it half an inch more air on the right hand side and install a whacking big default grip and battery underneath it.
macky patalinghug: FF?I know many will vehemently react to this question.It's just a poor guess so please don't get angry.
There are 12 current lenses on the Fuji XF Roadmap and 5 new ones until 2015. Not a single one of them is FF.
mosc: Stop using aperture charts with mm delimited X axises! It should be logarithmic. 24-48 is the same distance as 150-300.
The chart goes 12.5x zoom in range from 24 to 300. If you gave it 10 equally spaced delimiters they'd be:
Also, it'd be nice is you put on a dotted line extending at the equivalent telephoto aperture from cropping. The fact that the Stylus goes to 300 and the RX-10 only goes to 200 may appear a range where the olympus has an advantage. It of course doesn't as simply cropping the 200mm image from an RX-10 still provides an advantage all the way out to 300mm.
Make it logarithmic with 16 24 35 50 85 135 200 300 markings. Except for the 85mm position that would mean consistent spacing and familiar FLs. Like a well designed zoom lens.
"the Df's focusing screen is fixed" … now who would've thought? ;)
"for that we rely on our friends in the media!" … not sure what to make of this?
HowardChernin: This lens will not "act like an 85mm lens". It will give you angle of view of an 85mm lens, but the perspective will still be that of a 58mm lens. Just sayin'!
If you put your camera on a tripod, take a picture of your subject with 400mm and then with 16mm, even then your perspective will stay the same. Perspective is only a question of your own position relative to your subject's.
emircruz: Come on oly.. Put this sensor plus the is and wifi tethering on an $600 e-xxx and 43 is truly alive again! Add weather sealing for $999
Yeah, let's see how Oly screws its customer base in another 10 years
I welcome that you redistributed everything to get it more in one plane and generally smaller because we thankfully don't live in a 4MP world anymore. Just wondering how you'll deal with backwards compatibility. Reshoot with every still sold camera? Seems like a lot of work to do!
I'll miss the colorful feathers of the last version, I can live with the new color resolution test patches though. What bothers me is that there seems to be no shadow performance test such as those those overshadowed puffy little balls anymore. The faces? I don't know what to judge from them. They are obviously prints, which means DR limited, off-colour and thus very unnatural looking in the first place. I guess the symmetry is to rule out lens misalignments? Please use the ColorChecker Digital SG instead of the (unnecessarily big) simple version, that is contained within the SG anyay. One last thing: Could you make the whole thing retina screen ready? Pretty please?
Martin Datzinger: The camera is nice and dandy and probably so is the phone itself. But then you have to deal with WP8 ...
@Weber: I don't have problems with WP8. Anymore. Thankfully the store took the Nokia 820 back and gave me a full cash refund. In the 2 days I had it, nothing I tried really worked in a satisfying way. Plus I had several lock-ups. I never got a hang of the tile system, but that is probably a matter of taste and/or time, so I wouldn't complain about it. At least it is a fresh idea - and I welcome the bold steps Windows took to make this version of their mobile Windows, which undoubtedly is miles better than the old one (and Symbian) and certainly proved very influental in the redesign of iOS 7. But I couldn't get rid of the feeling that WP8 somehow came very late to the smartphone party.
The camera is nice and dandy and probably so is the phone itself. But then you have to deal with WP8 ...
Martin Datzinger: I stand corrected (suggested it would be 2k).
Still would have no use for a 28-50/2.8 equivalent, though.
I stand corrected (suggested it would be 2k).
Debankur Mukherjee: the future of studio lights will be LED.......
Not with a CRI of 85
I could somehow live with the €12.29 monthly fee. Even if that makes it again 60% more expensive thant the $9.99 you get to pay overseas. Or 23% more expensive than updating every 2 years. Or 145% more expensive than updating every 2 generations.
But what makes me especially furious is that 1 year ago Adobe tricked users into an update to CS6 via the empty threat of losing future update-ability. Now of course you can get your membership plan from CS3 as well. Which is of course great news for those who could resist updates for the past 6 years, but plain swindle for those who fell for it 12 months ago.
Plus: Those cloud stuff is utter nonsense. If not even a threat for your intellectual property.
5DMkIII Shooter: The only option is that no-one registers / sign up to make use of the service. All just stick to what they are using now. The creative "Genius" at Adobe who came up with this utterly brilliant "stab your users in the back" idea would then soon realise that photographers own their gear and that gear also includes their software. No Adobe, NO!
This is exactly what I'm going to do.
Martin Datzinger: So. This, on a D7100 set to ISO 100, would very much do the same as a 27-53/2.8 lens would do on a D600 set to ISO 240 (or thereabouts). Except that only very few people would buy such a lens for their D600 because of the very limited zoom range and there is no chance of getting the same DR on the D7100 as with the D600 set to ISO 100 (whilst noise just evens out at higher sensitivity settings). And the viewfinder is smaller with an even worse representation of DoF.
Then there is the question of pricing: D600 + AF-S Nikkor 24-70/2.8 = €1500 + €1540 = about €3000D7100 + Sigma = €1220 + (certainly) more than €1800 = (certainly) more than €3000
Let alone the worse resale value of the Sigma as compared to the Nikkor.
So I have to ask - why not make it a 16-50/2.0 lens in the first place? Close enough to equivalence, about the same weight and price, a lot more usable and still totally unique in APS-C land.
And what is a typical DX system anyway? Probably a not so new DX camera you'd need to mate with a new one to utilize the new lenses mojo, a cheap midrange zoom you'd like to replace (you wouldn't replace your massively expensive 17-55/2.8 brand lens with it, would you?) and one FX tele zoom. Maybe some old primes you'd always have wanted to shine on FX. Or an old DX UWA zoom that was cheap when it was new and/or not up to the task of today's 24 MP sensors anymore.
a)+b) Hm, looking at the images I've got in my LR library that I've taken with the 24-70, I've got 104 images at 24mm, 131 at 70mm and 171 at all in-between FLs combined, which show a very clear trend towards higher FLs. Now I don't know what you or everyone else but judging from that data, I'd probably be fed up by the Sigma's FL range within a day or two since I'd need to switch around between standard and tele constantly.
c) As I said I think Sigma probably deserves the prices they're asking now. But resale is a different story and I've got the impression that people's perception of value of second hand goods is pretty inert.
d) Yep, but being faced with a 1500 to 2000€ pricetag for a sexy bright lens of a not so sexy FL range for a sensor size that isn't considered sexy anymore could make you rethink your commitment towards the DX system.
Time will tell - you're perfectly right! BTW, the Zuiko 14-35 is still priced at €2200. And "only" a constant f/2.0. Illuminating _only_ 4/3 sensors (up to an equivalent FL of 70mm though).
Also, the right DX camera to compare the D600 with is the D7100. Same MP count, same build quality, same interface, same flash capabilities. What the D7100 gains in the AF and fps department, it looses with the viewfinder. Fantastic camera btw. The only thing unfair about my comparison is that the D600 is several months out and already had its price drops while the D7100 is still hard to get. I'll give you that. But the net result remains. With the same kind of money for the DX combo you'll get less possibilities with the FX combo. Unless of course the lense's IQ is heaps and bounds better than the Nikkor's. That might actually be the case.