wus: I hope is is not quite correct when DPreview writes above
"All but the Sony mountS will incorporate Sigma’s proprietary Optical Stabilizer (OS) technology to compensate for camera shake. This functionality is omitted from Sony mounts to accommodate for that manufacturer’s in-camera image stabilization system."
because only Sony's A-mount cameras have in-camera stabilizers. The NEX and the new A7 series with the E-mount don't, so if Sigma will really omit the in-lens stabilizer from the E-mount version, too, it will be quite a show stopper.
Anyone on here KNOW any details?
The text you've quoted comes from Sigma's own press release; we'd fully expect it to be correct. It's entirely consistent with Sigma's current practice; in the past they made a few lenses for Pentax and Sony that included image stabilisation, but recently have been using the same optical design without OIS. It's conceivable that the appearance of the A7 and A7R could prompt a re-think of that strategy, but just right now, it seems clear that's not the plan for the 24-105/4.
HeyItsJoel: I think I read somewhere that 58mm is closer to 'normal' point of view than 50mm. Can someone confirm or deny this?
Conventionally, a 'normal' lens is considered to have a focal length equal to the sensor diagonal - for full frame, that's actually 43mm. So 58mm is obviously further from this than 50mm.Of course, every photographer has their own preference - there's nothing inherently 'right' about choosing 43mm, 50mm, or 58mm.
massimogori: Seriously, do you really need to send the camera back to Canon for a firmware update? Seems to me they are so selfish they do not even take into account the possibility that a product can get improvements. Please, give me a sound reason not to think so.
@DigiMatt: I'm surprised you profess to know what I know about the 1D C, as I know I haven't told you.
Well, here's a sound reason. It's only the EOS-1D C update that needs the camera sending in, which is why it's called a 'service update'. Canon has released numerous user-installable firmware updates for other cameras, including the one for the EOS-1D X announced alongside. So clearly Canon takes into account that products can get improvements, as a rule.
The change to the EOS-1D C that stands out here is the added ability to switch the mic input to line level. This may well require more work than a simple firmware update.
Jogger: "But this does come at the cost of pretty huge distortion, and although this can be corrected in software when necessary, doing so will have a slight impact on the image sharpness."
If this is going to be mentioned here, then lenses for m43/NEX/Fuji, etc should be tested without automagical software correction as well.
When testing lenses, we aim to show what users will get out of them when using their cameras as designed. SLR systems generally don't apply distortion corrections by default, so we'll show their uncorrected output and comment on corrections. However mirrorless cameras tend to use corrections by default, and you have to try *really* hard to see uncorrected output, essentially breaking the system. So we'll show the corrected output, then comment on how they look without corrections.
AndyHWC: Surprised no reference or mention of the 18-105mm VR. I wonder how is the new 18-140 stack up against the good old 18-105mm.
You can make this comparison in the widget and judge it for yourself - the one caveat is that our data for the 18-105mm comes from the D300, so it's not directly comparable for sharpness. [Here's the 18-140mm compared to the 18-105mm](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-widget-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=nikon_18-140_3p5-5p6g_vrdx&cameraId=nikon_d7000&version=0&fl=18&av=5.6&view=mtf&lensId2=nikon_18-105_3p5-5p6g_vrdx&cameraId2=nikon_d300&version2=0&fl2=18&av2=5.6)
CarVac: The data for the 18-140 isn't up in the widget yet...
Sorry about that, should now be visible.
SergioNevermind: So let´s say this is an X-20, same X trans sensor, without the viewfinder, without the wonderfull lens, at a similar price?
Do I get it right?
@prime. You're talking about two different things here. Pretty well every compact camera on the market now uses software distortion correction. Most cameras automatically correct for lateral chromatic aberration too - this has been going on for years (it was first really noticed in the Panasonic LX3). Lens Modulation Optimiser is a distinctly different concept - it's about understanding the lens's other aberrations that cause 'softness' and specifically correcting for them using selective sharpening. Most notably, in principle it should give better results at small apertures.
Ferling: "hey certainly won't be for everyone; we suspect only a minority of photographers will see them as anything more than frivolous novelties,"
I have to disagree. I got a box full of 'frivolous novelties' in the form of vintage glass. I actually consider some of them as tools for very specific looks that would be a hassle to duplicate in post. (Some folks love it when I tell them a little bit about a particular lens I'm going to shoot them with).
Once in a while I need to escape from the purgatory of pixel perfect product photo shoots and just have some fun, man. (Frankly, as soon as I started shooting for cash, the fun was shelved).
One thing to consider is that using a lens for an effect (vs. post) puts more reliance on the photographer, and can revive ones aspirations to go out and take nice photos. $79 is about right for 3 pieces of glass, (I average $25 per unique vintage on eBay). I say go for it.
I don't think Lomography says anywhere about 'glass'...
Branko Collin: It felt like there was an invisible trade show going on. Did you call the manufacturers to ask them "why now"?
It's not that invisible, as it happens. [PDN PhotoPlus +Expo](http://www.photoplusexpo.com/) opens in a couple of days in New York, and some (but not all) manufacturers are timing their announcements accordingly.
Antimateria: And, most strange.A7-A7r, a total of about 1500 comments, and not in most clicked cameras??And Rx10 and others yes.Very strange...
Thanks for spotting this, technically it's known as a 'bug'. It's now partially fixed, and I've asked our developers to sort out the click count in 'Most popular'.
Antimateria: Nex FF page 9...D5300 and Fuji mirrorless page one...Yes, the most important of the week...No coment.
It does say "In no particular order..."
Rumle: I would have loved if anyone with hands on could comment on the build quality and material choice of this lens. also AF speed is something i'd like to know more about.
It's built just like Nikon's other recent primes, such as the 50/1.4. AF speed seemed fine, not blisteringly quick but not horribly slow either. Difficult to get a meaningful feel for this in a few minutes at a press event, though.
Leandros S: It allows manual aperture setting on the lens (images 4 and 5)? Or is that just faked for illustration at the press event?
Yes, in image 4 I just pulled the aperture open with the lever.
kyli: What does the acronym RSA mean here?
Residual Spherical Aberration
Biniou1907: Hi, it seems that an IQ problem appears in some OMD EM1 pictures. You can see it in the sample gallery of this first impression review (P9010042 image). Leaves in the trees show a lot of artefacts (white rings).A new owner of the camera complains about this on Flickr too.What do you think about that? Thanks
This is about how the lens used renders out-of-focus highlights, so isn't anything to do with the camera itself. The shot you're referring to was taken with the 12-60mm lens originally designed for Olympus's Four Thirds SLRs - you won't generally see the same thing with other lenses.
Stupidco: Is anyone testing the mismatch between the camera recognizing the focal length of the lens and the stabilizer not recognizing the focal length of the lens. The camera can be working one one focal length and the stabilizer can be working on a different focal length. Unless the two match, focusing error seems highly likely. The stabilizer can be made to recognize the focal length of the lens fitted, using the settings function of the camera.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what the focal length setting does. It's only used with third party lenses used on adapters, for which the camera needs to be told the focal length for the IS system to work. It doesn't have to be set with native Micro Four Thirds lenses, because they tell the camera their focal length automatically.
dombi: The E-P5 and the E-M5 use the same IBIS mechanism. Which makes me wonder if the E-M5 has the same issue.
As stated very clearly in the review, no.
Oly72: Seems very odd that 'What digital Camera' gave the E-P5 a rating of 90% and a 'Gold Award' and with absolutely no mention of blurred images at shutter speeds of 1/160. Olympus has the best image stabilisation system around - bar none. Are you sure that the sample used for the test wasn't just a faulty unit as I just cannot believe that Olympus would release a camera with such an issue.
'Camera labs' also gave the E-P5 a score rating of 86% and again with out any mention of blurred images at the fore mentioned speeds.
'Techradar.com' Gave the E-P5 a 5 out of 5 star rating and guess what? No mention again of blurred images at the stated shutter speeds?!!
We used multiple cameras and tested them extensively. All behaved in the same way.
ChrisPercival: I have and E-P5 with the 17/1.8. The magnify view and focus peaking work fine. My unit has firmware 1.0 for lens and camera.
Magnify view and focus peaking work when the camera is set to manual focus, but not when the lens's focus ring is pulled back to the 'Snap focus' position (according to Olympus, this is because the camera counts it as a different focus mode). In contrast, pulling back the focus ring on the 12-40mm engages 'true' manual focus, complete with focus assist.