mosc: Stunning Candor. Stunning.
Sigma doesnt make money in bodies because, 1, its volume is very low, 2, it uses its own unique sensor so that RD cost is spread over very few cameras. Sony on the other hand sales a lot more cameras and they sell sensors to other camera makers to spread the RD cost.
matthew saville: It is a bummer, however, that they seem to be un-interested in offering even more affordable / lightweight f/1.8 primes; while Nikon has a pretty solid lineup I think Canon non-L prime sales would be destroyed if Sigma started releasing f/1.8 Contemporary lenses. Unless Canon does indeed have a new 50mm f/1.4 / f/1.8 up its sleeve...
I think it is wise for them not to get into the 1.8s.
First, people who buy 1.8s are often new comers who have not done a lot of research, they are unlikely to trust Sigma. Secondly, much of Sigma's appeal is optically equal lenses for significantly lower price. while you save about 600 USD on F1.4 primes, you will save less than 200 on F1.8 primes. The enticement is much less. I do not think Sigma 50 F1.8 or 85 F1.8 will undercut Canon and Nikon counter part.
I like this guy a lot. Way way more honest, genuine than other executives. therefore much more useful information provided.
Keep up with good work Yamaki San.
For a modern sensor there really isnt any point in having an external ISO control. you should be shooting at base ISO where shutter speed exceed minimum safe speed, and you should be shooting at minimum shutter speed at all other time with the lowest possible ISO as determined by metering system.
nerd2: Two facts:
1. FF camera is NOT expensive. You can get D610 at less than $1300 now. OMD E-M1 costs $1200 and X-T1 costs $1300, so they cost the same.
2. FF camera is NOT that heavier. RX1 weighs only 498gr with excellent 35mm f2.0 lens. X-100T weighs 440gr, while having 1.5 stop slower lens (in equivalence)
10 years ago, FF DSLR used to cost $8000 while comparable APS DSLR cost $3000 range ($5000 premium). Now the price differential is almost negligible (less than $500), and we really don't have any reason to keep expensive small formats alive. Half-format camera at least had the advantage of being able to take twice as much shots compared to regular cameras....
"The only practical reason to have FF these days, is high-resolution, not found on smaller formats, but then again, why not go all the way directly to 50 or 80 megapixel on a medium format ?"
Sad sad sour-grapist.
nerd2: Samsung has the best APS body yet (28MP BSI sensor, 240fps sensor readout, 15fps continuous shooting with AF tracking) AND they have a very solid lens lineup already, and they are not terribly overpriced like fuji or m43 offerings. See.
10mm f2.8 fisheye - $29916mm f2.4 pancake- $26920mm 2.8 pancake - $26330mm f2 pancake - $29945mm f1.8 prime - $25660mm f2.8 macro - $46985mm f1.4 prime - $763300mm f2.8 prime - coming
Oh they have enough zoom lenses too - 16-50 f2.0-2.8, 50-150 2.8, 12-24, 18-200 etc.... Why still people don't consider samsung seriously?
"Why still people don't consider samsung seriously?"Because they are just not that good. They are mediocre lenses at mediocre prices. Lots of reviews are raving Fuji and Oly's mirrorless lenses. How many rave about samsung lens (or canon or nikon mirrorless lenses for that matter)?
"Mirrorless to outsell DSLRs 'in three years'"
I am sure someone somewhere said this exact same thing back in 2008.
I must say the price is very reasonable compared to standard Df.
The kit version makes the gold ringed 50G cheaper than a normal 50G, that is absurd. I think Nikon is trying to do something nice here, I dont see it as money gorging. Nice move.
RichRMA: Nikon refused to build a D400, so Samsung did it. Actually, just kidding; Pentax did it.
Macrobokeh what are you smoking? --"Im sure you know a company name Sigma they create far more awesome lenses for sports than canon and nikon"--ROTFLMAO--" they create far more awesome lenses for sports than canon and nikon and they have lenses for k-mounts too. 5D and 6D, you gotta be kidding me, just bec pentax doesn't have those lenses equivalent you mentioned, then I ask this what good is the canon body when shooting on winter sports or rainy day on the field?"--I have no idea how to respond to this because if I look at winter Olympics photogs, all I see is Canon and Nikon FF.--"Auto focus, canon is way below the charts here"-- ROTFLMAO--"Shall I bring in Pentax 645Z for portrait?"-- please link one 645Z image of your own. and since when did 645Z become part of this conversation? why not bring in Samsung S5 and its OLED TV too?--"you will end up with lots of oil spills on the sensor on D610 before you even start shooting." Losers don't get more sore than this. Honest.
Typical Pentax die hards response I guess, I must say I saw it coming - "where is Canon's XX lens? or YY lens?..." it goes back proving that in the eyes of pentax die hards, pentax has a first rate lens line up and there is no point in improving it. Pentax love your faith and they will pump out 3 more K3 variant and they will continue to scratch their heads as to why none of them ever makes it into Top 100.
KL Matt, your explanation is exactly the problem with pentax, and the heart of the problem is that pentax believes what you are saying too - Pentax has a semi-complete, second rate lens line up. Some important high end lenses are missing and what is available are expensive and behind compeition. The 300 F4 you mentioned, how much does it cost? how does its AF compare with 400L? how sharp is it with 1.4 TC compared to the 400L? where is the pentax candidiate against 80-400G and 100-400 II? But in the eyes of pentax die hards and pentax itself, it is complete first rate line. Pentax therefore does not put enough energy into developing its 400L or 100-400 II, instead it keeps pumping out bodies, over the last 5 years, Canon made two 7D class camera, Pentax made 4 by my count.
K3 doesnt get into top 100 on amazon and has no cusomters has nothing to do with amount of ads Pentax does. Just like 5D, 6D, D750 D610 class customers dont buy based on mass advertising. Everyone who buys the above mentioned 4 cameras know what a K3 is, they dont buy it because it is a camera that they dont want. K3 looks great on paper, but has no high end fast AF lenses (like 400L, 80-400G, 500/4L) to go with it as a sports and action camera, nor high end lenses for portrait like 85L, 85G, 50L, or 55G, nor high end lenses for landscape like 14-24G, 24TSE L, 24L, 16-35 IS, etc.
And the Pentax has no customer, Nikon made D750, it ranks 8 and combo kit ranks 18 in Amazon top selling cameras - that is out of all system cameras including DSLR and mirrorless, that is pretty amazing since it is an expensive FF. In comparison K3 did not make it into top 100, which is very very sad because the 6 years old D90 ranks 87 and the 9 years old D70 ranks 63. So maybe Nikon is smarter than you, dont you agree?
Ricanon: "A 100mm equivalent lens on a small-sensor camera will give the same framing and perspective as an actual 100mm lens does on a full-frame camera, regardless of sensor size, because they are equivalent."Only the position of the photographer changes the perspective. For a given location any focal length will produce the same perspective, although different framings.
what you said does not conflict with with you quoted.
Paul Kersey Photography: This camera makes m43 pricing look like a bargain.
what are you on about? you asserted there exists m43 camera with similar spec but at lower cost, you have been asked to identify such an m43 camera, please do not detract from the issue.
how much do you pay for a m43 camera with a 12.5-200/3.8-5.4 lens?
I am not sure which part is the haloing you referring to. This is a single shot photo, with brightening of the shadow part done in LR.
Finally, a true representation of "equivalent to 135 FF" , even better then I expected, it is done in a graph.
Well done DPR, keep it up. Stop the "24-200/2.8" frauds.
DPR should stop using the term "effective focal length". It is misleading.
It is better to say "has FOV of".
So it is a 19-45 F3.5 to F6.4, right?
if we talk about 135 equivalent why do you say 28-70 F5.25-9.6?