jukeboxjohnnie: I'm impressed but just don't think the pictures look as good as something in the 16-21mm range I find them a little uncomfortable to view
(#3 of 3 to complete)
Afterwards I also made corrected versions of the images, which of course will cut out a lot of content. I liked the fisheye versions even though somewhat more severe than the news photographer's above, for many things. The ones I corrected, such as an Escher-like courtyard of stairways in the near medieval Basel city hall (Rathus) came out very nicely also. So maybe sometimes-pp is another thing you could add to thinking in your 'new realm'.
Hoping to hear more of it, and again thanks, Samuel,Clive
not in Basel any more, if I might often enough wish it....
...this limit is really dumb, #2 here of 3)
He'd moved to Alaska and started a paper there (think he moved back out). His choice for wide angle was a mild fisheye Canon, on a 10D if I remember.
This actually gave wonderful shots for many of his subjects, indoors or out. I remember an extended family dinner, a basketball team, and group of fishermen showing off their very large salmon. Also a boat along a shore, other things. The look looked right, perhaps because it was something like what our eyes actually see and correct for; don't know, but it worked. It probably helped not to have to spend time on postprocessing also, if you think about it, and caught a lot of interesting details.
I was interested enough to try some work with a Sigma and one of their fisheyes on loan from a friend as we walked around interesting places in Basel one afternoon.
A nice and also informative reply, Samuel, thank you
I've been off the internet moving (actually an enlightening pause...) and wanted to look at the images you mention before replying.
Actually, I think both of those images could be interesting in the right context, although both are 'pushing it' as far as normative viewer response. At the least, the Porsche one gives opportunities for crop, another important point for say a journalist or other in need of a quick take as I think you were.
Indeed, I have been looking and want to look more at the dimensions of what happens with wide angle geometric and perspective distortion. Even with good spatial perception and all the academic backgrounds, the whole picture has not yet clicked into place, and I think this would be useful.
One further point I could mention on your interesting 'new realm' would be the work of a fine journalistic photographer who used to post at least here on DPReview.
Are you writing in English, Samuel, or unedited iPadese?
I can't parse the result, and have little idea actually what you're trying to say. Which might be interesting, thanks.
Also, 'a couple pictures'. This kind of I'm-a-fool vernacular is simply irritating in journalism, or frankly, anywhere else. Clarity, my friend.
Coliban: Thank you for the samples!
But i don´t know, those samples seems to me somehow unsharp. Is this due to too little light? Or is it motion-unsharpness? I don´t know, but with 1,4, ISO200 and 1/100s this should not be an issue. Maybe it is only me who has this impression. My Sigma 35mm/1,4 Art seems to be much more sharper and pronounced in terms of quality and so on, but maybe we should wait for real world examples. (I love the Sigma 35mm/1,4 Art on the D800E, but this samples give me no reason to buy the 24/1,4)
Rishi, yes, that samples gallery. Also sometimes the review comparison images. When I see the raw conversion for the XZ-2 being considerably less clear than the jpg, something is definitely amiss. For you, this is old review news, but people do still have great interest in the camera -- mine is a real treat ;) . And by the way, welcome to DPReview, as I have been enjoying your flavors of contributions.
matthew saville: No hint of a coma test? Come on! Every other aspect of this lens' IQ is already 99% guaranteed to be class-leading, how about some images that test the ONE thing every astro-landscape photographer wants to know?
Saville, I kind of think you're missing the principle of the thing.
DPReview gets a great privilege to preview the lens. You don't display uncouthness by getting out your micrometer at that point; it's only wisdom...;)
Beards indeed, or without them...
mosc: I think we should be reminded just how fast f1.7 is on a 2.2x crop. The LX100's aperture diameter at 24mm focal length is larger (wider) than that of a Canon 5D with it's kit 24-105 L lens. In low light, the LX100 doesn't need to use anywhere near the high ISO the 5D would to take a shot. These results look pretty good at ISO3200. f1.7 ISO 3200 is going to give you the same exposure as 18,000 ISO at f4 on the 5D. The FF's high ISO performance is superior and all, but not enough to make up for the difference in lens. I'd rather shoot the LX100 at ISO3200 than a 5D at ISO 18,000.
Granted 24mm isn't the only thing you'll ever shoot, nor does the 12.7MP LX100 match up to the 22MP resolution of the 5D. That said, there are obvious physical dimension and price differences too. Not that they compete, just that we have some context for how amazingly bright f1.7 is at this crop.
Yes, mosc's view is absolutely refuted.
To see why, the second page is the key one, where it talks about the total light measured, defined by the physical size of the lens aperture.
A quote, which is saying it as quietly and nicely as possible:
'And this means that, for the same shutter speed, F-number and ISO, the camera with the largest sensor will have more total light to measure. And, unless the large sensor is significantly worse than the smaller one, it will produce a cleaner, less noisy image. It's likely that the large sensor camera will be bigger, heavier and more expensive, but it should provide cleaner images.'
That is really a great article by Richard Butler.
I wonder why you would think that, nana?
This is an old leaf, well into decay, but still strong colors show in veins and remaining small areas.
Then look at the stems, and the saturation in out of focus leaves, even the brilliant greens half hidden in mossy crevices...
I feel color is very good, to degree we can tell without having been there.
Besides having some beauties, I think this is an important shot.
One of the things that strongly convinced me about the XZ-2 was how true it was in handling reflections, clear and transparent while others gave a white-glazed look. Big difference.
SeeRoy: Jeeze. This is a TERRIBLE ad for the camera! Soft as...
I think you fellows aren't realizing there's haze, nor are familiar with what water can look like in low-angle northern light.
This is Seattle, where people burn wood, etc..
Several of us are observing that this is a very big improvement in the (very) low light autofocus for the XZ-2.
Here's a discussion which lays out the trick to it -- and how this fits with actual camera use.
I think Olympus have done what it takes to really make this camera, and it's a nice holiday gift. Much appreciated.
Alright, I see where he marked them, after all.
I would still stand by the case that both those shots ought to have been clean of 'art filters' in order to recognize the real things the camera can capture.
PA160129, on the other hand, seems not to have a filter, but combines field depth defocus and wind apparently so that there is not one non-blurry item in the image.
I love, in general, art. I grew up with Seattle-like light, and can appreciate its beauties and challenges, not to say potential for expressionist qualities. I would be more interested to see the camera reckon those, than to face arty thoughts. Especially when trying to decide about a camera, thank you. Plenty of fora on Dpreview for the rest.
Yes, it's nice to have interest, and this is one that has that and shows off the camera.
What really displeased and lost value for your images is where 'art filters' have been applied, and the photographer gives no notes that he has done this.
Frankly, their use spoiled several shots which are necessary to understand this camera. At the least, the 'high contrast and murk downtown with Space Needle' What we need to know far more is how the XZ-2 actually handles that hard-lit rainy Seattle scene, and we can't see that now.
And what really got to me was the residences near the curved tank. There, we could have seen depth of field used in a very nice way, and understood the camera. Instead, focus target was missed (should have been that nice central window with curtains and knickknacks), and the rest of the image was spoiled by a blur top-and-bottom filter! The only thing really in focus (and showing depth of focus) was the curved tank.
Please next time use better judgement, thanks.
Ron Poelman: Another ad,really, DPR ???
Ron, I think that Skyfall as a film needs no advertising like this.
It's something of a mature piece, also, and you might like it.
Yes, there is too much advertising. And at the same time, maybe not enough of some better kinds. Art is advertising, for its own conceptions and ideas or ideals; have you considered this?
Jogger: If they went with a conventional design rather than a stupid gimmick, it would have been more user friendly and people wouldnt be freaked out about it.
Amazing how the new frightens. But the ideas about this kind of camera are documented back to 1908. It's just taken this long for a technical approach to become possible.
forpetessake: Despite the belief that Lytro sensor captures everything in focus, it captures practically nothing in focus. Anybody who used manual focusing knows that to achieve critical focus one has to be precise within millimeters from the target, or microns from the sensor. With crude system of microlenses it would be impossible to have anything useful in focus only a handful of focal planes. What saves the camera is that its resolution is so low that the lack of focus isn't noticed. That means that even if the camera used gigapixel sensor, it would still had to keep resolution low and instead increase the number of focal planes or face the lack of focus practically everywhere. This idea cannot become practical no matter what.
You clearly haven't yet grasped how the Lyttro camera works.
Here's a good paper on it - with a lot of addressing of your microns, and with nicely visible examples.
IljaM: Please, if you redesign the page, change the black background of the page, after 2 minutes of reading the text on your page, I have already really serious problems with my eyes, I need to stop to read...This is the reason why I still less and less visit your page, because I have fears that I will read something a little bit longer and my eyes are are in pain...White text on the black background is hell!
Ok, Simon, fair enough -- and thanks for acknowledging. A nice day your way.
To be honest, this sounds like MBA school nonsense at its peak. All nice sounding abstracts for the boardroom, and no pie.
'We'll just connect our customer base up to subscriptions, and then we can report constantly recurring revenue. And by the way, many of them will be paying two to four times what they were, when they were taking sensibly spaced upgrades.'
Except, many of them won't be paying anything, any more.
Let's remember, too, how the cloud can enable fresh competitors.