David Bourke: Not a single shot into the sun? It would be nice to see how lens lens handles flare.
See the shots into the sun in the 'Flare' section of the review.
thinkfat: This appears to be a very positive review. At least it seems to me, because "positive" is positively used in every second or so sentence.
Regarding the lens, I'm genuinely positive.
There are six instances of the word 'positive' in the review, and one of the word 'positively'. Sorry about that.
RuneStenseth: Would it not be better to test those kind of lenses on a Nikon D800e rather than a 22mp Canon? More resolution, dynamic range and no diffusor in front of the bayer array?
@HowaboutRAW: Yes, that's correct.
@HowaboutRAW: The comment I answered was about our originally-published short 'Lab Test Review' of the 50mm F1.4, which was based purely on DxOMark's data. None of the studio tests they conduct on lenses stress the available DR of any current camera.
neo_nights: Shooting on a FF at F8 clearly brings more detail to the overall picture. Just look at that boat!
Unfortunately half of it has disappeared at F11.
In principle it's always best to test lenses on higher resolution sensors (note though that DR is pretty much irrelevant). However Sigma has a habit of releasing Canon mount versions of its lenses a month or two before the Nikon version, so naturally they get tested first. We usually add Nikon test data when it becomes available.
peevee1: DPR, among the pros you list "Solid, robust-feeling, dust-and splash-proof lenses" - what do you mean, there are no such lenses available yet.
Sorry, spurious 'lenses' crept in there, now corrected
FoolyCooly: Tripod Collar! How does it mount? It looks like the traditional spot between the zoom and focusing rings is obstructed by switches.
Just added a picture (above) to show you.
samfan: This may be stupid question but... That first electronic curtain, is that a global shutter, or does it proceed through the sensor in the same way as the second mechanical shutter? If the 'movement' is not the same, it could cause varying exposure, isn't it right? In the same way leaf shutters can cause vignetting.
...and there's no evidence whatsoever for uneven exposures at 1/320sec, which means one of two thing: 1) The electronic shutter is progressive, like we presume Canon and Sony's are; or 2) any exposure deviation across the height of the frame is being corrected by the camera.
Initialisation is usually much faster than anti-shock; Canon and Sony cameras have been able to use (fully) electronic first curtain at all shutter speeds for some time. This is also why Nikon 1s have a much higher flash sync using mechanical rather than fully-electronic shuttering (for example).
However, the fact that 0sec anti-shock on the E-P5 is only at 1/320sec and slower makes me wonder, now. I'd assumed that this was because it's the fastest speed that's ever likely to be affected by shutter shock, but maybe not. Will have to take a look...
GT40: - DPReview's explanation says "Olympus's implementation is however subtly different - the physical shutter still closes and opens as usual, but the exposure is slightly delayed to allow any vibrations to die down, and then started electronically." This means to me it's the same as the 1/8th delay only shorter delay (1/nn) so previous anti-shock mode is also an 'electronic' curtain only the length of the delay has changed. HOWEVER Olympus explanation says mechanical shutter is switched to electronic implying it does NOT close/open before exposure. Which is correct?- Andy says it can be combined with burst mode but having just updated the firmware on my EP5, the high and low anti-shock burst modes are greyed out (which they are NOT with 1/8th setting). The normal non-anti shock burst modes are active but then this new option is not active. How do you combine it with burst Andy?
I tested it last night and in single shot at 1/160th it was clearly much sharper with this new mode.
The confusion comes from Olympus's choice of the word 'switched', which can easily be read as implying that the physical first curtain no longer operates at all. However, it still does, which you can easily see by setting a 1 second exposure with 0 sec anti-shock, and watching the shutter cycle.
pixelcollector: Would there ever be a reason to turn this off, besides the need to set it to self timer or burst mode?
No obvious reason to turn it off for normal single-shot work, and it can also be combined with the self-timer. However it can't be used in burst mode.
1) The previous anti-shock mode was different. It worked by closing the shutter, waiting the specified delay, then making the exposure conventionally using the mechanical shutter. This reduced shock by separating the shutter closing and opening actions.
The new anti-shock mode is different, because the exposure doesn't start when the physical shutter opens. Instead it's fractionally delayed (by ~1/40sec), and then started using an electronic first curtain.
So in fact, we're correct, and Olympus is also correct. It's just that unlike Canon/Sony etc, Olympus's implementation of electronic first curtain doesn't eliminate the shutter close/open cycle, most likely due to hardware restrictions.
2) Sorry, that's my mistake - I was comparing the effectiveness of 0 sec with 1/8 sec, and inadvertently checked the drive mode availability at the wrong setting - sorry about that. Electronic first curtain doesn't seem to be available with continuous modes, which is rather strange.
straylightrun: So is it silent?
No, the mechanical shutter is still operating just the same way, so the camera's not silent.
The electronic first curtain proceeds across the sensor at the same rate of movement as the physical shutter, for precisely this reason.
Zvonimir Tosic: Excellent DPR. Now we have to believe what you thought you believe that you heard during the presentation, an information which cannot be found in the official information.I guess you also believed that Pentax mentioned you, or you thought so, in some unofficial talks over the interrupting phone communication that the AF-C works with the SR on, and you hurried to test it and show to everyone, despite the fact it is nowhere mentioned in the official manuals, and in fact, discouraged.Any chance you have thought you have heard Santa really lives on the North Pole, but you believe you have been misinformed about it by Mr Grinch?
@Zvonimir Tosic. I've been through the K-3's manual in some detail, and it doesn't at any point suggest AF-C won't work with SR enabled. Furthermore, any such limitation would be unique to Pentax - no other manufacturer's system has such a problem. So in your rush to invalidate our test findings, you actually seem to be claiming that the K-3's AF-C system has a fundamental technical flaw which Ricoh isn't warning users about in the manual.
rrccad: I"m not sure if i can agree that software correction is a good thing. some aspects such as CA can be readily fixed with software without any impact to resolution or noise.
Fixing significant vignetting can increase noise and/or loss of tonality in the shadow regions by essentially pushing the shadows for some lenses up to 3+ EV.
then we have distortion, which will effectively reduce your FOV and/or resolution potentially dramatically to correct.
if you are paying 1K for a mythical 16mm lens, and it needs to apply "automagic" software corrections that make it essentially a 19mm FOV - is that ideally correct? factual? something to be desired?
Obviously with all lenses, there is a compromise, however i'm not sure we should be so accepting of them as DPR is indicating here.
Couple of misconceptions here:
As yet, no manufacturer has gone so far as to force 3 stops if vignetting correction, mainly because vignetting tends to be *reduced* in SW by a stop or so, rather than eliminated entirely.
That 16mm lens which applies SW correction to remove barrel distortion ends up as a 16mm. Why? Because focal length doesn't define the *uncorrected* angle of view, but instead that after correction. In fact, the lens invariably starts wider - that's what barrel distortion means. Ultimately you get what you've paid for.
spatz: I couldn't find a specification of the flange distance. Any chance that a Leica T-mount body might take Fuji XF Lenses with an adapter? Certainly, the ability to mount high quality Sigma glass designed for Nikon or Canon APSC would be an attractive option.
No, there's no real chance the T will take XF lenses.
PK24X36NOW: False: "the camera has all the elements implied by the term 'DSLR.'"
Nope! It's missing the "Reflex" part. It's name is therefore moronic in more than one respect. It's mirror is not "translucent" (as you pointed out) AND it is not a "Reflex" camera.
I guess they should call it "DSLST" for Digital Single Lens Semi-Transparent...
Or maybe they should just make DSLRs again, and then they could call them what they are.
'Reflex' does not refer to the movement of the mirror at all, and never has. Consider the old Twin Lens Reflex (TLR) design exemplified by the Rolleiflex, which used a secondary viewing lens with a fixed mirror.
EXX: The mirror lens will be available in Sony Alpha mount, but which one? A-mount or E-mount?
A-mount, because it's an SLR lens. The existing [Reflex 300mm f/6.3 ED UMC CS](http://www.dpreview.com/products/samyang/lenses/samyang_300_6p3) for mirrorless is available in E-mount.