waxwaine: So this means 6 months, from here, for a propper Pentax MX-1 full review? Could DPR inspire to us, amazon´s regulars consumers, some credibility please.
MX-1 will be reviewed - it's just been started.
ryansholl: *Obligatory bitching about not having reviewed some other camera*
That's not a bad idea - I could ask the dev team to write a script to automatically generate comments like that.
JEROME NOLAS: Is the review coming up soon?
Within the next week.
Ubilam: Why not post production lens samples instead? The warnings you have in bright green above kinda make your samples questionable as to what we users can really expect? Thanks, anyways.
This lens is close enough to final production that Sigma allowed us to publish a gallery, so it should tell you something useful - if not quite everything.
We'll certainly publish more when a production version exists but we felt this lens was too interesting to ignore the chance to use a shootable pre-production unit.
jtan163: I think I'd like one, especially for low light (would've liked to have seen some low light/night shots), but I'm not sure I can justify it.
I wonder if they'll try something in a focal length range in the short to mid tele range.
Either way it's a pretty nice time to be a photographer/camera buff/geardo.
The reason we've not really included any low light shots is because any properties of the lens will usually be drowned-out by the performance of the camera's sensor.
I also love the concept of 'just' an APS-C lens. This is an ambitious lens no matter what format it's on. Perhaps it depends on whether you buy into the idea that APS-C is a just stepping-stone to full frame.
This lens is 1 1/3 stops brighter than an F2.8 and, for the vast majority of people that don't have a full frame camera, it chips away at the benefit of having to go out and buy one.
Rod McD: Thx DPR. Looks interesting. When you take these sample shots, could you please consider including a few 'flare' shots - maybe a contra light, an artificial harsh lighting scene and a sun included WA landscape? Flare response can really help distinguish lens choices for some of us, but reviewers don't always address it. It's probably all the more relevant for fast and/or WA lenses.
Flare is one of the areas we're told this sample might not resemble final quality, otherwise we'd have tested it. Rest assured that's something we'll test as soon as we get a production version in.
zakaria: I think almost samples are soft and the bokeh is normal.
@yabokkie - this is a samples gallery, not a test. I doubt many of our subjects would have been willing to sit and wait for me to manual focus every shot.
I also know the efforts Andy used to go to, when he did the technical testing for our reviews, and the lengths DxO goes to now, so I'd include those in the 'few' you speak of.
There's a chance some of that softness is down to the pre-production status of the autofocus.
It can be really rather sharp:
trungthu: """ Sigma's choice of F1.8 as maximum aperture isn't a coincidence; it means that the lens will offer the same control over depth of field as an F2.8 zoom does on full frame."""When we use the same shooting frame in both sensor sizes (APS-C and Full Frame).""" What's more, it will also offer effectively the same light-gathering capability as an F2.8 lens on full frame. By this we mean that it will be able to project an image that's just over twice as bright onto a sensor that's slightly less than half the area, meaning the same total amount of light is used to capture the image."""As I know, in normal condition, the gather of light at each aperture is different with others. The lower number, the more of light. But when we have a quantity of light is "a" to be right exposured, that means the light come to the sensor is "equal" in any aperture (in relate to shutter speed), or any sensor size, not only at f/1.8 (in APS-C) # f/2.8 (in Full Frame)I don't know why the author say that...
@trungthu - The reason the author says this is because it's true.
Yes, an F1.8 lens lets in more light [per unit area] than an F2.8 lens. But the area that the lens can illuminate is important, too.
So, the extra light that an F1.8 lens lets in directly compensates for the smaller sensor of an APS-C camera. The amount of light that the an APS-C sensor receives is exactly the same as the amount received by a FF sensor with an F2.8 lens with the same angle of view.
Wouldn't I use a higher ISO on the FF camera? Yes. But only because ISO is, in simple terms: 'whatever number is needed to ensure that a given shutter speed and aperture combination give the same image brightness regardless of sensor size.'
Steve69: So what does "35mm equivalent focal length (APS-C)" mean? Is it focal length for 35mm or APS-C format? Make up your mind, please.
It's the focal length on the 35mm format that gives the same filed of view as this one does on the APS-C format.
Timmbits: I think there may be an error on the angle of view for the long end. 22 degrees is wrong for a 35mmFF (or 53mm equivalent on apsc).
Seen in specs above: Focal length 18-35mm 35mm equivalent focal length (APS-C) 27-53mm Diagonal angle of view 76.3° - 22°
You're right. Sorry about that.
vodanh1982: I don't see any low light AF/accuracy tests. The different between K-5 and K-5II(s) is concentrated on new AF sensor.
May I commend page 7 to you?
Gesture: One would like to think at this price level and as prime lenses, all the corrections "are in the glass," and don't rely on the camera's software engine.
What about a design that left simple-to-correct distortion, so that the digitally corrected images were really good vs one that tries to correct everything optically, making the residual imperfections difficult to eliminate?
Airless: The first product Canon has ever made that wasn't a blatant ripoff of another company...oh wait, nevermind
Clearly they're confident it's an original approach, as it shouldn't be awarded a patent if it isn't.
Gully Foyle: It's 'Messsucher'. Yep, it's got 3 's', it's not a typo.
Corrected, thank you.
bigdaddave: How can the RAW image quality on both cameras be worse than the jpeg? Can you not, by default make the RAW IQ look exactly like the jpeg, but also improve on it substantially? A bit silly.
A lower score for Raw doesn't mean the image quality is worse than JPEG, just that it's not great compared to some other camera's Raw files.
If anything, you'd expect there to be greater variance between Raw scores than between JPEG ones, since even a limited Raw file will have enough data to produce a good JPEG, whereas a more flexible Raw file's benefits may not be easily incorporated into the camera's JPEG output.
PeterBM: G15 announced Sep 2012, reviewed Nov 2012P7700 announced Aug 2012, just reviewed here May 2013
The G15 was available to us before we got swamped with cameras from Photokina, the P7700 wasn't.
The P7700 was covered in considerably more depth than most sites ever offer, in December 2012, along with all its other immediate peers. It made more sense for us to cover all the cameras in depth rather than focus just on the Nikon, at the expense of the others.
lolopasstrail: So the Nikon P7100, the 7700's immediate predecessor, is reviewed here and is dinged for its optical viewfinder. Not praised because it at least has a viewfinder, but has it listed as an actual con.
And now the Canon's optical viewfinder is praised here as a benefit.
As Andy points out, it was included as both a Pro and a Con in the P7100 review.
Pros and Cons are a list of factors you might want to consider when looking at a camera. It's not a case of subtracting the cons from the pros to conclude whether the camera is any good.
If you find an optical viewfinder useful, then the pro will be much more significant than the con, if you're not that fussed about having a viewfinder, the fact it's rather small and inaccurate is worth knowing.
roy5051: Will Canon be paying Sigma for licensing the idea?
I doubt it. Because:
1) You can't patent ideas, only practical applications of ideas2) Because this is about something Sigma's sensors don't do - hence the attempt to patent it.
BJL: How about calling this technology "X3", which is the jargon adopted as an industry-standard by CIPA? "Foveon" is just one approach to X3, and not the one that Canon is pursuing, and the "X3" tag is also well-known.
That's why we've said 'Foveon-style' - we think it'll be more broadly recognised than 'X3.' We also stick to 'multi-layer' because Canon's existing multi-layered sensor is effectively an X2 design.
@BLJ - Exmor RS is a totally different technology - it's a conventional Bayer sensor with the light sensitive regions stacked on top of the circuitry - this is a sensor that perceives colour based on the depth to which light penetrates.