Joined on Feb 7, 2012


Total: 607, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Nikon is partnering with Samsung for their new mirrorless.

That's why they axed Nikon 1.
That's why Samsung axed its mirrorless.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2018 at 14:23 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply

Fuji is too dependent on Sony sensor technology.

Like Olympus, their 'uniqueness' is purely cosmetic, and their product portfolio limited to the sensors Sony allows them to use.

This kind of "pure photography" story is just mental fluff for people who can't accept that cameras are just tools, and need some kind of confirmation that they are a unique special snowflake and can't use common tools like Canon, Nikon, Sony.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2018 at 13:52 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

shademaster: Dear Tamron. Please do a 24-105 f/4 to compete with sony and drive the price down on that one. If you can keep that one to 500g too that would be lovely. Thanks.

@RubberDials: Sony, Zeiss, and Tamrons go to market strategies are fully coordinated. Tamron has a long history of designing lenses for Sony and Zeiss, they are not going to throw this away over a lousy 24-105.

It is not a coincidence that this 28-75/2.8 “mini GM” is announced together with the A7 III “mini A9”. These releases are carefully orchestrated.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 06:36 UTC
In reply to:

kelstertx: So after 6 years, we finally have Tamron making native E mount lenses. That seems like a pretty long time, if you ask me...

False, Tamron designs and manufactures the Batis lenses.

This will be their first affordable lens, without a Zeiss badge.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 06:32 UTC
In reply to:

Quantum Scientist: Very nice camera but I wouldn't be so quick to jump on this. Nikon, Fuji, and Canon are set to strike back big by this fall. I got a little inside scoop on the Nikon mirrorless and it could be a killer. For now, my X-T1 is just fine.

So what you are saying is that Sony has 9-10 months of free game? This camera has specs that compete with the Nikon D5 at the price point of a D750.

The announcement of the affordable Tamron 28-75/2.8 “Mini GM” is no coincidence either (Sony owns a large share in Tamron).

Baby A9 + Mini GM are gonna sell by the boat load.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2018 at 06:44 UTC
In reply to:

Bronto99: So I spent an extra $2,500 on an A9 and all I got was a second dial and 10 more fps I almost never need? Help me understand why someone other than an extreme sports shooter would spend more than twice as much on an A9 now?

You spent $4,500 on an A9 and you don’t need 20 FPS?

Why did you do that? Bragging rights?

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2018 at 06:29 UTC
In reply to:

EcoR1: Dear Dpreview, please correct your table. There is no such a thing as FE-mount, it should be an E-mount. FE is only a lens family brand name used by Sony and Sony only for their own full frame E-mount lenses.

They do the same for Nikon: F (FX).

Get over it.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2018 at 12:37 UTC
In reply to:

bluevellet: "moisture resistance"... so basically like any non-weather-sealed lens.

Lenses with extending barrel designs are never 100% sealed. Hence, Sony & co. prefer the fairer "moisture and dust resistant" moniker.

Many Sony G lenses are only "moisture and dust resistant" yet they perform wonderfully in harsh conditions.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2018 at 12:35 UTC
In reply to:

GabrielZ: 28-75mm? That’s an odd zoom range IMO. Usually fixed aperture f2.8 standard zooms are in the more useful 24-70mm range no?

The 28-75mm zoom range allows them to cut the weight of the lens in half compared to the 24-70/2.8 GM.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2018 at 12:32 UTC
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (384 comments in total)

Is there a reason why a 135/2.8 or even 135/4 would provide significantly different images?

The logic of this article can be applied to a 200/2.8 as well. In fact, a light-weight 200/2.8 seems more interesting to own (e.g., the Minolta 200/2.8).

Ironically all the sample images in this post are painfully soft.

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2018 at 16:27 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jan and his Camera: As I understand it, Milvus and Otus are produced by Cosina under the supervision of Zeiss, while Batis, Loxia and Touit are true Zeiss lenses. Does anyone know if this is correct?

Loxia, Milvus, Otus = Cosina
Batis, Touit = Tamron

Only the cinema lenses are true Zeiss.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 13:01 UTC
In reply to:

aris14: Poor reception from buyers?
Too expensive royalties from Zeiss?
Insufficient marketing?
A combo of the above?

Eh? These old lenses are replaced by the new Milvus line of lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 12:58 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ab Latchin: Looks good to me. I am not sure why the first image is a poorly exposed shot demonstrating one of the hardest things for a fast lens set wide open to control, namely CA.

Aside from that, the bokeh looks lovely, colour transitions and tonality look very nice as well.

Cant wait to upgrade my VL f0.95 42.5 and 17.5 to these new pro lenses.

"Wide open" at f/2.4 equivalent is quite a stretch.

But I guess that is what you get with M43: the bokeh and amount of light of a f/2.4 lens with all the flaws of a f/1.2 lens shot wide open.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 12:21 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

bluevellet: I'm more interested in the 17mm f/1.2 PRO but the 45mm has the better gallery.

The difference in quality in DPR galleries can be sometimes striking. These m43 PRO lenses galleries are middle of the road but light years behind the very best (usually top Leica/Zeiss/Canon/Nikon stuff).

Since the photographer matters more than the lenses themselves, I wonder how those DPR gallery assignments are organized. The staff must be fighting among themselves to test drive the super high end stuff while interns are probably ordered to cover token, low end products. :)

A gifted PRO can perform miracles with any lens.

I like how DPR sends out mediocre photographers to see how much the gear boosts their performance. Hence the results are always appalling with M43. M43 is more of a hindrance than anything really. Such awful photos in this gallery.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

HeyItsJoel: Nice 90mm f2.4

Sony FE 90/2.8 is quite good value. IQ blows this Olympus out of the water.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 12:17 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)
In reply to:

ekaton: An A7..... & Batis 85mm looks like bargain for portrait shooters in terms of IQ/ounce and $.

Save even more with the FE 85/1.8, it is practically the same lens.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 12:13 UTC
On article Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery updated (345 comments in total)

I'm not convinced that this lens is an improvement over the 45/1.8...

CA / purple fringing seems to be off the charts just like with the 17/1.2.

These sample images are flat, dull colors, and the bokeh is nervous. Compared to the cheap 85/1.8 lenses this PRO lens underwhelms. Seriously, any run-off-the-mill CaNikSony with cheap 85mm f/1.8 blows these images out of the water.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 14:07 UTC as 47th comment | 14 replies
On a photo in the Olympus 45mm F1.2 sample gallery sample gallery (6 comments in total)

That purple fringing!

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2017 at 14:03 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Let me explain the part people don't really "get" with these premium m4/3 lenses. An FF lens cannot keep look of its bokeh when stopped down to gain more workable DoF: you gain DoF, but kill the bokeh. And if you like bokeh, the DoF is so thin it is impossible to work with; or must move farther away, which, again, changes the composition and needed magnification.
Premium designs for m4/3 solve those problems, and such lenses deliver best of both worlds. (1) More DoF is better to avoid errors when shooting dynamically, with less focusing mistakes especially in portraiture. (2) Bokeh at f/1.2 is made NOT to match f/2.4 bokeh of a conventional aspherical design, which is very messy, but SURPASS it by far. The lens allows optical design (with more elements but with less thickness of glass) to render bokeh as if made with a much faster portrait lens of a classic design with fewer elements.
For those who really understand this, the m4/3 becomes best thing since sliced bread!

So what's your message? Just buy native f/2.8 lenses for FF then? Sounds a lot cheaper to me.

The Sony Zeiss 35/2.8 and Sony FE 90/2.8 macro are stunning examples.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 16:21 UTC
On article Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro sample gallery (409 comments in total)
In reply to:

waldoh: Disregarding compression.

17 1.2 = ~35 1.2 (2.4 DoF) - $1199
35 1.4 FF = ~$1500
35 1.8/2-2.8 FF = ~$500

M4/3 is cool and useful in video and to shed weight but these prices are quite high.
I think I would take a small FF body with a slower 1.8-2.8 lens and rely on the sensor size advantages for any low light (non flash) photography.

Hell 23mm (35 equiv) aps-c lenses can be had for $400-$800. Same size body, bigger sensor, less money.

@photogeek: are you sure? My 35/1.4 is definitely a lot sharper wide open than what is shown in this sample gallery...

I used to buy into the same myth of "FF needs to be stopped down to be sharp". Bogus. Most modern FF lenses are tack sharp from the get-go and MUCH sharper than M43 lenses.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2017 at 16:20 UTC
Total: 607, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »