terence_boylen: blah blah blah
Canon's DR sucks
blah blah blah
Seriously though, this is good news. The cheap 50s from all the big players are great for people wanting to experience 'fast glass' and the sharpness of primes. The mkii had some of the lowest aberration of any Canon lens I've used. This can only be a step in the right direction.
And its good for everyone as it puts pressure on the competition to make them improve too.
Now we need some of similar caliber ( price, feature, optical performance ) for all the mirrorless. So far Only Samsung been able to offer such in the form of 30mm/2.0. While I would say Oly's 25/1.8 certainly up to the task in term of performance its price is also out of league vs such as the Nikkor and Canon 50/1.8
108: I would choose Nikon FF over Canon FF from a body perspective but my brother-in-law long time connaisseur of Canon gear keeps hammering that one has to decide from a lens perspective and here Canon's the best . This late 50 mm stm seems to strengthen his view .Any thoughts from Canikon users ?
I have the Nikon G 50/1.8 and I think it work very good indeed , and before that I have the Manual Focus Nikkor 50/1.8 and it still work great .. I would figure Canon's update would address some of the issue the old lens have when faced with challenge like Digital and High MP sensor. But then when faced with the reality that those old 50/1.8 ( both Nikon and Canon ) are literally decades old ( the EF 50/1.8-II itself already 25 years old ). It would be too early to judge the lens, but I see no reason why Nikon's current are in any way handicapped.
really looking like Nikon finally heading the right direction with the J5. It even eclipses the V3 in many areas. Now we need some for real good optics among the 1 Nikkor range
2.5k is a not insignificant amount to invest and it looks like Canon perhaps is not reading the market right. there is a numbrt of significant fault in the design feature area that's simply not excusable at todays de facto threshold and especially for a cam tbat aims to be what Mr. Westfall claim to be. some might be able to be rectified by firmware update but some are not, but most important is that the market had other product that fulfill the same need and at better price feature performance levels
Sony or others, I simply not seeing real leap of an advance with these latest generation of sensors. Critical performance bracket say DR at amplified state ( non base ISO ) is still limited at best and Frame Rate at full frame output is not yet reaching the critical threshold ( OK let's say RAW at 24P minimal ) ..
But that's not to say they are lacking. It just show that the current state of technical know how had yet made the breakthrough and most if not all of todays are more evolutionary advance.
While I am pleased to see this product I could not made myself alight t o a solution as a convergence solution. That though is not something to be blamed on Canon but its a whole yo this market. Basically thr issue is thst none of these wheyher its yheRED or just the consumer Sony RX, they just fail to deliver the still quality as opposed to like of like .
picture this. back in old days I can tske a sinhle frsme of the film syock and ecpect like of like still.wuslity ss if I shoot that same frame ss still. that's not so with todaus
Roland Karlsson: Cutting jobs and raising more money and spending it on a show room in Tokyo. My experience with several years of raising even more money is that the last money funder owns most of the company and the original people starting the venture is now thinned out in ownership till nearly nothing and are already losers, even if there is a success. Maybe the original starters of the company have succeeded in avoiding that trap. But ... I cannot really see how.
Before worrying about ownership, I wager they need to focus on actually making some viable product and product solution. The technology itself surely are great but that does not mean its actually making any impact to any of our real world need.
Stills, well they are stills .. need I say more, if it would require a specific software and a platform to run for display, then its no ,longer still right. Video. Well that might be very useful in POST , That's what Lytro say they are going to focus on but well still whats the implementation and when , how, and how much ??
The true Cine ready 4K for 4K solution is still the holy grail yet to come but BMCC, Panasonic and even Samsung and Sony might finally getting there.
Unless there's something magical about that sensor I fail to see a point here
Half a pixel movement, well sure, handheld would be great, but don't try to confuse that against real action shoot and need for a real high photosite count sensor for those times.
Then the ability to precisely move a sensor pixel is not new. Its how to miniaturize the mechanism and still maintain effectiveness that's the break through, and of course the control over the whole thing.
In fact I am more interested in deploying the sensor shift in a multi shoot scenario where the sensor can take 5 or 9 shoots with photosite shifted one pixel a time including diagonal ( together with the original start position ) that would give us both the full spectrum / chroma info and whole lot better luminance info to construct the total image. That would eliminate a whole lot of imaging problem we have today already. This would benefit together with a higher photosite count sensor. The extra MP IMHO is desirable but not really exactly exciting yet
Very well put , but it also fail to point out that Canon is in itself also in a state of inability to act on the good old APS-C vs FF, and also the more up to date Video/Cine vs Still market segmentation / integration issue.
Almost all the other players do face the same problem and seems to be able to fair better. On the other hand Canon is in a stte where they are simply too feared to step outside of their own comfort zone and was / is still trying to keep repetitively reiterate what they had done before ( with success then but questionable effect now ). I know of another great photographic name that do the same, Its called Kodak.
When technology, market, and no less the customers evolve and change with this rather fast paced digital imaging market, what we see Canon doing here is restricting themselves with their established business model and market lay out. Especially in the critical mass market consumer to mid range hobbyist / enthusiast ( Volume ) segment.
What Oly should do is to Open up that Open Source API implementation to their M4/3 range of bodied too.
For a Magazine who pride themselves on visual content and naming their magazine so to do something like that is just total non-sense .. and as everyone know, quality never come cheap. I doubt the saving really worth it
Speaking of it all, SI had over the years seen itself in a decline of quality already and part of the reason is its inability to fellow suite with their content, visual and others. This is purely an editorial thing and none a saving on any type of specific staff can help that
Well, this is nothing new , really, Medium Format digital backs had been using sensor shift to facilitate capturing of all chromatic info through multiple exposure. And stitching of multiple exposure. whether those could be employed in a more dynamic manner ( How about someone needing such an option on a scene that require using 1/4000 shutter , would be a bit hard to shift the sensor in such short duration and not to mention shift it in controlled and very precise manner ) But since pentax had already demonstrate similar utilization of sensor shift ( on their psuedo AA filer mode for K-3 ) it seems viable enough.
That which did employed in Medium and Large format digital back used to demand the photo to be taken on stationary subject and require very solid tripod fixture ( the multiple exposure is triggered as a series of bracket, sort of , except its not bracket of exposure value or WB but bracket of sensor positions ). I would wager it can easily be done on these smaller formats
As an old guy who used to like Hasselblad a lot ... I must say I am shaking my head wondering what they've come to be. For that price might be I'll get myself a fresh 500 series kit , after all that thing do not really go out of style in no time at all and yeah it work without battery too.
Old idea come anew ... really, this had been done similarly in film days. But well it works then, it surely can work now (groups of stereo pair of lens for 3D capture arrayed in overlapping pattern to cover a full cylindrical panorama as in true technical panorama instead of wide field ).
Sabbion: Only SD card slot is not acceplable if they want to fight with competitors
really need 2 there .. guess they really do not understand
To be frank I like that CM-1 implementation .. better than your typical smartphone and totally integrated ( Sony's QX module is way too cumbersome in practical field use ).
Yeah, what an insight .... really ... so Nikon think they might want to look into 4K, and that Full Frame sensor mirrorless cannot be denied ... great might be they should just check out all those smartphone we recently been seeing launched, no less also what others been delivering ( its not like we do not have FF mirrorless now that we have actually 3 different variant of the Sony Alpha-7 )
And oh yes we will have to take care of our DX customer also .. try tell that to those who really could use a PRO DX body , not that I try to downplay what the D7000, then D7100 can do. But they are not the DX top model that plenty are waiting for.
Too much about their FF diversification without proper care taken to see the other's need on the market. And even their CX ( aka Nikon 1 ) are not that great as they would want it .. in short Nikon's problem is Nikon's own making and it looks like they are not even half baked to the issue, no least any solution.
Humbly I think the Mfr should start exploring both old and new ... one of the problem with how they come up with zoom these days is that they are all to0o stuck with a said formula of coverage / speed.
In earlier years of Zoom being produced for photography ( when we use something called film ) the Mfrs; out of technical constraint, marketing, and various reasons deliver a whole lot more options, which generate good lineup of more diversified but yet marketable products. If you look at the old Tamron lineup ( Tamron had on their home market web page a link to their historical lineup right up to their very first , in Japanese though, but you can check them up ). The Long focal / Tele zoom is more diverse than what we have todays'
A wanting for more speed, more coverage, yet lighter, more compact package while holding the cost down is set of criteria that simply will not work together but instead work against each other and this will not change. About time they diverse I say