ceder, thanks for bringing us the images, but be aware that it can be a problem to embed so many huge images. The pages takes a very long time to load now, and there are users with bandwidth constraints that may use up their capacity unknowingly by entering this page.
Try to post links to large images instead of embedding them.
ceder wrote:
Somehow I can only see the new samples on my cell phone, but maybe on my laptop if I post here:
To see them on your laptop, you need to refresh the page. Basically, you likely visited the same page previously and that page with the old images is cached and you need to clear it.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
To see them on your laptop, you need to refresh the page. Basically, you likely visited the same page previously and that page with the old images is cached and you need to clear it.
I know one user who lives on a remote island with only satellite connection, and he has a limited monthly quota. And we are only in the middle of this month
You need to remove the spaces for the links to work though. It should be [ur and so on, not [ u r. That was just the only way I could write how to do it without my explanation turning into a link
I've got the 18 and 60 pre-ordered, but thinking of switching the 60 to the 35. I don't know if f/2.4 is really where I want to shoot at that focal length. Guessing there will be an adapter in a reasonable time to use my c/y zeiss 50/1.7. The 18 is a no-brainer for me because I love 28 equivalent.
What about the rest of you? I haven't seen many comments on the 60, anyone think it will be anything special?
Winder wrote:
These appear to be top quality lenses.
In this thread I've read all sorts of speculation as to their quality including musing about increased need for correction in software. If that musing proves correct they'd be only of average quality, no?
PS: I'm not trying to be argumentative, just noting that opinion is all over the map on that aspect of the camera.
Before coming to any conclusions I'm looking forward to better examples from reliable sources and one day down the road, raw files.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I am certain that people are starting to appreciate smaller cameras and most people are accepting to sacrifice full frame in order to have a smaller kit.
The technology is here already to produce a full frame, small-ish camera, yet the camera makers are so adamant on not releasing one you have to wonder what is holding them back? The knowledge that yesterdays hit can be tomorrows flop in an instant?
In fact the nex aps-c has only whetted the appetite for the holy grail, as will the xpro-1.
As to tommorrow's flop: the flop factor is all about weaknesses. X100 a case in point, and I'm afraid in the longer run the xpro1 will share it's fate--it's obviously a wonderful camera with some pretty major achilles heels.
The first company to deliver a soild FF M mount platform with a PLEASANT and accurate foucusing method, and no more than 3/4 M9 footprint will have a long term hit.
Some are acting as though making the wides work on a full frame sensor is akin to a moonshot. Hogwash. I already watched a tiny german team with a dying conglomerate whip one out which is not bad at all.
It's just a glass ceiling, and it's going to break anytime now.......
uhoh7 wrote:
Some are acting as though making the wides work on a full frame sensor is akin to a moonshot. Hogwash. I already watched a tiny german team with a dying conglomerate whip one out which is not bad at all.
It's just a glass ceiling, and it's going to break anytime now.......
Agreed. Loose the AA filter and have some color corrections in camera, which would be quite easy, and we're off to the races. It's starting to look like Sony may be the most likely candidate, with their rumored hybrid 135 camera, and I hope they take rangefinder wides into consideration.
uhoh7 wrote:
In fact the nex aps-c has only whetted the appetite for the holy grail, as will the xpro-1.
As to tommorrow's flop: the flop factor is all about weaknesses. X100 a case in point, and I'm afraid in the longer run the xpro1 will share it's fate--it's obviously a wonderful camera with some pretty major achilles heels.
The first company to deliver a soild FF M mount platform with a PLEASANT and accurate foucusing method, and no more than 3/4 M9 footprint will have a long term hit.
Some are acting as though making the wides work on a full frame sensor is akin to a moonshot. Hogwash. I already watched a tiny german team with a dying conglomerate whip one out which is not bad at all.
It's just a glass ceiling, and it's going to break anytime now..........Show more →
The question is, which company will do it?
1) Canon/Nikon out, they have big business to protect.
2) Panasonic/Olympus out, committed to u4/3.
3) Sony, possible, but rumors are that it's a hybrid alpha/nex, doubt they want a 3rd mount
4) Fuji, just poured R&D into x-p1, maybe in a few years, as its a new mount
5) Samsung, could and should do it, but they are so consumer focused I doubt there is place in that huge company for a niche product. Should should scrap the NX and start over, they have the cash flow to do it.
6) Pentax/Ricoh - probably the best hope. Pentax branded for name recognition. Not sure if they have the R&D dollars for an entirely new system.
As uhoh7 says, the technology is here today. Only the will is needed.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I am certain that people are starting to appreciate smaller cameras and most people are accepting to sacrifice full frame in order to have a smaller kit.
The technology is here already to produce a full frame, small-ish camera, yet the camera makers are so adamant on not releasing one you have to wonder what is holding them back? The knowledge that yesterdays hit can be tomorrows flop in an instant?
Maybe the DSLR makers figure they need to make yet a new line of lenses for a market they are not sure of.
Whatever the reason, not to sound like a broken record, but Ricoh really is the one who could do this quickly. Zeiss and others would benefit. Strategic partnership?
