[PB PM]

Photozone released their review of the Tamron 24-70mm F2.8 VC (EOS mount), and the results look very good for a third party lens. Barrel distortion at 24mm (3.7%), and vignetting (-2EV) are higher than the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8G (2.8% and -1EV respectively ), by a significant amount though. It will be interesting to see what the F mount results say in terms of comparison. Considering that the price of these two lenses are so close, unless you really need image stabilization, the Nikkor is still the better buy.

If I understand the results correctly Photozone rates the Tamron higher than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L (version 1). They suspect however than the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L II will blow it away, but at double the price.

[Matsu]

Originally Posted by PB PM I like that the classic system has camera spacific plates, it means you don't have to waste timing switching them around all the time. Of course it means that when you buy a new camera you need to wait for new plates, but IMO it is worth it.

Yeah, the classic style plate supply is virtually guaranteed to have multiple high quality 3rd party options.

I actually prefer a very low profile plate on the camera itself, and the L on the tripod, but I do like the availability of classic plates with hand-straps and the various holster mounts integrated in one - something that doesn't exist yet in slidefix. There's even a plate that is "universal" to both AS and Manfrotto - which might be useful for people sharing a lot of gear...

[Matsu]

Interesting Tamron result. People with the Canon L1 seem to like the way it draws, they consider its sharpness good enough, never great.

People with the Nikon similarly like the way it draws, I would have to agree with them. All of Nikon's full frame 2.8 zooms have a nice smooth rendition worthy of prime glass. It's also got very good to excellent centre resolution at all focal lengths and apertures. The borders go from fair to very good, but are still best in class for this category. We'll have to see what the L2 Canon brings.

The only other review I've seen puts the Tamron's focus speed a half step slower than the Nikon, and that there might be the difference. For $300 more, you get faster focus - a quality that is only more pronounced in lower light - better rendition of out of focus, more sharpness, and 1st party compatibility. On the Tamron side, you save a little cash and get an effective VR system. If the Tamron cost 800 instead of 1200? I think I'd still get the Nikon. I'd still like to see them add VR though.

[PB PM]

T4i/650D released yesterday. Interesting that it is the first DSLR is hybrid AF in live view (Nikon should have had this in the D3200). The touch screen looks nice from the previews, but doesn't really offer anything new. Same old 18PM sensor as before, other than added AF sensors.

[Matsu]

I assume this is already being worked on, but eventually it should be possible to use the sensor AF data to adjust the AF module and lens settings for each lens at a variety of positions. Unless of course we skip that step and drop separate AF modules altogether...

[PB PM]

Without going Sony style and dropping the optical viewfinder there is no way to just have one AF sensor.

[Matsu]

Nikon launched two lenses today, including a 24-85 AF-S f/3.5-4.5. NR also has leaked pics of the D600 - with focus motor...

[PB PM]

Yeah, the rumor of no focus motor was dropped a while back. It is basically a D7000 with an FX sensor. The only thing is that the pentaprism looks way too small for full frame. Nikon might have used a pentamirror viewfinder to cut costs.

24-85mm VR is a nice addition to the lineup. Performance looks to be close to the older non-VR model, but it does have more elements and weighs more. 18-300mm VR, wow massive lens, and not very light either. At $999, who is going to buy this thing? It will have to perform extremely well out to 200mm for it to outsell the 18-200mm (unless it is a full on replacement).

[Matsu]

Yeah, pentamirror would suck. It's always a bit hard for me judge scale, even with reference points like the mounted lens. Can't wait to see it, may have to get the D800 anyway

[Dorian Gray]

The D600 is shaping up to be more conservative than first thought, with no built-in doodads (GPS, etc.), but full compatibility with both manual-focus AI/AI-S lenses and AF-D autofocus lenses. That's probably a good thing, though I suspect the price will also be conservative, i.e. typically Nikon. I can't see Nikon letting this sell for $1500.

It certainly makes the camera more interesting to me, because most of my lenses are manual focus and I have one AF-D lens too. I hope the viewfinder is decent (I'm sure it will use a prism, by the way).

The new Nikkors are curious. The 18-300mm repeats the formula of the 18-200mm – unprecedented range, good optical quality for a superzoom, very pricey, very large – and that was a wild success for Nikon. So I think the new lens might also sell well. No appeal to me, though.

It took many years, but I've finally realised that having more focal lengths at my disposal doesn't improve my results. Even with a single prime lens I run out of time before exhausting the subject matter at hand. A zoom just adds to the confusion. A superzoom would paralyse me!

The new 24-85mm is more interesting, since it's faster, smaller, wider, FX, and cheaper. But it's still $600. A couple of years ago a $600 lens was considered expensive. Now it provokes speculation from DPReview that a cheap FX camera must be coming soon. Inflation, eh?

[Matsu]

The 24-85 is an interesting range from Nikon. There's the classic 2.8-4D, the short lived 3.5-4.5G, and now the new VR. I never quite understood the decision to pull the G lens out of production so quickly. Some trusted reviewers absolutely loved it, others claimed the quality of the D version superior. I'm not sure, and in the words of Tony Soprano, it's a mute point now.

I wouldn't mind seeing a comparo with a 24-120 f/4. That lens is typically not too well regarded past 90mm, so the 3.5-4.5 might be the smarter buy depending on its actual performance. What I'd like to see is a small fast 28-85ish lens: something similar to Tamron's older 28-75 f/2.8. Small, small, small, even if it vignettes badly at 2.8, so long as the centre stays sharp, and the corners come right by f/4. Even illumination is a wonderful thing, but it's not always necessary and it's making lenses huge.

The guy that teaches product photography in our studio uses a superzoom DX camera for convenience showing angles and getting quasi-macro effects. Under the lights it's often an f/8-f/11 or smaller scenario anyway, quality isn't bad.

It'll also be interesting to see if they have any special sauce for the 24MP full-frame sensor, a little extra DR maybe? Nikon's going to sell a lot of these at the rumored prices...

[PB PM]

So I was thinking about the new Canon 40mm pancake lens, not because I want one, but because I think Nikon needs to release a similar prime. That said, 40mm is kind of an odd ball focal length, 35mm would be ideal for F mount. It would be a great standard for DX and a nice street lens for FX. Sadly the recent patents floating around for a new 35mm prime for FX don't look even remotely like a pancake lens.

[Matsu]

Rumor has it Canon's new ILC is coming next month, based on a 1.5" sensor, basically a slightly larger m4/3. 1.9X vs 2X crop...

[PB PM]

Considering the high price of the G1X, I suspect that the mirrorless from Canon will be $900-1000 with kit lens. About the same price as the Nikon 1 V1. Hmmm, maybe no so great after all, unless they have a low end model to compete with the J1.

[Matsu]

Very interesting news on Nikon Rumors. Nikon has a patent registration for a APSC sized mirrorless kit lens. Registration distance is 27mm. About the same as old film rangefinders, though (at least for this lens) with a smaller image circle than the erstwhile 35mm film cameras.

[PB PM]

Speaking of interesting new designs, Nikon patented a new 300mm f2.8, with a low pass filter installed. Ummm, right, so a lens just for D800E users? Makes me wonder if we'll be seeing more "E" models in the future?

[Matsu]

Yeah, I don't really understand that unless it's somehow defeatable*. Here, we're taking the OLPF out of the camera, to make it sharper for those of you who want that, but were putting it back in the lens... to make it less sharp?

There's got to be more to it that that, but optics and image processing theory is not my strong point.

*maybe as a drop in filter for video? Or, some sort of twist to set strength scheme - like a Vari-ND, but with anti-alias instead?

[PB PM]

From what the article I read said, this method would be more effective at reducing moire than an in camera filter.

[Matsu]

In other news, it might be safe to buy a D800 now. Ming Thien reports that Nikon Malaysia has a reported fix for the left outer focus point issue. I had feared that perhaps large batches of D800 AF assembly's were somehow manufactured or installed out of normal tolerances. Why only the left AF points? Seemed to point to something mechanical. If Ming is correct, the issue rests instead with a certain focus calibration routine which basically programed the AF module with incorrect AF algorhythms. hmmm...

[PB PM]

Panasonic unleashed a bunch of new cameras today, the G5, LX7 and some super zooms. The G5 looks like a nice improvement over the G3, apparently it is using a updated 16PM sensor, but not likely to be the 16MP Sony used in the OM-D EM-5.

The LX7 uses a new, smaller 10MP sensor, and has 24-90mm F1.4-2.3 lens. Yes, you read correctly, the LX7 has a smaller sensor than the LX5... umm okay Panasonic, what are you smoking? F1.4 might be enough to make up for that at the wide end, but at 90mm it is still 2.3 like the LX5.

Oh and Panisonic now wants us to call mirror less camera DSLMs (Digital Single Lens Mirrorless). Just what we need, another one. First EVIL, then just Mirrorless then ILC, now DSLM. IIRC all of those came from Panasonic, kind of wish they would make up their minds.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by PB PM The LX7 uses a new, smaller 10MP sensor, and has 24-90mm F1.4-2.3 lens. Yes, you read correctly, the LX7 has a smaller sensor than the LX5... umm okay Panasonic, what are you smoking? F1.4 might be enough to make up for that at the wide end, but at 90mm it is still 2.3 like the LX5.

Odd to see a smaller sensor, even if it's not much smaller; they were talking about a 1-inch sensor about a year ago. However, the new lens is very fast, as you note: in fact, the LX5 was only f/3.3 at the long end, not f/2.3, so the new lens is faster across the range. I believe this is now the fastest lens on any compact camera, in simple f-stop terms.

The lens has 11 elements, 10 groups, 9 aspherical surfaces, ED glass, and nano-coating. That should translate into very good performace, assuming Panasonic hasn't done something stupid.

Originally Posted by PB PM Oh and Panisonic now wants us to call mirror less camera DSLMs (Digital Single Lens Mirrorless). Just what we need, another one. First EVIL, then just Mirrorless then ILC, now DSLM. IIRC all of those came from Panasonic, kind of wish they would make up their minds.

It's impossible to keep up.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Odd to see a smaller sensor, even if it's not much smaller; they were talking about a 1-inch sensor about a year ago. However, the new lens is very fast, as you note: in fact, the LX5 was only f/3.3 at the long end, not f/2.3, so the new lens is faster across the range. I believe this is now the fastest lens on any compact camera, in simple f-stop terms. The lens has 11 elements, 10 groups, 9 aspherical surfaces, ED glass, and nano-coating. That should translate into very good performace, assuming Panasonic hasn't done something stupid.

Ah, the interviewer in the video was in error about the lens being the same at 90mm then. I haven't seen anything about price, but I'm willing to bet that it will hold the same old $499 USD introductory price.

Considering that you can get a Nikon 1 J1 for $469 with the 10-30mm VR right now... nice try Panasonic. Okay, yes the LX7 is smaller, but I'm betting that general performance isn't up to snuff with the J1.

[Matsu]

Speaking of 1" sensors, I think Sony's RX100 is an interesting proposition. It's f/1.8 at the wide end, but quickly rises to f/2.8-4.9, so it's not as fast as the spec sheet implies. However, the guys at luminous-landscape like it a lot, and they tend to weigh haptics and image quality more deeply than simple technology for technology's sake. That said, f/1.8 at a 28m equivalent FOV, with decent depth of field at low to mid ISO, and it all fits in my pocket? Cool.

[PB PM]

The RX100 kind of peaked my interest, but that waned quickly once I saw the price. F1.8 on the CX sensor still wont deliver narrow depth of field, because of the wide focal length. Unless you are very close to the subject, or use a telephoto lens it wont be any better than the Nikon 1 system in that regard.

[Matsu]

Actually, I was sort of thinking of the advantage of more depth of field combined with a relatively bright aperture: keeps ISO down and puts more in focus.

Thinking of this:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...-of-depth.html

And especially this: In the early 2000's Alex Majoli shot war in Africa and Iraq on a bunch of Olympus Camedia cams with 2/3rds inch sensors specifically to take advantage of the greater depth of field. Some of his wide angle crowd work is both visceral and haunting.

Google Image search for Alex Majoli

I would add a Nikon 1 specifically for more depth of field at wide open apertures. Might as well embrace the small sensor's advantages, both for wider angles - "more" depth at open apertures - and for long focal lengths - more compact set-up for extreme reach.

I recently shot an event almost exclusively with a 70-200 on DX. I ended up wanting more reach, could have probably used 400mm to isolate people and faces. I'm sure I wouldn't be in this situation enough to justify a 300mm prime or an 80-400. Very high security and I was already closer than most people because of my relationship to the organizers - I just didn't have the glass for it, but it was funny to be about 30 yards closer than the press itself.

[PB PM]

Yes, there are situations were getting extra crop from a smaller sensor can be nice!

I recently got a chance to shoot with a Nikon 1 V1, and I have to say that I am very impressed with the performance. Noise is almost identical to the 12MP M4/3s sensor, if anything it is less distracting (less smudgy and more grain like, so typical Nikon processing). Auto focus is way ahead of the GF2, without any doubt. It might not be up to the quality of the OMD, but it is very good, and unmatched for a compact in continuous focusing. The EVF is much better than the first gen EVF from Panasonic, faster response time in low light and more detail. The controls of the camera are also a lot nicer, although it takes a little getting used to. As most reviewers noted, the model dial gets changed very easily, and in my use I had to switch back to picture mode from the movie position numerous times, mostly because the camera bag I was using was truthfully too small for the camera with the kit 10-30mm lens.

[Matsu]

Have you had a chance to use OM-D? How's the AF?

For my kind of use any fast glass above 200mm is too big on FX cameras, or even DX, since there isn't much (or any) DX specific glass here. There are nice, variable or slower options to carry on the person. The 70-300 comes to mind as a decent and versatile little performer, even the 80-400 can be carried - though I'd put it on a monopod. But if you want to be fast and long, there's nothing, that's just optics. I've seen people hand hold 300mm and 120-300mm f/2.8 and it's past borderline IMHO, they should at least have a monopod. 200-400 f/4 and above? Forget it.

Here's where Olympus or Panasonic could do something right now to get the attention of the industry's professionals - super telephoto's. Between the original 50-200 and the extreme 90-250 there must be a formula that gets enough right to replace a 200-400 f/4 type lens with something that's a lot smaller and nearly as fast. A constant f/2.8 that tops out at 200mm in m4/3 should still be smaller than the typical 70-200, and "effectively" only one stop slower than a 200-400 f/4 FX combination at equivalent reach. The OM-D wants this lens Oympus, build it, build it...

[PB PM]

No OMD use, I don't think any of the stores out here have it stocked yet, since they are still fulfilling pre-orders.

I think the issue with M 4/3s right now is that they are catering to street shooter (12mm F2, 45mm F1.8). They are starting to get there with the 75mm F1.8, but size is starting to be a factor again. The fact that the 75mm Olympus costs more than a FX 85mm F1.8 prime, doesn't board well for saving money by going m 4/3s. It isn't a lot smaller either...

[Matsu]

Reviewers are saying the 75 f/1.8 is basically perfect. I've never used a 150mm f/3.5 - if such a lens exists it would be the full frame equivalent. there are 135 f/2 and 150 and 180 f/2.8 FX designs, and these are effectively faster (as well as physically larger). I guess the best DX comparison would be a 105 f/2.8VR - basically the same FOV when mounted on DX and a smidge slower (4/3@f/1.8 effectively equivalent to DX@f/2.5) so lets call it even, though the 105 is a macro and wicked combination of sharp and smooth OOF rendition.

It's a bit like they're not confident that they can sell a 90-250 level lens to m4/3 users. I can't blame them, this probably didn't sell well in 4/3 - but did anything sell well in 4/3? So they're starting with street shooters, but the same things that recommend them there, would work well for them with super-tele shooters. The tests I've seemn show their 5-axis stabilization beats Panasonic's OIS. They have very fast AF and burst rates now, and much better VF refresh rates than in the past. And, the cameras are compact and excellently weather sealed.

If a native m4/3 version were made available, IMHO, any serious wildlife shooter should strongly consider something like a Olympus OM-D and 90-250 f/2.8 ahead of longer more exotic glass from either of Canon or Nikon. How big is a 500mm f/4 or f/5.6? How much does it cost?

The lenses in this video never really took off, but you can see some of the size advantages here I think they really just wanted too much for the 90-250 f/2.8. There's no really reason why it has to cost so much more than a 120-300 f/2.8 or a 70-200 IS2 which have similar amounts of glass in them.

Rebuild it in native m4/3 and get down to around $3000 and people will buy them before they ever think about another 500mm FX lens.

[Matsu]

Reviewers are saying the 75 f/1.8 is basically perfect. I've never used a 150mm f/3.5 - if such a lens exists it would be the full frame equivalent. there are 135 f/2 and 150 and 180 f/2.8 FX designs, and these are effectively faster (as well as physically larger). I guess the best DX comparison would be a 105 f/2.8VR - basically the same FOV when mounted on DX and a smidge slower (4/3@f/1.8 effectively equivalent to DX@f/2.5) so lets call it even, though the 105 is a macro and wicked combination of sharp and smooth OOF rendition.

It's a bit like they're not confident that they can sell a 90-250 level lens to m4/3 users. I can't blame them, this probably didn't sell well in 4/3 - but did anything sell well in 4/3? So they're starting with street shooters, but the same things that recommend them there, would work well for them with super-tele shooters. The tests I've seemn show their 5-axis stabilization beats Panasonic's OIS. They have very fast AF and burst rates now, and much better VF refresh rates than in the past. And, the cameras are compact and excellently weather sealed.

If a native m4/3 version were made available, IMHO, any serious wildlife shooter should strongly consider something like a Olympus OM-D and 90-250 f/2.8 ahead of longer more exotic glass from either of Canon or Nikon. How big is a 500mm f/4 or f/5.6? How much does it cost?

The lenses in this video never really took off, but you can see some of the size advantages here I think they really just wanted too much for the 90-250 f/2.8. There's no really reason why it has to cost so much more than a 120-300 f/2.8 or a 70-200 IS2 which have similar amounts of glass in them.

Rebuild it in native m4/3 and get down to around $3000 and people will buy them before they ever think about another 500mm FX lens.