mpgxsvcd: The article is only about focus. The writer just continuously harps on the fact that the AF doesn’t work in the manner that he is accustomed to. I understand that Sony has an uphill battle converting Canikon users. However, there are so many other aspects that are important for sports shooting than just AF capabilities.
For example the low light capabilities are critical in this type of scenario especially when the photographer tended to use ISO 12,800 as often as possible. Those ISO 12K shots actually looked decent but I can’t help wondering why he didn’t use ISO 1600 and 1/250 instead? Some of the high ISO images were stationary portrait type shots.
Overall I get the impression that the writer of this article went into it thinking that the Sony couldn’t AF like he was accustomed to and he set out to prove that point no matter what it took. He proved his point but it really left me wondering whether he truly explored all of this camera’s capabilities for shooting action sports.
So a pro sports photographer assesses it for pro sports shooting and you tell him he's done it wrong? The guy gets paid on results, not to be a guinea pig for the wonderful new world of mirrorless FF
NZ Scott: Cool photo!
Given that Dpreview is primarily a gear site, it seems odd that this story does not mention the photographer's camera gear. Personally, I would like to have known what he was using.
I suspect that the photographer used a non-Sony camera/lens combination, and Dpreview has deliberately kept the brand out of the story to pander to Sony's wishes.
This is not good journalism.
It's so characteristic of DPReview that an item about a great, award-winning image should immediately become a gear debate
nick101: I'm struck by the issue of the number of features vs the user interface for managing them. I wish some manufacturers (Sony aren't alone) would recognise that adding to the list of features and options doesn't add value unless we can use them effectively.
It's a shame that such a capable device is sucj a challenge to handle
I agree that firmware, and a menu structure review, could fix this. But I'm not optimisitc - judging by the fact that this has been a problem through many model iterations, and with sveral manufacturers, I just don't think that it's consider a priority.
I hope I'm wrong.
I'm struck by the issue of the number of features vs the user interface for managing them. I wish some manufacturers (Sony aren't alone) would recognise that adding to the list of features and options doesn't add value unless we can use them effectively.
nick101: Ok to take pics for private use? Fine.
Need a licence for commercial use? Fine (-ish)
The issue to me is whether posting to social media is commercial or not. If I post one of my snaps of a London river trip to Facebook, as I am likely to do), am I OK?
I can't accept the idea that it'll be forbidden but not enforced as any kind of protection - that's just ludicrous (who passes laws starting with the notion that they won't enforce them?)
We need clarity and that should come from those proposing this - they're making the change, so they're responsible for explains the effects
Sorry if my point 2 wasn't clear. It was that even the proponents of the legislation don't seem to be clear about its effects. One says you'll need a licence forscoial media posts; another says you won't; a third says that you will but it won't be enforced.
@nixda Your response is typical of the kind of confusion I'm commenting on.
1. Giving Facebook "rights to commercially exploit" is *not* equivalent to "you lose all rights to ...". Posting a picture to Facebook does *not* prevent me from exploiting the image myself.
2. *An* interpretation of the proposed legislation is that, *because* Facebook may choose to use my image for some commercial purpose, I need a licence to post it to Facebook. But what is the *actual* situation.
3. You say the proposed legislation "may restrict you to upload..." - I'm entitlled to *know* whether what I'm about to do is permitted or not permitted. Unless, of course, we're happy to revert to those days in which "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden"
Ok to take pics for private use? Fine.
Great idea - yes please
gskolenda: Well, I don't miss them, and it's very poor mgmt. that brought them to bankruptcy! No Vision! They should have built a website that was very much like B & H Photo. Run with a business model that is working. Had the CEO done his home work he could have put together a business plan that could have been sold for a strong credit line. Close all the other stores and have One huge showcase/Distribution store in Chicago. with good hard working employees with an incentive plan. I think they they could have had a chance. There loss not our's!
I'm sure all the people who've lost their jobs will feel heart warmed by your sympathy.
If only they'd had you in charge
offertonhatter: I spoke to one of the people at a UK branch today. They are unaffected by this. I don't know how this works if your parent company in the US goes under yet the UK arm is unaffected, surely it would be considered an asset. I guess some legal bod in business law would know how this works.
I am glad though, as the UK stores are very good, and I always go there for studio equipment as there is not many other places around.
UK/Europe isn't a subsidiary, apparently, but separate.
greypixelz: sad he had to reach this age in order to understand that suffering and horror is not 'photojournalism' or 'the public's right to be informed'.there is such a thing as human dignity and dying is part of it. photographing death or any kind of suffering for public display is undignified and disqualifies the photographer as a human being. man should be immortalized on the highest peaks, not the deepest of valleys. this whole culture of decay and death is satanic in nature and goes against what man really is. the spirit of humanity is about rising from the abyss, not falling in it.God bless you all!
"disqualifies the photographer as a human being"?
Disgusting notion, contemptible statement
SalmanH: Guys, this is a CAMERA review, no need to take it so personally. If you like the camera, buy it. Why get so upset about what other people think? Once again, this is a camera DPR have reviewed, not your child.
This is DPR, where criticising my camera is at least as bad as murdering my choldren
There are persistent claims that the picture is some kind of fake (it wast staged, or the soldier was simply falling over - not shot). I don't know where the "expert" opinion is these days.
Anyone have any yo-to-date information (not random speculation please)?