stevez: B&W is traditional and so are chrome cameras. It should have been made this way at the onset.
So they could sell both versions to rich collectors?
I'm sure I'd love to use such a camera - but one look at their prices kills any lust.
VikingPhotographer: Back in the good old days of celloidfilm cameras nearly all the cameras of all brands was in "chrome" with black "leather", the black models came fx in Hasselblad because of small faults in the chrome, so in a way the were never first choice at the time. Then the black versions became popular for some press photographers and black became more popular, but it was still chrome versions that was first choice. At the time where plastic became more and more the most used material for camera bodies, then black became the norme, not because they were more popular, no because chrome was to diffucult to look nice in plastic ! I must admit that chrome plastic looks very cheap compared to real metal chrome ! But take a look at a Hasselblad chrome, it just look so nice ! The new - still much too expensive - Leica in chrome look cheap and depressed. At the price of a Leica, I would rather but a Fuji X-serie plus a Canon 5D, plus a Sony, plus a...
And if you want to shoot nice B&W, a good used silver Hasselblad 500 CM is a lot cheaper than a Monochrom Leica.
disraeli demon: It's a simple way for them to generate a small extra product line I guess, so fair enough.
A Monochrom sensor in a Typ-240 body though… that would be something.
I wonder what type of sensor that will have.
Peter CS: Here is the irony - they are offering only $2000 for ownership, yet are willing to pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal fees to litigate and intimidate? If this is not an all out assault on copyright ownership, then what else could it be? Maybe it is an exercise to see, if absurd amounts of inherited wealth can change/overthrow existing laws, buy false justice, and provide a ticket to our polarized/political Supreme Court, that has a huge pro- corporate agenda? Time will tell...
Legal fees? I suspect the Walton's are already paying a raft of lawyers who work for them full time. Maybe they thought those lawyers weren't working hard enough for their money so they got them to file this ridiculous suit.
Peiasdf: Liberal trash, it is the Waltons suing Bob’s Studio, not Walmart. If you read the source, the Waltons offered $2000 for those boxes of negatives of themselves but Bob’s Huff think she can cash them for more now that the Waltons are rich and famous.
Unless the Waltons were hired as models by Bob's, Huff shouldn't have the right to cash in by selling Waltons' studio photos to tabloids.
Why not? Where any business has grown as much as Walmart a certain amount of luck is inevitably involved. Mrs. Huff has also got lucky in that some of the pictures her late husband took in the course of his work were of people that later became very rich and famous.
If you were a professional photographer who was lucky enough to take pictures of some ordinary person who later became very rich and famous - wouldn't you, or your children, want to sell those photographs for as much as they became worth?
Not "Liberal trash" - Mrs Huff is being entrepreneurial and trying to get maximum return from the property (copyright) she inherited and is entitled to - just like the Walton's are certainly taking advantage of all the wealth they were fortunate to inherit.
Wubslin: I'm with Walmart on this one. No-one has the 'right' to take pictures of people.
Presumably, since the photographs were taken by a studio, the photographer was asked to take the pictures - so, anyway you look at it, he did have a 'right'.
Helen Huff has every bit as much right to take advantage of the copyright she inherited as the Waltons have to take advantage of all the money they inherited. At least those photographs taken at Bob’s Studio didn't come at the cost of thousands of American jobs exported to the People's Republic of China.
I'll bet the late Mr Huff paid all his taxes and treated his employees decently- unlike the Waltons who apparently use every loophole available to avoid paying taxes and have pay wages so low that a large percentage of their employees need to rely on food stamps and federal benefits.
A200Eric: How is that BS? If Walmart didn't exist where would these people be working? They must have scars from the guns that are being held to their heads to be forced to work there.
Until the pseudo Marxists like yourself finally kill what was the greatest country in the world, we still have freedom of personal choice. I just really don't understand what is so attractive about an all powerful centralized government making all of the choices for you. Forcing mediocrity for all and punishing hard work and success. I want to live where anyone and everyone has the opportunity to be successful regardless of how they define it. That however is all but dead and it's not because of Walmart or the Koch brothers.
A large percentage of Walmart workers have pay so low they are on food stamps - and they don't receive proper benefits, so have to rely on government programs. For Walmart employees these things cost the taxpayer about $6billlion a year which is effectively a government subsidy or hand out to Wallmart and the Waltons.
You can also bet the places Wallmart get their stuff made in China don't provide any benefits or good pay and working conditions to their employees either.
How many US jobs have they exported overseas? That's money and jobs out of the US economy.
The cheap goods they sell actually come at a tremendous cost which in the long run is not affordable.
Six members of the Wallmart family, who I'm sure use every loophole and dodge in the books to avoid paying taxes, have more than the bottom third of Americans - that kind of income disparity is plain wrong.
Sounds like they are too cheap to pay for the photographs - though they obviously can afford to.
dwl017: $800 ? not trolling just saying wow! great cam no doubt but I can do a lot towards a full frame savings account with $800
I picked up a Samsung EX2F that still is taking care of most of my daily needs.https://www.flickr.com/photos/hydroracer/14026626737/
A lot of design and engineering goes into getting this much into such a small package.
Sony are the masters of this.
"The new lens is handmade out of brass" - I wonder, how do you make a lens out of an opaque metal? Is it a pinhole lens or something?
km25: It has a AA filter, good for movies bad for stills. Low light king, yes until some else comes out with a FF 8mp camera. The world, grasshopper, needs balance. The Sony pendulum singes massively to the other side of FF madness. The best camera they have come with is the RX10. It does what it should well.But just think, Sony makes their next camera for stills, mostly. 18-20MP. Good low light with usable resolution. And they have more then two lens for it, with a loon bin adaptor. I am not just saying this because I am a Fuji Fan Boy. But if I take out my X-T1 I will have three things going for me enough resolution to create fine image, fine dynamatic rang, low noise and accurate color all in good balance. I will have excellent optics to use. The camera will have a good level of performance. Give me that Sony, I will think about jumping ship. Balance Grasshopper.
AA filters on still cameras were there for a good reason. They only started getting rid of them once pixel densities became high enough there was no longer a need for them.
12 mp on full frame is a fairly low pixel density and needs an AA Filter
mikey1900: Could they cut out that EVF hump in the next iteration full frame mirrorless? It looks stupidly like an SLR which is unnecessary. I would much prefer Fujifilm's camera design.
But Fujifilm just put an EVF hump on the XT-1
Everyone is going on about the video - but this camera should also be great for those who like to shoot with legacy manual focus lenses.
12mp is just about ideal for that - and that high ISO and DR should open up some interesting possibilities for available light shooting.
ozimax: Astonishing images. And just think, it took a Creator God to make these impossibly complex animals. He not only makes things work, He makes them beautiful at the same time.
Kudos to the photographer.
Kudos to the creative power of DNA and evolution - and minds that can perceive and wonder at this
SergioMO: Please tell to ALL your friend ... -We dont´t want a World Cup In Brasil !!!! We need education, hospitals , etc.
Brasil has spent most of the money already - building stadiums etc.
Brasil should get some money back from the world cup - tickets, visitors, advertising, TV rights, etc - though a lot of it is taken by FIFA (not the most transparent organisation)
The time to complain was before the bid was made - even that bidding process involves a lot of expense
If Brasil didn't hold the world cup now it would be a total loss.
Yes Brasil needs education, hospitals, etc. - at least the WC will bring a lot of attention on the country - try to use that opportunity to get your message out.
Galbertson: What might be the limits of print size with a6000? I would prefer prints for exhibit/gallery showing, viewed as close as observer desires, whether art appreciator or pixel peeper. My work solely landscape, tripoded, fine glass, mostly b&w?Thanks for your input...by the way, new to digital cameras, old to 4x5 film/drum scanning.
With a good lens on the camera you should be able to make very good prints up to 16x20 - more if you use matt paper and the prints are not going to be viewed very close.
But if you are coming from 4x5 get a Sony A7R or a Nikon D800E. With the larger sensor you'll get finer tonal gradation and dynamic range and a bit more detail.
montygm: Nice shots and lighting. But very heavily photoshopped. Lots of vignetting, fogging and blurring added. The two shots on her Flickr page towards the end shows two completely different shots with dust particles floating in the air…if you look closely the dust specks are in the same position in both. I have no problem with using Photoshop, it's a necessary evil with digital cameras these days…however I find it rather dishonest when the photographer downplays the use of it and pretends it is "natural".
Probably just trying to earn a living and raise money to bring up her kids. Nothing wrong with that at all - and her work is very good.
I hope they use this to test all the new lenses they get and then publish the figures on "sample variation". That would be useful for consumers to know and encourage the manufacturers to do better.