Jefftan: biggest problem is no OSSno use at high ISO at night
marike6: that's also why they make m43. More DOF, IBIS and no tripod needed.
X20 is intriguing, but I think I'll wait for a Sony RX200, but it is intriguing. I'll be looking at the samples for sure.
I like it, but it would need to be cheap.
Very nicely done. Bravo!
Samsung camera ... YAWN
3D ... Double YAWN
Mssimo: Panasonic has had a 3D lens for a while now, and no one ever talks about it. Shows the demand for such lens.
I agree with the above two, that it's a v. different lens, but I also think the interest in 3D is clearly quite low.
I used quite a number of them. For me, it's a toss up between the OMD and the RX100 for really different reasons. I'd consider the D600, except the oil issues dampen that for me. The OMD, bar none, had the most surprising set of features, sensor quality bump, and all around speed. It's lacking a little in the QC side, though, but I still voted that #1.
Anyone run a similar test on other FF DSLRs, just to compare?
SunnyFlorida: The Nikkor 35mm F/1.8 sells for $180, the 35mm F/2.0d sells for $270 and can be used in 2 formats, Oly is asking $500 for this???
That game is still being played?
When was the 35/2 released? I would also suggest you check resolution capabilities of the Canon 35/2 vs. this lens. The Oly is likely to compare quite well, even vs. FF (could even beat that old 35, at least wide open). Also, how about silent AF? No more angry bees. I am not as familiar with the Nikon, but I'll bet the Oly's focus ring doesn't turn while focusing :)
And though those two 35mm lenses are small, the D600 is the smallest body that AOV will work on (at least in digital terms). http://camerasize.com/compare/#378,382
I am thinking this is a very poor set of low-light test shots, and DPR is at fault here.
I have complete ZERO interest in this camera, but look at those low light shots. Almost all have negative EV dialed in. The guitarist shot has -2.33!!! What camera is going to do well in low light with a -2.33 EV? Also, these could be dialed in for high NR.
Again, I have no interest in this camera, but it seems to me the low light sample shots are like HUH???
WT21: Too friggen expensive. Period. Canon - why do you think you're losing money?
joejack951: The 24-70 is too expensive compared to the Nikon new kit.
But actually, I should have noted I was talking about the 35. I personally have no interest in "kit" type lenses. I should have been more detailed in my comment.
The A-Team: I don't think this makes any sense as a kit with the 6D. That's a "budget full-frame" so it makes sense to pair it with a "budget" kit lens. Something like an improved 24-85 IS (non-L) would make more sense, or even just the 28-135mm IS. But still nice to see Canon keep releasing new lenses. But where is that new 50mm 1.4 that everyone is asking for? Put IS in it and you'll have a VERY popular lens.
Easy prediction because it would all be true, accurate and fair
Too friggen expensive. Period. Canon - why do you think you're losing money?
Gregm61: Looks, based on the name and guide number, more like a re-badged Olympus FL36R with the FL600R-type assist lights.
FL-=36R is a 2 battery flash. This is 4 batts, so it's a rebranded FL-600R
Kevin Fitzsimons: "Pretty inconsequential"??? Are you joking? The upgrading of the Hubble telescope was probably worth the whole program. I'm shocked that a photo person would say such a thing. Go to hubblesite.org/gallery/ and see if you don't change your mind. It is a very cool video. A lot of planning and time went into it.
Also note I said "whose reign in space travel is pretty inconsequential" There was context to "pretty inconsequential".
Yes, the use of "pretty inconsequential" is overstated, but relative to it's expense and length of it's run, did it achieve as much as you might have hoped? Yes, we all want this to be the precursor to Star Trek, but that is only because we assume we will actually be able to get off this rock. While fun science fiction, it is at this time mostly that - scifi. Even if we could, we would need breakthroughs from more affordable programs than this one.
IMO, the Shuttle soaked up a lot of money. I would rather have seen those funds put into more planetary exploration. This program was proved overly expensive quite some time ago, which is why it was never ratcheted up. I will not mourn that it is moth-balled, but rather look forward to what could be done next. To mourn an unworkable program is to be a hopeless romantic, which is what the music is conveying, and the point of my perhaps hastily-written post.
Coyote_Cody: The most wonderful thing about the USA is that ppl have opinions without any knowledge or facts to form that opinion, so saying the shuttle was inconsequential is a very uninformed immature, showing very little understanding of science, engineering or 'wonderment'.
To these here is their motto:
"I don't need no stinking science, facts or education of any sort, I have my opinions, founded upon nothing, pulled from my behind!"
Great time-lapse, likely its last trip! Sad!!
Is this program dead because of some ignorance, or rather because it is actually economically infeasible? The data says it's economically infeasible. Do you have any contrary data, or again just opinions from your rear?
WT21: The video shows the power of music. The space shuttle is a very large, very expensive piece of technology whose reign in space travel is pretty inconsequential. Very little happened, and the most memorable event about any of the shuttles, sadly, is the one that blew up.
I am sure they were utilitarian, but the music makes you feel like you are viewing some poignant significant moment, when the the shuttle era has really been quite boring. The Benny Hill theme song could have fit in nicely to the time lapse, and given the viewer a MUCH different emotional response. You can find the BH theme music on youtube such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg. Try it out yourself, both ways. Mute the LA audio and turn up BH.
International Space Station was mentioned, which is a good one. Also, I forgot the Hubble. I don't remember if that was launched by the shuttle, but it was certainly serviced by the shuttle.
The video shows the power of music. The space shuttle is a very large, very expensive piece of technology whose reign in space travel is pretty inconsequential. Very little happened, and the most memorable event about any of the shuttles, sadly, is the one that blew up.