(unknown member): The government really ought to take this beyond national parks. Look at Hungary and their recent photography law. Making images (static photographs and video) of people without their knowledge or consent should be a federal offense. Right now one could mostly take pictures or video images of pedestrians without their knowledge or consent - and in my opinion, this is not only wrong, but should be made illegal.
That's an incredibly stupid law.
Unless you use props. What do they consider props? And why would the use of props in any way relevant to whether it's permissible to take a photo on public land?
Michael Piziak: If Ansel Adams were alive today I think he would use this camera.
I don't think Ansel Adams would have had any problem with this camera, at all. Most of the iconic professional photographers people like to invoke were not nearly as hung-up on their equipment as amateurs like to pretend they were.
abortabort: Rangefinder coupled?
No. But the DOF at 20mm/f5.6 pretty much means everything past about 2 meters will be in focus.
peevee1: 20/5.6? For $650? Really? All mirrorless systems (except FE which does not have anything) have 20 or so mm, much faster and with autofocus. Pana 20/1.7, Fuji 18/2 and 23/1.4, Samsung 20/2.8, even Canon has 22/2, and Sigma has 19/2.8 for everybody.So the market for this is... drumrolls... Sony A7s. A moronic lens for underdeveloped camera.
What? Why do people have trouble with this concept? It's a niche lens intended to provide a particular look. That's what LOMO makes. In this case it's the look of vintage wide-angle glass. It's no more "moronic" than any other special-purpose lens with unique characteristics, like fisheyes or Lensbabys. If you want a more modern full-frame 20mm lens then there are other choices that will cost less, though real bargains are much harder to come by than they once were. If you want a lens that gives this look without faking it in post-processing then you can find an original, vintage Russar somewhere, search for another vintage lens with a similar optical formula, or you can buy this new.
Gesture: Nothing wrong. These could be sold at Walmart level retailer. Obviously, the modern digital cameras share internal components making 3rd party "break-throughs" possible.
I think that's just what they're going for. Back in the glory days of film, it seemed like every department store chain had one or two inexpensive SLRs and a small selection of perfectly adequate lenses. Often in a universal Pentax screwmount, and probably OEM'd from Cosina. These M43 cameras seem to be in that same spirit. More than a point-and-shoot or superzoom, with lots of lens options for the adventurous, but not nearly as pricey as a DSLR.
George Veltchev: Communism returns slowly but surely in the region .
Totalitarianism is the same whether you call it Communism or Fascism. They're ideological twins, offering slightly different propaganda to justify exactly the same goals.
mannes: exactly the same law applies in Austria. according to the personal data protection law, you have to get the consent of the people that show up in your photo or film, or make their faces unrecognisable.
one consequence is that dashcams are forbidden in this country...
And? It's just as stupid in Austria and Germany, of course. And judging by the billions of photos of Germans and Austrians it's pretty much useless.
Of course, laws like this don't exist to "protect" anyone. They exist to make sure that everyone guilty of something, in case the powers that be need a legal pretext to punish someone they don't like.
Zeisschen: Most criticism DPR had in the reviews were due to the software. So if Sony can fix some of these issues it should be a great update.
My other hopes are the use use of center button wheel for magnification in playback mode and the wheel for magnification. Just like on the RX cameras and the NEX.
These sort of arbitrary interface decisions are a constant irritation for me. Customization is the first thing that every advanced user asks for, and yet most camera manufacturers never seem to take the hint. Seriously, just build in the capability to reassign any function to any control point, and be done with it. You want the mostly useless movie button to zoom the LCD? The play button to trip the shutter? The mode dial to set fixed focusing distances? Whatever you say, boss.
Hey, we could even let people exchange button preferences via a mobile app. About 80% of the usability complaints for any given model are immediately nullified.
Just a Photographer: GOLD!Are you serious????
- Autofocus can be slow in low light- Its autofocus system nails focus MOST of the time...- Long viewfinder blackout time- Longer-than-average startup times- Short battery life- Camera 'locks up' while buffer is clearing after continuous shooting- Menu arrangement poor - Limited selection of FE lenses
These are really BIG issues not something to be overlooked by serious photographers. Still giving this camera a 'gold' status seems to me like Sony paid DPreview to give it this status.
Apparently Sony has hypnotized all these Serious Photographers into buying their inferior camera. We're all so lucky you noticed, or they'd have gotten away with it!
Or- shockingly - perhaps not all serious photographers operate solely as mobile platforms for autofocus spray-and-pray cameras. Maybe a camera with amazing image quality, compact size, flexibility, lens variety, and excellent interface work well for them.
sh10453: The whole trend is a new form of slavery, and not just by 500px, but any site that charges over 10% to 15% commission.
Just think about it; their cost for storing and selling your images in an automated process (on huge sites like Getty's, Flickr, or 500px) may not exceed pennies, I would think!
Some correction to this trend is badly needed.
Freelance photographers, in particular, should join hands and make their own site, as shareholders, and pocket their fair fees (and not allow the big players to buy the site out).
Yes. Because offering a voluntary service is exactly like slavery. No, really, it isn't. That's just silly.
Don't like the terms? Then don't sign the contract. If you think you can build and operate a similar service at a 10% commission then you should go do it. You apparently have a bunch of customers right here on this message thread who are anxious to do business with you. But what other people choose to do with their photos is really none of your concern.
Apparently it's a bloomin' miracle anybody ever took a picture that was properly focused with a manual-focus lens.
MtOlympus: I invented a camera accessory that sold well and had excellent customer feedback until one *%# person wrote a bogus review and sales plummeted. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when that person didn't try the product and flat lied about it there should be some consequences. My Social Security income isn't enough to live on and the sale of my little product allowed me to support my photo hobby, until one jerk ruined everything.
What was your accessory?
Last time I was in DC I walked around for a bit with this lens mounted on my EPL1. It's a compact combination that I could easily tuck in my jacket when it started raining, yet easily swap with a different lens (in the other jacket pocket) for indoor shooting.
As an optic, it is what it's meant to be: A cheap, fun lens for from-the-hip shooting, like street photography. I turned off the LCD and shot in the general direction of anything that caught my eye. It was fun, and I got some photos I enjoyed. Do you absolutely NEED this lens to get those shots? Of course not. You wouldn't absolutely need a digital camera at all, for that matter. But it's a convenient combination that I enjoy using.
Kodachrome200: The problem is it is all reproduction work of copyrighted pieces. There fore no one can publish or display them publicly. What would be the point.
It's a good example of how current copyright laws fail at the purpose they're intended to serve.
Have the LR developers figured out how networked drives work yet? Perhaps they should ask their colleagues in the Creative Cloud division for some advice.
D1N0: She put it on the internet, there is no copyright information in the exif. Still not and the pic is still No. 2 hit for "Strathmere Weddings" If this is theft then she is criminally negligent by putting the picture on the interwebs this way. Facilitating theft.
When you read her messages you get the image of a middle aged woman who has created her own private reality and who steam rolls anybody who gets in the way of it. You know the type when you ever worked for a customer service. Evil clients from hell!
That's a good point. If the client actually owns the image, as in a work-for-hire arrangement, then the photographer has no further say in how the client chooses to use it, or who the client can give the image to.
If her photographer's client put it on the Internet in violation of some agreement, then it would seem the photographer's dispute is actually with her client. Not with a third-party who used the client's image.
Handsome camera. I haven't bought a Nikon since the Coolpix 900, but I wouldn't be so fast to write this off.
I'm sure Nikon would prefer to have a faster lens to pair with this body/sensor combination, but apparently they don't. So they can choose to wait until they have the perfect camera, which makes them no money and sacrifices impatient customers to other brands. Or they can sell what they do have right now to the limited market for it that also exists right now. Which makes some money to offset the R&D to-date, and also signals to their customers that they're at least moving in the right direction.
Anyway, with an APS-C sensor I'd expect this camera could still have reasonably decent ISO performance and DOF even at f2.8. I'm curious to see some samples.
JIMIX PHOTO: Hey, it's like putting a prop up front an F-16 jet engine intake and play the Merlin engine sound inside the cockpit, so the pilot imagines he flies the Spitfire.
Seriously, aren't we ever going to stop imitating things, faking them, pretending that something looks/sounds/tastes/feels the way something did in the past?
The technology is still here, so perhaps it's better to shoot some real films instead?
Film is just as artificial, of course. Your Portra uses combination of chromogenic dyes carefully balanced for a specific color response and contrast curve, and an emulsion designed to minimize the natural grain of analog film. You decided how you want your end result to look, and then chose the means to make reality look the way you prefer. Creativity is the point for all of us, isn't it? One man's creative process is another man's artificial fakery.
Did Pentax provide a pre-brassed body or are you guys wearing sandpaper mittens?