alexzn: Roby- don't pay attention to people deriding your picture. It's really good and some portion of the people on DOR are jealous, prudish, or both to the point that the only thing that satisfies them are picture of cats or garden flowers. You can find them also discussing rendering of green tones in the latest obscure Raw converter. In truth they should never come near a decent camera because it will be a waste of good equipment.
#1 image is soft core? Really??? Get a life, people, you have no idea what soft core is... Now go back to cat pictures...
Oh, yeah, and to people saying that these photos are all bad- show me what you've got...it's easy to dump on other people s work behind a screen name.
HowaboutRAW:You misunderstood: It is you, who is insecure. You are so disturbed by this image, that you feel the need to call it "sexualized". There's no need to enjoy this image "privately", as it is totally fine for public viewing.
How many times more are you going to miss the point, that this picture is totally appropriate for this site? You won't succeed in imposing your odd point of view on the visitors of this forum.
"is a highly sexualized image"No, it's not. Maybe, you should ask your wife, if you still feel insecure about it.And don't be afraid, she will not accuse you of looking at soft porn.
HowaboutRAW: did #1 really have to be cliché softcore?
HowaboutRAW:You really seem to have an issue with this from my perspective, but I accept that you have different standards on depicting women.
And btw: There's nothing to defend for me. If I want to look at porn, I simply do it. My wife is smart enough to handle this. ;-)
@HowaboutRAW:Don't know where you live, but in Europe a cleavage like this is not considered "softporn" - even in an office.Had you called the pose "sexy", then I could agree, although I consider it more "relaxed" than sexy.And even if it was "nude photography", why should it not be on a site about photography?
Ozyxy: What's up with horizontal websites? I liked #1 (and the other photos of course) and I clicked to see the photographer's website to see what else is there but the site requires horizontal scrolling to see the photos, I couldn't use it so I just left without seeing anything... I think photographers who create horizontal websites miss a lot of visitors. Nobody can use a horizontal website. Why don't they make their websites vertical as every website should be?
If arrow keys and scroll wheel are difficult to use for you, maybe you should try a touch pad? There even are keyboards with integrated pads on the right hand side.There also is an extension for Firefox that allows scrolling in any direction by pressing ALT and moving the mouse. You may check if Chrome offers something similar.
Whats your problem? The site works fine for me and shows classy photos.Do you use an old browser?
Softporn? You have a very strong imagination!I see a beautiful young woman in a fashionable, low cut blouse.She could even wear it in an office without problems.There is nothing falling out as there is only a hint of curves visible. Nice pic and totally adequate for this site, imo.
Very sad.I have a motor-zoom flash unit from Metz that I bought for my Olympus C-5050 in the year 2003. Together with an adapter it gave me true TTL capability.
It still works like new.
Just a Photographer: Its not going that well with 4/3 at the moment.Hope they'll be able to come up with a game changer.
Many people looking for a small system are now looking towards Fuji due to their APS sensor, retro look and more or less same weight and AF performance.
The Fujis have excellent lenses, too, but they are larger and heavier. Their handling can also be quite irritating. Their sensors show very little noise but are not as sharp as m43.As a system I'd still take m43, because it offers much more flexibility.
JohnEwing: "Reached out to" is pathetic. "Contacted" is perfectly adequate: this is a technical site, not a charitable institution.
She usually writes fiction. This may be an explanation for that funny choice of expression.
Stephen Scharf: I really don't understand the comment about the E-M5 appearing dated. It was and is a terrific camera, and still has a higher engineering specification than the E-M10, so I don't get where the "dated" view comes from.
I have nothing whatever against companies upgrading their model lineups, but I think back to the original and legendary OM-1, and that camera was in production unchanged for the better part of a decade. It still superbly fulfilled it's design specification.
Stephen, the author probably doesn't understand it either. She writes up a few news for dpreview, but does not seem to have a deep enough knowledge for judging such a camera.
ChuckTa: Wow, esp the one with Mrs Britton and 150mm f2.8, that is one of the best looking bokeh I have see in an AF lens. Mrs Britton should be very happy.It looks like the NX1 with 50-150 f2.8 will be excellent for portrait photography.
@Barney: This can change quicker than you might think... :-)
justmeMN: Technical merit aside, in the US, Samsung has a brand problem. $2,799.00 for an off-brand camera? Good luck with that.
@Howabout, I know, I didn't complain about the price. US consumers will still not understand it. :-)
art99: OK, so the photos are sharp as expected in mostly sunlight at ISO 100 , but how about a few at ISO 6400 to 12,800 for a change in a dark venue at F2.8 ? After all it boasts a BSI sensor so let's see what that can do in the dark like evening street scenes or wedding venues.
... says someone who can't even read an article.
toomanycanons: Yikes, $1300 for the "kit" lens. It better be pretty darn good!
Try to find such a 'kit lens' from any other brand!
Justme, you are probably right, but this is a problem of US consumers: Their uncritical brand loyalty makes them blind to quality.Very hard for a company to change this and low pricing alone will not do or can even be counterproductive.
Donnie G: I was convinced that I wasn't among the consumers that Canon's G7 X was made for because I have never been interested in owning any compact camera. Boy was I wrong. Although I have no interest in owning compact cameras, my teens are very interested in the category, and I am their "deep pockets". So I wound up buying 2 G7 X cameras, one for him and one for her. Between the 2 of them, they were able to setup the cameras without any input from "the broke old guy". After about 10 days, my gorgeous gal pal, Brandi, and I were able to decipher enough teen slang to learn that the camera features they worship the most are the programable click wheel around the lens collar, the articulated touch screen, and the ability to upload images to social media via Canon's Image Gateway service. I don't think that these kids are even aware of the other features, such as sensor size, lens speed, focal length, or even IQ. It takes better photos than their smartphones and their friends think its cool. :)
Carta, this is the problem with teenagers: they are not smart enough for sensible buying decisions and yet you have to fund them as parents. :-)
mcolvin1: For $598, I could buy the Sony a5100, which from reviews I have read at other sites, is probably a better camera (APS-C sensor, 24 mp, touch screen, very fast auto focus, etc.) It is only slightly larger than the Canon G7 X (with the kit lens). Better lenses can be added later. DPR has yet to do its review. I am hoping that it will get a high rating. If so, that will be the one I will buy. Its image quality is supposed to be as good as the Sony a6000, which has excellent IQ. But it is small enough to fit in a fanny pack and carry all the time. After reading DPR's review of the G7 X, it is no longer on my list. Why pay more for it when it is probably not as good as the a5100?
Mcolvin1, both cameras have nothing in common. If size is not your priority, why look at the Canon at all?
Michael_13: Canon probably should have also bought the image processor from Sony. It really is a shame that they were unable to give it proper performance.
My post is not about IQ, dude.
Canon probably should have also bought the image processor from Sony. It really is a shame that they were unable to give it proper performance.