FuhTeng: I'm going to leave this here for all those who believe sharpness (resolution? accutance?) is the most important thing about lenses -
"Our young men should spend more time considering the composition and merit of their images, and less time with magnifying glasses counting how many bricks and shingles they can resolve." - from a Paris newspaper article on Daguerrotype photography, from 1841.
So we shouldn't discuss lens sharpness if we want to be good photographers? Gosh. I guess Leica and Zeiss did it all for nothing all those years.
gbdz: The best thing to put under the tree would probably have been an iPad Air.Never mind the sensor size or the zoom, the camera can only perform as well as its user can make it. People make fantastic pictures and videos with their smart devices. What's best, they are able to bor...share! With an iPad you do not have to transfer you pictures form a memory card to the device, they are there already. You can watch them, mail them, put them on FB and Instagram and have a backup on the cloud.
Do mothers want megapixels and superzooms? Really?It is kind of like when a dog invited a stork for dinner and offered him bones...you want to give something YOU like which might not at all correspond to the needs of the other.
To me the 'compact' is my iPhone. With the '645' app I get all the buttons I could dream of. The pictures are good enough for social media. If I want close ups of birds or animals with big teeth, I take my 150-600 Tamron. I also buy post cards...
"Whatever ..?" Well answering you was clearly a waste of time.
Agreed, Prairie Rim. This assumption that Mom knows nothing about taking photographs is irritating.
Narretz: Definitely worth an article, yes. Please also publish articles for each new Leica limited edition. Should you get you all these clicks you need.
"Seems to me that a site devoted to photography and camera gear would be the perfect place to report on a limited edition of a camera."
EXCUSE ME. I'd like to report somebody being sensible in the comments section.
How many #richkidsofinstagram orders do they need to make this video worthwhile?
Looking forward to the low-light examples.
vesa1tahti: In many messages, people are reminiscing film times. Fuji films were excellent, but their time is over now. 'Film simulation modes' may be interesting for those who remember the film photography in general. Those modes don't have any meaning in today's and future cameras (or at least the names of modes ought to be changed to be relevant for younger photographers, too).
The youngest photographers will see what they do and they will understand the names if they are interested to do so. What names do you suggest they change them to? Are you suggesting that the marketing and creating experts employed by Fuji didn't know what they were doing? Show us the way, @vesa1tahti. Lead by example!
Sony's really pushing the tech. I just wish they'd catch up with lenses. Time to consolidate on that front.
CraigAlan: It's funny to read how tired people can get from lugging a dslr camera around for a few hours. If your back/neck or weak wrists can't handle it maybe you should hit the gym. My god.
I have bursitis in both shoulders and some arthritis. You can attach weights to your cameras to make them heavier, if you really want to show us what a big strong boy you are.
Salah: Are you sure his name is Achraf not Ashraf?!?
Yes. North Africans spell the same Arabic names differently using a slightly different Latin-alphabet protocol.
A good range of lenses would be nice.
Conrad567: The largest problem I can see, is that if you want a film like look to your videos you need to shoot at 24fpp [approx] and @ 1/50th sec shutter speed. This makes it impossible to make a sharp image of certain subjects, cars, kids, pets, trees while there is any kind of breeze etc.
One day 24fps film won't be such a Holy Grail. Because we had it in cinemas for a couple of generations we assume it's the be-all and end-all. That doesn't have to be the case for much longer.
I didn't understand the appeal of Leica until I picked one up. Ahh ..
GaryJP: Pretty sure this is an April 1st provocation but I am sick of the bellyaching about selfie sticks.
Photographers have ALWAYS taken pictures of themselves in front of assorted tourist features and the amount of room needed (as no one can be between the camera and the subject) has always been exactly the same. It certainly beats giving your camera or mobile phone to a random passer by to shoot you and your friends. (Particularly inadvisable if that passer by is wearing sports shows and can run fast.) It is also no bigger a problem in terms of space taken up than a tripod and a camera on a self timer.
Yes, they, and LCD screen cameras of ANY kind should be banned in venues such as concerts, but this isn't much of a real problem as most are shooting at the stage, not themselves in an anonymous crowd.
As a friend's kid once said to him: 'The fact that something didn't exist when you were born does not automatically make it a bad thing." The kid was right, My friend was wrong.
I used to sneer at it, but then I took some really nice party pics with one. The angle was a great one for flattering a group of faces.
Is this sample broken?
Sony should slow down and finish what they start. A strong array of lenses for existing product lines would be good. How about value-for-money lenses for the a6000?
fortwodriver: This is absolute BS... The f-stop is a measure of the ratio of the diaphragm opening to the focal length of the lens. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to talk about light transmission, please do your research on T-Stops and stop making this stuff up.
T stop is more accurate, yes, but as consumer cameras have TTL metering, the differences are not enough to invalidate F-stops as a metric.
Even Newton's 3 laws of motion aren't completely accurate, if you go down to a quantum level of measurement, but they are accurate _enough_ for engineering purposes and for our lives.
You, sir, have come here to pour scorn on stills photographers and tell us that you're in some way one of the 'big boys' in the movie world. You are not here in the spirit of sharing knowledge of the art of photography.
Barney Britton: Sorry about that - we like to keep you in suspense. The system for scheduling homepage stories is separate from that which schedules articles - hence the snafu.
Hopefully you can see the article now, sorry about the break in service.
Oh FFS Denis.
Wubslin: Another overblown, overdone, oversized, overweight, overpriced failure from Nikon then?
Time to stick a fork in it.
Some people are quite active on forums. That makes them experts.
The Name is Bond: An 85mm is not for headshots or even head and shoulder shots.
It's for head and half torso at the most.
You need a 135mm equiv minimum for headshots.
If you don't believe me then try it with your consumer zoom. It makes a huge difference.
She looks a bit flat-faced at 350 mm but the comparisons were informative. Thank you. I can see how different focal lengths would suit different faces too. Clearly, 85mm isn't the whole story for portraits. I shall take pics accordingly.