The Mini has the new sensor, but the E-PL5 has the old sensor? What?
I can't unsee it! :D
Jan Kritzinger: 200mm in a compact, #meh.
28 mm in a compact, meh.
The lens should be 24- 135 equivalent and not slower than 2.5 at the long end. A 28 mm equivalent is just not wide enough for me. The sensor should be a bit larger. Also, an EVF accessory is needed. I wouldn't care if the camera were "too large for a pocket."
While the first shot has possibly some compositional issues, mostly the even splitting of three (four) planes, the shot is effective due to the windblown tree's dynamic and its roots clawing into the green "island of grass." It's a very picturesque image.
Compositionally, the day 2&3 images may be better, but the tree is much less effective compared to the one in the first image.
Peiasdf: Why is the EVF still aligned to the lens? What sense is that? Move the EVF to the left (viewing from back) so people can use the touch focus thing they added.
The finder above the lens means as close to a direct line of sight as possible. Do you see any scopes mounted next to a gun's barrel instead on top of it? ;-)
That can't be the Moon - it's the unfinished Death Star!
ybizzle: Yawn...Another generic looking camera without a soul.
You can't dismiss aesthetics completely. And if you intend to draw the "it's just a tool card," well, I'd rather use a nicely made and well finished Rahsol torque wrench than a clunky torque wrench peddled by Sears. Do you care what your food looks like? Or do you eat only tasty mush? ;)
Lovely shot. Next time have a mermaid sit on the steps! ;-)
Love the picture at the top of the article: Japan, land of the rising orb!
jnk: Considered that D3/s is the camera body that went to outer space where failure rates are not acceptable at this level and you're complaining about a 'wet job'?
Get real about the build of Nikon - Navy Seals used the D700 for their night missions and that should spell out the sealing questions of these bodies.
I'm a Navy seal on a mission to take nighttime underwater pictures of the Anunnaki on Nibiru later this year. :-P
Telefoto: "In a perfect world, I would have loved to have seen the 24.5MP of the D3X harnessed with the speed and low light capabilities of the D3S. Neither the D4 nor D800 are that camera..."
Yes! As a D3x user, that's my feeling exactly. I've been mystified why no one else seems to voice that view, but I guess it's because there are very few D3x users on the forums. So, for all the 12 MP shooters here, I guess the D4 looks like an upgrade (stills wise) and the D800 looks like ... I dunno exactly, but it's some kind of step forward even though it breaks with the purpose of the D700 (high ISO shooting). But, I can't help thinking this strange D800 broke the bank. Witness for instance that even in DX mode, it's a step back in FPS from the D3 generation. That's strange and rather unwelcome to me.
"one time more pixels"? As in 1x2= 3? :-P
GaryJP: You know what's scary. Fuji also makes medical imaging equipment.
Medical equipment? You don't see white orbs where the sun doesn't shine. ;-)
I hope that job comes with a free monthly supply of Xanax.
Everybody wants a blurb in the form of moving pictures. No wait, not everyone does. ;-)
Motion picture and still picture are very different from each other. A still picture has to capture something of significance or of interest in the form of a slice of time. Many people prefer moving pictures because those don't tax their brain as much as looking at a photograph and trying to make sense out of it. Looking at a photograph is an active process. Watching moving pictures is exposure to a constant stream, which is for the most part a rather passive process.
Fluorite: You can see one of Christian's award winning photos here...http://www.appa.aippblog.com/?page_id=1795
Thought this would be useful for those who have the wrong impression of Christian and his work.
A professional photographer is only as good as his last work.
Two professionals managed to to take a total of four snapshots? That's just pathetic.
Well, so many complained about the X-Pro1 being not expensive enough. Fuji has listened to your concern. Happy now?
AV Janus: That new fancy "kit" lens is such a miss... not fast, not good macro, huge... what was the point!? Weather sealed. Really?And I can just see it being "kitted" with the upcoming new m43 body in February... nooooooooooooooooooooo... :-/
So that 12-50 is in the same price class as other kit lenses then?
Anyway, if I want a lens that's superior to a kit lens, I don't buy a kit lens to begin with. Not in interested in a lens with f/6.3 at the long end at all.
Is that D4 as big and heavy as my 1979 F2 AS with MD-2? :-P