Best showcase so far, IMO. Well done.
worldcup1982: from previous samples i've seen, the lens is not that good...
I looked on Flickr at this a few weeks ago. Everything looked as good as you could hope for a lens this size, but the sun stars were really ugly. Don't shoot this into the sun.
xoio: I feel it makes a bit of a mockery of their 'flagship' bridge FZ1000, when they steal the sensor from it and bung it in a phone...
Seems i'm NOT the only one who thinks so either..http://www.techradar.com/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/why-the-panasonic-lumix-dmc-cm1-is-a-bad-idea-1265639
That article is the the worst piece if journalism I have ever seen. Everybody in the comments basically ripped that guy a new one.
zsedcft: Where is the image on the lightroom 6 box taken? I have that same kind of picture a few times but haven't figured out where it is yet.
Thanks brumd. The harder the hike, the better for photography as there are usually less people are at the end! Persuading the wife may be a different matter, though.
I could get by with the D800, my little sirui tripod and the 16-35mm f/4. It's not all that heavy (is what I tell myself).
Thanks guys. I was talking about the one that is on the box cover which appears to be Trolltinga (I don't think I need a translation for that name!). I was planning a trip to some fjords sometime in the future so I will make sure this is on the list. It looks awesome!
p.s. you should type trolltunga into a google image search and see what the crazy people do on it. There is a guy doing a handstand right at the edge. I don't mind a little risk, but that seems pretty unwise!
Where is the image on the lightroom 6 box taken? I have that same kind of picture a few times but haven't figured out where it is yet.
zsedcft: Great upgrade for people who don't own photoshop. I imagine that even a large number of pros could get by with just lightroom+ nik software now.
I still need photoshop so I can't see any reason to spend the $150 to upgrade from lightroom 5. It is a bit more clunky having to move over to photoshop for all of the heavy lifting, but I often end up using tools that are beyond what lightroom supplies for those special pictures anyway.
Do you know of a better black and white processor than silver effects pro? I have to be honest, I don't use any of the other ones.
Great upgrade for people who don't own photoshop. I imagine that even a large number of pros could get by with just lightroom+ nik software now.
I had a feeling that Barney was British. Some of his responses to other posts definitely had a thick layer of sarcasm. I am British, so found it rather refreshing vs. the deliberately inoffensive responses that the American moderators on websites usually give.
I live in the states so have had to reign my sarcasm in otherwise people think I am just being mean.
Back to the lens... it looks nice but I don't think I will ever get one as it has a ridiculous front element like the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8. I think you also said in the other review that it wasn't a true Nikon 15mm so my 16-35mm f/4 is probably just as wide and can easily take an ND filter. I am planning to get a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for astro as that is the only reason I would need a fast, wide lens. Good on Tamron for keeping innovating, though. I think that quality of Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 and Sigma's art line has really redefined what 3rd party lens makes think they can achieve.
I have an app called bambuser on my home screen. It is set up to stream a live feed from the front camera to their website where it is stored.
I am pretty sure that 99% of police officers are fine, but if something suspect happens, there is no way that the cop gets to delete the evidence.
This should not be a feature that we have to pay for! It is a very minor feature bump to the existing app that will have very limited usefulness. I know that competitors like miops had this in their app from the very start.
I used to like triggertrap but their farcical (not as in funny, as in pitiful) kickstarter campaign for ada and now this has destroyed any trust I could place in the company. When they gave reasons why they wouldn't deliver ada (despite spending $500,000 of backers money) they said it was because they wanted to continue to support existing customers. I guess they are planning to support existing customers by trying to fleece them for some more cash.
I saw someone suggest that this may be the last roll of the dice by a dying company- one last attempt to generate some capitol before creditors start circling. I would look at miops, microtrigger or camera axe before I gave these guys any more money.
Lars Rehm: Well, I have no insight into Triggertrap's way of doing business but I have used their original device which works very nicely, so they certainly know their way around soldering irons and computer code. In any case their project and financial management is only one part of the problem here. From some of the comments under this article it is clear that many people still don't understand what Kickstarter is. It is not a pre-order shop, it is a financial backing platform and if you back a project you should be fully aware that there is a risk of it not delivering and decide for yourself if you are happy to take that risk. If you are not you can always wait for the product to hit the shops and buy and normal retail rate.
While that is true, the only reason that this project failed was because of bad management. All of the issues that they experienced could and should have been spotted earlier and remedied.
They had a virtually complete product but decided to "improve" it after the funding period was over. They didn't have the knowledge internally to do it so the hired a external company (who didn't have the skills either). Once they finally figured the mess out they were already past the deadline and over budget.
The worst thing is that they appear to have never got a quote for how much the new design would cost to produce. They have said that it would cost 3 times what they budgeted for!
Everybody knows kickstarter is a risk, but this project should have been as near to a certainty as is possible. The failure is entirely because of bad management and that management continue to treat the backers like dirt.
They are just letting the comments fester on kickstarter. It is getting extremely ugly.
graybalanced: The money may well have been squandered imappropriately, who knows. But it's important to remember that what happened here, happens to venture capitalists all the time. VCs, like movie and music companies, lose untold millions of dollars on the thousands of products and movies and albums that don't make money. The only reason they are rich is because of the few that are hits.
If you give money to Kickstarter, you ought to have the ability to withstand, both financially and emotionally, the loss of your investment. Because when you back a Kickstarter project you're being a venture capitalist and that's what venture capitalists do.
That is why "Kickstarter is not a store."
I meant projects after they have been funded. On kickstarter you get the money back if they don't reach the funding goal. I read that that 44% of projects get funded. I think I saw someone refer to 9 out of 10 of the funded ones being fulfilled. I can't find the reference, but I have backed 20 and this is the first to fail (that is just anecdotal, but the general feeling I get is that very few people have had more than 1 fail). The percentage of heavily funded projects that fail is very low. Have you ever seen a news report of another photography project fail on DPReview? Anyway, I was just pointing out that it is different from venture capitalists investing in tech companies. 75% of venture capital backed start-ups fail out right (as per the WSJ) and a lot only make tiny profits.
That is not an accurate analogy. 9 out of 10 kickstarter projects succeed and what you get in return is discounted product. The rate of success of venture capital investments is much lower but you get a stake in the company.
Neez: People on kickstarter are dumb. This is what happens when you fund a project, some simply don't pan out. If you want a sure thing, only fund projects with completed production ready prototypes, that demonstrate they work and simply need funding for production startup costs.
It's not like we backed some guy in a shack in Idaho. This is an established company (with kickstarter experience) who said that they had a working prototype that only required minor modifications to bring to market. The kickstarter money was to get it over the finishing line.
They moved the goalposts after the project was funded, squandered the money and have got away with no personal losses. They are rubbing salt in the wound by ignoring the legitimate complaints of the loyal backers and trying to spin this as some kind of selfless act that is designed to benefit their existing customers (of which I am one).
Here is an example of how crass Haje is;
"Failing to deliver to our 2,000 Kickstarter backers would also mean letting down all our other customers, who are currently out there, using Triggertrap Mobile to take timelapse videos, sound-triggered photography, and are actively creating amazing photography."
Marketing doublespeak in the midst of a company catastrophe.
They had a working prototype. They decided to change the whole internal design after the funding period was over.
Haje has been working his way round the internet outlets claiming that he is doing this good of the current customers. What he fails to mention is that triggertrap mobile already have a working product and an app. They don't really need much support, they will be fine on their own.
The kickstarter backers have no product. Haje remains the CEO of a company that has ripped off 2000 loyal backers (a lot of whom have supported them from the start).
There are other, similar projects that raised less money that have succeeded. They wasted the money thinking that there was a bottomless pit. They announced today that it was going to cost 62% of the total they raised to even produce the product - 3x what they budget for (which they didn't notice until 13 months after the project funded). It is incompetence and mismanagement in the extreme.
Number 8 is just an excellent photograph. I have a print of moonrise hanging in my house but it is a lot bigger than the one on sale!
These ironic "HDR", ISO and noise comments need to stop. It is the same in every post on this site. They may have been funny the first couple of times, but once you have read each one on 100 different articles they kind of lose their edge.
Rutterbutter: a more recent case involving Rod Stewart and his likeness used for an album cover that was purposely mimicked instead of paying the photographer their dues would constitute a precedent in this type of case. They clearly copied the look of the photo. Much like if I were to make a swoosh logo on a running shoe I made, I'm sure Nike would sue me to death. end of story. Nike did nothing original, therefore Rentmeester should rightfully be paid, and handsomely for it too considering the size of the brand
It's not that though. You will be able to take pictures of people jumping. They licensed the guy's photo, then copied the photo without paying for it (for which they got sued in the 80s), and have been using it ever since despite only licensing it for two years. Ironically, if Nike hasn't paid for it in the first place the guy probably wouldn't get a cent. There is always more to these stories than gets reported though, otherwise it would be a slam dunk for the photographer.
Aaron801: I can't claim to understand the specifics of copyright law. Still, it seems to me that one image influenced another and if you want to use that idea of "influence" as a yardstick for copyright violation then there's going to be a whole lot more of it. It isn't a direct copy of the image or even a tracing of said image. They're both in slightly different poses anyway (with the original having a bent leg). It's not only a different original shot but the silhouette/logo treatment that's done with it is an entirely different presentation than a straight up photo. If we were to apply this standard to music then rather than having grounds to sue over unauthorized sampling or directly copying a melody, the Beatles could sue thousands of musicians who they've obviously influenced.
I think the case will probably come down to the original court ruling that gave the photog $15,000 for the two year license. If Nike continued to use the derivative photo, surely he was due more royalties from it. I think the guy could be in for a pretty big payday because Air Jordans were much bigger in the 90s than the middle 80s. I don't know why the guy has waited so long to file. Surely he should have done it in 98/99 when Jordan was past his peak. He must have know he was sitting on a gold mine. Maybe there was more to the original case than has been covered in this article.
Skulls: I think that the statement that FF produce better image quality is technically wrong.It's the lenses that limit the performance of the APS-C sensors.
1. APS-C lenses should compensate the crop factor with smaller f-number ie: 24-70 f/2.8 for APS-C should be 16-50 f/1.9 for a Nikon and 15-40 f/1.8 for a Canon.
2. FF lenses usually have greater quality glass and layering which also adds to the problem.
Am I missing something?
We haven't reached the point where a smaller sensor can match a larger sensor in things like dynamic range and color depth. As I said, the gap is narrowing, but we aren't there yet.
I was recently having this discussion with someone else. Technology has got "good enough" in almost every sector; computing, cell phones, tablets, cameras, TVs (although OLED should shake up the market). My D800 is the first camera who's files I would put up against any other format from the past or present and be happy with. Camera makers are going to have a hard time persuading buyers to get the latest camera (of any sort) when the one they already have can make professional quality photos. It's either going to drive innovation or put a lot of them out of business.