Frank C.: dumbed down piece of photographic equipment for 2k$+... I don't think so! 1/8000 and 1/250 x-sync was around decades ago, srry today it's fuel injectors, not webers! LOL
@abolit -- I doubt they "deliberately cripple cameras". The truth is more mundane: they, like almost every other Japanese-based maker, buy shutters from OEM makers like Seiko and Copal. It is of no doubt Nikon chose a lower-cost shutter than the best that could be had, but they did not "cripple" a camera. They simply used cost control.
N.B. I own no Nikons nor any stock in the company.
Richard Schumer: Didn't the chairman of Olympus say several years ago that 12MP was enough for the rest of time?
@Olymore: Perhaps I misspoke when I called the person "chairman"; if so, I apologize to DPR readers and to him. Although I am not sure of his title, I believe his name was Mr. Kobayashi. And yes, I exaggerated for comic effect, which, apparently failed.
NB: I used a 12-MP Oly PM-1 and I must truly say that I have never needed more resolution than that as I have never printed larger than 9x12 inches anyway. He might be right.
Nevertheless, I upgraded to a 16MP Oly PM2 but for its features and noise control, not its resolution.
I hope there is a setting somewhere in the menus that use this technique for noise reduction instead of increasing the image size; I believe this is possible with little bother.
Didn't the chairman of Olympus say several years ago that 12MP was enough for the rest of time?
Beckler8: Like all the haters here, I too think this is pretty stupid. It's a luxury image camera. But then admit that Rolls Royce and Rolex are ridiculous as well. At least this camera is a rebadge of a great model, whereas those two examples are badges of nothing.
@ surelythisnameisfree: Rolexes are very good rebadges indeed. They use a common, outside-sourced movement nowadays, and have not come up with a decent new design since the Oyster itself (~1920s).
I wore a Rolex for decades until digital watches became cheaper while being much, much more accurate and durable. My "officially certified" Rolex chronometer usually lost seven seconds per day, even after expensive "regulation". My ten dollar digital watch loses less than that *per month.*
icexe: I would really love to know how many of these they have sold.
Since Sony's corporate network has recently been infected with ransomware http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-fi-sony-hack-20141125-story.htmlwe may soon find out.
SirSeth: Yeah, what's the price because if it's similar to the A7 series this is looking very attractive. The Olympus 5-axis is fantastic and I think it has been shown to be engineered well in the E-M1 so this accomplishment in a small FF body is incredible.
I wonder what Olympus gets out of the deal? FF sensors, 4/3rds sensors, better video specs?
@ Alpha: I have *no* inside information, but my guess is patents are involved, not mechanisms. Sony doubtless can manufacture things as well as Olympus.
Richard Craze: Love that Sony now have in body stabilisation. Does that mean they can start to produce smaller and lighter lenses? The size of the Olympus system lenses is just amazing, I know that 35mm lenses are going to be bigger and heaver but we can all remember the size of 35mm lenses before auto focus came along!
I think lens size is now a matter of fashion. Lenses have gotten bigger, that's for sure; they now resemble the status symbols one-inch (25mm) tall and two-and-a-half-inch (65mm) diameter wristwatches are.
OTOH, Pentax's Limited series of FF autofocus lenses are still small. Maybe Sony can persuade Ricoh to sell them a part of Pentax for optics?
Now I think I understand why Sony bought such a big part of Olympus a little while ago....
BuckieJoe: Okay... Am I the only one who thinks that PhaseOne has been seriously trying to lure in the hipsters recently? Their ads, their facebook, everything looks to distance itself from the pro market intentionally. In my view their marketing sucks a lot given that the products themselves hardware and software-wise are very good indeed.Have they found a new niche, are they trying to be like fancy sport car manufacturers now?
"...everything looks to distance itself from the pro market intentionally"
That may be true if the number of wealthy "hipsters" in the wild is greater than the number of pros looking for MF systems.
40daystogo: I felt the Hasselblad-Sony designs were gross. Everything, for me, just reeked of awful design -- the silly wood handles, the amateurish H logo. Why can't they clearly state the Hasselblad name which is what people are paying the bucks for.
I think Hasselblad and Sony should team up on a medium format camera which is Hasselblad's speciality, and make it affordable for regular people.
What a great idea! I can see the headline now: "Sony to rebrand Hassy HVs at a bargain price".
Turnabout is fair.
Why didn't I think of it?
Stigg: no matter what they try it will never equal film
He forgot the <sarcasm> tag.
Albino_BlacMan: How long of an exposure do you need at 0.005 lux. Isn't that an imperative piece of information?
I assume some of the better sensors out there can capture some kind of image at that level if you leave the shutter open long enough.
According to my LunaPro SBC, 0.005 lux will require an exposure of f:1.4 @ 3 minutes with ISO 50,000.
That's not much light at all -- mebbe three or four photons....;0}
<'large-sensor mirrorless could be a solution'>
MrTaikitso: Interesting, we inherited an old Leica from my father (who got it from his father), and it looks like that Hansa. I wonder who influenced who, my history of old gear is not good. I know the Leica had this clever prism that connected to the viewfinder so you could take pictures around corners! Sneaky! I had a water pistol that could do that too, and shot my physics lecturer in the face at point blank range by mistake with it after he stepped out of the staff room in the path of my target! I had to write out lines or something, but it was funny at the time - he was a dufus. Anyway, where were we? Ah yes, Kwanon!
@Greg -- I am going to nit-pick you: The Canons were not "exact" copies of Leicas -- they were improvements in concept and/or execution. Where Leica continued to separate viewfinder and rangefinder functions until the M3 in the late fifties, Canon postwar models, the IV, IVs, and IVs2 had integrated view-rangefinders. Also, the Canon's corners were angled, and IIRC, its back opened in the normal fashion. For exact Leica copies, one could mention Leotax, and several others, but Canon, back then, was into improvements on a proven theme.
BTW: I am not a Canon fanboi. I have owned many camera systems over six decades, but never, once, a Canon. Sheer accident.
mpgxsvcd: Not a ton to praise here but also not a lot to hate on. A nice solid little camera. I still think the Olympus E-PM2 is a better value at $170.
I got my E-Pmini2 a couple of months ago and like it quite well. I also got the 9-18mm and it makes a great pair.
The pictures are simply astounding! The jpgs are good enought that for moderate (8x10 inch) prints no RAW processing is required; but when RAWs are carefully developed, there is enormous headroom in the highlights (compared to my older Pentaxes) and the shadows can be bumped a lot, too.
I am so pleased with the little snaps-only (I thought) camera that I might go m43 when I update my K10D if Oly or Pana made a camera wide enough for a comfortable grip in my hands. Something the size and shape of a Leica I, II, or III with an EVF built in would be nice!
Oh, wait. Fuji has that territory staked out already....
I remember a precedent, perhaps, for this kind of case. There was, in the middle of the last century, a chimpanzee, IIRC, who painted some "works" that were eventially displayed on the walls of museums and sold for appreciable prices.
Perhaps it was that case which caused the law to specify works by nature, or randomness or animals are without copyright protection.
Is there a lawyer in the house who can provide an opinion?
"Do you think Mr. Slater's takedown requests are justified?"
That's actually three questions -- one as to law, one of facts, and one of "fairness."
The law is on Wikipedia's side, clearly. The facts are the photographer owns the camera and distributed the photos, something the animal could not do on its own.
Fairness, like beauty, however, "is in the eye of the beholder."
SirSeth: Why the cost? Just curious. It seems like a good lens but I thought Ricoh was trying to bring affordable medium format to morals.
I have a 645 (film) system with all the FA645 lenses from 45mm to 200 including the leaf-shutter-equipped 75mm, all bought cheaply on eBay some years ago. So, for that range of glass, they are cheaply available. But the 25mm, 35mm and any glass longer than 200mm are very hard to find and very dear.
The 35mm, when available, ran about $3000 used then and the telephotos were likewise not cheap or easy to find; the 25mm is too new to have any bargains show up.
As for zooms, they seem to keep their value pretty well, last I checked. And being MF zoom glass, they are big and heavy.
Big glass requires lots of polishing and inspection, and small quantities mean more hand work, is my guess. Still this lens is far cheaper than its competitors from Hassy and Phase One (Mamiya).
As an alternate, one can use via adapter any Hasselblad-mount lens in manual mode: F'rexample this one: http://www.amazon.com/Hasselblad-40mm-f4-0-Distagon-Zeiss/dp/B004AT4X00
ystein Bach: It works... :-)And very often we simply cant tell the difference!
If by "very often" you mean most movies and TV shows ever made, I'll agree with your understatement.
Backdrops can work invisibly when done with skill and subtlety.
Plus, as portraits are pretty much a photograph of the *relationship between the photographer and subject,* a backdrop can transform a serious photog's home studio family portraits.