I loved my Sigma 15-30 with the exception of the push-pull MF/Af switching and that silly filter ring/hood. It seemed to cause a ton of Vignette at 15-17mm even with super low profile filters. That said, this would be a nice addition at f/2.8.
What!?!?! Why!?!? Who the hell has that kind of money to p*ss away on some thing they can trot themselves out to the desert and make on their own? This country ...
Bring on the volcanoes and asteroids.
Narcissism on steroids!
Wow, the All-Sky Camera ® called and wants its idea back.
AV Janus: Its cute how these filter makers still hang on to the pre-post processing technologies for photography. They are down right retro!They should sell their brand while its still worth something.
I am going to go ahead and stand up for light and filtering before the lens/sensor and not relying upon pixel re-coloration in post in order to obtain the same results. Simply because it is not possible to obtain the same results when when shooting Black and White. Trying to apply things like a "red" software filter effect to an image as compared to throwing an R26 Red filter on in front of the lens and getting the same results just isn't possible. Why? It's completely altering the light before the lens. Physics can not be denied, here.
Software filters leave images appearing as though they have been applied.
Neat filter, by the way. Happy to see Lee still produces such a nice filter set for serious imaging.
Still no signs of the FF (rumored) 24MP K-3? I sincerely loved my K-5 but I'm afraid body color choices are more important than camera horse power. Sort of glad I switched to Nikon when I did. Sorry, Pentax.
That 20/1.8 has some major appeal.
iAPX: Why remove the optical viewfinder?!?
That is for me the most interesting feature of the X20, compared to my Leica C, or a future Sony RX100 III. I would prefer to have an usable optical viewfinder instead a big sensor: I value the ability to frame and see the field (including outside the frame to anticipate action), more than IQ by itself.
I was just thinking the same thing. Zoom coupled, framing lines, , exposure info, etc. The X20 is/was a sweet camera.
RuthC: Congratulations, MarkByland, on coming second in this weekly challenge, with your misty Mt. Elmore capture. It is a very evocative picture, with interesting shades of light and dark, all soften by the areas of fog. (I would have loved to see this in colour.) Ruth :-)
Thank you, RuthC. This was such a spur of the moment shot, too. You know, I edited this in color and it didn't seem to reach out and grab me like it did in monochrome. I shoot black and white in-camera and, as you know, Lightroom converts it back to color. Once I saw the change, I edited it a little and right back to mono it went! I really do have a thing for B&W images. Thank you for your comment!
What about the misleading terminology of "getting more reach"? After working in two different camera shops, I've heard a lot of customers use this misnomer when referring to 4/3 sensors. Claiming that some how a lens of, say, 100mm focal length will some how bring them closer to the subject. This is wrong. I've often thought that instead of the phrase "Crop Factor", it should be called "Field of View Crop." Because that's exactly what it is. The focal length of the lens doesn't change when it's on a camera of different sensor size. The focal point of the lens does not change. Ultimately, you just see less of the field of view which leads people to believe that they are some how magically getting more distance or "reach" out of a lens. Entirely untrue. Due to the nature of a smaller sensor, you just see less of the FOV in front of the camera given the same focal length lens that was not designed for equivalency.
Oh, will the state PLEASE put Walmart through the worst possible outcome imaginable. And I hope the photographer's widow counter sues and wipes their sorry asses off of the face of this planet. Welfare mooching bunch of greedy bastards. I hate Walmart and every thing it stands for.
Mapel: This is very interesting... and that tree is really huge!
It truly is awful that trees that were around before Jesus was supposedly was born have been cut down. Yay, progress.
Vimeo has the worst streaming capability and stability of any video service on the internet yet is the choice of many. Why? I can't make it 20 seconds in to the video without lag catching up. I gave up on watching the video.
Master Yoda: First, the new Canon M and now this new Nikon 1 . . . both "NOT FOR SALE IN THE USA". Personally, I wouldn't buy either one but it would seem they are waiving the white flag with the USA with these kind of cameras and probably doing us a favor LOL. Meanwhile, Fuji, Oly and Panny continue to move forward.
Oh, but I never said 100%, I said "most." You can not argue that. You're at DPReview, a known gear head hangout.
How is Nikon not moving forward here? Perhaps they've chosen to not release this in the US market because they know the US market is people with ADD when it comes to brand loyalty. They understand most American photographers are just gear heads. Why would they release a camera to market where people wouldn't make good use of a camera like this. They know that all people are going to do is bitch. because it wasn't made with advancements that weren't all built by the same electronics monopoly with a name that starts with $.
Always loved Dakine packs. They've made great stuff for the snowboard world for years. Check out Burton's photo packs, as well. Real world stuff for real world outdoor shooting by people that actually do.
<troll>I don't actually own a Sony A7. Like most people didn't own the 5DIII or D600 when they came out but saw fit to hop on the bandwagon and complain. But this is me marching in the street anyway. With torches and flaming cocktails beckoning answers in regard to the A7 bayonet light leak I just read about. Nice firmware update.</troll>
The second of my two now disqualified entries clearly satisfied every "rule" for this challenge. I would like to DQ the host.
MarkByland: I didn't see it in the specs, but can this do Sidereal Rate for longer term night sky exposures? With a so-so Polar axis alignment a person could probably take in some decent short exposures (15-30s) without much star trailing.
Not that I don't currently own a nice go-to equatorial mount. I wouldn't personally mess with Alt/Az due to my astrophotography requirements. I was just more curious if Sidereal was an included speed rate with this product.
I like the irony here.