My only consolation is that I have more music talent than Bryan Adams.
Or Snapseed + GooglePlus = Instagram + Facebook.
....which is not going to happen either.
Timmbits: I was a little upset when they discontinues igoogle.com ...it brought everything together into the best homepage we had ever seen.
Google used to be a one stop shop for a diversity of tidbits - tools here and there - that made it compelling to use google.
But as google sheds parts and components because of money problems and internal cost-cutting, it is becoming less and less attractive.
The whole was worth far more than the sum of it's parts... and now that they are breaking everything off, the ship is sinking for me.
Time to jump ship - Google has rendered itself useless to me.
First it was iGoogle, which was just fantastic, and exactly what I wanted.
Then they start chopping away at other things because not enough people use them? Do enough people use Google+? What about Chrome OS? Maybe they should cut them off too!
mjolnirq: [Off-topic] question about language :)
I am a non-native English speaker, and the sentence
a) "Currently these screens utilize the fairly rare metal, indium"
caught my attention. Is it grammatically correct or should it read either
b) "Currently these screens utilize the fairly rare metal indium"
c) "Currently these screens utilize a fairly rare metal, indium"
? Both version b) and version c) would have an exact correspondent for the use of the comma in Italian, my native language, but the use of the comma as in a) would be unusual/wrong in Italian, hence the question.
Actually, I thought the correct way to write this sentence is:
"Currently, these screens utilize the fairly rare metal, indium."
Notice the first comma after "Currently", and the last comma after "metal".
nawknai: This is like a rich guy suggesting that poor people just earn more money.
I grew up in the 'burbs.
I live in the city now, so I can try some street photography, but landscape photography is on hold until my next vacation.
Well, I didn't say that if I drive 100 km away, I couldn't find something worth photographing. I could easily take beautiful landscape photos in a myriad of places.
I used to live within 10 minute walk of several beaches (and just 1 minute from the ocean). Guess what? Lots of photos of the same subject, and without being prompted by any article.
Heck, maybe I should have written an article proclaiming how easy it is. ;)
I don't live within an hour walk from anything that wouldn't be considered street photography.
If you didn't literally mean "the same subject at different angles" (i.e. the same city, but not necessarily the same building or street), which I'm fairly sure you did imply, then I've already done so with street photography.
This is like a rich guy suggesting that poor people just earn more money.
David Hart: Looking through the posted pictures, the only photos that stood out for me were from Toby Smith and Nadya Wasylko.
Toby's photos makes me curious about each location. It makes sense that he's worked with National Geographic.
Nadya Wasylko's Photos are staged model photos, but they feel fresh. Perhaps it's just because I never read fashion magazines.
The other photos just didn't grab my attention.
It does seem like the photographers were picked for their commercial endeavours. There is nothing wrong with using this criteria and I'm happy for their success.
I do think that the use of the word "Emerging" is confusing, given each photographer's resume. I was expecting to read about photographers who were just starting out (i.e. first job, first gallery show, etc.).
Yeah, some of them are quite good, but for example, look at James Michelfelder & Therese Sommerseth's photos. I like them, but they're kind of what I expect to see from a sports magazine studio shot, so I'd only rate them as "photos I liked" rather than "impressive."
Mssimo: Take a look a Geordie Wood's photos. Its the last one.
Why? Are you Geordie Wood?
I looked at every photo. That's 90 photos, right?
I was impressed with 2 or 3 photos, generally liked 15-20 photos, and laughed at 4 or 5 of them as I shook my head in disbelief (oh Muge....).
Cameras I'd rather buy: X100s, X-E1, OM-D EM-5, NEX-6, Sigma DP
This is a solid fail.
shutterdragon: Welcome improvements! I still want Fuji to support in-camera TIFF.
Personally, I agree about the TIFFs. Sure, they're big files, but at SD cards are large enough nowadays that having the option would be nice. I'd take a TIFF over a RAW file. Also, it's a proper image at that point, camera settings would be taken into account, and they would still offer editing flexibility. It's better for archving/storage, especially in the future.
I don't know the details of TIFF, and its flexibility in editing when compared to RAW, but to me, having a TIFF option would be great.
Chris_in_Osaka: I've owned an E-1, E-300, E-3, E-420 and E-620. None of those cameras come close to the experience I have shooting with my OM-D.
I even dumped my 5D Mark II after realizing the OM-D is so right for me.
Now, going back to full frame in the future is a possibility if I find I need more shallow depth of field, which I really don't. Going back to regular 4/3'S? Never.
I think most people who have switched from 4/3's to the micro 4/3's in the form of the OM-D would agree. I'd rather see them shut down their 4/3's development and invest that money in further micro 4/3's improvements. Oly can't afford to have the 4/3's albatross around it's neck weighing it down in an increasingly exciting and competitive mirrorless market.
Also, never mind camera bodies, they also can't afford to have a factory in Tatsuno, Japan producing super high grade lenses virtually nobody buys.
@marike6: NOT having a pro system isn't so bad when pros in many areas don't shoot with 4/3 anyway. Sensor, low-light performance, AF, and features have all moved on since the E-5, and pro users of 4/3 would have had to move on in order to keep up with their peers.
My feeling is that if Olympus abandons 4/3 users, they'd be abandoning mostly hobbyists and weekend shooters, not pros. Besides, a system is as good as dead when lenses aren't released or upgraded.
When m4/3 cameras were first released, I couldn't understand why they were necessary when they weren't much smaller. The E-4XX series of DSLRs were so small that I was planning to purchase an E-420 and a small prime lens to complement my Nikon DSLR system. Several years on, m4/3 has become very popular. It only makes sense for Olympus to move on rather than 'save face'. You may want them to continue, but there's nowhere for the DSLR market to go but down, and Olympus is sinking faster than Canon and Nikon.
brianj: Interesting, it has the same size and type of sensor at the canon SX260HS, yet has not got as wide angle nor anywhere near as much zoom. Ah, I see, its called enthusiast because it sports a f1.8 aperture lens.
I wondered what the name 'enthusiast' meant!
It obviously refers to people who would get excited to use such a camera rather than their mobile phone. ;)
Richard Murdey: If you are reading that thinking "why on earth..." the answer is clearly "because he can". He has the lenses, cameras, and test bench. Even if the result is what we all intuitively understand - a lens is only as good as the camera it's on, and a camera is only as good as the lens on the front - it's nice to see the numbers fall out to support that.
No one should be using that kind of information to help them make a buying decision though. A minute difference in resolution one way or another is simply not "field relevant": It does not significantly influence the quality of photos you can take, or the facility with which you can take them...
People are talking about this review as if it is a proper lens review. It's not. Well, at least not all of it.
If he wanted to compare apples with apples, he would have used a D600 for his test. He didn't because he wanted to take the Nikon 24-70 mm, which is worse than the Canon version (fwiw, I'm a Nikon guy), and outresolve a Canon lens that's better.
It's a round-a-bout way of saying, "It doesn't matter".
Also, if you want to see a proper review, always look for Canon vs Sigma/Tamron reviews, not Canon vs Nikon. These tests are mostly irrelevant unless you're not a DSLR owner and wish to choose how to spend your $5,000.
smatty: Still no minimum shutter speed setting in Auto ISO!
Fuji, why haven't you been listening to the hundreds of requests from X-Pro 1 (and recently XE-1) users for the past year?
And even dpreview has pointed out the lack of this feature...
ChrishsChan, I don't think you even understand what we're talking about, not only regarding the minimum shutter speed feature, but Auto ISO in general.
The Auto ISO feature of the X-Pro 1 doesn't have a minimum shutter speed feature, and with the 35 mm, the minimum shutter speed is roughly 1/50th of a second, and cannot be changed manually by the user.
Shamael: we need a 30/1.4 and a 19/1.4 or 1.2, not a 2.8. The 2 lenses in 2.8 are good, but too slow. The 30/1.4 for dslr make a huge tandem with NEX and adapters, only problem is the bulky size. In E-Mount with AF it would be the absolute hammer. In this matter, Sigma plays Sony's game, the 20/2.8 and 16/2.8 seem to inspire them. Toooooo slow, is that hard to understand. And those who make fast ones use 35 mm, what is a bit too long again, 30 is better, and 20 is ok too.
There must be a reason. Perhaps it has something to do with the very short flange distance that prevents them from making a small prime? Perhaps they'd need to make the lens much larger in order for it to be good with the E-mount? I really don't know, but since it's not advantageous for Sigma to create a lens that doesn't sell due to poor specs, I'd have to assume that there's a reason for the slow primes on offer by both Sony and Sigma.
It's also the reason I would never buy a NEX system camera, and opted for the Fuji X-Pro 1.
Roman Korcek: So Sigma will offer a redesigned 30mm F/1.4 in addition to the new 35mm F/1.4? Is that not overkill?
Not really, considering the difference in their size and weight. The 30 mm f/1.4 has always been very small, and if I had a DX camera, I'd rather have the 30 mm rather than the 35 mm.
nawknai: Hi gtvone,
I'm a big fan of bags, even if they're not intended for the camera market!
I just wanted to tell you that as someone who likes his bags, I wouldn't buy a "suburban" camera bag, made of black nylon, that looks like it was intended strictly for gear. It looks like an electronics bag, which goes against the ethos of this line of bags, I presume.
Furthermore, none of these bags have good dimensions for its intended function,. The Sub Urban Disguise 5 sounds like a good size, but its proportions are too awkward to function well or look good. An 8" long x 8.5" high bag? Awkward, especially for mirrorless camera users.
Personally, I'd rather buy a regular shoulder bag (I hate to use the term "messenger bag" unless you can cinch the bag tightly to your back) and a camera insert into that bag.
Also, if you're going to make a bag with a flap that's not awkward, perhaps it's best to make a flap that isn't too long. That way, when you open the flap upwards and towards your body, you can still see over the flap without much issue.
And make sure the flap isn't secured with velcro!
Computer Controlled: If only they would have made the lens a 1.4, or even a 1.8. I sold off my X100 for the X-Pro1, but i do miss the X100. If they would have made the lens fast than an f2, i'd be all over it again!!
Exactly. An f/1.4 lens would have little benefit at a high cost in terms of weight and size.
If you wouldn't have sold your X100 if it had an f/1.8 lens, then you don't really understand cameras all that well.