I am not sure how many have clicked through to look at all the images but almost none of them will be familiar to photo enthusiasts even the Steichen image ( an arguably prominent photographer to enthusiasts) is unfamiliar.
It clearly illustrates that the art market is not the photo market. Content, scale and the standing of the artist and his or her marketing team are the key determinants of value/price.This is a world entirely alien to the enthusiast, and though seemingly stupid, outrageous, foolish or whatever, it is one that moves a lot of money and pays a lot of people good sums.
HarryLally: Who on earth is Andreas Gursky. What pretentious twaddle.
The art market is a business like any other. There is a belief system that supports the economic model. Just as gold has its mythology of value, so does art.
(unknown member): True photojournalism has to maintain very strict standards to avoid accusations of sensationalism or deception that invariably arise if anything other than white balance of a photo is corrected. So now we're to believe that the public wants to see Instagram shots from random bystanders in a newspaper? Instagram filters alter reality to the point that the photo can no longer be called unaltered or realistic or anything other than an artistic interpretation, and people with smartphones usually get snapshots.Perhaps photojournalists do need to innovate, but the true responsibility for innovation sits squarely in the laps of a paper's management. Maybe enough papers will cut the wrong things that those who stick to their guns and find novel ways to monetize their product, both hard copy and their online presence, will have all the demand coming from people not willing to put up with the excessive sacrifice of journalistic quality and integrity the other organizations will be guilty of.
Why will they complain? They aren't reading anyway.
mpgxsvcd: Most novice users think they need a 1200mm zoom lens. What they will actually need is a 20mm F2.8 lens and a good pair of walking shoes.
Pictures at the seashore might be compromised by the limit of the walking bit.
Tape5: All this superzoom stuff is a bit passe even for those who wish to photograph things they cannot see.
One monkey finds a fresh branch to grab and all the monkeys in the forest jump on it until it snaps.
If the branch doesn't snap, in a few years we will have 5-12000000 superzooms.
DPR should do an image comparison against the 120,000 dollar Canon 1200mm/5.6.
The difference will be visible but for the buyer the discount for the hand holdable version will outweigh the Canon. Also 1200mm is always handy when you need it.
smatty: But all these wonderful improvements and extra features aside, I am now puzzled even more why there is still no update for minimum shutter speed control in Auto ISO?
Why is this a long implemented feature on the X10, X20, X100 and X100S, yet it is still omitted in the X-"PRO" 1???
Pros use manual ;)
dave gaines: There's no comparison to those outstanding lenses mentioned in the review, the Olympus 14-35 mm f/2 or the longer 35-100 mm f/2. Literally no comparsion to the Olympus 14-35 or 35-100, partially because DxO Mark has not tested these two very sharp, fast lenses from Olympus, one in nearly the same mid-range zoom, 28-70 mm EFL.What's up DxO Mark? Test these two lenses. There's a new, improved Olympus DSLR on the way by year's end.
Whether you like them or not the lenses you reference are not available for APS-C and are woefully slow on m4/3. The new SLR you are hoping for is unlikely to be 4/3 but an updated m4/3. Oh, the price is sure to upset the penny pinchers in these parts.
Fast, High IQ lens. Great addition for a wedding and event shooter.
The aperture will aid in low light focus and sharpness PLUS the slight advantage in more DOF in APS-C means that there will be more keepers. A very important lens for anyone wanting low light capabilities. The IQ justifies the price. More sharp pictures to show the client/spouse. What is not to like?
PK24X36NOW: So, for almost as much money as a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens, you get a 27-55 f 2.8 "equivalent" that is almost as wide, longer, and heavier as compared with a 24-70 f2.8 FF. Taking into account that you STILL need additional lenses to cover the same range as a 24-70 f2.8 FF lens, Sigma has successfully shown that you'll probably spend more than the price differential between an APS-C body and a FF body trying to assemble a full set of lenses with the same range and equivalent noise capability (I won't say image quality, since it won't be equivalent in other respects more than likely) for APS-C, and that you'll likely have MORE weight to carry around based on the lens size/weight that will be necessary. Plus, of course, you'll still be stuck with a lousy APS-C viewfinder.
Thanks for making the decision to move to FF seem that much smarter, Sigma!
I can see you got your tech pundit credentials in a frantic week long study of foolish internet tropes. Congratulations on your Troll level 1 certification.
Beautiful job and an ingenious approach. Here is a person actually doing something creative. Kudos.
Trollshavethebestcandy: Nice!Soon we will just make up our own idea of the perfect camera and build ourselves. Web designers turned 3D printer coders for hire.
Better than whining blindly at manufacturers.
Photomonkey: Sounds great but the proof is in the pictures. I do believe that the operational improvements (if they are as good as advertised) will be a huge step forward.
While the current APS-C sensor in the 7D lags behind the competition it hardly falls into the dogmeat category. Other than pixel peeing and extreme PP abuse the files are every bit as good as anything out there. I shoot FF Canon and my friends shoot FF Nikon and we cannot see the difference between them.
Sounds great but the proof is in the pictures. I do believe that the operational improvements (if they are as good as advertised) will be a huge step forward.
nathantw: Pentax is definitely recycling old names from their past. The MX-1 used to be their all manual camera. Just waiting for the ME or ME Super to come out.
I think H1-a has a nice ring.
The difference between the default cameras listed is minor bordering on invisible. More proof that absolute IQ is becoming a non-issue.
T3: Beautiful, compact APS-C ILC cameras like this make carrying around a big, fat, ugly, conventional DSLR as your everyday shooter less and less appealing.
If I did not have to use a 5Dmk3 for my TS-E lenses for my business, I would be on mirror less like flies on poo.I will be using MILCs for events and weddings but still can't use them for architecture.
attomole: So View finder, shutter speed and aperture ring are swapped out for flippy screen, Mode switch and control dial. And Fuji muzzle sweeps the flanks of Panasonic and Olympus uFT and the APSC DLSR market by showing its serious about the system nature of its X cameras with an entry Model.
It may not be the camera you were wishing for but it is the camera Fuji was smart to put out to entice more users to its flavor of camera crack.You may note that EVERY comment section on DPR is populated with a chorus of price whiners. This offers the market a price point that is very attractive yet I know that never really stops the whiners.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Mirrorless, as it is done now, is a path that leads to nowhere. Cropped sensors will never equal full frame. The way to go is the one Sony pointed at with the RX1: full frame mirrorless. Price can be a problem, I know, and then there's the lens size issue, but mirrorless cameras like this one are uncapable of the kind of dynamic range a full frame sensor can offer. I use a mirrorless camera alongside a 35mm film one, so I'm not writing this out of bigotry or cynicism. These are my findings after comparing results.And no viewfinder is an issue, too - although there will always be the X-E1 for those who can't do without one.
Sounds very similar to the arguments made about 35mm from medium format users in the 60's. And the sheet film users about medium format shooters in the 30's.The amateur format of today is the pro format of tomorrow.Ask the 'togs at the Chicago SUn Time about phones.
cgarrard: Decent price, bet that grip isn't comfortable though... needs to be deeper into the body a bit (wider) by about 1/2" from the looks of it- however, I'd need to hold it for a 100% sure opinion. No viewfinder/option I presume, that's fine since they have the X-E1 but would have been neat to see Fuji put a viewfinder on this one then every camera in the line up would have one.
Btw, that brown and silver one is SERIOUSLY sexy looking. Wow.
Next year everyone will have a brown option.
stealthhacker: fuji may be good at retro design, but their lens&accesseries are quite expensive. and the body is bulkier than its competitors.
There are always uglier and poorer cameras to choose.