peevee1: Very impressive, but too limited for most due to fixed FL.
Interestingly the inspiration for this camera was the small 35 fixed lens rangefinders of the 60's and 70's that were prized by amateurs with a fat wallet. They took great photos and were very pocketable and encouraged off the cuff shooting.Same thing here. Great camera with good all-round ability at a price for the more prosperous hobbyist.
slerman: Sobel is only partially correct that, "The commercial value of art is scarcity." The image itself also holds value. The issue is whether the artist can/should retain some of the core value inherent in the image. I think they should.
We're going to explore these ideas and more in an exhibit--Fugitivart/Made to Fade-- at the Soho Photo Gallery in September. www.fugitivart.com
Perhaps William Eggleston would agree to display a Fugitivart print!
As Sobel is investing he is taking a risk. One is that the owner of reproducible art may, in fact, reproduce it!
tektrader: No the artist should have stuck with the original limited quantity of prints. If I was SOBEL I would have sued as well. This is a disgusting misuse of ownership. The copy wasnt even scanned from a negative.
Anyone could have done a print scan and reprinted. This is Wrong.
It has destroyed any credibility the photographer has for future limited print runs.
I think the principal of ownership is paramount and Eggleston is entitled to do as he wishes. Because of the fact that the new images are inkjet I think Sobel will see the value of his dye sub holdings increase dramatically.
DarkShift: Oh, it equals about 21mm f4.5 lens on full frame. Not too fast for a 900$ lens.
Vignetting is also very extreme, whopping 1.34 EV @ f8.
The speed IS f2.8. If you are commenting on the ability to display a narrow DOF you might realize that ultrawides are not selected for that but rather their angle of view. A deep field of focus is desirable for most applications this lens will be put to.As for the vignetting the Zeiss 21mm lens has 2.5 stops wide open. Fast lenses will show a lot of vignetting wide open so this performance is actually very good. As there is very low distortion couple with sharpness and speed it seems to be one of the few lenses to become a coveted standard of excellence.
Roland Karlsson: Its slightly less than 100 PPI. Quite normal for this kind of monitor.
But, what do you think about the future devices? Is not 200 PPI a more reasonable resolution very soon?
At normal viewing distances 100ppi is more than enough. I notice that around here everyone seems to zoom an image to 800% to complain about their gear. I think that any difference one will see at 200ppi as opposed to 100ppi will come from attempts by the display manufacturer to enhance apparent sharpness in their quest to sell a higher res monitor.
Paulo Ferreira: $47,000/61=$770 per picture! Cheap! Either the Beatles are not what they were or the photos are not what they should.
Unique historical photos are often inexpensive. The fact that you see them as cheap implies your opinion of their value. While I don't buy photos like this I am glad someone benefited from the sale.
Lot of unhappy people here but are they really the target market? This is at the bottom of their DSLR lineup and as such is on the radar of P&S upgraders. It competes with the lowest end offerings of Pentax, Nikon, Sony etc. This is a camera designed to be sold by the ton to those who are coming from a Powershot. As such it may appear magical.
GeorgeFellows: Bit worried about the dynamic range...probably best to wait for the full review to tell me and not my eyes, but those plane shots have some awfully clipped highlights (in my eyes). Sold my X100 recently to get a 60D so I can shoot my bros wedding, might buy another X100 but the image quality doesn't look any better (especially not for another £800) on the S and I don't need super fast autofocus etc... for the shots I would use it for.
I disagree.What I am seeing is exposure bias for the very dark interior of the cockpit with the sunlit windows in the BG being blown out at ISO 3200. The difference between this performance and any other camera on the market under these circumstances would be invisible.
I think we have to realize the current fashion of chirping on about DR stems from ignorance about light, image processing and the hope that a new metric will validate a bit of gear.The performance of the camera in these images reflects an average photographer's walkabout results. Excellent, but also indistinguishable from any number of cameras, especially when presented on the web. The delight in this camera will stem from all the usability, pocket ability and nostalgia it evokes in addition to its excellent IQ.
vFunct: Basically gorgeous... I only wish it was as small as the Nikon A.
Having handled the X-100 I am glad it is no smaller. I find the size to be the lower limit of comfort for me.
For those sneering at his work he starts out saying that this lens is not for everyone.Frankly his work is very appealing despite the detractors. As for it being in use for over 100 years that is true insofar as view cameras have been around that long. However the usual use has been to increase DOF and only rarely to decrease it.The technique is enjoying a fashion these days because of the renewed interest in alt. lenses.Just as Instagram and any number of PS actions give a photographer a look, this effect is another enjoying some fashion at the moment. As fashions/fads go at least it is attractive.
Benarm: this phone has more cores than my PC!
^ I thought you were suggesting I use my iPhone 4 as monitor.
rurikw: It's nice that they still come out with these old wysiwyg things in spite of pp.
@BJN, you can correct perspective in PP but it does not give the same effect as a proper shift in camera. You will also lose image area thus reducing your FOV. Some may also criticize the loss of sharpness from PC in PP.
Yay, I love the new upsurge in independent premium lens makers. Let's hope this sees a flood of new quality optics.I am looking forward to the real world performance of this intriguing lens. Yes, I can afford the Canon 24 TS-E II but I would love to save some money and support a manufacturer that wants to bring great lenses to market.
capanikon: Touch screens are not tactile. Buttons and dials FTW.
I think he meant "For The Wrecord" ;)
AZBlue: The "before" picture looked much better than the "after" version. The lighting is totally wrong in the "after" version. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
You guys can put up a tutorial and show us how its done I suppose, but I am not sure you would survive the trolls.
xpanded: Don't own the X-system, but them Fujiguys are serious people. Others could learn from them. Excellent info for potential buyers.
Fuji HAS made a high end mirrorless system. What they did was bring quality construction and unique sensor technology to the form. Something absent from competition focusing on plastic bodies and lenses. A Summicron 50 f2 may seem equivalent to a Canon 50 f1.8 to you but it makes a gigantic difference to those who care.
qwertyasdf: I always wondered why ALL camera manufacturers are so conservative and complacent with kit lens apertures. it's been 3.5-5.6 for general purpose and 4-5.6 for telephoto since the beginning of time.Fuji is the only exception, taking half a step (stop) at a time, now that's progress!
It's all about the price.
You ask for it, they will make it and we will whine about the price.
sportyaccordy: That is like eye-wateringly expensive.
Sensors are priced exponentially based on area though due to the odds of defects increasing w/sensor area, so hopefully an FX sized equivalent would only cost $2K or so. Personally I would still rather have a bare-bones FX cam w/the form factor of an old SLR but a legacy mount for <$1000.
FX is Nikonspeak for Full Frame (what used to be known as 35mm or 24x36mm).
jaygeephoto: This is a case where size really does matter. It's not so much about the megapixel count as it is about the size and type (CCD not CMOS in this case).Yes, there's nothing like shooting with high end FX camera form either Canon or Nikon for shear flexibility and ease of use. However, If you've ever used a large format camera such as a 4X5, you will appreciate the quantum leap in detail and tonality rendering that these backs can offer.
True, but these days almost no one ever gets to see these files on their monitor or in a print worthy of the detail. The images made with these tools are more often than not, destined for the web or at best a double page spread in a magazine.