rallyfan: I suspect a used X10 would be a more reasonable proposal given the high pricing of this, and the modest IQ.
As to the layout and controls, we are rapidly approaching the stage when neither will have any sort of context, in that generations of photographers are coming that will have never used "classic" controls and will have never used a film camera.
This is great news, because we'll finally break free of the "film" mentality and move forward. The nostalgia is not just pointless, it's counter-productive at times.
Anybody here work as an X-ray tech, an orthopedic, or a radiologist? Do you miss the days of developing and fixing X-ray film and autorads? Do you wish you could get the "feel" and "control" back today, or would you rather use a modern interface and have your patients get their results instantly, with the possibility of further analyses using a computerized interface? Hm...
Why are photographers still stuck when everyone else that uses imaging isn't? Must be hobbyists.
One IS paid for the process as there is no image without process.To the extent process needs to aid the production of the image the inclusion of controls to effect that is important.Film processing is no longer a part of photography for the most part, however control of the camera with adjustments derived from film cameras that actually are effective is useful to the creation of the image.Your question has been answered several times in this thread and your insistence that it hasn't does indicate trollish tendencies on your part.
If you were a professional photographer you would pay a lot of attention to process as it is intimately involved in the final result. Photography is often conducted in disparate environments that require quick, reliable adjustments. Radiology is comparable to studio photography in that the conditions are tightly controlled thus changes are minimal after initial setup. Snarky comments about artistry don't make you look clever, they make you look like a troll.
Actually radiology and photography are not similar at all. Radiology is a job where the process is generally uninteresting to the practitioner. Photography is generally intimately tied to process for most photographers. I want to get paid for my work as simply as possible and the traditional dials and layout of film cameras do this with far greater efficiency than a multiplicity of buttons and menus. One does not need endless options, just a few easily accessed ones. Thus I CAN get my work done more quickly.
McQuestion: One of the stats that I find misleading is the "maximum" electronic shutter speed, listed at 1/32,000 sec. That is the maximum exposure rate per scanned line of pixels. However, the actual scan rate per frame is more like 1/10 sec. This hinders any functionality that people usually associate with high shutter speed, freezing action.
I tried this with the XT1, which boasts an even faster electronic shutter speed, any motion registers as a slur across the sensor.
While I agree, the real advantage is for those wanting to shoot wide open in bright sun where the scanning limitations do not come into play. Fuji is very aware of the attractiveness of shooting wide open with its customer base.
This was earlier:http://flashhavoc.com/godox-rs400p-rs600p-xenergizer-released/price is better and it already represents a third generation.
ethanolson: I prefer an integrated head. Yeah... it's not good for handholding but I like 'em better. Also, these are a bit on the expensive side.
I agree on the price as the Chinese already have units out there with specs like this for$500. However I do like the idea of a light weight head and at the poet pack at the bottom of the stand for stability.
fredlord: Well, it's less expensive than the C1 Cube or even the PhotoClam geared heads. I do dislike the Manfrotto QR system though.
Absolutely. Their QR system is nearly useless.
Just a Photographer: More resolution at the cost of image sharpness of everything over f8.0 due to diffraction. People will soon find out that the more megapixels doesn't automatically imply more sharpness and detail.
To start learning about physics and the laws of nature and why diffraction kicks in with this camera. Read this:
FYI. The Canon 5Ds sensor pixel density is 4.1uM.
Yeah, its a gear forum with a storm of noise of repeated anecdote untested or unverified or unobserved by virtually everyone here. Great way to increase the knowledge.
Wow! So many lectures from armchair optical experts! We are so fortunate to have harnessed the collective wisdom of repeated anecdote at every posting of new DPR article. It's like magic!
Francis Sawyer: Canon is so far out in the weeds, it's pathetic.
Still no intervalometers in their cameras (a simple, essentially free feature that every modern camera should have). Their lenses still have shitty servo rings instead of real mechanical focusing action.
They don't even have a reasonable 35mm lens. They have two overpriced boondoggles with IS systems in them. At 35mm? Really?
It's as if no one over there knows anything about photography OR video.
We are waiting for you to save us from the nightmare of Canon's evil rule.
nunatak: priced at more than twice it's weight in silver — it's a steal. :)
Especially since silver has no workmanship. ;)
justmeMN: Canon estimates that they will sell 6.4 million interchangeable lens cameras this year. Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong. :-)
@nekrosoft. So the market is wrong? You might not like their preferences but it is the market demand that gives us things like reality TV the Vege-matic and Canon EOS-Ms.
RichRMA: The FF pleas continue, 24mm isn't "wide" enough. The wide angle fetish that has infected so many photogs continues to plague the hobby. Whatever happened to people shooting landscapes for instance, with 50-100mm lenses? Do we REALLY need more distorted-looking seascapes with long-exposure blurred water?
Use the Rokinon 14. Its plenty sharp and you don't really need to focus.Also cheap.
Peter CS: Note to Canon - 50MP might sound great, but landscape photographers are just as much interested in great dynamic range, and this is why almost all serious landscape photographers have migrated to Nikon! I have held on to my L glass and love the new 11-24mm and 16-35mm, in hopes of a serious Canon rival to the Nikon 600,700,and 800 series. Also, I greatly appreciate the fact that Canon is bolder than Nikon in clearly labeling which lenses are weather-resistant. I hope that the 5s does have better dynamic range than it sounds like it does - and certainly better than 5dIII! I can only imagine trying to create HDR images from these huge image files - what a pain! (and may need/require necessary and expensive computer resources/upgrades!).Canon, please just give us a 24mp or higher, high dynamic range camera so I can finally dust off my L lenses in storage and permanently retire my 5d and problematic Nikon FX equipment for good!Lastly, thumbs up to Nikon for the 750 pivoting screen!
Actually ALL the manufacturers are falling short if the comments in these fora are any indication. Nikon and Canon -no mirrorless or WiFi, Fuji-X-Trans is smeary and low res+ poor video,Sony is clunky with poor ergonomics, M43-sensor too small. Etc, etc, etc.Canon now has 50 MP and Nikon doesn't. Does that mean Canon wins? Not really,but then they really weren't losing either. As to the comments on DR, I have yet to see anything from my Nikon friends (and they are legion) that the vaunted DR is actually visible and makes a difference in real life shooting. Showing me yet another cat picture is scarcely evidence.
Clearly the current cameras are not delivering the magical images we all pine for and thus we are being thwarted in our artistic ambitions. I am sad that our vision has been so cruelly denied us by the manufacturers that insist on making cameras that were unimaginable 5 years ago instead of making the cameras of 2050.
Silversilver: Color reproduction and DR is very important when targeting photographers needing high res. MF backs are used primarly for these first, then the resolution.Hope the 5DSR has good color reproduction, especially on the skin tones, not too redish, and better DR. Hopes the optics can follow too. At that time, i can't understand the bashing of a camera that has not been tested yet. Its a good move pro cameras get specialised, because serious pro photographers are too.
You can sing the praises of 16 bit output and the color reproduction of MF backs but in the end, careful profiling of all the devices involved and a lot of practice will allow you to get what you want.
goshigoo: 3 mm is huge difference in wide angle
F4 is fine as the relative motion at 11mm is less than 14mm by a long shot. And as goshigoo noted the Samyang/Rokinon 14 f2.8 is brilliant for that work IF you need 2.8
When using that lens for astrophotography I found I was using it at f4 as the vignetting was so strong that there was scant advantage to using it.
Ignat Solovey: Someone decided to beat Sigma by four degrees of diagonal field of view eleven years after original 12-24 came out. Several times more expensive and probably better... Until there is 12-24 Art out there... Somewhere... Sometime... I guess there is no other UWA lens to perform as expected on 5DsR, and 126 degree FOV on 51 Mp is yummy-yummy for interiors (less so for landscapes, we need to be careful about viewers brains), but for everyone else, who need JUST wide angle... Nope. Or Sigma.
I owned and used the Sigma for several years. It made money for me for sure but when I switched to the 17 Canon TS-E my clients noticed the difference in my images.
The Sigma WAS soft at the edges and when shooting interiors the sharpness of items near the edge was important. I have no fear of third party lenses and was using them before you were born. The fact is that my clients are making larger and large displays of my work and the gear has to support the output.
Sigma did not, Canon did. Yes, I had to pony up $2500 but it paid for itself in two jobs.$3000 for this lens is an easy justification as I will not worry a client will complain about a chair that is bit soft. Nor will I wrestle with the difficult to correct distortions.In the long run it saves me money.
If you cannot control your color or skin tones on Nikon or Canon you are doing it wrong.
The 12-24 Sigma was a great achievement but this lens is way better and is a far more credible tool for someone making a living with it.