Says so much about the Puffin in just one capture. Brilliant timing/viewpoint et al.
With my Mk I version of this lens when shooting wildlife, I can focus and zoom continuously with one hand without repositioning - push/pull for zoom and rotate for focus.
Now with rotary focus AND zoom, do I not have to reposition hand for each control separately?
Photo-Wiz: I'm still yawning. Maybe it's just me. But I don't understand the raison d'etre for this camera. Has Kodak not heard that while it was hibernating the world has moved to pretty cool video cameras on virtually every phone and every camera?
"Raison d'etre" indeed? Is that an old Kodak expression? Thank goodness English is still the "lingua franca" of the Web! Whatever that means. (:-}
I wonder if Kodak would consider reviving the Daguerreotype? There was something about the tone range, the whiff of Mercury vapour and adequate time to really get to know your subject during the extra long exposures, that has vanished from modern 'instant' photography.
Failing that Kodak might also like to revive 'Bromoil' or 'Carbro' printing process for the same 'Pseudo-8' cine customers who appear to have time and money to spare.
tony brown: 2+1/2 mins of Super 8 movie for $50 from a $500 camera? I think the director must have had a boozy night out with his Grand Father in a bar!The alternatives with modern cheap point and shoots can outdo that without having to add sound separately later when edited - onto what - well, digital video of course. How else do you expect anyone to view the result? Hope that copy of Dust & Blemish remover will work on video.
Can't believe the thinking. It sounds like the Family got together for Christmas and someone accidentally left their recorder on.
What on earth is supposed to be the advantage, please? Not price; not running costs; not battery life; not replaying unless you kept a silent Super-8 projector in that cupboard along with your first 1960's mobile phone. Since the sound is recorded separately, it won't play on a Super-8 projector will it? Or perhaps there is an external sound input from a audio player. Synch those too!
I agree there might well be a small niche market but for the once biggest photographic company in the world to see this as a way forward from their current difficulties is a disappointment. To me it seems like clutching at straws.
2+1/2 mins of Super 8 movie for $50 from a $500 camera? I think the director must have had a boozy night out with his Grand Father in a bar!The alternatives with modern cheap point and shoots can outdo that without having to add sound separately later when edited - onto what - well, digital video of course. How else do you expect anyone to view the result? Hope that copy of Dust & Blemish remover will work on video.
I see nothing in the rules about size requirements (max or min) and when I download one of your sample images , there is NO border.
What is the border requirement you speak of?
Another false insurance scam goes wrong! ;-)
Leandros S: If they could make it skin coloured, maybe that would help...
What, for only $6,200? Surely your expectations are too high my friend. It's lucky it has the right number of fingers!(;-}
CameraLabTester: 60% Fail Rate is totally off the scale for a precision instrument.
Quality Control total fail.
I quote: "The bottom line is that 4 of the Canon T6s and 2 of the T6i cameras we received had to be sent back because of a defect in the sensor stack (the layers of filter glass over the sensor). This is out about 10 copies of each; the others were absolutely perfect."That's 6 out of 20, i.e. 30% !!!
earthbound_ca: Why is it the long grass and rocks have been viewed 956 times (as I write this) and the young lady on the stairs has been viewed almost 2,500 times? People don't like rocks?
It is because of the composition of the grasses picture. No point of interest unless it's the TINY ship on the horizon; the eye just drifts off to the left with nothing to stop it but most of all, the horizon midway up the image.That's my excuse anyway.
lawamainn: When it comes to value for money, this camera is unbeatable! The resolution power alone makes it a winner. And the feature set is pretty awesome as well. I love it!
To which camera are you referring?
I have just viewed and enjoyed Parts 1 & 2 of your 1939 photo restorations - the year of my own birth. Particularly, I enjoy the thread of your family's story connecting these widely distributed pictures together just like a gentle soundtrack. It brings them to life and together and much more than otherwise.Very well done and thank you for sharing!
Valant: Anyone any idea what make the double decker bus (DD) in picture Nr. 8 is? Probably Daimler, they launched the first motorised DD in 1898, but it looks like a 1940's British bus. I tend to associate DD's with London and Britain in that era.
Many British DDs were Daimler in the 50s, and Leyland (before they became British Leyland incorporating Morris Austin vehicles).
I tripped over this 'ISOless' issue in some large threads recently and have found your article above to be the source material. It has given me much food for thought and practical experimentation with my Canon 6D. From sensorgen, I find the 6D to be a partial ISOless camera, ISOless from about 3,200 ISO, and have tried some experiments comparing brightened RAWs (in ACR) at 3,200 to those taken at ISO 102,800.
As you state, the noise is just the same but the gain of the ISO 102,800 setting has blown highlights when compared to the 3,200 + brightening. Note, there seems to be a considerable colour difference between the two methods, greatly reduced by also adding extra brightening to the green channel. So my tests continue with the prospect of never increasing ISO past the 3,200 setting unless the DR of the scene is low.
Thank you for the stimulating post. I will have to rethink much on the back of it. Empirical results will be my yardstick but thanks again.
My greatest debt to DPReview is for the cameras you stopped me buying with your in-depth reviews. You have saved me thousands! I am a sucker for the latest new gimmick.With deepest gratitude and best wishes to ALL at DPReview.
So near and yet so far.
Seen this review and another showing live in human hands - it is big.
If it was Full frame, same mount, 5 Fps for RAW AND HDR groups, preferably faster auto focus, and not too much dearer, I would buy it for all my old K-mount lenses.
The only advantage of the APS-C for FF capable lenses would be the smaller size but it isn't. The size is no problem as a user but would also almost do for a FF so the loss is the rest of the usable lens field in a camera whose major selling feature is the ability to mount all Pentax K lenses.
I await a Pentax FF follow-up with great anticipation. The K-01 is pointed right at the appropriate market and proved they are capable of delivering just what is needed, so let's be having it.
I hope this is just a simulation because I don't think they will ever have to make one!
Gold plated, crocodile-skinned, 35mm Leicas may well be 'gilding the lily' but where's the 'lily' here?