Resom: 1 - hmm, don´t know. Nothing special.2 - good, but not special3 - I unterstand the idea, but this is really a plain snapshot4 - interresting, but overprocessing at its best?5 - huh? I miss the cat?6 - wow, very good point of view, like it!7 - ?8 - wow², never seen this! Thanks!9 - flat, don´t like it10 - wow³, great shot!11 - I see the pain, but not the vision12 - nice
No doubt, the most pictures are better what I'm doing. But some picture truly not from "World Photography Awards finalists".
Picture 5 ... sorry, but mum make a snapshot of her p*ssed-off doughter, because she must sing in front of 10.000 people in the show "Sweet Pink Girls Superstars"?
Spot on analysis.
gwcphotography: Umm, I don't think he's Korean (name isn't Korean), and his website doesn't mention graduating from a Korean design school...
Where exactly did that factoid come up?
Yeah, pretty sure he is Taiwanese.
24Peter: Thanks Erez for your article. I use this technique for product photography. I have clients that produce micro-precision adjusters and other parts. The entire product must be in sharp focus for their catalogs & other marketing materials. I don't like to use the auto-blend option in Photoshop however. I use the File>Scripts>Load files into stack with the auto align option but then manually mask my layers to find the sharpest points of focus. The Photomerg/auto-blend processing in CS5 is too hit or miss for me.
You can manually adjust the Photoshop masks that Photomerging makes automatically. Could save you a lot of time.
Murray Rothbard: You can't own an image, an idea, a sound, a flavor, anything that is not tangible and subject to objective, universally agreed-on parameters. You can own a piece of paper on which animage is printed, you can own a digital file containing color data, but you cannot own particles of light. If you don't want anyone to "steal" your image, then keep it to yourself. Otherwise, as the expression goes: What has been seen cannot be unseen."
You can't own an idea? Are you serious? What do you think a patent is?
I want to know how the designers can look at the camera and be like, "Yep, that looks good." Looks like the styling of the first dSLRs.
noneyabidnis: sweet baby jesus - thank you for making the credit card company increase my limit by another 6 grand. I HAVE to HAVE this camera.
Here's a responsible idea: don't buy stuff you can't afford!
mrmut: I don't see the point. CF standard is nice, fast, has a great form factor and is widely adopted. The smaller alternative is excellent SD card. Why add another one?
I've had a friend get a pin broken off. Not great form factor.
I usually think it's tacky but the first image is extremely well done. After that, not as much.
john: color management are only good for publishing, like matching a pantone color, they produce flat boring color in photography, because color in real life are nt that vivid and saturated
Color management isn't always about matching your images to the real world color. Most of the time, it is about matching what you see on your monitor to what you get from a print.
Should have been named the SB-901.
What's the point of having the lenses an inch from each other? The 3D is hardly going to have any effect...
Can't wait for 3D to die out.
rsf3127: I prefer my 35mm 1.8f prime. I use my legs to zoom.This superzooms produce the same IQ you can get with P&S cameras.
Superzooms do not make your dSLR a P&S. Most of the image quality concerns of P&S are noise, dynamic range, and tonal quality, none of which are affected by the lens.
Tim in upstate NY: When I first discovered DPReview back in 2003, this was a photographer's go to site for learning about about cameras and lenses. In recent years, we've seen more and more news stories and now articles about video cameras, printers and if this article means what I'm afraid it might mean - eventually - televisions! Are you guys in Seattle going to turn this site into another C-NET?
I'd love to see more lens reviews. Or camera reviews. Or stuff realted to....digital photography.
patcam7122: How can anyone possibly assess the capabilities of this camera if all you let us see are ISO 100 samples?
I came here to say that too. Nikon must have stipulated.
Jim Ku: hello? ISO100?
All the shots are ISO100. Hard to tell high-ISO performance at all.
Any guesses on price?
Mr Fartleberry: I shoot at ƒ8. Why are camera lense makers so obsessed with these high priced fast lenses? I need performance, if I want more speed I'll jack the ISO. "small-image sensors or smaller" WTF does that mean????
Because not everyone has the luxury of shooting f/8 all the time. You ever shoot in anything but bright daylight? Inside of an old church during the ceremony of a wedding? Ever want shallow depth of field?