I hope Ive knows knows enough about photograhy and camera control to make an effective design.
acidic: "Images can be wirelessly transferred to external storage devices, uploaded to Facebook and YouTube,..."
OMG OMG OMG!!! I can finally upload quality photos to my social networking sites on the fly! Bye bye, stupid iphone!
Please, don't be silly.L RAW + S JPEG quality mode solves your imaginary problem.
SETI: 1/8000 is better than D600's 1/4000
You could improve the way you handle the camera and take photos instead. Learn to anticipate the action so you don't need so many AF points blocking your view, and become a better photographer in the process.Just saying.
Let's hope it doesnt have the spaghetti distortion of the similar 14mm f/2.8 FX lens.
fmian: What is the point when this impossible emulsion is junk compared to the genuine Polaroid stuff? Even expired polaroid looks better than what Impossible is doing.And using their paying customers as a test bed is just sad considering the asking price.No consistency. Fades very fast. and colours/tones are random.
Not a commentary on the artists involved, but why do it when you don't know what the results will look like?
Ahh, I just asked him and was told they likely don't want to pay the royalty fees for use of the emulsion. Which is insane considering the price one pays for Impossible film.
nawknai: Finally, hipsters have a new type of film that they each discovered before his/her friends ever heard about it.
This is no more genuine than Instagram, so I don't see the point. Just use Instagram. This is just another example of the "bad is good" counter-culture hipsters trying to replicate a look and feel that existed in the past because of limited and imperfect processes and technology. Anything like this is going to be inauthentic anyway, as you're only getting these results by intentionally creating "bad technology". This is not a question of digital vs. film. This is more about film vs other film. In fact, compared to real Polaroid film, this is awful. It's like beta release of Polaroid film, before they perfected the recipe.
@ CaleidoI know the history of Impossible.I was not implying the staff are hipster, but rather the nature of the medium whereby it is unpredictable and inconsistent. Much like the results one gets with a holga camera, and how many holga users are classed as hipsters.I incorrectly mentioned instagrammers, as with instagram you at least have an option to choose what the end result is, so you could take a series of photos, several years apart, and still produce the same look.
This is pure hipster, and that's coming from a big advocate for shooting on film.Film emulsions are about consistency. Knowing what type to use to produce the look you have in mind, which is most suitable for the subject. And then being able to go back to the same film years later and get the same result.Impossible film is less about caring for the end result, and more (thus far) about just doing it cause 'Hey! I'm shooting with a Polaroid! I'm so retro!'. Just like most instagrammers apply a random filter and not put much thought into the result, Impossible film is about the same thing.
I know one guy here in Sydney who has made a better emulsion for himself in his own lab. Why impossible can't do it is beyond my understanding.
What is the point when this impossible emulsion is junk compared to the genuine Polaroid stuff? Even expired polaroid looks better than what Impossible is doing.And using their paying customers as a test bed is just sad considering the asking price.No consistency. Fades very fast. and colours/tones are random.
AbrasiveReducer: The consumer photo business began with convenience and for Kodak, ended with convenience. Things took off with "You push the button, we do the rest" (you returned the camera to Rochester and everything was done for you, right down to loading a fresh roll). And it ended with digital photography which took off, initially, not because of quality but because you got to see your results instantly and for free.
Of course, there will always be enthusiasts. But mostly, the camera business revolves around convenience. If your digital camera doesn't perform well at ISO 6400, that's considered a real inconvenience. Macro focus should touch the lens' front element. Exposure is bracketed, lenses are stabilized, focus is (usually) lightning fast, and of course, automatic. In short, you push the button, your camera does the rest. You choose the best shot from dozens or hundreds taken at no cost and that's why the best photos on Flickr are as good as anything from a "professional".
@ FrancisWhile I usually enjoy reading your posts, I don't understand what copyright has to do with the matter at hand. It's just as relevant in film photography as it is in digital.The only thing I have noticed is that photographers these days tend to me awfully willing to give all their hi res shots to the client so they can easily print it elsewhere, rather than making them go back to the source to get prints.I see and print so many crappy wedding photos these days, if I was shooting that bad I'd only want to print them myself so I can make sure I fix my mistakes.
snegron: Looks like big corporations won at last; film is dead. Now we have no choice but to use digital 100% of the time. I'm sure the higher ups at Kodak knew this way in advance and more than likely had some back door deals with other investors. Thanks a lot Kodak.
@snegronThere are perhaps 15-20 retail stores in greater Sydney that develop c41. Maybe more. About 4-5 that can process E6 and Black & White.Working in a small retail one myself (we only do C41) I'd say we push through at least 50 rolls a week.There is a small resurgence in film users at the moment, and it will continue to grow as people realise what digital takes away from the image making and viewing process.I will also point out that processing my own Black & White is an extremely satisfying feeling. It has a visible heart and soul that digital strips it's images of.Kodak may be in it's final throes, but film is certainly not dead.
These are my sentiments exactly.Digital photography in this day and age is giving people a false sense of accomplishment, making it seem as if no effort or knowledge has to be put in to produce a good, compelling image.The value and quality of photography as an industry has dropped as a result of this. Educational institutes, training providers, print output device manufacturers, and professional photography in general now follows a 'that's good enough/most people won't notice the difference' attitude towards image making. While the majority of the population now is content in viewing their images on ~72dpi screens without even realising that a good percentage of what they are looking at is actually dot pitch, and not image information. It's a visual medium folks, yet visual acuity has been pushed aside from a desire to rush in learning and producing images.I can only hope the masters and their knowledge rise to the top again one day, after this glut is over.
DPReview. Last line of the first paragraph states 'We've had a chance to handle the P7100 and have prepared a preview looking at the changes.'
P7100.Just thought I'd point it out.
Pull out screen is long overdue, and the design looks like it will handle better than the older models (they felt good anyway).The lens brightness is a welcome thing too.
fmian: Good to see sensor development moving full steam ahead. Will be nice to start seeing it in larger sensors eventually.If they could only improve technology at the same rate with batteries, computer monitors and home printers.
I was thinking more along the lines of high end compacts actually.But I guess it seems like phone cameras are encroaching into that market anyway.
Good to see sensor development moving full steam ahead. Will be nice to start seeing it in larger sensors eventually.If they could only improve technology at the same rate with batteries, computer monitors and home printers.
fmian: Olympus camera division seems to be taking advice from the endoscopy division on how to bend over their end users.How many high end E system users sold off their gear cause Olympus has all but left that system dead in the water and been concentrating on Micro cameras.Now they must be kicking themselves... or not if they have migrated to other PRO systems that majority of the industry shoots with, and has more support and stability than Olympus.Also, EM5 users now being told officially by Olympus that their 'expensive' high end camera is not good enough for pro lenses. They must be feeling pretty sore as well. Like constantly being told the best is around the corner, similar to Nikon and what they say about the 1 System.Olympus is clearly on life support, with this new dose of morphine designed to keep the left over signs of life from kicking and screaming towards it's demise.
'except that the comparison with the Nikon 1 system is wrong'
I was referring to how Nikon released the 1 system and then after made statements that the sensor is capable of doing 2k and 4k video. I think they mentioned a more pro/manual oriented body as well. ie. 'We can do better, but we won't give you a better product. You'll have to wait for that.'So (potential) anxious users wait a year for an upgrade, and then Nikon announce the equally as underwhelming J2.
In a similar vein, Olympus says of the EM5 in their product brouchure, 'The FAST AF represents the pinnacle of Olympus AF technologies.'And then several months after release officially state otherwise.
How can you not feel burnt by that?
ThomasSwitzerland: Interesting corporate story
I sold all my Olympus digital cameras a year ago, but kept the Pro lenses in the shelf. The color, sharpness and contrast in total is - in my view - even better than Leica lenses I also own. I do not rate by lab charts, but in the field work.
As soon as Olympus offers something like an E-7 four thirds – I will return and buy. I find the MFT some different class – for holidays=ok, or making snapshots. Serious work with MFT – no way. Just by the tiny dimensions, and a high class optical viewfinder cannot be matched. Direct light passed thru glass in the finder will always be better than converted light by sensors and electronic circuits.
Today’s technology will enable FT to have much improved noise and dynamic range behavior. The gap between FT and APS-C will narrow. Olympus will make a smart move by serving the FT market. Because their treasures are the optics.
The future of Olympus continues to unfold. I wish them best of luck and courage.
I wrote: "Are you not concerned that you are seeing a pixellated messed up processed version of what the lens sees when you look through an EVF?"
I guess I should have written 'highly processed' to differentiate between what the EVF is doing on the fly, and raw processing.
'Not if it is consistant with what the same sensor sees when I actually take the shot...'
In my experience the sensor does not take a scrambled aliased jagged noisy shot like an electronic viewfinder displays.
'On a related note, how do you process your photos then?'
Certainly not on an EVF (if I am using a camera with an EVF), and definately not on the LCD screen on the back of the camera.When I'm shooting black and white film I process them by hand. When I'm shooting DSLR I run them through Lightroom or CS5.
tgutgu wrote: 'Most DSLR optical view finders are worse than the EVF pf the E-M5: they are partly smaller, dim, usually with some clor cast.'A several year old 5D classic with a fast prime knocks the socks off the EM5 viewscreen.Please understand WHY an optical viewfinder may be small or dim before making such claims.Are you not concerned that you are seeing a pixellated messed up processed version of what the lens sees when you look through an EVF?
Nate21: I am guessing olympus will make a micro 4/3rd camera that uses both 4/3rd and mirco 4/3rd lens, it wil mostly likely be the OM-D replacement or the new section for the system only time will tell.
I'm thinking Olympus should have done this in the first place.