57even: Without comments and forums traffic on this site would fall off a cliff.
It's like democracy. Everyone gets to vote, even the daft, the dumb and the antisocial. It sounds like a recipe for disaster until you consider the alternative.
Even when people react badly to an article or another comment, it's a sign that they are unsure of themselves, and therefore probably reluctantly taking things on board.
Commercial self interest is not incompatible with the point that engagement is a way to encourage people to come to a site, which is why you are here for a start.
It's commercial self interest to make products that people need and want and let them choose. Would you rather someone else decided for you?
If you hate it so much, you can leave any time.
Without comments and forums traffic on this site would fall off a cliff.
They don't ADD, they complement. It makes the heroes of history seem more immediate, more recognisable, more like us. Which is interesting and quite harmless.
BTW if you prefer B&W that's fine. I care as much about that as I do about which kind of music you like. Which, in case you are wondering, I don't. Opinions you don't pay for are mostly worth the fee.
I agree. There is nothing more boring than a blue sky as a backdrop, but a grey overcast sky can add real mood and character to a picture. I much prefer shooting in this kind of weather, which is just as well considering I live in London.
But as the author says, it's really only possible with modern cameras with good DR and post processing technique. Personally I don't have an issue with that if the result looks natural. After all a default JPEG tone curve is just that...default.
new boyz: EVF is the future. OVF, you can start dying now.
The only thing EVF needs is faster refresh on consumer products, but its been used to shoot action for years....on video and TV cameras.
57even: Another Frankencamera from the big two. If this sensor is so good, why not just drop the mirror and put in an EVF for those poor videographers?
The camera that made the SLR obsolete is...an SLR. Priceless.
Still, looks like a much better effort on the sensor front. Be interesting to compare with the D7100.
However what are the odds that this time next year all sensors will have on-sensor phase detection.
Why would I want to do that? Its just an oversized NEX.
@tkbslc please be serious. This is a camel not a racehorse. I don't give a monkeys about OVF having used both. Just need a faster refresh rate.
Most of their consumers just want a Canon badge on their camera.
Another Frankencamera from the big two. If this sensor is so good, why not just drop the mirror and put in an EVF for those poor videographers?
I guess articles like this tick off all the people that have sunk a load into a DSLR system and think they should carry it all around all day to justify the investment.
But CSC cameras for the most part have IQ indistinguishable from DSLRs. In fact in some cases better because the AF is generally more accurate, even if not so good for moving stuff.
As a travel camera I don't see my Fuji X-e1 as a compromise, I see it as an entirely viable alternative. And I have owned six APSC DSLRs over the years.
The D800 does of course have the edge, but not all the time. Sometimes it's like trying to drive a Mercedes S class through little mountain roads in France.
Frugaltraveler: perhaps some of your DP Review guys should have had a look some time ago at the Micro four thirds systems as they have more matured than the "newly APS-C" mirrorless systems. Hence more lenses are available. Wasn't it the Olympus OM-D E-M5 that made it camera of the year 2012 here on DP Review?
2012? That was so last year.
PerL: 1. No question - DSLRs are still the way to go for best results.2. If you dont want to make any effort, I guess it is time for another hobby.3. There have always been simpler, more portable, easier cameras to use, but always as a complement to the real stuff, and everybody knew it.4. When convinience is king - the end of photography as an art is near.
So HCB should have used a 6X7 camera instead of a 35mm Leica then?
There's generally nothing more amusing on the average afternoon than reading the Dpreview pundits' opinions on art.
Modern classical music and jazz are considerably less "popular" than pop music and they are much harder to understand, but does that make them rubbish? Is popularity the only arbiter?
My purchase decisions are based on lots of factors. Professional review sites are somewhat tied to their testing methods, but are certainly consistent, detailed and with lots of samples. If DPR and Imaging-resource.com agree then I usually think I'm on firm ground though.
Some specialist sites (like Photozone.de and Lenstip.com) are refreshingly honest and informative, and LensRentals is a useful source of QC info. DXOmark is exact and sterile and you have to understand what it's telling you, which may not actually matter in real life.
User comments and forums I take with a pinch of salt. You can generally tell someone who has some experience from someone who does not, so they can be useful for the odd subjective opinion, but reading through enough of them allows you to get a feel for persistent QC issues.
Then of course, I have to try one out in a local store....
Anyone who reads this and doesn't squirm a bit isn't being honest with themselves. I suffered from GAS, though I'm largely cured.
Firstly, I no longer purchase on the basis of "if I had one of those..." though I did, as my Elinchrom kit will testify. I just realised it was too much effort to keep discovering I was only average at things.
Secondly, I have had a 10 year battle with QC. I have grown weary of faults, some major some minor, which can't be successfully or permanently fixed under warranty.
When the pleasure of acquisition is replaced by anxiety, when you find yourself testing each camera or lens for 3 weeks instead of using it, you are half way there. If your gear spends more time with Nikon or Canon than in your bag, you are almost cured.
Buy stuff you know you will use and make sure it works, then keep it till you wear it out. Any merely "good" lens or camera that works is better that one that's "excellent" but doesn't, and way better than one you never use.
57even: If you had a choice between better live view AF and better DR and noise performance, which would you choose?
I guess the responses prove what I suspected. Stills and video shooters want different cameras.
If you had a choice between better live view AF and better DR and noise performance, which would you choose?
What it is is the ultimate social media camera, allowing you to develop and upload photos and video on the move, add comments, and download apps that support the camera (endless possibilities there for third party add ons like time-lapse, large pano stitches, geotagging etc.)
In fact I can see a lot of bloggers, estate agents, travel writers, photojournalists and so on liking this a lot. Of course, I can do the same thing by using a Canon or Nikon with a decent tablet, but it's far less seamless and a lot more to carry.
We now have two extremes from the Leica-like Fuji (all mechanical controls and no concessions to new fangled social media nonsense) to this Samsung. My preference as a traditional stills shooter (shooting for prints) with very little interest in social media is for the Fuji, but it IS nice to have choices.
It's not like everyone has to like it as long as it works for some. Certainly Samsung have the space to themselves and I can see why some would love it.
Well, it IS hideous....
But people pay huge sums for expensive Swiss watches with standard Seiko quartz movements which are also available in $300 watches.
But this was designed by an interior designer who specialises in rich men's yachts.
spidermoon: Don't think, obey and consume. No need of top photographers and writer nowday, just use emotions, take picture and videos in the very heart of action, put few comments and send them quickly to your reader, before the corpse became cold. Wash, rinse, repeat, with some ad's in the middle. That's the new news today, for brainless zombie customers.
People really need to get their head around the impact of enabling technologies. Newspaper businesses were necessary because of the investment required to run large presses and distribute millions of paper copies.
They are now almost irrelevant. As news switches to online media there will be much greater input from freelancers (both images and content) and even personal blogs.
It is high time news was democratised, even if it causes issues of its own. Efforts by the media moguls to own online content are doomed, and I think that's a good thing.
Lets look at facts. If the paper had gone out of business, the PJs would be out of work anyway.
A lot of breaking news content is gathered from the public. Whatever the quality, the impact of a pixellated iPhone photo or video taken at the time of the event is always going to have more impact that one taken later. Reporters that turn up later only need to photograph a couple of witnesses and the scene.
The demand for quality editorial photography and coverage of known events and situations can indeed be covered by reporters themselves, freelancers or news agencies. There will still be "great images" but smaller papers will simply buy their photos from Reuters or some other agency. Very few have the wherewithal to lead.
Photojournalism is not dead. Like many other specialisations it is moving towards freelance rather than salaried employment. The upside is that the freelancer can retain the rights to the image and sell it to whoever they like.