nicoboston: The purpose was also to send a big "ENOUGH" following recurrent racism issues in France lately (as the country is more or less falling appart, it's very tempting to blame others).Good photographers and photojournalists are not in danger. Talented people will always exist. They have to adapt. It won't be easy, but they have to! Everybody loves nice images. Now everyone can capture decent images with good cameras and phones... If everyone had access to good violins and pianos, it would be more difficult to become a recognized musician. It's competition... Don't give up, photographers ! Newspapers will disappear, you won't ;-)
Yes! It is market, it is just what people want.
I like your final words: Don't give up, photographers! Newspapers will disappear, you won't.
Only experienced photographer got good shot when he put his camera above his head.
This reminds me the old Panasonic FZ50, 1/1.8", 35~420mm, f2.8~3.7.And of course, Stylus 1 should have a much better high iso performance than the FZ50 does.
Roland Karlsson: Interesting.
I wonder how it performs if it is applied to a rather good lens, like an average zoom kit lens?
No, it is against the idea at the very beginning of their research. That is the reason why they started with a typical simple single piece of glass. Image from an average zoom kit lens mixed with all kinds of distortion (although improved) may fool the software.
Jogger: the old adage.. garbage in, garbage out .. seems to apply here
The key point here is that it is not garbage if one can figure out what is in it.
RichRMA: When they tried this with the Hubble Space Telescope (correction of optical defects via computer) they got only marginal results. It took a new set of corrective optics to do the job. You can't "create" results in resolution using software, you can only approximate.
The key point is that they don't treat the final 'resolution' directly. They try to figure out why the final resolution is no good when using a certain type of single glass element.
PowerG9atBlackForest: My English is not very good but I would like to say it like this: It won't work because by laws of nature, chaos (a blurred point is chaos, literally spoken) once it has been created can not be completely reconstituted to it's former organized origin due to the lack of single-valued information.
No, it cannot be completely....., and no one expects so. Even in designing lens, while you add one element to do its job, the element itself creates other problems. The whole idea here is that a cheaper and much lighter software has a chance to replace an expensive and heavy lens while both of them will never be perfect.
km25: I can see these programs improving and correcting. But remember garbage in garbage. Any sharpness or correction is a guess by the program to what maybe correct. If you take a picture of Pung, a program can only go so far to make it look like Nicole Kidman. If the info is not there it just will not be. Lens IQ is there or not, some correction yes, clean up yes. It is still better if you have a fine lens.
All those laws in physics are 'guess' too. Analysis is nothing but a better word for guess. Anyway, there are different levels of guessing, some based on some ideas and some totally grab from the air. We cannot get something from nothing but we do get something from something. Let's keep on finding those precious something.
Did Gaylord sue GOD since HE dumped snow on his work and thus made Alli's photo distorted as well as the stamp?
Zanearn: Earlier this year (2013), Fujifilm announced FinePix HS50EXR, which also has a DSLR-like body with similar size and weight than this a3000, and... a 1/2' sensor, at $549.95. About the same time, Nikon announced COOLPIX P520 with a 1/2.3' sensor, for $449.
I think the editor should compare a3000 with these cameras, since they are all DSLR-like and have similar prices, targeting the same group of customers.
Anyone can try this A3000 (at 55mm) and crop to get the same FOV (or frame, picture, ...) taking with one of those superzooms (at 800 or 1000mm) from a same position. Then he will have a solid idea about which one gets a better IQ.
Frank Neunemann: I love doing street photography myself, but while walking in the streets. I prefer to ask the possible subject for permission and a "no" means no.
I think that it is perfectly acceptable to shoot people the Bresson way, but these photographs are badly composed, badly lit and people look scared, stunned or plain stupid.
Why all this technical effort and equipment? Or is Mr. Tergo just too gutless to get out of the security of his truck and interact with his subjects? His approach is close to immoral, IMHO.
... what a jerk.
And a "yes" may destroy what I wanted to take before asking.I was wondering if a high iso setting without the adding light....
aardvark7: You couldn't make that £5000 could you? I mean, you were British once...
Connection emphasizes the precious time, that is NOW.
There is a voice detector missing. For instance, whenever an OMG was heard, a picture was taken.
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee: Lads and Lassies,
the Olympics is about competition, not photography. This is irrelevant nonsense!
So, let's see something upon competition, not those stupid poses on the stupid media day.
Marty4650: I looked at all his photos and couldn't find any that were "unpatriotic" or poorly done. I really liked them. He provided a fresh way to capture these athletes being themselves, and not in standard poses.
This might be what separates a good photographer from someone who is just a good technician.
I don't think these athletes 'being themselves' under the situation of the so-called media day. I would like to see pictures of any athlete only in competition.
Lytro is looking for a CEO and, that's all.
gollywop: It's true that these are one-light shots. But some of them are one light plus reflector and it clearly helps to have a bevy of lights on hand from which to choose the one light to be used. It's not like you've only really got one light.
One light is not one single beam light especially when something like a beauty dish is attached. As Larry mentioned, the dish size (and maybe its shape as well) plays a role here. A little on-camera flash just cannot match here.
Doug Frost: The P510 is yet another boring "super zoom" with a super slow lens. f/3.0 - f/5.6 maximum aperture. Are they kidding? Give me a super zoom camera with a constant f/2.8 maximum aperture throughout the zoom range and I'll buy it in a heartbeat. Is that really too much to ask?
Yes, sure it is and will be for quite a long from now.
rfstudio: Why isnt any of this company learn tht people needs better sensor rather than stupid long zoom with a quarter finger nail sensor ?????
People needs better IQ. If, a 1000mm zoom with a tiny sensor gives a better IQ of a wild bird than a 200mm lens on a DSLR does (shooting from a same distance and cropping), then the stupid long zoom isn't stupid anymore.
Any information on ISO range?