I wish people would stop using the term "semi-pro" when referring to these cameras. There is nothing "semi-pro" about them. From build quality to IQ, Penta offerings are certainly capable of being put to profitable use by any "pro" photographer.
As for the general concept of a "pro" camera, I sold a lot of images shot with a Nikon Coolpix 5700, back in the day. Maybe my clients got ripped-off by the non-"professional" camera I used.
In film days I shot Nikon and Mamiya MF — along with other brands on special occasions. I stuck w/Nikon during the early days of digital (once used a Canon D-30, which never felt right). I moved to Oly 4/3 on the introduction of the e-1, and then, in the past year, to Pentax (although I still shoot with and prefer Oly, in good light).
That said, my gear purchases are based in ROI and salable results.
The Pentax line seems to require more thoughtfulness as a photog in order to squeeze the most from the sensor. Good glass is essential with these bodies.
When it comes down to brass tacks, dollar-for-dollar, the feature set of the Pentax vs. offerings from Nikon and Canon are currently the best investment in photo equipment, hands down. These cameras are fine tools (I'm constantly impressed with the whisper of the k-5 shutter, for example).
As with any new body, I'll wait until the dust settles and the price comes down before I buy a k-3, but I will buy one.
Retro looks are fine — if you want to accessorize your wardrobe.
Digital cameras are not film cameras. The old film cameras — the good ones, anyway — were models of mechanical craftsmanship. Film (and glass, as always), were variables. The best mechanical/flim cameras were those used by people such as photojournalists and war correspondents. For example, I have an old Nikkormat that I would trust to operate as designed, under any circumstances, whatsoever. I have never feared dinging it up.
I'm wondering if the retro look of some new cameras is backed by the type of mechanical quality those cameras they're trying to emulate possessed.
Looks aside, Pentax and Oly SLRs offer professional build quality at a fraction of the cost of this Nikon (and Oly even has the look). Admittedly, neither offers FF, but their IQ and build are hard to beat, for the money.
That said, the Df is very fashionable.
By Kim Letkeman (1 hour ago)
"Seriously twisted logic. A photograph of a work of art is like a photograph of a model, you may not sell it for profit without permission. Period. Fair use comes into play when you write an article for educational purposes, not when you sell expensive likenesses to collectors."_____________
I think your comment is untrue.
I can take a photo of anyone who steps in front of my lens, in any venue where photography is allowed, and can sell prints, and in many cases, use the image editorially, without permission from anyone.
The Paparazzi have made an industry of doing that very thing.
What I cannot do, is to use the image to promote a product or service, without permission. I cannot us it as advertising.
This is BS.
Did the sculptor put the snow on his sculpture? No. The environment, itself changed the entire nature of the photo.
As for the caption. it is just that — a caption.
I can't draw a picture of a Mustang without Ford suing me for copyright infringement, now?
As for the monument in question, it is a 3 dimensional work. A photograph, OTOH, is a 2D representation, and in now way, shape, or form, a "copy." In fact, it is impossible, as a matter of basic physics, for a photograph to copy anything that wasn't already 2 dimensional, in the first place.
Additionally, and as an aside, I have visited this monument, and feel the sculpture compares unfavorably to those which surround it. The work looks hurried and of fairly low quality. Gaylord has milked the taxpayer, twice.
I own a lot of cameras, from a variety of manufacturers — Oly among them.
I have to say that Oly is the most innovative camera manufacturer of them all, and the IQ of the 4/3 system is up to par with the larger sensor offerings (my criteria being a full page — roughly 9" x 12" — color separation).
I'll be buying this camera.
smafdy: I recently purchased a couple of Pentax bodies (k-5 and k-30), for the sole benefit of the high ISO performance/price point they offer. That said, even with a top notch sensor it can't hurt to have a dedicated flash.
Prior to purchasing a dedicated flash, I did a little research.
Pentax P-TTL implementation apparently sucks when compared to Nikon and Oly (the two other brands I shoot). It seems that P-TTL is virtually worthless the moment you tilt the flash head to bounce the flash. As a result, I shoot only with studio strobes or available light.
I wonder if these units address the problem, or if it is a problem with the implementation within the body, not the flash unit.
Hope someone tests these units, soon.
Link to typical problem:
I understand flash (I could, if I wanted to, use old style flash bulbs and the x-sync port), but, to be honest, the other systems are, if the complaints are valid, just easier and more accurate. More dependable.
The complaints/problems seem real enough.
Hopefully, these will address the issues. I have a feeling they won't.
I recently purchased a couple of Pentax bodies (k-5 and k-30), for the sole benefit of the high ISO performance/price point they offer. That said, even with a top notch sensor it can't hurt to have a dedicated flash.
Heie2: I am a Pentaxian fanboy through and through, but I say this in the most objective way possible:
The best value for money DSLR's/MILC's under $1000 are the Pentax K-500 ($595 w/ 18-55 kit lens), Pentax K-50 ($696 body or $776 w/ Weather Resistant kit lens), Pentax K-5 ($500 used body - discontinued), with the number one spot for "best bang for your buck" across the photographic world given to the Pentax K-30 ($479 body) and the Pentax K-01 ($299 w/ 40mm pancake lens) despite what is undeniably a controversial body design for DSLR/Mirrorless, respectively.
Even the lowest entry level isn't skipped over for $1000+ features such as 100% penta PRISM viewfinders and DUAL command dials.
Anyone that tells you otherwise is delusional.
Oh, man! I forgot about the k-01!
Hands down best photo tool for the money (maybe ever).
I do realize that all opinions are equal, but the numbers and IQ don't lie. $314. Great performance/IQ.
Feature for feature (especially the performance of the sensor), the Pentax k series is currently the best value in DSLRs.
k-5 = $680, and the list of features did not include the all metal body and weather sealing.
OTOH, Pentax flash capability sucks.
News photography/photojournalism isn't point-and-shoot. The product will suffer, and then it will suck. Products that suck don't sell too well.
The Chicago Sun-Times shot themselves in the foot.
I hope they had a reporter and a photographer there to cover the accident.
As a pro using Adobe products on Mac systems since roughly 1993, Corel PaintShop Pro X5 seem like the best-in-class, after Photoshop (vector graphics are essential to my work product).
Interesting that I can buy a passable PC laptop AND Corel PaintShop Pro X5 for less than "renting" CS for a year.
The value of good will in the overall valuation of a company has always been somewhat etherial — its share of the whole is up to the individual to assess.
I have a feeling that Adobe will soon find the absolute value of good will in the overall scheme of things.
I think they underweighted it.
New Coke, anyone?
The old law protected the creator of a work, just fine. If you didn't "author" a work, you should NEVER be able to own the copyright without the permission of the author, regardless if you can find them, or not.
Corporatism, run amok. The middle class (US and Europe), had better wake up.
Framer: Funny thing is, the majority of the whiners here will be using Photoshop CC a year from now.
Every time a new version of Photoshop comes out people come out of the woodwork to swear they will never use an Adobe product again...it's rather amusing!
Nothing amusing about it.
This is the first complete thread I've ever read at dpreview, and I've been visiting here for years.
If one tallies the 'for' and 'against' opinions, it seems like Adobe has stepped in it up to their necks.
Some poor marketing team is going to suffer tomorrow. Wall St. is probably keeping a sharp eye on Adobe, just about now.
PerL: This is a sign that the end of Adobe is coming. Since they cant make upgrades attractive enough for people to buy them, they try to use the monopoly card and force people into an endless pay system. It wont work - people dont want a hostage situation, and big publishing companies dont want that either.Who wants to bet on a format for their work and recorded memories that requires a life long subscription.
Autodesk has a monopoly. I won't be held hostage by them, either. if a clients needs 3-D CAD renderings, THEY can buy me the software, and i'll create them some smoking hot models. Barring that, there are only a few of my clients that ask for such.
Sabatia: I've been using Photoshop regularly but occasionally since it came out in 1990! I have used it semi-professionally for all those years to make collages, posters, and fine art prints. Until the latest version, I have upgraded with every other version. I believe I have paid for and owned at least seven versions. When I went to upgrade a few weeks ago from CS5--I needed the newest version not for PS but to have Camera Raw for my latest cameras-- and was told that I had to buy the full version, for the first time, I balked, and ended getting Lightroom. I now do my Raw conversions in Lightroom but do all my other tasks in my older version of CS.
With this new policy, they have now just about lost me completely. As a very serious hobbiest who occasionally does professional work, the cost is now prohibitive. I will look for alternatives. Shame on Adobe for shutting all us enthusiasts out.
I'm right there with you. From the beginning. Not digging this move.
Adobe is trying to enter the rentier class.
Maybe there will be some ground-shaking improvements, but CS 5 is robust enough for me.
Being that the vast majority of current license-holders are middle class, and being that the middle class is currently hard put upon, I don't think this move will result in a growing user base. For those that do adopt new subscription-based services, look for ever rising prices, as your cohort will foot the entire bill for any and all upgrades, plus Adobe's quarterly profit requirement(s) by the stock market(s).
I hate it when a good company loses its mind.
smafdy: The entire concept of limited editions was turned on its head when printing from slides or negatives and now digital files came into being.
Prior to that early editions of intaglio or lithographic prints were different throughout the print run. With intaglio, the plates suffer after multiple prints are pulled. This is especially true of dry-points, less so for etchings and engravings. There were also different states of the prints (after the artist would add to the image). With classic lithography, prints in the middle of the first run were best, with the earlier prints not being fully developed in the highlight areas, and with the darks plugged up in the later images.
Each image printed by any of these techniques was different to one degree or another, with large quality differences over images early and late in the processes.
In some cases, with both intaglio plates and litho stones, the artist themselves would destroy the plate or etch or grind out the image on the stone.
In early photography, there was only one image created per photo.
With the printing of photography, that pretty much came to an end. Some photographers did destroy their negatives or transparencies in order to insure the rarity of their original images.
The only saving grace of this case is the larger vs. smaller formats of the images.
Still, if Eggleston signed the print X of 20, he should have insured that that was the extent of the reproduction of the image as a print directly from his negative/transparency. In effect, numbering an edition implies that the artist is relinquishing his own right to further copy the image.