very interested to see comparison with the X100t, Leicia build quality and branding aside, does the lack of the viewfinder make up for the the faster ( and likely sharper) but sticky out lens
With 4 cameras and burgeoning range of 1.8 primes and OK ish prices. Forget the D400 FX it's not happening DX is were Nikon is expecting the ex D300 owners to invest (assuming there heads aren't turned by the Sony A7 series, which mine is)
Suspect the equivalence brigade will be out gunning for this, There is still nothing that sucks up light like the big 2.8 zooms for full frame that have been the backbone of professional photographers kit for years, and in comparison this is bit big and a bit expensive.
Had to double take I read iOS!
attomole: Because the World needs more choice of 50mm lenses, I think if I were Sony I would be happier if the came up with 24 to 70 and 70 to 200, sympathetic to videography, 2.8 or faster autofocus zooms
@EinstiensGhost, no for stills, but best you can do for video and have AF. And not many and the ones they do have share brand with Sony so that's my point for Zeiss. I don't see Leica should feel any obligation to Sony :-)
Because the World needs more choice of 50mm lenses, I think if I were Sony I would be happier if the came up with 24 to 70 and 70 to 200, sympathetic to videography, 2.8 or faster autofocus zooms
@DPREVIEW I am curious of your own position. did you seek the permission of Mr. Slater before reproducing the photograph?
attomole: The photograph belongs to the photographer in question because he was in command of the creative process even if by accident part of it was random.
If the monkey had obtained the use of the photographic equipment made it available for use in the setting where the photograph was taken and rendered it in a suitable state to take the photograph with the intended artistic intent, the photograph would be the monkey's
It did not do any of those things, that was done by Mr. Slater. He is the owner of the photographs. Pressing the shutter is not important, ownership of the equipment is not important. by the deliberate actions of Mr. Slater, not the Monkey, created the photographs even if some of the circumstances of the event that captured the photograph were random, like the lighting or weather some things are out of your control in this case the timing of the shutter even if it was accidental.
@wetsleet"I disagree. The standout feature of this photograph is the very fact of it being taken by the monkey. That is the creative element and what lifts it out of the ordinary"My reaction to this is that it conflates triggering the shutter release with creating the photograph. And whilst it could not have happened without the monkey, it was the photographer who arranged for the circumstances to come together and recognised the value in what had been recorded, Random things are frequently why a photograph is great or has value, be it fleeting light in a spectacular landscape or a President being assassinated. Copyright would not be given to God or to the assassin (unless he and the photographer are the same)
peterstuckings: This is quite simple. The photographer planned and executed a shoot, and regardless of how the camera's shutter was triggered, the photos were his creation, and hence so is the copyright.Nature photographers set up auto-triggers to be set off by meandering animals all the time, and drones and such remote cameras are triggered automatically all the time. By Wikipedia's ridiculous reasoning, an errant animal or the maker of those trigger devices (or the force that triggered them) could be the copyright owners of those photos.Cats, dogs and babies trigger cameras all the time. This does not constitute deliberate and knowing content creation, giving rise to copyright in the results of their actions.Wikipedia is wrong and should remove the photos in line with the copyright owner's demands.
@Easycass. In your view had Mr. Slater deliberately handed the camera rather than having it snatched he would then own the copyright?
The photograph belongs to the photographer in question because he was in command of the creative process even if by accident part of it was random.
For a photographer even a budget restricted amateur I don't see the pont of anything less than A3+ Colour and B&W printer. Not that the all-in-ones are not fantastically usfull home office devices and even the cheapest branded ones I have used make nice colour prints, but A4 is not big enough to display.
There are not that many such devices out there (A3 photo printers) but I don't know of a review site that is across all the printers available and keeps pace with developments. I would have expected for the sort of people who come to this site it would be very useful data.
Mike FL: As far as I can see from all the posts that WHO wrote this article created LOT of confusing.
Actually I think the article is pretty good, the treatment of the subject is based on physics and maths which is fairy specialist and academic. I have read and watched and been flabagasted by the debate on this and come round full circle in a way."Smaller sensor cameras have more noise and more depth of field" it's not strictly true but but is the practical outcome.
I quite like these B&W pictures, there are a couple of young monkey portraits that work quite well, like all B&W for me they need printing and mounting. I would go 1,2,4 and 6 as a set and don't print to big, if the quality here is representative.
Or you could stick a roll of film in it, for the time being anyway! I believe the quality achievable is acceptable
maikD: Dear DP, you need a website redesign. The width of the photogallery is 590px, the photos are too small. We are in 2014, not in 2004.
Totally agree, the Daily Mirror shows it photographic content better the DPR, The gallery widget could do with a rewrite and simplification, Great pictures though, fantastic location
attomole: So f2 = f2 =f2 after all, only if you want to keep quality or DOF constant between formats it isn't (and why would you want to do that). it took hours or pouring over the Joseph james article and the three Petapixel videos on the subject but I finally came back full circle.
The total light stuff was an interesting revelation to me, the discussion on this and the thought process always gets bogged down in the mix of, number of pixels, pixel pitch sensor size and viewing conditions, the concept of total light captured. nicely sidesteps that argument to explain the bulk effects we see regardless of pixel size and number of pixels (almost) and is nicely illustrated in the graphics in this article)
@Quezra ,slogan wise mine has more snap to it! and yes ISO is a bit of a moving target, in the end you have to do your own tests to understand what your cameras exposure system will get up to regardless of format considerations.
@ quezra Probably i did not make it clear but it was the opposite of my conclusion, f2 is geometric fact regardless, and its a constant to set exposure between formats, but for DOF and Noise it is not as per the article QED. you might compensate to that back on smaller formats with slower shutter speeds or unobtainable (mostly) fast glass, but i don't think its all that useful, more Academic realy.If I get the T shirt printed f2 = f2 = f2, you interested?
So f2 = f2 =f2 after all, only if you want to keep quality or DOF constant between formats it isn't (and why would you want to do that). it took hours or pouring over the Joseph james article and the three Petapixel videos on the subject but I finally came back full circle.
So what is the use of this?
In that there probably isn't going to be fractional F number MFT or 1" lenses equivalent to f1.4 and wider, and kit lenses will generally be 3.5 to 5.6 to be in proportion physically to the camera they are for whatever the format."Smaller sensor cameras are more noisy and offer less depth of field" succinctly sums it all up Petapixel took three videos to say the same.
Now we can all calculate it helps steer your choices at point of sale, and what to take on location or on holiday but the biggest use seems to me to be for trolling forum postings of the MFT users. for this it seems to be excellent
These pictures are pretty good for a gear review ( couple are bit bright for me though) However would be better done with a bog standard 1.8 50 mm Nikon. So if this flawed historical artifact remade, has a creative calling, I don't see any evidence of it here, possibly it needs a B&W atmospheric landscape treatment, Fun to mess around with and find some way to exploit it's weirdness, I like what some have done with the origional 35mm Lomo