Seeky: Mmm, staged; didn't expect that to be honest...
That wasn't so bad for the Iwojima one, but it was that they used different guys for the staged shot afterward...
JDThomas: Summary of the comments:
"This lens isn't ultra sharp and the bokeh is ugly. I hate it, therefore it should not exist. Damn people who want to try different things upset me. Everything should look the same. Lumpy black cameras and completely out of focus images with smooth bokeh is the ONLY way to shoot otherwise you're a poseur or a hipster."
Guess what? Spend YOUR money on what YOU like and stop worrying about what other people are spending their money on. At the end of the day I don't care what other photographers think anymore (especially the angry nerds on the forums). I shoot for me and my clients. They don't know the difference between "good" or "bad" bokeh (and that in and of itself is subjective). My clients know what they like. And some think the swirly bokeh is interesting.I think the swirly bokeh is great for some things. I have an early Leica Summar that's quite swirly and the results are different than every cookie-cutter "perfect portrait" that you see on flickr.
Yeah, why should anyone care what people spend money on?Be it counterfeit products, black-market weapons, child prostitutes. drugs, or overpriced lenses. People spending money on something = supporting it and market. And that, doesn't always necessarily mean it's for the better.
This man was a great inspiration for the start of my wedding/portrait photography. I'd say myself I've created images that match pretty well with what Ryan's been shooting with angels, lighting, composition and use of colors, but I don't get over 5K a shoot, rarely even a tenth of that!High-end photography's about having a name, knowing the right people and how to deal with 'em, artistic and technical skills just need to be kept up to meet the expectations
Shamael: Some fools bought 2 Hasselblad Lunar, NEX-7, for +25000$ each on a welfare auction just this week-end. There is no remedy for stupidity yet.
At least the Lunar money supposedly goes to a good cause instead of this which likely goes straight to the seller
skogredd: It puzzles me that, up to this very day, people believe those Apollo missions indeed went to the moon! Today, such poorly faked images and footage would seem completely ridiculous.But the Hasselblad cameras actually did work.
It puzzles me as to why people are so open and willing to believe whatever a government tells them, they're a group of people too and with their own agendas. There's no way to prove either way so perhaps you should help by gathering evidence by taking a trip to the moon yourself... oh wait, sorry, no one's been back to the moon since then... why? Were we that much more capable back then in achieving such a feat? Or were we never able to succeed??
I guess too many people here are used to and expect every portrait model to be photoshopped clean of all details and be unnaturally smooth-skinned dolls with all the same kind of lines...
fritzli: Does it also go on the original X100? I would like that!
Same lens on both cameras, and as with how the original wide angle converter works on both as well this should work the same so long as the new firmware is made available for the X100 as well, which, seeing how Fuji does stuff, should happen
DC Akowua: Is this statement really true (for people who are using the new Fuji and their D800 or 5D MIII )"With the premium interchangeable lens camera FUJIFILM X-Pro1, we developed the X-Trans CMOS Sensor which has an image quality surpassing those of 35mm full frame sensor single lens reflex cameras, despite being an APS-C size"
Surpassing perhaps FF SLRs of times past... the X100 was on par with the 5DII (can argue, but for ISO and DR, pretty good) and got me kind of jealous. But now with a 5DIII I haven't looked back or around for any other camera. Still, the compact size of the X100/s is real nice and I still like rangefinders, but Fuji's sensors are just "good" and not surpassing any 35mm ones today
Photographer Jonathan: I know everyone has really high hopes for this new Sigma 50 f1.4 Art being amazing, I hope Sigma didn't let us down, and I am hoping the price is still similar to there old 50, and I would like to see a size comparison with the other 50mm lenses out there, and also with the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, I would like to see Sigma advertise it as the L killer, because i'm sure it has better image quality than the Canon 50 L, and I hope as good as the new Otus, I can wish can't I ? I already own the Sigma 50 1.4 and the Canon 50 1.4, but I will be selling the Sigma to buy this new one if the price is right, I will keep the Canon just because it's small and light for my smaller camera even though I like my Sigma more, now I wonder if a new 85 Art is about to come out, it would have to be amazing to make me want to sell my Sigma 85 that I love, but if it has even more contrast and is even sharper I will want it, I am also curious about the rumored 135 f1.8 and 24/70 f2, Canon and Nikon look out
Same here, I'd sell my Canon 50mm 1.4 in an instant if I were still interested in a good IQ 50, but the size and weight of the Canon makes it more desirable as a backup. Since I got the Sig 35 and 85, I don't have much use for a 50... although Sigma sure knows what they're doing and are tempting me
MichaelK81: As a portrait photographer, the quality of the bokeh was immediately apparent to me, moving-up from the 50mm f/1.4G. This lens has become an instant classic in my camera bag.
I'd just grab the 85 1.4 if I wanted bokeh, and lots of creamy boekh backing a *sharp* subject that is. Especially when this "50" is going long by several mm
So basically, better bokeh...
True with fine detail of a subject, person or location, but this would mostly concern the shooter that's just taking photos without caring much for the scene instead of enjoying the moment. Yes, the twitter/instagram/FB whatever social peeps that want to let everyone know what they're doing and show proof that they're "living the life" when in reality they are just snapping away and not paying much attention at all, it's their "followers" that will see the photos and not themselves it seems too.
Really, this phenomenon of memory may concern those that decide to rely on taking a photo to examine and even experience something later as they "move on" to the next attraction, by viewing the photos or even video when they get a chance. But, few ever do. So many times I would here "Oh I took so many photos but can't get to looking through them". Like recording a show you would miss, but end up never getting around to watching it, how would you remember something you never really saw?
Nothing says hipster like a GOLDEN lens on your camera"Wow! Just look at the guy's setup, is that a tin can?"
As for the real aspect of this, which is for making photos... Can the bokeh be any rougher?? I like swirls but if it isn't smooth then worthless.I'm sure the women is B&W because it looks like the edge of her shoulder is flaring up, it's likely all purple there but guess what they're hiding the fact by getting rid of all the color!
About violence and misery... yeah, Reuters photos of the year are of a similar deal: dead bodies, people in agony, destruction and horrific scenery.But, at least they have a variety of photos that include sports, joyful moments with people, and other nice shots of interesting events.
But from the media's perspective, what's the point of soft happy photos when SHOCK affects us and grabs our attention, such photos will stand out... as much as I want truth and be aware of what's going on in the world, telling stories that give hope and show peace and restoration is just as important.
marike6: Sigma has some excellent lenses in its lineup, but in general, I didn't buy a Nikon body to slap Sigma and Tamron lenses on it. I have in the past, but lately I've been using all Nikon lenses. Rock solid AF and excellent color/contrast that Nikkors are known for.
It was the same when I shot Canon. Mostly, I didn't skip L lenses to go to shopping at the Sigma and Tamron counter at B&H. On DX, Sigma and Tamron have some sharp, compact and reasonably priced f/2.8 standard zooms. And Tokina has a few great UWA zooms. There are some great values in Sigma, but on FX, I mostly stick with Nikkors.
For the Df, I'll likely use a mix of G and AIS Nikkors.
Yeah, isn't it a lot safer and convenient to be able to spend a whole lot more money on stuff? Well, now Sigma is bringing out some of the best lenses around, only reason to pass them up is the lack of weather sealing, though in marike6's case it's about brand loyalty
Sometimes, you need to take away something to really appreciate it once it's not there
Well there are A LOT of great, amazing, perfect moment photos that have never been published, and will probably never be widely seen thanks to the good ones drowning in millions of other photos every week. This photo is great, and I won't even say "I've seen better" because there isn't any other like this, but the only good photos you know are the one's you've seen, and at the end of the day that's what it's all about; exposure
Back in the day, weren't 58mm lenses produced as a compromise? Among the easier to design/build and thus cheaper, and photographers hated that because they didn't want the FL to just get longer for a normal prime.
Then again, the easier it is to put together, the more time and effort can be put into perfecting the optical formula~
Today I saw a total of 40 X100 cameras in the used shelf in a camera shop, and half of them the limited black edition... hope the people that used to own them just went on to the X100s, but I do wish the used price for the X100 would drop with so many available as second hand
And how many of these complainers even own or let alone handled a C100?? If you have one, most likely your business involving such gear would cover the cost, and maybe if you've been using it to great success then this "upgrade" may not be necessary anyways.
So, why complain about something that's totally unrelated with your camera?