There's always one person who will say the sample pictures look soft. I'm waiting for that person to post.
I didn't read the description and just watched the video. I was expecting it to go up, up, up. When it stalled and started coming down I was like "oh sh*t!" and waiting for the upcoming explosion. Then it just landed. I was thinking "huh, that's pretty cool."
arhmatic: For the Portland bridge test --- all that gear and effort spend, and they came out with ZERO files?
How is that possible? They forgot the put the card in? Details?
It sounded like they had the pictures outputting to laptop...well, they hoped it would. Probably used a wifi card that didn't work properly.
Devendra: Now if they had only used D7100 and a Nikon 80-400mm @400mm f/8 instead of some lower-mp canon.
oh yes a gigapan pro can easily handle both.. and more (I have used it with Sigma 50-500mm)
Probably would have taken too long if the focal length was so long.
I've taken 1000+ shot Gigapans and it didn't take 5 hours. I think the 5 hour shot the article was referring to was the one taken on the Oregon bridge. 560 images should have just taken about 75 minutes or so, not including moving the rig.
harryh: Incredible., 99,999999999% of us all here will never, NEVER make such a photo in their life.
This is so difficult to make that everyone who never made a gigapano must only look at it in absolute adoration. The result is marvelous, great.
Only one thing puzzles me; after so much preparation i should have taken a high resolutiuon camera like a a Nikon D800, it would have even been sharper.
I thought the same thing about the camera choice, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say. The Gigapan speaks volumes on the quality of the equipment. The Canon is 21 MP so there's not THAT MUCH of a difference between 21 and 36 MP. I was thinking maybe he should have used a 200mm lens instead though. It probably would have taken too long though and the lighting would have changed too much.
Jogger: lmao at all the butt-hurt mirrorless evangelicals. the fact is that none of the mirrorless offerings would be able to command a $6000 asking price for a body-only camera.
Hasselblad hasn't put their wood sidings on a mirrorless camera yet. Once they do it'll be $10,000.
Looking at those wafers I just wish someone would just cut them into 6 cm x 6 cm squares and put it into a camera back that I can use with my Hasselblad V-series! I'm sure people with 6x7 and 4x5 cameras are thinking the same.
Wow! What an awesome job she has and the final results are spectacular.
nathantw: I might be the minority, but I went into a Sony store, stuck my SD card into the A7R, shot some frames with the attached 50mm f/1.8 lens, went home, stuck it into my computer to look at the quality and was utterly not impressed.
Also the camera was unnecessarily loud when clicking the shutter. I was able to hear it on the other side of the store going off when someone clicked the shutter. What the heck? It's mirrorless for goodness sakes.
You're right that those are some really nice photos shot with the camera on teh fredmiranda site. However, they aren't showing me anything that couldn't be done on any other digital camera. The problem with digital cameras is that the sensor is the determining factor and so many cameras have the same or similar sensors in some cameras that everything looks the same. That can be a good thing and that can be a bad thing. In this case it's a nice sensor, but nothing we haven't seen before (Nikon D800).
I understand my experience with the camera in the Sony Store isn't indicative of what the camera is capable of since all the settings could have been skewed towards "pleasing everyone" look, but it just didn't impress me, which is why I said it could be just me and I'm sure it was, save for a few people.
I might be the minority, but I went into a Sony store, stuck my SD card into the A7R, shot some frames with the attached 50mm f/1.8 lens, went home, stuck it into my computer to look at the quality and was utterly not impressed.
nathantw: If it's 16-bit color (it should be) and has better IQ at anything other than ISO 400 (which it will) then I think they might have a winner. Unfortunately it'll probably still cost an arm and a leg ($50k - $60k) with lenses in the $5k range. However, if they brought out an affordable CMOS 6x6 camera back that fits the Hasselblad V-series, then dangnammit, I'm there!
That was one thing I was going to fix if I had won that $600 million lotto by myself. I would have made a 6x6 sensor to fit into a Hasselblad V-series and filled that nitch. I know it wouldn't sell all that much, but if it was successful then I'd make it for Bronica and Rollei then move up to 6x7 and get the RZ people. I was all set, but alas, it wasn't meant to be since I didn't win.
Of course, I do know that it's better to have digital backs on the H-series instead since critical focusing isn't easy on a V-series (I had a Kodak digital back) and not having auto exposures was a pain at times.
mpgxsvcd: Serious Question. How many of you shoot Medium Format or would switch to Medium Format if the right camera body was produced?
Yup, I shoot it.
You're right, $30k but that doesn't include lenses and accessories. Those add up too. New technology for a Hasselblad...that should increase the price to way above $30k.
If it's 16-bit color (it should be) and has better IQ at anything other than ISO 400 (which it will) then I think they might have a winner. Unfortunately it'll probably still cost an arm and a leg ($50k - $60k) with lenses in the $5k range. However, if they brought out an affordable CMOS 6x6 camera back that fits the Hasselblad V-series, then dangnammit, I'm there!
It wasn't pointed out in the review that the 50mm f/1.4G was dramatically sharper at f/2.8 on down than the 58mm f/1.4G. Just look in the window.
So many photos of sadness. They're all quite emotional.
.Sam.: links 9-13 are broken
Try using the arrow within the picture instead of clicking on the numbers below the picture. I was getting sent to a link when clicking the numbers too. Once I used the arrows within the pictures it worked fine.
Wow! Those are fantastic. Thank you. I particularly like #9. I'm sure I'll be seeing that design on some company's window or plate now.
100% viewfinder coverage is so much better than the stupid 94% or 97% coverage of my D700. That was a pretty bad decision on Nikon's part to not have it 100%. I know I could get it under live view, but that takes up battery juice, so no thanks.