I always hated Hoya glass. I remember buying Hoya filters because they were cheaper and boy, I got my money's worth since they were terrible. However, after seeing the picture of the Hoya boxes that Sigma uses for these Art lenses I have a new respect for them.
Thank you for the great "tour!"
nathantw: I'm really impressed. But, how well does the Tamron perform at 14mm? For those that say it's only one mm, look at the comparison photo. That one mm was the difference between seeing the top of the Space Needle and just seeing the support structure.
Funny about the 75-150. I loved that zoom (I have the Nikon 75-150 series E). It was a lot smaller and lighter than the 80-200 and the modern 70-200 and it was relatively sharp for its day.
LOL, got me there, Dianoda.
I'm really impressed. But, how well does the Tamron perform at 14mm? For those that say it's only one mm, look at the comparison photo. That one mm was the difference between seeing the top of the Space Needle and just seeing the support structure.
Finally. Been waiting for this for almost 2 years now. Much cheaper to get this than to buy the new FL lenses that Nikon offers. ;-)
Cool, I'll take one with the Hasselblad film and the other with the Nikon digital but with a Hasselblad lens and see which one wins...if it's creative enough.
nathantw: If they made a 6 cm x 6 cm sensor and offer it to medium format companies I'd jump for joy!
I'm sure you saw the reports that some guy actually hired people to make him a proofing 8x10 sensor that cost as much as a house, right? He said it's nothing spectacular but it would save him a lot of money on making proofs.
Yup. That's when the fainting comes about.
If they made a 6 cm x 6 cm sensor and offer it to medium format companies I'd jump for joy!
I guess their SD-line of Powershots is gone. Those were the ones with the optical viewfinder that I found to be so convenient at times.
Wow, I need to get connected to some fine art curators! Once in the club it seems the sky is the limit for amount of money you'll get for art.
ThomasSwitzerland: Ken Rockwell has just published snapshots on the D750 with the 20mm f/1.8.
To me this represents outstanding journalistic quality in time and precision. Why cannot the so much larger <dpreview> deliver?
I don't agree with the quote you posted from KR, but I too always shoot with large basic. Use RAW+basic just in case and that just in case comes in handy a lot.
That 13mm lens he mentioned that's on sale piqued my interest. That would go perfectly with this camera.
Jan Bohme: If we, on the other hand, instead discuss de lege ferenda - i.e. discuss the law as it should be, which is essentially a political discussion - I agree that one can apply a fairness argument for copyright to be awarded. The problem is that fairness points in two different directions. One may argue that it is unfair that the photographer can't get copyright just because the work of art is so unique. But one may equally well argue that it is unfair that an author of a work of art is excluded from copyright just because it isn't human. While it might be difficult to benefit the actual monkey who - supposedly - took the selfie, it wouldn't be altogether impossible to allocate the revenues of the photo to benefit monkeys of that species in general in that area, which would hopefully benefit also the actual author of the photograph.
However, I don't think that copyright law will be changed because of this. This situation is so rare that it isn't really reasonable to adapt legislation to it.
That's a good example, Jan Bohme, but in this case he felt it was his because it was taken with his camera and normally we felt that whatever pictures that are taken by us with our equipment was ours. Since the animal, in this case the monkey, couldn't actually claim it was his he felt that he held the copyright to the image. I felt this to be correct, but apparently, I was wrong. When I brought this case up with my wife she immediately said the image didn't belong to him. I didn't even tell her which way the copyright law decided.
I think in the case of photographers we try to protect what we felt was ours until our dying breath, but the general public sees it differently and the photographs belong to the person who presses a shutter button.
JDThomas: Ohhh! Let me be the first to complain about how expensive this camera is! Only dumb rich people can buy this camera!
It certainly does make a Leica look like a cheaply priced toy in comparison. $7,000 for the Leica compared to $49,560.40 for the Hasselblad.
Jogger: In 2000 years the 200mp images from this camera will seem like primitive cave drawings to us now.
2000 years? It's possible that in 20 years or less it'll feel that way. Just look at the cameras that shot 320x200, 640x480, 1024x768, then the 1 MP to 3 MP cameras. They're scoffed at now and we're talking about 20 years between the time they were big and today.
Langusta: Ridiculous. Not even worth discussion.What next - if I use self-timer the credit for photo goes to camera manufacturer?If I use leather gloves does the copyright belong to a cow (deceased) or farmer who owned the animal?
Actually they're saying if you pressed the button to activate the self timer then it's yours. If someone else presses it it's not yours unless that person says it is.
PhotoKhan: Wikipedia does not need this bad press.
Someone in charge should see the possible negative impact on an organisation that counts heavily on our collective goodwill and order the photo to be removed ASAP.
Unfortunately someone's ego is going to get involved and say "see, I told you I was right. It is public domain."
vFunct: The US Copyright office is going to delete this, since it's only a draft statement.
Photographs are never created by nature. The other examples that the Copyright office gives of natural works - elephants painting, driftwood shapes, rock grain formations - are all naturally contained works. They don't have any human involvement in its output.
Meanwhile, a photograph always relies on human involvement in its output - someone has to setup, process, and print/publish it.
It is not possible for nature to produce a photograph on its own.
In the video I watched on Engadget Mr. Slater is on camera saying he set it up specifically hoping he'd get that photograph. That means it was conceived by him so he should have the copyright.
I agree with Landscaper1. Wikipedia decided a photo was fit for public distribution and the photographer said "no." In this case Wikipedia has now become the judge on what is public domain and what isn't.