Very good. It is appreciated. Congrats DPreview!
Human beings at their full madness... and they call that "enjoyment"... very crazy world!
Congrats for survive there. It is an interesting picture, indeed.
The pictures would look better without that kind of fancy effects. I cannot understand why images made with mobiles need to be distorted and over processed.
Kodak DC260 was my first digital camera. I had good memories from it!
Glad you took time to write.
Nikon maintain one foot on mirror less market at a cost. Nobody is making money on this cannibalistic market. People for this market wants mirror less, big sensors and have no money to to pay for that or does not want to pay for it. I wonder why manufacturers insists in this insane market.
It is a sophisticated optical filter, but placed in the "wrong" end of the lens!
Kidding? April 1st joke?
People are confused by "use value" and "exchange value".
"Use value or value in use is the utility of consuming a good; the want-satisfying power of a good or service in classical political economy. [...] exchange value refers to one of four major attributes of a commodity, i.e., an item or service produced for, and sold on the market." - Wikipedia
The point is, there is people paying for those works. It is business... or perhaps some new rich to expose it in its living room, together the purchase receipt, of course...
erichK: Where are the other eight? I'm bracing myself for them. If the rest are like these two, most especially the first, then it shows that, sadly, that the pretentious world of art speculators is the last place to look for meaningful feedback.
BTW, the Rhine is likely the most important river in Germany and runs through most of it. It has inspired some of ther greatest literature and music ever written. I grew up on its shores, and can assure anyone interested that it is much more attractive and interesting than this pompous monstrosity of an image and artifact would suggest.
UPDATE: Have found the other eight, following the link, and whiler noting that a couple of them are esthetically more pleasing, still cannot fathom why they should command the prices they to do, orders of magnitude higher than what some incomparably better images from the like of Sebastiao Salgado, W. Eugene Smith, Ansel Adams etc. have sold for.
We live in a world that commodifies everything and values nothing.
Original source: http://freeyork.org/photography/10-most-expensive-photographs-in-the-world
It is very sad because there are real people behind all this move to cut Photographers. I wish the best for all of them and their families.
On the other hand it is the "natural trends". More and more are expected from the "survivors". It happened a lot of times in the past.
How many "secretaries" you expect to find today? I remind the time all middle level executive had its own secretary. I had one in the past. Today even some "high" executive haven´t. It is expected himself with appropriate tools to organize his agenda, schedule his trips, file his documents.
I remind in the 1990´s when the Photographers in a big newspaper had added for their responsibilities to put his picture treated and in digital format into the newspaper image servers. It killed the scanning and processing staff. Nobody liked it but it was the trend. On that time the Photographers were spared, but some haven´t such luck...
It is sad. It is difficult. Unfortunately it is the trends...
Blow-up and distorted and crazy colors are cool...
Crazy world. Counter culture?
I like your paper but I do not agree with your statement "DNG is the standard format". It is not. Adobe pretend that!
It is an open format and Adobe hopes people can jump into their bandwagon but it is not true so far. Nikon and DxO ignore them (well, DxO can generate that format but strangely cannot accept it).
falconeyes: This lens has much in common with the Pentax DA* 60-200 F/4 ED (90-380 F/6 equivalent) which is tack-sharp at the long end even outperforming most fixed focal lengths.
This is one particular lens which makes the Pentax APS-C system quite attractive.
The new Nikkor 80-400 could do the same for Nikon FX if the optical performance is similiarly top notch and if the price comes down a bit.
Sorry, wrong comparison. One 20-200 at f/6 would be muuuch easier to design and manufacture than a 80-400 lens. It is Physics: 200mm is not the same focal length than 400.
You can use that lens with a FX camera but also the same lens can be used mounted on DX or even System 1 with adapter - but it is another story.
It looks a great news for System 1 users.
I am surprised by people complain about its price: it is a f/1.2 lens! Additionally it is the launch RSP and probably in a few months it will be cheaper.
One of my personal finance guidelines is to maintain fixed costs at minimum. I would be not comfortable with a monthly fixed cost for my hobby.
Despite I am an Adobe faithful user since Photoshop LE, updated to (full) version 7 and successively to CS, CS2,...CS5, I do not agree the new business model from Adobe and I am reconsidering my current relationship with the tools they develop.
Of course I do not think Adobe even care if "amateurs" do not continue with Photoshop. They clearly increased the prices in order to "compensate" some loss in their current customer base. Perhaps it can be a good move to Adobe. Perhaps no.
It reminds me a popular history I listened in my college in 1980: Americans spent millions to develop a pen to write at zero gravity environment in the space missions. Russians used a pencil. C´mon boys...
I bought my Nikkor 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 on 2002 to use with my (then) new Nikon D100 and today it is my oldest lens in my collection as previous lenses were replaced years back (the Sigma 15-30 by Nikkor 12-24, the Nikkor 24-120 AFD by Nikkor 24-120 f/4).
I am very happy with my older 80-400 even after so long years - of course improvements are always welcome. Let us see if in the field practice it worths so long waiting. Anyway I will not board at the first ship. I am not in a hurry.
It looks the camera a lot of posters are looking for according their critics for the previous models I read exactly here, in the front page of dpreview:
DX sensor, macro capabilities, reasonable WA, fast lens, crazy high ISO, raw capabilities,... oh surprise: I found again lots of complains!!!
Where is the crowd that asked that??
(do we need any additional words for that?)
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review