What? I was thinking only dinosaurs used those outdated camera with (arrgh) mirrors... :-)
HK photographer: Nikon made anouncement to tackle the D600 problem after an US law firm started to gather D600 customers for collective action (it's in the news last month).Chinese customer protection department didn't pay attention to D600 until some Nikon dealers blamed the D600 sensor problem to the smog, not to the camera. General manager of Nikon appeared in Chinese photo web to clarify the issue afterwards but Nikon China had done nothing to tackle the D600 issue before that -- there was much delay than their action in US. That's why the Chinese felt the discrimination. Same as when Toyota recalled their cars in US few years ago but left the Chinese buyers alone. At the end, the CEA of Toyota had to go to China to apologise.I nearly bought a D600, so I have been following up the issue of dust. Nikon has been dead slow in admitting its own problem. Nikon, you can only blame yourself. Sadly, some people here have taken this chance to air their view against the wrong target.
" never bought anything Nikon since the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Back then Nikon was gaining ground by leaps and bounds in China, yet they donated a mere 1 million to the quake affected area, while Canon donated 10 times more " - so that is your reason?
Did you have the idea Canon is much bigger? Actually according to the 2011 figures Canon revenue is 6 times bigger and net income is almost ten times!
...and you? What was your donation?
I think there is better and sound reasons to be considered, as the obvious miscare and prejudice against some "minor" markets.
I cannot understand the common complaint against the size of the image sensor: it is almost irrelevant for most applications. Just give good IQ. Shallow DoF is one of the applications where bigger sensor helps but usually it will require a combo with big aperture lenses, it means big size and deep pockets to afford it.
The current image sensor used into Nikon 1 series presents quite decent IQ, I would expect the new generation will present yet a better one.
Certainly I do not see it as a "fit all" camera, but certainly could fit the needs for most one, including a number of people bashing it for its smaller sensor than a DX or even for a FX!
Is it serious? Does people buy that? It looks me very odd...
What a monstrosity!
McJ: If this was a dslr, it would have been panned as the worst performing camera of the last 10 years. But since it's mirrorless, it magically gets "gold".
I will probably buy this camera myself as a slow digital back for my 30+ year old primes, but I feel sorry for those that buy this as a general purpose camera because it got "gold" in this test.
/If this was a dslr, it would have been panned as the worst performing camera of the last 10 years. But since it's mirrorless, it magically gets "gold"./
I had exactly the same impression. It is the price paid to sell advertisements for mirrorless.
The rules were clearly stated and the author knew them, so what is the point? I think AP has to afford their own and public rules in order to their customers (the picture´s buyers) know exactly what they are purchasing.
It is not a question if the rules are fair or not - they are agreed rules between the agency (AP), their customers and (it is expected) by their Photographers.
For me it is not a journalism Ethics issue, but a business Ethics one.
"But a new study, published in Psychological Science, suggests it's possible that the act of taking pictures may actually lessen our ability to recall the details of a subject." - really? You do not need a PhD do know that!
Except for a few pictures I take from social events, virtually all my pics are made for artistry reasons - not I am an artist! I never bought that idea to "document" the life.
I never used such card but since I saw their advertising years ago I had understood that functionality was standard!
Anyway I have no interest on that Mega slow gimmick.
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?