ehhh @mauijohn, pressure gauge ???
jagge: Sorry, you guys crack me up.
All those here who are so eager to state " that the photographer, has no rights, the monkey does" it really puzzles me.
Put yourself in his shoes. If it had been your camera off course you would accept the pictures from that situation as "yours" to decide upon. And yes there might be a loop hole in the copyright laws that did not take into account that a monkey could snatch your cam, and take a picture with it, surprise surprise...
What goes out ot the window here is just simpel common decency. Really you think that you all have equal right as the photographer who owned the kit, visited the monkey, had this incredible experience, and shared the pictures.... Its incredible to me what this internet era does to common decency and fairness, its really quite disapointing but not news for sure.
really ? please dont state the obvious.
It does not take decency out of the equation though
Sorry, you guys crack me up.
Buzz Lightyear: My first thought: this colored mess must be murder on the environment! I can find nothing on their webpage to explain how toxic (or not) the substance is that they use in the photos. I hope I am wrong about this . . . but it seems rather callous and careless of them if the environment is in any way being ruined by their efforts to promote their "art".
How come you equate color with toxin ? I know thats how bugs use it but really ?
I like the idea, BUT to be honest the potential is not harwested at all. Lighting seems harsh and most backgrounds are truly boring. I also think the lighting does really not harvest the potential in the reflective surfaces that are bound to be there in the splashes.
jagge: lol Nikon just dont get it, i have left the Mikon wagon a while ago and man such a attempt is a bit pathetic. It sure can inly be for hard core nikonians with a large glass collection...
Retro and high Iq at 3000 usd. lol to little MUCH to late, it has been done. Look at the two new sony ff, ehhh ff and retro looking AND with optional stellar video. Ohh then the retro omd, ohh the fujis..
Come on Nikon this one seems more than desperate
well i think you are mixing up "simple tool" and experience. While I do get your idea, and the tool should be intuitive for sure, it seems to me that you are talking about experience.
Now you are right that a wood chisel is a functional and simple tool. The point is that is absolutely useless in the hand of anybody but an experienced craftsman. Its precisely the same with the cam.
lol Nikon just dont get it, i have left the Mikon wagon a while ago and man such a attempt is a bit pathetic. It sure can inly be for hard core nikonians with a large glass collection...
jagge: It does NOT make sense. It would have made a LOT of sense to make a 15 mm 1.4 lense or even 1.2 then you could get some ff like wideangle feel.
Why go for a 15 mm. 1.7 when there is a 17 1.8 out there. Is it to difficult with a 1.4 version ? I would LOVE that lense
look a f 1.2 or even 1.4 would be great, a 1.2 of high quality would be a game changer
It does NOT make sense. It would have made a LOT of sense to make a 15 mm 1.4 lense or even 1.2 then you could get some ff like wideangle feel.
vmicho: Man! I wish at least 1/10 of current filmmakers would be as good as Kubrick. What you can see in cinemas this summer cannot be described by any amount of dirty words ...
wow, it was better in the old days, the weather the girls the manners right...
Its so funny a statement like yours. A funny fact for you. If 1/10 ten filmmakers where as good as Stanley Kubrick, he would not be percieved as especially good, he would just be in the top 10 %.
So by definition your statement is utterly meaningless.
Stanley Kubrick is great because no one did what he did, he was great because he was far better than just being in the top 10 % .'
massimogori: You folks at Dpreview are in perfect position to change the balance. Just restart making reviews at decent pace.
lol that is so true, its a joke by now. The cams that are being revieved are very often not the important cams in the market, still tons of unfinished reviews and the time they take to finish anything is a joke.
what a dream job to be on staff, ceartainly it cant be stressfull
wow really relevant on this site.....Add the gearshop and a cartoon and the transformation from a relevant tech site to a soccer mom mall is perfected
thincrust88: Just viewed the pics on the Panasonic website...
I'm sorry, but not a single image stands out.
You are soo right. A few above the average enthusiast standard, but getty stuff, nahhhh.
And they are all a bit soft I think, absolutely not a good advertisement for the G5. Where are the razor sharp shoots with good dynamic range.
Not here for sure
Kissel: Fast and reliable AF really matters for sports photography, and Panny proved it's capable back in the times when GH2 was introduced. G5 doesn't shine with it's continious shooting though, with only 6fps, but hey, it's a enrty-level camera.
I just have to give a comment to your funny statement.
Its almost a bit tirering this nonsense " a pro could do it with 2 fps"..... Its such a dumb statement. WHY do you think there is a market for these fast cameras that very few consumers can afford ? Why do they all offer fast fps ? Why do sports shooters use them ?? Because it gives them a lot more keepers and enable them to catch that crucial moment where everything is right. And they dont wait for that soccer player to have the right expression during a shot to the ball, now they fire at fullll speed when he hits the ball and sorts afterwards.
But i guess you buy that jazz about "zone focusing" and will claim that AF can be left out by a real pro.
Its so funny these meaning less statements that keeps being repeated. Gear doesnt matter, MP myth, its the photographer, bla bla.
Its the COMBINATION of gear and photographer, its not rockets science but your claim is a joke.
photo perzon: Ridiculous monster. Give me a tiny cheap 14mm 2.5 and I'll do the same work.
the f 2.5 is not a aps-c f2.8 eqivalent at all so he is spot on. Composition wise 12 mm is interesting f2.8 a bit for shutter speed but with relation to dof its utterly uninteresting.
this would have been interesting if it was f1.8 or f 2.0 OR f 3 to 4 and very cheap.
this combo is not very interesting, to much of a compromise
armanius: Any idea on price point?
which would be a joke..... A aps-c equivalent can be had for 500 euro.
its not a pro system.
Kodachrome200: I honestly dont know why anyone defends leica. there two latest inventions are an $8000 dollar camera body that can only take black and white pictures with lacklustre technology and 50mm f/2 prime lens that also cost $8000. You can buy them both for the cost the finest camera in the world and a selection of the finest lenses that would make most pros jealous and most any other photographic tools you could want and you could still probably throw in a reliable used car. Of course then you wouldnt have a camera that only took black and white pictures and 1 50mm prime lens.
the absolutely maddening thing is a bunch of people are gonna respond with how crappy traditional dslrs are and how it is absolutely worth it to forgo that dreamlist of gear in order to have this
you are so right. You just have to smile. They life of nostalgia and the fact that there always will be someone who will buy a Leica BECAUSE its expensive....
Yeah the optics are great, but other brands have fantastic optics at a fraction of a price.
You are right, this one takes the price, come on black and white can be done in post and with todays sensors CRAZY pixel amount the added detail is just a matter of getting a higher MP sensor. Its all rather embarresing.
jagge: sorry i am absolutely on the bride side. Sorry but 3k is a high price. Now off course if you are wanting the most spectacular photographer you have to pay the prize, no doubt about it, free market. BUT if 3k is supposed to be the "normal" rate and you then get this reply that in all honesty is a bit rich.
Sorry the season is "4 months", very well that might be but I dont think its reasonably to assume that you can base your entire income on that and put your prices accordingly. Well its a free world. If anyone will pay 3k for a wedding photograper be my guest. I applaud those who can charge rates like that, honestly. BUT trying to argue that that price is more than fair, and almost getting to the point that it actually is almost a bad deal for the photographer is a bit pathetic.
Sorry I dont find that response very compelling or convincing. She could shoot 3 weedings a month, use a week on each and lay in the sun the rest of the time with a 9k income. Thats quite ok, come on.....
Pretty trivial information. Off course he can. Steven Spielberg also does that, George Cloney even so
Thats hardly the core of the debate.
Malvin Camina: $3000 Will depend on the Wedding Package. Majority of wedding photographers of todays era spent huge amount of peny in buying Top of the line gears. There is no Pro Photographer that wants any equipments die when the big event comes. That will reflect to your reputation as Pro Photographer. Perhaps let me explain to her the Math.
Nikon D3s Full Frame Camera(Body): $5199.95Nikon D700 Full Frame Camera(Body): $2699.95AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8: $1999.95AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8: $2399.95SB-910 AF Speed Light: $549.95 x (2)MB-D10 Battery Grip: $334.00MB-D00 Battery Grip: $219.00El-En15 Battery (2): $145.00Remote Triger(2) : $180.00Profoto D1 Air: $ 350.00Profoto DIY Beauty Dish: $70MacBook Pro Core i7: $2499.95Western Digital My Book Essential 2T: $130.00Creative Suite 5: $199.99Adobe Lightroom 3: $89.99LowePro Stealth Reporter: $180.00Etc: $200Rough Total: $17997.63
So a D3s is required for wedding photography now ?? I think you are doing the same mistake as the original poster. You inflate the expenses which dont look good.
Canomixian: I've shot weddings professionally, but opted not to as a career. Nikki's response registered as mere high-pricing rationalization, and I do feel that professional wedding photographers have a great deal of room to lower their general pricing to a level that isn't so easily labeled as abusive.
True, the CL bride ignores the skill required to produce truly good results. But many wedding photographers charge those high rates for cookie-cutter shots that are merely framed correctly, exposed and lit properly, and delivered in a slick package.
She also mis-described the time involved. Adding 4-8 hours (pre-wedding) to Nikki's 28-35 hour estimate, $3000 for a full work-week is less egregious, though still quite expensive.
Finally, Nikki's listed expenses dwindle when averaged across the many jobs that actually pay for them. Her $200 second-photographer day-rate speaks volumes for how much she values the talent portion of the charge, and seriously undermines her argument.
I dont have ANY problem with ANYONE making a great and fat living of being a photographer. I would love to do that.
What I object against is depicting a picture that a weeding photographer charging a rather good price for her work victimizes herself trying to the degree shown here.
If you make a good income be proud and say " yep I am that great", dont try to convince me that you can hardly survive on 3k per job, please....