The 16 - 50 "power" zoom is a big mistake: slow, noisy, imprecise and power consuming. No hood provided. It should not be offered with the successor of the NEX 5 or at least "regular" 18 - 55 should be an equal option.. That is what I know for sure.
keeping simple may be popular again some day
Occasionally I like Guinness beer, but seeing a man with the longest nails in the World is also a difficult moment for me. (-)
Kodachrome200: needs hot shoe or pc socket
Unlike the "3", the "5" is trying to be as lean, functional and solid as possible. That is why the "5" is worth its price for me, while the "3" is waste of money.
I just completed the purchase of the 5r with both kit lenses and a few "free" extras. $849 total.Specs of the "new" 5t made the decision easy.(-)
Diopter: John Kerry hates the Internet too.
Personally, I am optimistic.The Internet will have more freedom than ever , but the publishers will voluntarily comply with the general guidelines , however the general guidelines may be more specific one day than the other.
John Kerry hates the Internet too.
really "sustainable" is not printing at all. ( That's what most of the people do )
Neither at the present review, nor at the camera database is listed size of the sensor. Accidental overlooking or a new standard for information?(-)
Shamael: take a NEX 3 N nd a 20 mm pancake, and your done with just 800$. That is all you need, and note that the standard 16-50 does the job as well. I use the NEX-7 and the 24/2.8 minolta with adapter, and that does all my job too. When I have none of the big boys with me, I use a Fuji f30, and that does the job as well. Have you noticed? all those cheap cameras do photos, same as a 15000$ yupie Leica gear. And, some do it even better.
Fuji F30 ... They discontinued it because of 6MP sensor when 8MP was the standard for much smaller sensors. After years the images from this camera ( $200) makes no distinction with the output from ca $2,000 DSLR ...Beside great sensor, the focusing, start-up and zooming was far above average.
I am sorry but I am extremely unfriendly to such biased "recommendations".Even if your annual income is in the range of the quarter million dollars, you must have a lot of disrespect to the source of your income to put at risk gizmo like a Leica body and lenses. That is a gear for a fancy flâneur who is taking still the same photographs.I you want to do something own and new , never start from the camera priced over $500. That's the rule of thumb.Try to squeeze from your apparatus as much as you can, and after a year of practice you will be able to get more, than the others from their Hasselblad with a wooden grip. Enjoy!
Diopter: Older news - but well done summary.At the same time manufacturers of the cameras and lenses increase prices of the equipment which has no chance to pay back.Also the photography departments of the higher educations system still are recruiting new students who would never have chance to pay off their loans.Somewhere must be a reason for that ....
Thank you.But first of all the list show how over-tooled is the photographer for the job.
Here is a scary example of the "professional" tools in the hands of an inexperienced user:http://artol.info/a/scrapbook/110721/stolen-cameras-in-santa-teresa-c-r.html:-((
I agree. There is no such thing like "professional" equipment.Experienced and knowledgable photographer makes decision about kind of tool used. If $100 P&S is enough, using a $10,000 set-up is ignorance.But most of influential publications (sadly, including DPR) still worship myth of the "professional" hardware and are willing rather over-emphasise high-priced releases than cherish good, honestly priced and designed items.
Older news - but well done summary.At the same time manufacturers of the cameras and lenses increase prices of the equipment which has no chance to pay back.Also the photography departments of the higher educations system still are recruiting new students who would never have chance to pay off their loans.Somewhere must be a reason for that ....
So ...It would be naive to expect a responsibly priced 12mm prime E-lens this year.
Joe Ogiba: Local newspapers are a joke. The only time I look at a newspaper is when I visit my mother and I don't look for news but for the clueless mistakes. The paper (Courier-News) had a headline on the front page about a month ago about a local business that survived the nightmare of super storm Sandy with a photo of the owner packing up some stock off shelves in preparation of the storm to avoid the flooding except there was zero flooding in that town (Manville, NJ) from Sandy. The photos they use on the front page could have been taken by a person who never took a photo in their life.
It is about 20 years history of the warnings and protests against taking over the small-town papers by huge, sometimes international corporations. By the way: many older and well known press photographers started their carriers in the little local papers.My penny:http://artol.info/a/scrapbook/101118/pueblo-chieftain-corrections.html(-)
Drew Conway: I get all my news in single line sentence headlines thanks to cnn.com, espn.com, and the like. No time to read newspapers.
you got them! or: they got you?(-)
John McMillin: Dateline, Chicago-- The Sun-Times today announced the layoff of its entire editorial, composition and printing staff. The newspaper will now be published as a Facebook page. "We won't be bound by the elite customs of 'professionalism'," said the publisher. "This newspaper remains Chicago's voice, now more than ever," he told his iPhone.
Remnants of the Newsweek:https://www.facebook.com/thedailybeast(-)
jedinstvo: Last summer I had some photos on a national story and I got 50 calls from picture editors. Not one wanted to pay. They all wanted "to share." I asked every one of them "are you working for free right now?" The problem is there are so many people shooting pictures and they now have the ability to transmit quickly and reliably. So the image that went around the country was from a local fishing boat captain. It wasn't as good as my photos, but it was free. Newspaper management all over the country has decided photographers are dead weight.
Photographers may be “dead weight” right now but the “photo opportunity” may become a widely sellable item.Paying photography license for photographing places and events has plenty precedencies and it may be a common practice soon. (-)