lorenzo de medici: The equipment is good if it allows you to progress beyond technical limitations and move into areas of artistic preference. That's what I see here. A fine photographer using excellent equipment to produce stunning results. I'm still not enthusiastic about wide angle portraiture. I want the portrait that I produce to accurately show the subject's facial features, not a distortion of those features. I'm working on a portrait right now that would be so much easier with a wide angle lens. In addition to the person, I need to include several other elements in the background that are clearly recognizable, if not in perfect focus. But there's no way I'll go any shorter than 70mm or get any closer to the subject's face than 6 feet. That's just me. Other opinions may vary.
Have you tried the pincushion effects (develop module>transform> distortion) in Lightroom?
I sometimes miss the look of my old '15mm fisheye on a crop-camera' portraits, however I found that this setting replicates it well; that is, stops faces from looking so freaky at wide angles, while keeping most of the view.
filmconvert: Adobe seem to be making all the same mistakes Quark did back in the day which lost Quark the Crown of the Digital publishing world. Affinity are right around the corner waiting to capitalise on Adobe's greed and complacency.That said, it's very easy to convert the newer software to be compatible with CS6 and/or include cameras in the future with the older software, you just go into the plist doc and include the cameras or version of CS your on.That or just go back to using film and forget all about Adobe and their rental software fetish and constantly have to upgrade to the newest piece of kit to keep up with the Joneses.
I think they just made 'capture in dng format option' the next must or want-to-have new feature for serious amateur cameras. There's no way I will spend money on software just to be able to use a new camera. After Lightroom 4 I have not felt the need to upgrade for the sort of money Adobe want.
re: apertures small in the context of increasing its suitability, don't you mean wide?
Cane: Why knock off a $250 lens?
It's out of production, replaced by the is version which is priced much higher. If a few tens of thousands are bought, you're looking at a lot of revenue. The alternative is a Canon used lens which costs more.
If you want one, I presume you had better order fast before Hasselblad sue? I'm not a lawyer so would love to be corrected, however the fact that someone is admitting inspiration is like Samsung making an iphone clone and admitting they were copying Apple. Isn't this obvious intellectual property infringement?
I mean, would it not have been safer to claim ignorance of the Hasselblad model and just have created a wooden hand grip which is not a new thing? Or could Fotodiox have a reasonable defence anyway?
I just don't understand why they are referencing Hasselblad; is this brave, ignorant or something else?!
Turbguy1: Eventually, cams will (actually already are) so small and "unobvious", it will be VERY difficult for law enforcement to realize they are being recorded....and if you stream to a distant server..then what are they gonna do?
I'll start becoming more concerned when and if Joe Public (or yourself for that matter) loses the right to be part of the system, or political discussion directing it.
falconeyes: He says, between high end compacts, mirrorless and entry dSLRs, the race is open.
I share this opinion although not expressed very often.
It may be that high end compacts eventually take over the current mirrorless and entry dSLR markets. Leaving high end SLR and system cameras with full frame and larger sensors for the interchangeable lens market.
Already now, the A7 seems to drive the system camera segment rather than the small mirrorless ones it all started with.
Interesting comment. What is the difference between mirrorless, DLSR and high end compact? I suspect for most people who will only ever use just one lens, that there is very little difference besides size and ease of use in individual cameras. I never like the sound of internal competition described in the interview. It just doesn't sound like joined-up thinking, nor does it sound like a safe position from which to innovate from the point of view of staff.
JohnEwing: The sample pics show perfectly why you're better off without.
not to mention the catchlights in the eyes tell a two lights - with at least one off axis - story. :)
Jim DT: I see two schools of thought here about the eventual role of mirrorless. Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung and parts of Sony seem to believe that once EVF's and improved focusing technologies hit their stride, SLR's, with their extra mechanical pieces and big fat pentaprisms will become obsolete.
Canon and Nikon seem to believe that mirrorless is OK for people upgrading from digicams, but that for "real" photography, you need a DSLR.
I believe that current high-end DSLRs, with many years of development and experience behind them are truly superb picture-taking machines and probably the best choice for the most demanding users. However, the "serious" mirrorless camp is catching up quickly. And, with Moore's law on their side, they will continue to improve. Canon and Nikon could well find themselves champions of a disrupted technology!
It comes down to what you want to shoot with, doesn't it? Personally if I'm going to be looking at the world I'd rather do it directly than look through a lens, mirror,window, screen etc.
But failing a one-eye Google Glass or internal, bionic eye camera attachment approach, I'd rather use a pretty little slr or rangefinder than a digital screen. There would have to be a really compelling reason why glass and mirrors were all of a sudden become inferior.
Shmuel Goldberg: It must be clear that there is absolutely nothing in physics of a DSLR that makes it better than a mirrorless camera. Weight and size of DSLRs is not an advantage, it is a result of outdated technology. An idea that was excellent 75 years ago makes no sense today.
Are the frames per second the issue, I would have thought the lag before the frames are shown to the eye was key?
Let's say you are showing an evf with 50 or 60 frames per second, but with a 32 millisecond lag. The issue would be the 32 milliseconds wouldn't it?
Even if the electronics can manage a miniscule few milliseconds, wouldn't light perhaps be faster?
On a separate but related note, how do evfs manage in bright sunshine these days? I haven't used a top tier evf for a few years.
Goodmeme: Canon's camera business has tried to change market and product at the same time with its launch into Hollywood, video and the C system.
I can't help thinking that whoever is driving that fairly extreme strategy has in part caused what we might perceive as Canon's disinterest or lack of resources towards its cash cow photography market.
With mirrorless, phones and other technologies changing expectations, perhaps Canon could have done with at least one foot on the ground in order better to roll with the movement. Perhaps it's hard to change direction when you're mid-leap... I'll be interested to see how the division does generally.
Interesting comment, thanks!
I will - mainly for my own intellectual vanity if I'm honest - remind us that financial results always look backwards. They have been termed 'lag' measurements, because of this; 'lead' measurements would instead be things like customer satisfaction or even comments or reviews on competitor offerings, and might give one a much earlier indication as to current and future sales. But try telling that to a finance controller. :)
So to sum up my arguably random comment, all we can say for certain, (ignoring conventional talk referring to most recent results) is "they made more money..." not "they make more money..." It is just semantics, but it might be helpful in some situations to see things like this.
You make a good point. At the same time, last time I checked, light was the fastest thing going; ergo mirror will always be faster than the slight delay through the viewfinder you get with evf etc.
Whether evf is fast enough, or dynamic enough for different uses is the main consideration, but I do contend that the mirror in an slr will tend to have a 'physics' based advantage, i.e. speed of light.
Canon's camera business has tried to change market and product at the same time with its launch into Hollywood, video and the C system.
zeyno44: 2 x AAA Batteries? How many shots can you actually get? It would've been perfect if it had built-in rechargeable battery - in my opinion.
It would be nice to charge it with a micro usb slot. I don't like buying things without AA / AAA, but it would be very convenient if they could squeeze in the components required, esp as Metz already have USB.
Micro USB is fast becoming the go to charger in my house at least - phones, tablets etc. There's one in every room. AA/AAA chargers however are bulky and don't stay in the sockets.
Where's the 4k support?! If Canon is expecting this to be a dedicated images and home video box for the AV setup, then it should at least be as good as a HTPC. It obviously will be simpler which is good, but I feel 4k should be mandatory for a new device that won't be binned in 2-5 years.
Does anybody know if the NFC support on the new camera models is open to non-proprietary developers? I'm thinking NFC would be nice if it worked with Lightroom imports, especially to dual locations, as per standard Lightroom options.
I can't be the only one who thinks this looks great in walnut.
Am I more likely to buy an x100 or just use my big old 5D? Yes. But would I like to be the guy who doesn't know how to use them, and just uses really expensive point and shoots, with wood trim?
Clever...associate your brand with dull surprises. Which marketing genius cooked this one up?
Roland Karlsson: Poor monsters and evil children, liking to kill and frighten the sorry creatures.
I give this a 2 on a scale of 1-10. That it gets a 2 and not a 1 is because it was a rather unexpected series of photos.
The kids are not realistic.
The nightmare monsters are not nightmarish, rather funny.
So you want scarier monsters, and children who look more 'realistic' fighting them in their bedrooms? Sheesh, just watch Harry Potter or LOTR or something.
Or perhaps look up 'catharsis' and begin to understand the fun and psychology behind this cute series.
beavertown: That kills the Canon with great humiliation.
Without Sony's sensor, Nikon will die straight away.
In the absence of peanut butter, Nikon can buy some jam. I really don't understand why you wish to engage in fantasy situations wherein companies cannot outsource to more efficient providers.
The essence of modern economic trade theory is specialisation, that is, we benefit when we don't all try to be farmers, printers, carpenters and textiles companies on our own. Sure, it would be more fun, and perhaps make you feel more independent, but it almost certainly would prevent your (or different society's) attainment of expertise and efficiencies.
Yes, Sony can charge more for its sensors if they're very good relative to the competition, but Nikon does still retain know-how in sensors not to mention ergonomics and extant customer and equipment bases. In the case of game theory type 'defection' on Sony's part e.g. hiking prices or withdrawing services, both Nikon and Sony would likely suffer long term, but neither their brands nor particular specialities are likely to suddenly 'die'.