I have been hired by the monkey to be his (her?) representative, council, and agent. Please cease and desist all speculative conversation about my client in ways which could be construed as slanderous or libelous. Comparing my client to a 5 year old human was particularly demeaning and injurious. Also, emarks about the aesthetic quality or value of client's artwork can lead to psychological distress and redress will be sought against offending parties. Please direct any future comments and conversation to my law firm Gibbon Mandrill Rhesus and Partners.
tirmite: When will DPReview, the eminent technical blog supposedly, stop playing the dishonest lens equivalency game? So if it's "equivalent" to a 24-70mm then you also HAVE to make the f-stop "equivalent." It is NOT like a 1.8-2.8 aperture. It would give DOF results more like an f4.0-5.6 lens would it not? Being able to shoot in low light is more a function of ISO and sensor noise these days, but for some of us having control over depth-of-field is still what separates a snapshot from a photograph. This camera is NOT a replacement for a 35mm DSLR with a "real" 24-70mm f2.8 lens, although it's clearly a great little pocket camera. How about truthful, accurate marketing both by the manufacturer and camera reviewers about what a lens REALLY is equivalent to if you're going to make that selling point in the first place?
You are correct. I did NOT read the whole article or pay attention to the graph. My bad. I gave up after the first block of info that compared it to a 24-70mm f1.8-2.8. Figured it was the same old story. I apologize for not reading the whole review and apologize to DPReview. I don't apologize for wanting companies and reviews that just repeat what companies post as marketing numbers. Yes, in term of exposure f1.8 IS f1.8 and the same setting of shutter speed and aperture would give the same exposure as on another camera in another format. To answer to lame question about why always compare and equate to 35mm? Duh! Because the VAST majority of people own and operate this format. That's a no-brainer. If MOST people shot medium format or 4x5 then of course it would make sense to give equivalence in those terms.I think EDOF is a valid statistic, though. Point and shoot photos often look can't deliver nice bokeh.
When will DPReview, the eminent technical blog supposedly, stop playing the dishonest lens equivalency game? So if it's "equivalent" to a 24-70mm then you also HAVE to make the f-stop "equivalent." It is NOT like a 1.8-2.8 aperture. It would give DOF results more like an f4.0-5.6 lens would it not? Being able to shoot in low light is more a function of ISO and sensor noise these days, but for some of us having control over depth-of-field is still what separates a snapshot from a photograph. This camera is NOT a replacement for a 35mm DSLR with a "real" 24-70mm f2.8 lens, although it's clearly a great little pocket camera. How about truthful, accurate marketing both by the manufacturer and camera reviewers about what a lens REALLY is equivalent to if you're going to make that selling point in the first place?
Zvonimir Tosic: This is why Apple sells more cameras than anyone else today, and is totally redefining our photography taking experience. Camera manufacturers have little to no clue how to design an interesting camera today, and are losing market rapidly. While nerds moan about oily spots in their FF cameras, new brilliantly designed iPhones and advanced cameras in them substitute more and more photography needs. So before we nerds wake up, the photography tools as we knew them will be a lone iceberg melting in a vast ocean.
I salute Johnny and Marc; world class design. Camera manufacturers: note a few good lessons. Pentax at least tried, and succeeded well with K-01.
@KariIceland: please numerate ALL the "false" things Tosic said. Please, humor us. Ad homonym attacks usually come from feeble minds when one can't support a valid argument. Please list what' s false about his comments or do you just like to bully people who have different opinions than yours even when you can't articulate them or back them up?
Two of the world's preeminent designers with a track record of beautifully designed, award-winning, commercially successful and critically acclaimed products vs. the critics on this site who say it's "UGLY".Just because you don't get it or appreciate the design doesn't make it ugly. It's different. It's unusual. It's bold. It's a challenge to your sensibilities. Maybe you're just not able to see the beauty or it's just not your taste. That's fine. But the reactions posted here are like the child who doesn't like some vegetable (yet) and spits it out. Gross! Nasty! Yuck! What exactly is it that makes it "ugly" to you? The clean lines? The uncluttered controls? The stripping-down to the bare minimum? The lack of a leather or vinyl skin that will peel or age over time? The precision machining? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These are the same people who think gorgeous models are "too skinny" and sophisticated craft beers or fine wine is "icky".
kona_moon: Reduce the cost of printers? I don't think the cost of printers need to be reduced - the cost of toners should. I bought a color laser printer for less than $99 a while back. When I bought the replacement toner cartridges (4 colors) it cost more than $250. I seriously thought about buying another printer, instead of just toners. Granted, the toners that come with the printer is not "full", but hey, a new printer with "half full" toners for $99 vs. just the toners for $250. You do the math.
Because that's how they decided to make their money. Like "free" software that gets you addicted and then you willingly pay for upgrades or added features. Sell the printer cheap and make a killing on the never-ending need for ink. Then they design the cartridges (with chips) so they can't be refilled or easily refilled.It's a brilliant business model, but I wish some competitor would come out with a line of printers that had affordable inks as part of it's marketing. Kodak tried this recently, but I don't know anyone who uses a Kodak printer. People stick with what they know and trust.
(unknown member): Not to split hairs or anything, but that's not bullet time. Neat home project anyway.
slncezgsi: So even if the Zeiss lens is a bit better optically and mechanically, both lenses are superb and it is matter of personal preferences and purpose to choose one over the other.
Seems like there is no bad choice to be made here :)
Wonder how many people shoot flat objects with a 135mm where the performance wide open in the corners matters? Copy work require a shorter lens. I use this focal length primarily for pictures of people. Couldn't care less if something in the corners was sharp or not. As a matter of fact I wouldn't want it to be sharp. Most of this is academic. I've owned Zeiss ZE's and they are pretty little jewels. But I've ended up selling them and returning to Canon for the fast autofocus while pocketing hundreds of dollars to apply toward other gear. In the case of the 85mm 1.4, it didn't focus as closely to fill the frame with a model's face and even though the 85mm 1.2 is slow, it still almost always focuses faster than manually, letting me concentrate on composition, metering, communicating with the model. i.e.: doing the other things required to get the shot. Spend your money however you wish, but these arguments don't mean THAT much in the REAL world.
Glen Barrington: I don't think there is any mention of the logo or the company outright, just the patents. This isn't the Motorola deal.
And it's bigger than many of you seem to think. Kodak practically invented digital photography, many of their patents make up the base level of technology. And none of it (digital photography) has passed into the public domain. It is likely that the new owners would be able to collect royalties from just about everyone involved in capturing and displaying photographs.
And let's be honest. If Apple and Google team up to buy them, there aren't many who could outbid them, and given their litigious nature, I suspect the partnership WOULD be smart enough to enforce their patent rights.
Kodak may well end up like Polaroid, but I doubt it will be because of the Apple/Google consortium.
What a stupid comment. Are you suggesting NO ONE should own patents? Someone (a person or company) invested time, energy, money into developing an idea or concept and they deserve ownership. If they then want to sell that, it's their right to do so.Just like copyrights and trademarks. How about I get to own all the photos you've ever taken, just because I say YOU shouldn't be allowed to owned the art you've created. Think before you mouth off.
there's a cool simple product called FlashPipe they didn't mention that was on Kickstarter a few months ago.
peevee1: Why would anybody buy this?
if you have to ask, then you obviously don't "get" it. incredible image quality. the same reason commercial pro photographers shoot other medium format cameras. but this one is as holdable and fast handling as an SLR. Great optics and the ability to use other lenses from other manufacturers. When you're working at the pro level and making thousand$$$$s of dollars per assignment, this is NOT an expensive investment. When your images pop off of the page/screen and you land the next job and your competition does NOT, then you wouldn't ask who would buy this. If it's not YOU, then I have a better chance of getting the job that you didn't get if you were bidding on the same job.
cleverinstigator: I'm sorry why not put up a few satellite relays in between so we can get some decent images of the planet why spend that much money on a mission that is 8 years behind in sensor technology. 2mp is a joke for landscape shots.
I went to the trouble of signing up JUST TO RESPOND to the brainless, idiotic statement above. Obviously you're a rocket scientist and genius, right? You were SO smart that NASA had to let you go I guess."A few satellite relays" Oops, they forgot to do that! They already have a few up there from years ago at an enormous cost. It's not like Sprint digging a hole & putting up a new cell tower. And if you read the story with ANY comprehension you'd see that projects like this are planned and budgeted YEARS in advance. And it's STILL state of the art. I don't see any competitors on the surface of Mars, do you? Or maybe you built something better in your basement and it's on its way up there now? I can only hope you're a child and not an adult with that sort of noodle inside your skull. FYI: it's also 350 MILLION miles away!!!! That's 14,000 times the circumference of your planet, assuming you're from Earth. I'm so sick of the stupidity and stupid remarks in these forums.
Sam Carriere: It would be wonderful is Dpreview left this NASA boondoggle to the newspapers and concentrated on matters of interest to photographers.
And what exactly is the "boondoggle" that NASA has committed?
wlachan: 600EX + ST-E3-RT for $1100? Is Canon insane?
Chinese goods are still cheap because that government has refused to revalue their currency for one thing. I don't blame them, they're supporting so many other economies by buying their bonds. Also, China is not a truly Capitalistic economy. It is State Capitalism. It is still heavily managed by their government any many industries are heavily subsidized. And the wages and living conditions for factory workers are cheap, cheap, cheap. It's still MUCH cheaper to produce things in China, hence why so many things are made there, including third party camera gear and brand name camera gear accessories. Pro level camera bodies are still primarily made at home in Japan. Whether it's rubber tires, camera gear, or tennis shoes...if their government decides to enter a market and dictate prices, they have the ability to do so cheaply. They also can OVER do things. Look at the empty ghost cities and real estate glut they've created over there by churning out thousands of unneeded homes.
The Dollar and several European currencies have been devalued. Have you been shopping for food or other items recently? Have you not noticed how much other items have also increased? Third party options have ALWAYS been cheaper BECAUSE they're 3rd party options. No explanation needed, but since you don't seem to get it: those companies don't have the name recognition or reputation (you do pay something for that), they don't have the huge advertising budgets, the large infrastructure (factories, distribution channels, employee benefits perhaps, etc.) And often the quality is NOT the same even if people like to delude themselves about this, thinking they're getting a bargain. You usually get what you pay for. Here in the USA if you look at the price of a gallon of gasoline it's approaching $4/gal again. If you compare that price to a few years ago and use gold instead of the Dollar as the measure, gas prices are actually lower. That means our dollar has been devalued.
Ashley Pomeroy: Never mind this arty-farty "art" nonsense - and it does seem that access to a helicopter and a pilot are the key to Laforet's art - let's hear about Nokia's new 41-megapixel smartphone. That's extraordinary, if it's really true.
Really? And this is a serious photography blog, right? So even if Nokia does manage to cram 41 megapixels onto a tiny chip, do you really think it's going to rock the photography world? Thought we were beyond the numbers game. I'm sure every new owner of that phone...err...camera will instantly become a professional, internationally recognized photographer. :-P
Zvonimir Tosic: It does not come in white version, only black?A white one would be a great supplement to white iPhones and iPads for fashion conscious photographers, and to field reporters working stealth in frozen wastelands of the Antarctica.
Zvo:I've got an official can of Canon "fashion white" spray paint I'll sell you. It's engineered to only stick to black items and won't gum up any moving parts. Please send $999 to my PayPal account and you can be the first one on your block to have a Canon 1D X W!