I think the best thing about old photographs is the people. My Mom has some old Kodachrome slides of the Roman Forum from the early 1960s. Everything looks exactly like it does today, except everyone is wearing a coat and tie on vacation.
chris00nj: Ninja checks pulse of guy whose neck he just snapped. What is so special about that?
If you need a caption to explain the photo, then it is not award worthy.
Ninja checks pulse of guy whose neck he just snapped. What is so special about that?
Kodak made low quality digital cameras in the tradition of the Instamatic and box brownie. However, very low end cameras are being replaced by cameras on phones.
Kodak has no camera in the semi-pro range, so there was no way to go up market with Kodak.
There is no reason why Kodak couldn't have produced something like the Sony NEX.
For me, the big turnoff to the Sony NEX is that their lens line is geared towards soccer moms. (and other people upgrading from a compact, who don't know what the word aperture means).
Slow kit zooms dominate their lens line up. Maybe, 2 1/2 years after the camera was released, they will offer a fast normal prime. Maybe.
Fuji, on the other hand, is releasing their camera with 3 fast primes. According ot their lens roadmap, in total, 9 lenses by the end of 2013, 6 primes lenses. The zooms they will offer are all constant aperture.
chris00nj: Price is reasonable, especially considering the poor dollar to yen exchange.
The Leica M8 still sells for $2200 used and that is a vintage 2005 sensor that can't take a decent photo at ISO 800.
The Sony Nex-7 is $1600 with soccer mom kit zoom lens and doesn't have a viewfinder.
The Fuji viewfinder has different maginifications. It's only a 0.37x finder at its widest.
It's like the Canon IV rangefinder, but better
Cy Cheze: $2,300 for the X-Pro1, versus $900 for the K-01. The extra $1,400 for the viewfinder, plus some extra controls, may be small potatoes to some. For others, maybe not, but those who buy will surely devise some impressive argument about why they made the best possible choice, and be equally vehement about the poor judgment and awful photos of those who opt for "cheap toys." It always works that way.
Fuji does make some good stuff. The firm probably figures that loyalists will pay a premium to own its best, without handicapping volume, since (like a Rolex or Vuitton) it is a niche luxury. Leica, move aside.
Meanwhile, if you consider the appreciation of the yen, the price is a fair reflection of Japanese production costs and purchase parity. A 1970s SLR, with the price adjusted for inflation, would probably cost more.
The K-01 is also butt ugly and is plastic.
dougster1979: Just curious why we seem to pay about 20-30% more in the UK? $2300 =£1455 at todays exchange rates,. Is is to do with vat. Or are we being robbed
It's mostly VAT, which is included in the price. In the US, sales tax is added afterwards. So Americans will pay $2300 + 8% (or whatever the local sales tax). That'll close the gap a little, but UK Vat is 20%.
There is also a difference in VAT and sales tax. VAT is added for every stage of production. Sales tax is just at final sale, so that 20% VAT is multiplied several times.
When I lived in the UK, I found that whatever something cost in the US in dollars, would cost about the same in the UK in pounds, despite the 1.8/1 exchange ratio.
Price is reasonable, especially considering the poor dollar to yen exchange.
I think it's hard to judge who is right and wrong because there is some missing information on the bride's part and some half-truths on the photogs part.
What exactly is the bride looking for? --Is it 10 hours of coverage, prints, and a fancy album? --Or is it 6 hours of coverage and jpeg files?--What exactly is "decently priced" and "exceptional"?
Shooting a wedding is tough and stressful, but post processing takes the most time, especially if you are building an album. An Art Leather album, plus quality prints costs $500 alone, not to mention the time involved.
The photographer is also producing some half truths. Besides overestimating her expenses, she is comparing everything against shooting 20 weddings a year. Her cash flow would be much different if she shot 30 weddings a year.