B E: Have not seen this one mentioned:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2a8TRSgzZY
Thanks, I've been remembering that one, but didn't know how to find it :) Classic!
These pick-up lines are tantamount to slurring "heey gorgeous, wa-wanna have sex with me?" at a woman.
If she's halfway sane, she'll not even look where that noise came from, much less dignify that noise with a response. And two seconds later, she'll have forgotten that it happened.
The photography business is really in dire straits if there are discussions about how to come up with a witty retort.
I guess we have to be grateful that Sony pretends to be listening at last, but this update for the NEX-7 is disappointing nonetheless.
The bracketing is still useless because you can't combine it with delayed shutter or remote, so you can't use it with long exposure times on a tripod. Have these people never taken pictures themselves?
And why they didn't take the opportunity to let the user re-assign the movie button instead of merely disabling it?
I guess it would have been hard work. This update looks like a cheap and half-assed quick fix, the sort of thing that I'd come up with after one afternoon to pacify the customer "until the real thing comes along."
Having had to wait almost one year for this "update" doesn't elevate my opinion of Sony very much.
qwertyasdf: Marc Newson the second?
I don't think so. If Marc Newson's K-01 is dead in the water, then it's not because of its looks. I think it looks better than it works.
Technically it's an exceptionally stupid design, but I doubt that Mr Newson had any say in deciding upon its specifications.
fenceSitter: Next to Nikon's P7700 and Panasonic's FZ200, the G15 and SX50 HS don't look like winners to me.
iudex: I feel the P7700's disadvantage of having no OVF is far outweighed the advantages of having a fully articulated screen, a longer zoom range, and probably a better performing sensor (thanks to back-illumination). But that's just me.
DStudio: I don't understand where you get the idea that "the SX50 HS has a sensor which is twice as big."
According to Panasonic's and Canon's respective web sites, their size is identical, i.e. 1/2.3" in both cases.
Next to Nikon's P7700 and Panasonic's FZ200, the G15 and SX50 HS don't look like winners to me.
Beware, someone might steal half of your picture, upper half or lower half. You must add at least four more watermarks, to cover high heels, legs, boobs, and eyes.
Marty4650: Setting aside the merits or liabilities of the Q system.... is this an actual upgrade of the Q, or just a repackaging of the Q with a few very minor improvements added? (higher top shutter speed, optional viewfinder, optional remote control, AF assist lamp, etc.)
When you compare the specs of the two cameras it doesn't look like there is very much new here. I assume that the new lens and the new adapter will work with either camera, so why buy the new Q10 when the Q is selling for half it's price?
Quote Marty4650: "is this an actual upgrade of the Q, or just a repackaging of the Q with a few very minor improvements added?"
It's neither. It's a downgrade, which is not uncommon when companies realize that there's no market for their product in the price bracket they had envisioned.
An "upgraded" version is then released with a lower MSRP, and lower specs as well.
Did you not notice that Pentax doesn't harp on about the Q10's brilliantly made magnesium alloy body, like they did in their blurbs for the original Q?
That's because the Q10 doesn't have a magnesium alloy body at all. They ditched that concept.
Jefftan: I have no idea why they think $500 is a reasonable price for small sensorall these product have always been below $400
Right now with increasing competition and game changer RX100 they actually think they could increase the price by 25% is totally silly in my opinion
Market will teach them a lesson. Even at $400 whether they can compete with Olympus XZ-1, Canon S100 and LX5 is uncertain
They really overestimate themselves by the success of Galaxy phone but this is camera which they have always been the underdog
I think the simple answer is: they think $500 is a reasonable price for small sensor because they weren't privy to everyone else's product pipelines.
Apart from that, even the predecessor EX1/TL500 is a fantastic little camera with very, very, very good image quality (if you stay at base ISO, that is).
The "game changer" RX100 has neither an articulated screen, nor can it be operated via IR remote. For some people these are essential features, so they'll be better off with a camera like the Samsung.
Horses for courses.
Scott2012: Thanks for all your postings. I have learned a lot about these two new cameras and want to pre-order either the D800 or D800e. I am confused which camera is the best to purchase. I am a part-time wedding photographer--about 15 weddings a year in a competitive market--and do a lot of nature photography. The 800e seems to be the right direction, but is it going to result in A LOT of post production? Can anyone help me?
There's an example on Nikon's web site to illustrate the difference between D800 and D800e:
IMHO the D800e crop looks really, really terrible, and it has convinced me to go with the cheaper standard version instead.
It's a great offer for anyone who has already invested in lenses with Sigma mount.
For anyone else, it's not really tempting, I guess. 17 months ago, the SD1's resolution was peerless among DSLRs, and would have been an interesting proposition for 3300ish Dollars.
Today, the SD1m will have to compete with Nikon's D800 and I don't see how.
Gabor Szantai: In 2008 you could have bought a D700 for 2.999 USD or 1.999 GBP (1 USD was about 0.6 GBP)and now, in 2012 the D800 is 2.999 USD but 2.399 GBP (1 USD is still about 0.6 GBP)
I wanna shake someone's hand at Nikon UK, thanks guys, really...
I don't think Nikon is to blame for the British Pound taking a nosedive in the second half of 2008, and not going back to where it was before:
To me it looks like they've been simply adjusting the price to the altered exchange rate. (The link is unfortunately not clickable, you have to use cut and paste, or google "USD GBP")
I find this camera (i.e. what we know about it at this time) absolutely brilliant: In a Leica M9 sized package, we now have a hybrid viewfinder, autofocus, an 1.23 MP LCD screen, video -- basically everything the Leica M9 is lacking to this date. And at a fraction of the price. Now let's just hope that Fuji doesn't fsck up the details.
F2.8 on an m43 camera doesn't sound like "large aperture" to me, as far as Bokeh is concerned. If I'm not mistaken, it will be the same as with a F5.6 lens on a Nikon D700.
dmanthree: What a curious camera. While it looks nice, why would I buy this instead of something with interchangeable lenses? The f2.8 aperture is nice, but it vanishes quickly as the zoom extends.
I don't know why *you* would buy it. Me, I can imagine buying it because portability is tantamount to me, and this Canon's picture quality may turn out to be peerless for a camera this size and weight. Time will tell whether that is the case.
rpbrand: Nice shot, Bonehead.
All over the park are signs telling you not to feed the animals! There is even one like yours with a line through it, in the international style of signage. Some people, like you, are special and don't think the rules apply to them.
You are right, in a way.
Nonetheless I'd give Mr/Ms "prittst" the benefit of the doubt and assume that he/she wasn't intentionally flouting the rules (which, BTW, may happen with very good reason from time to time, just not in this case).
I would rather suspect that he/she was simply lacking common sense.
Oh great. A hundred scene modes + Super Slow Motion Movies in 320 x 240, all the things that we need like a hole in the head.
I would have been much happier (and more tempted to buy this thing) if the S100 would offer a wireless remote, at least as an option.
Speaking of which: without a wireless remote, the only way to minimize shake blur in night shots is the self-timer. It's definitely a huge step back if the self-timer is now buried in menus.
I'd rather not comment on the authors ignorant remark that a self-timer is only for "obsessive self-portraitists".