> 30,000 photographs were taken. After seeing the result, that's 28,000 photographs too many.
xenofotofun: The RX100 series….: the digi throw away cam of the new millennium; a clever $$$ fleecing plan for the P.S. fan sheep from your Sony photo-God! Third evolution and still no wether-dust sealing; once the dust gets in its time for the garbage. At this price range it should have been included from the start….waiting for more useful improvements until I buy or perhaps Pana or Fuji will deliver the right P.S. "common sense" is over taken by greed…..
xenofotofun: You've been a member since 2012 and this is your first post! Please wait another 2 years before you spew your next negative troll nonsense.
bruce20D: $1000 camera with no external battery charger ??? c'mon sony thats just just silly !!
Wasabi Power Battery Charger on Amazon for $13.49. What's the big deal?
Rob: The 2.5 BILLION dollar project uses cameras sporting a whole 2 megapixes? Oh, the image is murky because the camera's removable dust cover is apparently coated with dust blown onto the camera during the rover's terminal descent. I guess they didn't take into account Mars might have some dust. That's 2,500 million dollars. Dang, if that Nikon 800 didn't have that focus issue....
"Nikon 800". blah, blah, blah. "I guess they didn't take into account Mars might have some dust"No, all NASA engineers are imbeciles. Two of my JPL friends worked on this project. They've never heard of dust. I just e-mailed them your remark so they can be more prepared next time. Thanks for your insight, Rob.
It must really be a slow news day to feature this.
Salib: why always Canon????
I can't stop looking at it.
Taken: Monday, 19th October, 2009
Oops. Jeff Healy died March 2, 2008. Nuff said
I just bought a Tamron 18-200mm E-mount lens today.This is a 100 jpeg % crop. Is this a "normal" amount chromatic aberration for this lens? Should I return it?
>the white discs decrease in size as you go up the DR scale, but they retain their artificial-looking, hard-edged appearance.
With a designer who makes chairs like, this what did you expect?http://www.marc-newson.com/ProjectImages.aspx?GroupSelected=0&ProjectName=Plastic+Orgone+Chair%0D1998+-+Marc+Newson+Ltd+&Category=Products
Okay, you've got my attention.
Ibida Bab: $2000.00: is this a joke?
>$2000.00: is this a joke?Why the big surprise? We've known the price for months now. Samy's price is $1,348.00 with 18-55mm kit lens. IF you can get it.
Pentax_Prime: Anyone else notice the interviewer doesn't appear to know anything about digital cameras? He's asking generic questions like it's going out of style.
Those familiar with DPR are aware that Amadou is frequently used in the role of interviewer. I think he is neither tired nor lacking knowledge of digital cameras as has been suggested. There is little point for an interviewer to get testy or pose probing questions to a product manager. Why not cut Amadou a bit of slack?
As per Canon Rumorshttp://www.canonrumors.com/
Canon USA Announces Cinema EOS C300 and EOS C300 PL Cameras
8.3mp 2160×3840 Super-35 CMOS sensor (4K resolution) DIGIC DVIII Processor Canon XF Codec Dual Compact Flash Slots Exposure and focus are both manual only Uses existing BP-955 and BP-975 batteries Sold as a system, including LCD monitor / XLR audio unit, side grip, and top handle. Availability: Jan. 2012; Price: appx. $16,000 USD
New Lenses (PL & EF Versions)
Canon Zoom Lens CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L S Canon Zoom Lens CN-E14.5-60mm T2.6 L SP Canon Zoom Lens CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L S Canon Zoom Lens CN-E30-300mm T2.95-3.7 L SP
Three New Primes for EF Mount Only
Canon Prime Lens CTZ-029 (24mm) Canon Prime Lens CTZ-030 (50mm) Canon Prime Lens CTZ-031 (85mm)
G Davidson: The problem is the sensors just aren't competitive with DSLRs. I've seen high ISO samples in real life and they're just terrible. A while ago, when this was an exotic function, this wouldn't have mattered so much as people would have been happy to stay below 400. It's something they'll really need to work on, as their form factor is excellent for the more casual shooter who is now lumbered with a DSLR. Also, they need to standardize built-in EVF's. Without this, they seem like a glorified compact and their low resolution LCDs don't make up for it.
Basically, consumers are very smart and their money is hard-earned. They and shop staff that bid their trust will see through marketing talk to the real issues before they make a purchase, and people looking for a 'second system' are few and far between. Until it improves, mirror less is still in beta stage and a lot of people know it. Other issues, like smaller and faster lenses are also there, as for some, lack of DOF control is an issue.
G Davidson:No offense, but several of your comments are based on pure conjecture and half-truths. Also, what does "seeing high ISO samples in real life" mean? A print? I hope you considered the numerous paper and printer variables that affect print output?
All I want is a pocketable mirrorless, with a perfectly balanced feel, the IQ and bokeh of a FF SLR, a pancake 24-210 zoom, 12 fps stills, 1920 x 1080 60 fps video, a superior EVF and zero lag-time shutter for less than $600. In short, everything. Why is that so hard?
And when you get done building that, I’ll have a brand new request list for next year’s model. Don’t disappoint me.
acktown: I hear the video just fine. Thanks for the preview! Since I work in a retail camera store, I got an early sneak peak and absolutely love the V1 compared to my D700 and D90
Curious. How does one compare a FF D700 to a V1? Seems like there is very little to compare.
BJN: Wow, what a tempest in a teapot. If you watch the demo, the image in question is shown mostly for comic effect after the technology is show in detail on two larger images that are truly blurred by camera motion. Some marketing person helping to put the presentation together decided to add a little humor and thus the "synthetic" blur was born. If the algorithm can extract a motion formula to remove blur, it makes sense that the motion formula could be applied to a sharp image in a reverse of the process. Frankly, although it wasn't mentioned in the presentation, such a synthetic blur could be a useful tool. Motion blur isn't organic or realistic.
Adobe's technology works in two directions instead of one. You'd think this was some big coup on the part of pixel peeping web geeks, but it's just a very minor bit of unexplained showmanship on the part of Adobe marketing. Grow up internet, and shame on DPReview for jumping on the bandwagon.
BJNWe're just having a bit of fun. Don't you think it's funny for Adobe to photoshop a blur and pass if off as authentic so they can fix it in photoshop?