visionaer: Sadly Apple is doing the same with all new products. They dont care about the Pros anymore.
The University of Minnesota's Mesabi supercomputer is your personal machine?
Karl Summers: You can find the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at Canon Price Watch from an authorized dealer for $200 less.
Worth noting that the CPW street price also decreased at the same time this price drop was announced.
mpgxsvcd: This is going to be a pathetic stills camera. Low resolution, small sensor, and less than stellar focal ratios. I really do not agree with this article at all.
From the perspective of a news reporter, still image quality is more than good enough. An 8MP 4K frame grab will get resized to 900x600 or smaller for web use and 8MP is more than sufficient for newspapers (honestly you could get away with far less resolution) - it's the image content and speed of delivery that matters here.
Just a Photographer: I think a 15.4" Surface Pro 4, with proper i7 processor, 512GB SSD, 32GB memory and 802.11AC would have been a better choice.
At least it would then make it an interesting device for photographers and illustrators.
If you want a mobile device for illustrators/pen-heavy photo retouching, why aren't you looking at the Cintiq Companion 2? Real wacom pen tech with tilt recognition instead of n-trig, plus you get shortcut keys on the side. The top spec version with i7, 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM sells for $2500.
The test lens is apparently pretty sharp, although there are not really any great examples to examine bokeh character with.
Is the NX500 really that noisy at at ISO200? There is more noise visible in the 100% crops than I would have expected at such a low ISO.
nathantw: I'm really impressed. But, how well does the Tamron perform at 14mm? For those that say it's only one mm, look at the comparison photo. That one mm was the difference between seeing the top of the Space Needle and just seeing the support structure.
Some people may prefer the 15-30mm range over 14-24mm even if they also own a 24-70mm - I know I do.
A 12-24mm would either be a monstrosity at f/2.8 or would need to sacrifice aperture (or image quality) for a more reasonable size. I've used this new Tamron, it's gigantic, far bigger than any 24-70mm. Completely serious when I say this - it's not that much smaller/lighter than a 70-200mm f/2.8, the overall length (especially with the front lens cap installed) is surprising.
So how well does the Nikon perform at 30mm?
With a rated capacity of 4Kg, this is the least heavy-duty geared head in the Manfrotto line-up - why is it being touted it as an option for "photographers who use weighty equipment?"
One of their heads with a higher capacity rating (such as the Manfrotto 400/405/410 geared heads) would most likely allow for more precise adjustment to composition when using a full-size DSLR kit.
Simon97: Where's the review already! ;)
You're in luck, as I've just finished my review:
The mockup has a very solid, yet plasticky feel to it, and is apparently capable of mounting Pentax K mount lenses - dismounting them, however, is another story altogether. According to Pentax reps on hand, the lens you see attached to the body in our photos is a permanent fixture, greatly decreasing the flexibility of the camera.
The viewfinder is large yet disappointingly dark, and the buttons and wheels are difficult to actuate and provide essentially no tactile feedback. Additionally, the lack of labels and top LCD makes changing and confirming settings somewhat of a challenge.
The camera autofocuses silently and the shutter is impressively quiet (we couldn't hear it!), but the metering system needs work - based on image review on the rear LCD, the camera massively underexposed every shot we took.
There were certainly some disappointments, but overall the mockup shows promise. With a few adjustments, it could be a real camera.
erotavlas: EDIT: Actually I found this so everyone can relax now :)
U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell told the Washington Post today that the embattled agency would make changes in the language of rules governing media access, photography and video in federal wilderness areas.
"If you're news media, it has no effect at all," he said. "If you're a private individual, this doesn't apply."
Individuals who want to shoot on wild lands won't need a permit, even if they plan to sell their photographs, except if it involves props, the report said
This article is not very clear and appears to rely on somewhat outdated information, anyone interested in this issue might want to read this:
"The public originally had until Nov. 3, 2014, to comment on the proposal. Based on the high level of interest, the agency will extend the public comment period to Dec. 3, 2014.
The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs."
Unless you are doing a model shoot or using the land as back drop for a similar professional shoot, you likely will not need a permit.
MAubrey: You know...traditionally in headline writing, if there's a question the answer is invariably know. So the question is: are you communicating the right thing or the wrong thing?
@Matt - the text is different for each photo in the slideshow.
RichRMA: No perceptible cloud motion, yet the water was obviously moving.
Not really too surprising that no cloud movement is noticeable, as this was a 4 second exposure (exposure info is given away in the ACR window, top right corner) - that's plenty of time to smooth water for the receding wave, but generally not long enough to show much in the way of cloud motion, especially at web sizes.
Alphoid: I'm not sure if the premium Tamron thing will play out. Virtually all of their lenses fail with moderately heavy use, and they don't really honor warranties. That's not the kind of reputation higher-end consumers would go for. Moving up-scale from there would either involve dramatically shifting economics on their low-end craptics, and starting to make things out of materials which don't fail with a bit of use, starting to honor warranties, etc. It would break economics on everything they make, and it would take years for reputation to catch up.
Price leader is where they are, and probably where they should stay. Or a clear split in branding.
The 15-30mm f/2.8 clearly has a rear gasket in the photos above, judging from that I assume that lens has some amount of sealing. In addition, the new 28-300 is advertised as "splash-proof" on tamron's website.
Judging from these samples, it's really quite impressive how far we've come in the past 10-20 years of digital cameras. This level of imaging fits in your pocket, with a lens that covers a very useful range, and has a viewfinder.
I had an RX100 Mrk I, loved the pocketability and just about everything else, only complaints were the somewhat detached shooting experience and the corners at wide angle - but this new lens is noticeably better at wide angle, and I think the EVF will go a long way when it comes to an improved shooting experience. Wish the battery life was projected to be a bit better, but I might just pick one up anyways.
Kevin Purcell: One other thing to note: they let the lens distortion go wild to get this lens to folde up.
These lens designs have 7% distortion at the edge of frame at the wide end of the lens. That's a lot of distortion and needs a lot of correction (it's all barrel so it's correctable).
As someone pointed out below the "28mm eq" image in JPEG shows a 25 (or perhaps 26mm eq) lens in RAW.
Indeed. It's also quite likely that corners at wide angle will be noticeably soft regardless of aperture used, as software correction of barrel distortion chews up a fair bit of resolution. This was also the case with the original RX100 - source: I had one for the better part of a year, sold it because of soft corners at wide angle (other than that and a few minor performance/ergonomic hiccups, it was about as good as I could have hoped).
If you want great corner to corner IQ @ wide angle in a pocketable form factor, I recommend taking a close look at the Ricoh GR-V/Nikon Coolpix A.
BorisK1: The table says 26mm equivalent FL, while the text says 28mm. That's a pretty big difference in WA coverage.
Going by 1" sensor 2.72 crop factor, 9.58mm * 2.72 = 26.0mm. That's what I'm rooting for, then :)
Something to consider: the RX100/RX100II uncorrected RAW files have a diagonal field of view similar to 25mm on full-frame, but after correcting for distortion diagonal field of view is roughly equivalent to 28mm.
Raist3d: If I was a Pro Landscape Photographer, as in selling big prints, etc. of landscapes and having a nice cash flow I would totally go for this.
I tried the first camera before this one and it is quite amazing. Pentax has a long history of medium format 645 film series, and this one supports all those lenses too.
Depends on how big you print and how far you have carry the camera on your back. Specific for landscape use, regardless of price I'd still give an A7r setup consideration due to the size/weight advantage and ability to adapt pretty much any lens (in particular Canon's 17mm/24mm tilt-shifts). A kit based around an A7r could pared down to the 8lb/3.8kg range w/ TS-lens/tripod/filters/etc., vs. likely close to twice that for a medium format setup. If you're doing significant time on the trail to get your shots - ie, multiple nights in the backcountry, where you have to carry a shelter, sleeping bag, food, etc., in additional to camera - all those things start to add up, and the more you carry, the slower you go.
Then again, the 645Z looks awesome, makes digital medium-format more accessible/appealing than ever - the CMOS sensor bodes well for high ISO performance, reasonable frame rate, fancy (by medium format standards) AF system, etc... definitely has quite a bit going for it.
JFMoore: Given my recent experience I am not as sympathetic as I could be. At the Oakbrook store 5-10 years ago, they had a nice store and generally knowledgeable staff (Wendy was particularly awesome), but recently service had gone to zero. The last straw for me was when I asked to see one of the Fuji mirrorless, any of them, and the manager simply said he couldn't keep them in stock and went on a tirade about how they have no demo units and he's been in this business for 30 years and blah blah. Not redirecting me to other products, inquiring about what else I might need, telling me when to come back when they might better have stock, etc. I had $2k ready to burn on something and after venting he basically walked away with an "alright, buddy". He might as well have pointed at the door.
That is not a way to treat a real customer (I have dropped a lot at this particular store, I feel if you get real pro help from people you should give them the sale).
Check out the petapixel interview, sounds like the stock issues were largely a result of the business circling the drain.
straylightrun: Sony e-mount please.
Not sure if troll (three word post makes it hard to tell, and dpreview comments are usually a wasteland anyways), but... if you're actually serious, know that due to the large flange distances this lens was designed for, an E-mount version of the lens would (short of an optical redesign) just be an extended barrel version of the standard lens. Have a look at the Rokinon/Samyang full-frame E-mount lenses compared to the Sony A/Canon EF/Nikon F mount alternatives to see what I'm talking about.
Unless you are concerned about the added flex when using a mount adapter or the additional cost of the adapter, why not just buy the A-mount version and use one of Sony's E to A mount adapters? Overall size would be the same as a native E-mount version, you'd gain access to a larger market for resale, not to mention the ability to use the lens on A-mount bodies (and vice-versa).