Most lenses are based on Zeiss formulas, so it's not surprising many lenses designs are similar (but not identical, because that would patent fringing). This is especially true for telephoto lenses (not super telephoto) where elements are smaller in number.
citizenlouie: These are the killers.... Very good move, Pentax. But what I don't understand is why Canon Red on Pentax lenses.... What happened to green?
I think it makes more marketing sense if big players stick with their distinctive color so when people spot the lens, they know which brand it is.
Canon = RedNikon = YellowOlympus = BluePentax = Green
These colors are very established, if Pentax changed it, that means it now has to start from ground zero to rebuild its brand recognition.
These are the killers.... Very good move, Pentax. But what I don't understand is why Canon Red on Pentax lenses.... What happened to green?
I feel the pain for web masters. The idea is wading through constructive criticisms and destructive criticism. Censorship isn't a solution, because censorship really turns people off, sometimes creative people with genuine ideas. Spams have no place whatsoever, however.
mckracken88: not convinced.
not a fan of overdone hdr and filters. (and foam water)
It's not HDR. It's exactly what you get if you shot in overcast, gloomy lighting, you exposed right. No HDR required to get the color.
Mr Fartleberry: I learned a long time ago not to waste my time and film on these sort of shots. Even today very few RAWs from trips get processed afterwards shooting in cloudy/rain conditions. I use my time better running into town and getting a real meal.
Then again maybe you can buy those zillion bags and rain covers thru Amazon if you think someone wants to buy your pictures of occluded misery.
Perhaps you exposed them improperly. Under cloudy/overcast days, you can get very saturated color in your photos without photoshop. I think use a slide film probably works better under such lighting.
Benarm: Interesting, but many of them look staged.
Yes, they're staged, like graybalanced explained already. And I'm going to add a little art history here. In the beginning of photography, it's considered as an inferior art form than painting, so many photographs were mimicking paintings in term of aestheticism. The trend of "straight photography," that is, shoot photos as photos, instead as a subjugate form of painting is a relatively modern notion (IIRC, it was under people like Edward Weston and Stieglitz who made people realized photography is a separate art form).
Isn't it ironic that pioneers of photography took so many decades to establish the photography as a legitimate art form only to be reduced by people who shoots rubbishes due to the wide availability of easy-to-use cameras and smart phones?
The purpose of art is to promote thinking. If even the artist himself doesn't think when he creates, what kind of art could you expect?
The simplest way to appreciate arts is to take an art class, and put your own hands on the project from beginning to finish. Some of people here who don't appreciate them because they've taken things for granted by their easy-to-use DSLRs. Once they understand the whole film taking/develop process, they'll know even the smallest things like metering, focusing, selecting the direction of light, select correct focal length to use (e.g., something like do you want to use a 50mm and stand 3 feet away from the subject or a 75mm and stand 6 feet away), and choosing the correct films for correct lighting/effect are distinctions between a skilled photographer and an unskilled one. Some immature people just like to put down other people's effort in order to hide their inner insecurity or lack of aptitude to learn.
clicstudio: Gorgeous and amazing photos! They almost look recent.Makes u realize the "real" photographers were those, 70 to 80 years ago, who shot manual and film and without an LCD screen to help and no photoshop.I really admire them and the glimpse of Americana their photos show. Color makes the whole difference. Thanx for sharing!
@ Scott Easton
Yes, some of the older photographers, if were given a new DSLR of today, would definitely use the newer format. But they won't use it as a point and shoot and hoping one shot would come out right. Beautiful photos like these were not achieved by coincidence, because you need to know your lighting theories inside out. Back then, because of the limitation of their equipments, pro photographers were actually considered skilled workers.
Hobbit13: These (amazing) photos have been online for ages (Wikipedia uses them in many articles). So what's the "news"?
I'm still deeply impressed by the image quality of the "Turret lathe operator ", even for today's standards, that's a very high resolution picture. see full image at:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/WomanFactory1940s.jpg (uploaded in 2005!)
Ansel Adams is known for his painstakingly made post-processing skill. Back in the days, post-processing was done in dark room, not Lightroom. That's the only difference. However, when he shot them, he already knew what he was going to do in dark room, how to crop, how to meter so the photo would be underexposed/overexposed to save highlight/shadow detail. Post-processing, is as old as photography itself. Though some of us are minimalists, but I don't deny the usefulness of PP, especially when your medium has limitation. I find it repulsive only when it's abused. An experienced photographer should integrate PP (if needed) as part of the process, rather than as a fix of a badly shot photo.
Good new test method! I like it. I see no surprise with the test result though. RX100 II's IQ is the worst, the other three cameras shows similar results, with NEX 6 slightly better at base ISO. Olympus shows best color (no surprise), but the big surprise here is Panasonic's JPEG engine has improved to be fairly acceptable now. Great achievement.
peevee1: Correction data for a lens should be stored in a lens. Every lens has some NVRAM anyway (so body can read its identifier). Nikon and Canon got the protocol wrong.
@Just a Photographer. Nikon can do it like what Olympus does. Hook the lens to the camera body and run the update program. Both my 4/3 and m4/3 cameras/lenses are updated the same way. I think the reason Nikon does it this way though is because there are many legacy lenses in their library, whereas 4/3 and m4/3 are made for digital format from ground up (and distortion data was already embedded in the lens when they released). So what Nikon did was the only feasible way.
Just use common sense when reading reviews. If the review contains a lot of hyperboles and lack of objectivity, then I usually discount it more than the one that's more impartial and honest. Another thing I find is, some people are so happy about their purchase, which is nice they rave about their purchase, but please let us know what's the reference point. For example, some people say "it's the sharpest lens I have ever used." Which is nice, but how many lenses you have used is a very important criteria when people judge the quality of your review. Same can be said about negative reviews. I don't know if they're still teaching this in college, but when we do research (reading reviews is kind of like a purchase research), we need to know the credential of the person who wrote the article. An industry expert's words weigh more than someone who's merely very enthusiastic about the subject.
Well deserved first place. Not only the subject is nice, but the attention to the backdrop is just excellent with meaningful use of shallow DoF. Amour means "love" in Spanish, and the other word in focus is rapport. Both show what a marriage should mean.
The survey is badly written. Feels like it's written by a new college grad who has never taken a statistics class with very limited language skill. Many questions are almost guaranteed to generate useless data. Some of the survey questions are painful to answer (I wanted to stop taking the survey several times) because the questions are so badly written. The survey should be sent to someone with knowledge of photography before it's gone live.
I love the part "According to our exhaustive research" about the Asuka camera. LOL. I am sure you knew that already.
These are Holga killers. :D
logbi77: So we have Fujifilm naming a superzoom X-S1 while Panasonic names an ultrathin compact XS1.
It is very annoying isn't it? There is a Canon G series, and there is also a Panasonic G series. There is a Canon G1x, and there is a Panasonic GX1.
Some marketing department's conversations are weird. They typically ask for a special letter to be in the model name. The most popular ones are X, Z, and Q, but there is no Y. ;)
It is a nice looking camera. The edges at each side reminds me of the old film cameras made by Pentax and Minolta (both made beautiful cameras). The handling might be a little retro also though. It needs an eveready case for a good hand grip (that's what I do with my Olympus film OM cameras), since it doesn't have the removable hand grip add-on like the Olympus XZ-2 has.
I think the tapered end at the grip for XZ-2 is not just for modern line, but the thinner middle makes the much thicker end, essentially, a grip, without that recognizable hand grip look. A more subtle design of the modern camera. Many better designed compact cameras (including ILCs) have some sort of contour curves to compensate for the aesthetically pleasing but ergonomically awful thinner bodies.
Can't wait see the result of course. Especially a side by side comparison with the XZ-2.
Maxfield_photo: Although this camera isn't for me, I like the brass, and I hope to see that as an option on future Pentax offerings.
But FFS, what is with the goofy sensor measurements? What is 1/1.7 of an inch? Who thinks in those terms? Why not say .58 inches, or better yet 15mm.
I agree with you, Maxfield, that'll make life easier. But unfortunately the convention is set up this way. I studied accounting before, so I know changing standard from one to another is more problematic than one could possible imagine (lots of tiny details will have to iron out, it's not as simple as it seems). The standard print sizes are still 8x10", 11x14" and the likes, though those are from the large format days!!! Fortunately this camera, like most compacts, uses 4:3 aspect ratio..., so it's easier to print standard sizes like 8x10 or 11x14.... (compact camera has too small a sensor to print 12x18).
And most of the photography terms are counter-intuitive, anyways. Just use what you're given, because the convention is just too set-in. It's easier to adapt than try to change the world is what I've learned over the years....