Actually if you study quantum physics or causality, sometimes just observing something can change it. And sometimes the simple act of knowing one thing makes it impossible to know another. You don't need to be actively involved to bring about change, and sometimes even, being actively involved only makes things worse, not better.
Also don't forget to check out the charities you give money to on foundationcenter, guidestar, etc. to make sure they are good stewards of your money.
The free market is the ultimate test of a product, let's see how long this laughable product survives the test.
Evolve or perish.
I don't get it, most of the photos aren't that great, the editing wasn't tight nor did the set really keep my attention. There's a lot better sets than this. The four shown above are really the best, most of the others just seemed like they were thrown in there.
Train-hopping isn't the safest activity and not really for the faint of heart. If he's trying to show the gritty side of it, should also show the people who have lost limbs or suffered other injuries from it, as well as the graves or loved ones of those who perished while attempting it.
Thanks I liked this article, it was a good read.
What is more likely is a scheme to prevent the resale or used sales of lenses. Or a subscription system to bring in additional revenue after the sale of a lens (in exchange for continued use). At the end of the day, companies really only care about the 'bottom line' or another way to make money.
graybalanced: Limited editions don't mean much in a digital world, and there are plenty of blurry lines. Is it still the same edition if you change the size or type of output?
Even worse is leaning on "scarcity" as value in art. That's fine if it's historical, but scarcity on its own is a stupid reason for a collector to base most of the value of a digital piece. Hey, I will print only one copy of this digital photo here, therefore it must be worth four million dollars.
No, let's assign value on the inherent creative value and meaning of the work, not on a scarcity that is implemented in such a plainly artificial way. That's just lying.
Yeah it is the demand that creates value, not supply (scarcity = limited supply). If it's something no one else wants, it doesn't matter how scarce it is, it's not going to be worth a lot because of that.
The whole collector mentality is very odd to me, have never really understood it. They are just things to me. Often times collectors have a different sense of what something is worth as compared to the money they could actually get for it in the near term. The only way this would be illegal is if the photographer had made the promise, publicly or in writing as a contract, that no prints of that photo would ever be made again. If the collector assumed something that he shouldn't have, that is his fault and not the fault of the photographer.
It's the free market. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy their product. I can find reasons to not buy any given company's products but at the end of the day, I am probably just going to ignore them and buy the one that best fits my needs anyways. Some people are more into moralism than I am, but that is their choice and right.
Likely they will sell far more of these than any kind of EOS-M camera.
Please, could you post some photos of actual people taken with this lens in the samples?
Statues don't count, I want to see how the lens handles delicate skin tones, eyes, lashes, etc. Close-up portraits, full-body shots, groups shots, environmental, studio, etc. It's important for a lot of us but it seems like a lot of the time, review samples posted by you guys have only a few people shots -- or none at all. Please don't neglect people photographers.
Don't see the point, even if one is tempted (which I'm not), would be best to wait of the one that can run existing windows apps. When it comes down to it, these things are about the apps, and with such a limited selection there just isn't much reason to buy one.
A solution in search of a problem. While they have designed out the minor inconvenience of downloading your camera's photos to your computer, are people going to pay significantly more for that? Or pay a monthly subscription fee? Not to mention the shorter battery life and limited applications. IT people know the cloud is already yesterday's technology, it has largely come and gone in favor of virtualization.
You follow one rule, but break two others. For instance, the cropping in the second photo cuts off part of the woman's hand. The third photo I think involves some nudity, so it should probably be labelled *NSFW* (or the whole article labelled that) because while we may not mind the nudity, someone looking over our shoulder in the workplace may.
In the modern world where photos are rarely printed and often viewed on screen, in a movable window, the rule of thirds is such a big deal anymore.
Know your audience, users/customers typically go to this site for a few reasons, or expect a few things out of this site. And following links to someone else's commentary isn't one of them.
I've been there, it's hard to use these cameras for sporting events if you are used to the modern automatic DSLRs. Autofocus can't be relied on, ever so slight viewfinder lag, etc. They can be fine for a lot of things, but for sporting events, basically zone focus and keep your other eye open all the time to not miss any action... not saying it can't be done, just that I wouldn't choose it given the choice.
If there are algorithms to detect it, then the same algorithms can be used to hide it, what's the point really?
Coming up with excuses or trying to rationalize away failure is not what an honorable man does. A real man would own up to his failure, take responsibility, and see to it that it never happened again. Anyone can ride high on a success, but how one deals with failure is far more telling and indicative of one's own character.
Neodp: I am not impressed with these samples. Most of them look washed-out, slightly. The colors are weird, and the shadows tend to have the digital, ugly noise. I recognize, many things have improved, and are of high quality; but without a sensor, that can do better than the current "best", I see little point. I am all for a better carry package, but not, with these cons. A slightly bigger camera, which can be older, and costs far less, can overall beat this. A trailing quality, 4/3rd sized sensor will never make it. It simply has to lead, in new sensor IQ quality, due to the smaller (for carry, and telephoto) size disadvantages. Now, if these were bargain basement priced, *and* you were then OK, with the "quality" (which I still would not be), then I could understand better, the compromise. A good camera, is not about compromises. It is about balances (lenses first), and needs to get out of your way. This is also not to say, I am for, or against mirror-less.
I think it's because of their post, the nicest way to say it is.. I don't think dpreview's photographers do a lot of portraiture, or this type of photography in general.
You mean the white dots are gone? Damn, I'll sure miss those little guys. Oh well.