wetsleet: Interesting to see that a Pro takes jpegs, is happy to save money by not following the herd into buying what the received wisdom tells you to buy in order to be admitted as a Pro, and uses his phone if he needs to capture video. Nice to know that you can just be judged by your results instead.
I used to shoot raw all the time, having bought into the hype. I've since switched to jpg. If you know your camera and set it up correctly and take well composed pictures of something interesting the camera will give you the results you need with only some minor tweaking post capture.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:04:51 UTC
muratime: as a D700 user, considering D800's insane MP count, or D4's video skills.. we need to preview a new Macbook Pro's as well ;)
so we shall not consider non of above without new PC investment..
so D800 comes for attractive
if you are only for Photography, then go for D4, even if it is double price you don't need to invest for a new computer... you will solely pay for the camera.. because D800 sure comes with new PC cost..
And the D800 flies will be far to large for Capture NX2 unless Nikon gets serious about its software.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 23, 2012 at 12:00:00 UTC
Caleido: Extremely impressive. I very much like the design and ergonomics.
And the OM-D E-M5 itself is not bad either, but the name is really unattractive. Can't believe nobody said "hey guys, shouldn't we use a catchier name, something that looks and sounds less like a chemical formula"?
LOL...Exactly!! Why not just call it the OM-D1. Is that too simple?
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 22, 2012 at 15:12:00 UTC
Nikonworks: My first thought is who is making money on her work and how did that person gain access to the photographs and rights to publish them.
I hope DPReview will add this vital information to the posting of the story, as it is a glaring omission, especially from one of the top photography web sites.
Adding the info as a remark will not suffice,
It should be in the headline article itself.
Thank you.
Also, boxes of undeveloped film. Only the surface of her work has been scratched.
She photographed then developed the negatives, only printing very few images. She was very secretive about her work that's why it was a chance find.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 19, 2012 at 14:17:36 UTC
My photo club has a presentation of her work. I thought it was brilliant. And the most telling thing is that only small fraction of her photographs have been catalogued and printed. It will take years to fully uncover this remarkable woman.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 19, 2012 at 14:11:11 UTC
as 57th comment
There's certainly room for both stills and video. A short video can capture a news event as it unfolds from moment to moment. But for me nothing stirs emotions quite like a still. It makes you stop, look, wonder, think.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 11, 2012 at 13:51:08 UTC
as 26th comment
| 1 reply
EOSHQ: I'm probably in the .2% of DPR who care about film, but yes I love the look of color and b&w negative film. Everyone should care though, because it's the same technology that makes our best looking TV shows and movies as well. Do you think it is some accident that beautifully photographed films such as "the Dark Knight" and "Inception" were shot on Kodak Vision film? No... They refused to use anything else, because anything else (RED, Sony, etc.) pales in comparison. I use DSLRs and I like them, but if I could afford to shoot portraits on 4x5" Portra film scanned on an Immacon, I would every time. There is no comparison.
? Film is fine and has it's niche, but digital has surpassed film in quality except for large format. And not that many people shoot large format. As to longevity, digital storage is better and quality inkjet prints last longer and look better (looking better is subjective though).
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 10, 2012 at 13:19:33 UTC
ecm: The price is disappointing, but it's competition is not the D5100 or T3i, or even the enthusiast dSLRs, but rather Leica's digital rangefinder offerings. The body price is comparable to the low-end pro dSLR's (7D, D7000) which no doubt take better photos, in a more competent fashion.
But.... A POCKETABLE, INCONSPICUOUS, and SILENT camera that takes magazine quality (if not art gallery quality), low-noise, low-light photos? How much is that worth to a news photog or street shooter?
Once it's "in the wild" and market forces take over it'll find a price concordant with it's real value - likely in a year or so. I'd guess that if it's not pretty close to what Fuji is now asking, there will never be an X-Pro2.
It's not pocketable. As to price, let's wait until a production model is tested to see if it's warranted.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 3, 2012 at 17:21:52 UTC
"I think the K-01 is a watershed camera for Pentax. The K-01 address the two biggest arguements against the current crop of mirrorless systems - small sensors and limited lenses. It is the first mirrorless camera with a "traditional" lens mount and a full range of lenses. Not a couple of lenses and a bunch of adapters. The APS-C sensor is 30% bigger than 4/3 sensor and there are more current production K Mount lenses than all other mirrorless systems combined (including the Q). And while P-TTL flashes are not up to Nikon or Canon standards, they are better than any other mirrorless has. Bottom line - the K-01 is the first mirrorless than dosent make you compromise the most important part of photography - the image."
Sergey Borachev: I think a separate EVF is on its way. It has to be or this will be very hard to sell. Should have been built in to save some cost, inconvenience and bulk (or extra height of camera when mounted).
What could really make a difference is the sensor. If Pentax could also put in a FF sensor,that would make all the difference. The body won't be considered big. All those old lenses can be used for FF, while the newer digital ones can be used in reduced resulution. And with a built-in EVF, it will be something special.
If they add an external EVF then you can't use the flash. They should've just built it into the body.
Direct link |
Posted on Feb 2, 2012 at 15:05:52 UTC
CT, United States
wetsleet: Interesting to see that a Pro takes jpegs, is happy to save money by not following the herd into buying what the received wisdom tells you to buy in order to be admitted as a Pro, and uses his phone if he needs to capture video. Nice to know that you can just be judged by your results instead.
I used to shoot raw all the time, having bought into the hype. I've since switched to jpg. If you know your camera and set it up correctly and take well composed pictures of something interesting the camera will give you the results you need with only some minor tweaking post capture.
muratime: as a D700 user,
considering D800's insane MP count, or D4's video skills.. we need to preview a new Macbook Pro's as well ;)
so we shall not consider non of above without new PC investment..
so D800 comes for attractive
if you are only for Photography, then go for D4, even if it is double price you don't need to invest for a new computer... you will solely pay for the camera..
because D800 sure comes with new PC cost..
And the D800 flies will be far to large for Capture NX2 unless Nikon gets serious about its software.
Caleido: Extremely impressive. I very much like the design and ergonomics.
And the OM-D E-M5 itself is not bad either, but the name is really unattractive. Can't believe nobody said "hey guys, shouldn't we use a catchier name, something that looks and sounds less like a chemical formula"?
LOL...Exactly!! Why not just call it the OM-D1. Is that too simple?
Nikonworks: My first thought is who is making money on her work and how did that person gain access to the photographs and rights to publish them.
I hope DPReview will add this vital information to the posting of the story,
as it is a glaring omission, especially from one of the top photography web sites.
Adding the info as a remark will not suffice,
It should be in the headline article itself.
Thank you.
Also, boxes of undeveloped film. Only the surface of her work has been scratched.
She photographed then developed the negatives, only printing very few images. She was very secretive about her work that's why it was a chance find.
My photo club has a presentation of her work. I thought it was brilliant. And the most telling thing is that only small fraction of her photographs have been catalogued and printed. It will take years to fully uncover this remarkable woman.
There's certainly room for both stills and video. A short video can capture a news event as it unfolds from moment to moment. But for me nothing stirs emotions quite like a still. It makes you stop, look, wonder, think.
Willie Wilbers: Typo next to the image with the weatherproof seals.
"weather-sealing" and not "weath-sealing"
LOL
More like wealth-stealing!
EOSHQ: I'm probably in the .2% of DPR who care about film, but yes I love the look of color and b&w negative film. Everyone should care though, because it's the same technology that makes our best looking TV shows and movies as well. Do you think it is some accident that beautifully photographed films such as "the Dark Knight" and "Inception" were shot on Kodak Vision film? No... They refused to use anything else, because anything else (RED, Sony, etc.) pales in comparison. I use DSLRs and I like them, but if I could afford to shoot portraits on 4x5" Portra film scanned on an Immacon, I would every time. There is no comparison.
?
Film is fine and has it's niche, but digital has surpassed film in quality except for large format. And not that many people shoot large format. As to longevity, digital storage is better and quality inkjet prints last longer and look better (looking better is subjective though).
So the company that invented the sensor will continue the "traditional film capture and photographic paper business...".
Wow! Just let that sink in.
arpikusz: 50mm F1.8 Mmmmm. Like!
On a crop sensor camera that focal length is odd. 35mm would be a normal lens, not 50mm.
ecm: The price is disappointing, but it's competition is not the D5100 or T3i, or even the enthusiast dSLRs, but rather Leica's digital rangefinder offerings. The body price is comparable to the low-end pro dSLR's (7D, D7000) which no doubt take better photos, in a more competent fashion.
But.... A POCKETABLE, INCONSPICUOUS, and SILENT camera that takes magazine quality (if not art gallery quality), low-noise, low-light photos? How much is that worth to a news photog or street shooter?
Once it's "in the wild" and market forces take over it'll find a price concordant with it's real value - likely in a year or so. I'd guess that if it's not pretty close to what Fuji is now asking, there will never be an X-Pro2.
It's not pocketable. As to price, let's wait until a production model is tested to see if it's warranted.
wildkat2: My take:
"I think the K-01 is a watershed camera for Pentax. The K-01 address the two biggest arguements against the current crop of mirrorless systems - small sensors and limited lenses. It is the first mirrorless camera with a "traditional" lens mount and a full range of lenses. Not a couple of lenses and a bunch of adapters. The APS-C sensor is 30% bigger than 4/3 sensor and there are more current production K Mount lenses than all other mirrorless systems combined (including the Q). And while P-TTL flashes are not up to Nikon or Canon standards, they are better than any other mirrorless has. Bottom line - the K-01 is the first mirrorless than dosent make you compromise the most important part of photography - the image."
more here
http://pentaxfansclub.blogspot.com/2012/02/k-01-and-lens-map-my-take.html
Except is doesn't have an EVF. This is a big knock against it.
First put an EVF on the K-01, then worry about lenses.
It's found under DSLR cameras (not hybrid cameras), even though it's doesn't have a SLR.
I take that back. It's on website, just not featured on the first page, where it should be since it's new.
The new camera isn't up on the company website yet.
Sergey Borachev: I think a separate EVF is on its way. It has to be or this will be very hard to sell. Should have been built in to save some cost, inconvenience and bulk (or extra height of camera when mounted).
What could really make a difference is the sensor. If Pentax could also put in a FF sensor,that would make all the difference. The body won't be considered big. All those old lenses can be used for FF, while the newer digital ones can be used in reduced resulution. And with a built-in EVF, it will be something special.
If they add an external EVF then you can't use the flash. They should've just built it into the body.
I don't care about looks (and it's not that bad guys/gals) if it produces good images. The day glow yellow should go though. And I like the pancake.
But if the longer range goal is to move away from mirrored cameras, then add EVF for gods sake!
This sounds like the 1 system is test run for something else. Hopefully a small street camera that can be customized is on the back burner.
Another P&S (sigh). I hope Ricoh has plans for Pentax to evolve and grow. This once venerable company is fast becoming irrelevant.