LadyGaGa: Hipster click bait.
Gonna sell tons of dose heres in SF!
"Welcome tos The Gentrified Mission Unique Boutique, we gots one excellent strap to sell for you Hipster Boy, so put on yo ugg-ly ironic fantastic plastic glasses and cast yo squinties on da Holdfast: real texture American Bison, go great against yo plaid shirt!"
"OMG! LOL! U have great presence! What is your FB? I MUST follow U!"
Wow, so DPReview has now turned into a rumor mongering site. Great. First it turned into Pop Photo 24/7 with the daily "news", never ending Roundups to churn sales, easily digestible Olympic medal ratings, and links to resellers, but now they're publishing rumors. And then retracting them. What next, DPReview life insurance?
Henrikw: Those dark corners are pretty amazing. Been trying for years to create this look in PS but had to give up. It simply can't be done. This camera is a game changer. I'm in.
It can be done, you're not using the right technique. I had to come up with my own based on real scanned 120 Holga negs, and it was a bit tricky to duplicate the variable vignetting, variable blur, and light leaks, but doable because they tended to be almost the same for any particular camera. Saved it into an action and it works just fine, and is editable so every pic doesn't have exactly the same look.
Vasyl Tsvirkunov: Ain't Holga without light leaks...
Exactly. A much better idea is to create a Holga action that duplicates the look of a real camera, light leaks and all, which became a pet project of mine for a few weeks.
joe6pack: Why would someone be willing to spend $75 CAD and wait a year instead of downloading a free app is beyond me.
I guess this is the new norm. People would spend $75 just to impress their friends for 5 minutes.
The apps are pretty generic and the effects I've seen are nothing like a real Holga. All I've seen is some variation of radial blur and vignetting for a very predictable and cheesy look.
saeba77: simply too expensive
That's code for "I can't afford it", aka sour grapes. They don't need to justify a price, they can price it at whatever they want and either it sells or it doesn't, and the price will be adjusted accordingly.
Poss: I do not understand the jabs at the luxury market. It's a valid market as any of the other ones.
Besides it was a Rolex that reached the deepest ocean point in 2012 and an Omega Speedmaster at Neil Armstrong's wrist when he stepped on the Moon, not a cheap Chinese knockoff. Want to see what technology will eventually filter down to the automotive consumer level? Watch what Mercedes is putting on their flagship S series sedans. And so on.
If anything this looks like a well sorted camera for which Leica can comfortably charge a premium price. Much like Porsche can (and does) charge for a Cayenne or Omega does for the current Speedmaster (very different than the one used in the Apollo program) or Apple does for an iPhone.
Some brands enjoy having a very loyal following for very good reasons and when we belittle them, we tend to sound more like an acute case of sour grapes.
I'm in both camps. When I do serious shoots, I don't care about the brand of camera, I just want the best tool for the job. For me, doing automobile photography, that's a 6D with mainly fixed lenses, the 35mm and 135mm f/2s serve me well, with a 24-70 f/4 as a lightweight all-around. I use a Sony RX100 for a pns, great camera. I paid $1K on closeout for the Hasselblad version of the RX100, which I know is exactly the same camera as the one I already have. Why? It's not even pretending to be a better camera, it's purely aesthetics and brand that make it more expensive than the Sony. Because it feels more special, and in my situation of taking pictures of expensive cars with wealthy owners, it's something different, doesn't look like a cheap pns, starts conversations, and makes me happy bc it's a little piece of jewelry, which the Sony and Canon are not. It's not all about numbers and IQ.
tkbslc: The X100 series has delivered on this camera's exact goal for several years now. Not sure what the fuss is about.
@Sean65: that's not entirely true. I can afford either camera easily, I use an M6 with 35mm Summilix, and I chose to get the X100T. Why? Because it's 35mm, a much more useful focal length for me, it's much smaller and lighter, it has useful film simulations of the slides I used to shoot, and most importantly, it has an optical vf. Or an evf, but coming from an M6 the optical feels so much more right. The evf takes away the clarity of the optical, and the ability to see what's about to move into the frame, which is a huge part of the optical vf style of street shooting. If the Q had an optical vf it'd be really tough, size/weight vs probably better picture quality, but as it exists it's no contest. And if you want a better car analogy, the Leica may be a Ferrari, but the Fuji isn't a Polo, it's an Audi R8, and you absolutely need AWD.
Charlie boots: This sounds more like lightroom calibration to match the camera than camera calibration as the calibration is only appliccable when using lightroom and is only appliccable to a specific light colour. Change the location and the light and one needs to recalibrate for the new light situation. This then means that for each photo shoot there needs to be a new calibration. How does one then manage within lightroom as it is not possible to automatically have lightroom change claibration profiles automatically to match each photo shoot. This has to be done manually.
Yes, this is the problem. Camera color profiling only works under one specific light temp, so for completely controlled shoots (catalog work where the fabric swatches need to be accurate) it's a small help, but for general shooting it's unnecessary. Who wants accurate color anyway? Most people want bluer skies than the light cyan that exists, greener trees than reality, and healthier more ruddy skin tones. I did many experiments with the McBeth and came to these conclusions.
As the author himself writes: The difficult thing is to work out how many calibrations you need to do. In theory you should perform a calibration for each lighting source, lens, and even ISO. In practice, unless you work in very controlled conditions this is probably too unwieldy and will slow up your workflow.
That about sums up my experience.
"order of magnitude"LOL!
DPNick: It's spelled Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Throatwarbler Mangrove.
Mr. Pither. It's spelled just like brotherhood except with a pi instead of the bro and no hood.
GIF has a hard G, don't care what he says.
It's not a word, it's an acronym. And since the first word of that acronym has a hard G, so does the acronym. Do you pronounce scuba skooba, sooba, or shuba? Everyone I've heard calls it skooba, because the sc combination is not formed from normal usage, but from self contained. It really doesn't matter how he wants to pronounce GIF, he can't change the rules of English.
It's spelled GIF, but it's pronounced Aunt Jemima. Sorry, doesn't work.
It's spelled Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Throatwarbler Mangrove.
So he took a bunch of pictures of dirty slackers and losers while he was one; I don't see the brilliance. It's not quite Cartier-Bresson, Winogrand, Doisneau, Friedlander, Lange, Stieglitz, etc.
Poweruser: Still not sure where the point is with wide-gamut screens?
95%+ of users cant see any difference because their devices run SRGB at best (often times uncalibrated), think of tablets, phones, all Macs, etc.
Also, you cant "print" Adobe RGB.
Why can't you print AdobeRGB?I thought there are many printers that have enough range.
BJN: The question is how consistent the color and tonality are across the large display. I tried and returned a 30" Dell display that has wide gamut but that had very poor consistency across the display. You can't do accurate work if only a portion of your display is showing accurate colors.
I'm guessing that at $1600 that the hood and calibration package are extra.
Yeah, I returned the 30" NEC for the same reason. What's the point of wide gamut if the screen is beaming at me and driving me crazy with inconsistent colors? Went back to my Apple 30", it's sRGB but consistently so.
Last year I bought a K-5 and a Nex-5N, both of which apparently have the same sensor. It's spectral response is strange, and I could not get accurate color out of either camera (after much experimentation, red or blue, take your pick, but not both). I sold the Nex, bought a Nex-7 as soon as it came out, and it has wonderful color. I hoped Pentax would either do a FF or update the K-5 with the 24MP Sony sensor, but they've done neither. Too bad, because I like the K-5 a lot but haven't used it since I got the Nex-7.
Does the sensor still have the blue/red color problems of the K-5?If so not interested.
dsm6: Can someone help me rationalize the design decisions here. It seems that the metal grip location where you would place your right hand would be quite slippery while wet, and less grippy than the material used for the rest of the body. The shape of the lens side seems completely counter-ergonomic to being held by a human hand even for carrying purposes. Also, blue buttons with blue print on some of them for an underwater camera?
The D10 wasn't pretty, but this seems like a big step backwards ergonomically. It seems to me much more likely that one would accidentally cover the flash on the D20 versus the D10. Or maybe I'm just missing it....
When it slips out of your hand and disappears into the water or some ravine, you'll have to buy another one.
Brilliant design, eh?:)
I wonder whether she was just as outraged over the cost of her diamond ring; surely at least a month's salary and without a doubt a completely manipulated market.
abolit: what the point of making this lens if Sony has already made the same one.
That is a question to ask Tamron management, not dpreview visitors.