RUcrAZ: Thank you for the "primer." The main thing I can see is that 4K (and its successors) will allow good quality "stills" out of 4K videos, thus doing away with still cameras - except for hard-core "artist-devotees" (like me?)Your comment about "future-proofing your work" is well said, the problem is that, by the time the TV industry (consumer-grade) slowly switches to an even higher HD than the present one, the technology may be up to "16K" and we could have bought into an obsolete system.
With 4k, there's a blurring of the line between still and video photography. There's so many things you can do with 4k for stills other than just picking out that one perfect shot.eg Astrophotography...I've seen people stacking 640x480 webcam images to get amazingly detailed stills of Jupiter. Imagine what they can do with stacking 4k footage.As for future proofing. The march of progress is always forward. This is why I've recently purchased manual focus lenses from the 80's :P
davev8: i like the vid very much ...but get the feeling this was a Sony advert and not a review
Oh man, how to *I* get 100% off my next purchase of a cactus! Do they come filled with plate sized spiders that explode out of it when I take it through customs? If they don't they're useless to me :D
I really like your video series. Hope you can keep them coming.
I don't know what everyone is complaining about. I much prefer the white background to the black. It's much easier to read. Everyone else must have their screen brightness up to "radioactive" if it's hurting their eyes :D The text size on the new format could be a bit small but definitely bigger than the current size.The content had a lot of beginner level information, which is fine since there's a diverse community on DPRev, however there are a few advanced techniques using 4k vid for stills photography that could have been explored.
Loved the field test with field mushrooms :D It looks like a capable camera.The food photography tips made the video worth watching for those that aren't interested in buying this camera.
Old Cameras: Well I'll be, people prefer film. (I like film too, which is why I have so many old cameras)
that's what the winkies are for ;)
newe: Disposable cameras are the future...at least there won't be teeny tiny cell phone flashes going off all over by people who think the flash will illuminate something.
Think of it. Spend $12, take 24 pics, mail it in, and get your crummy prints back. What could be better? Digital is dead. Shooting RAW confuses 99.9999% of users. Hey most people I know shoot lowest quality jpg. Never mind having to google how to set up a backup plan for your pictures...people are too busy googling pron.
Oh the age of technology....everyone has stopped thinking.
ahh but the instax film is instant like polaroid. No need to mail it in. It also costs up to $20 for 10 prints ...bargin ;) ...and you can get it with a hello kitty boarder
PKDanny: Does Fujifilm have Full Frame DSLR?
Fuji used to make DSLRs (the S5pro was the last in the line) but it was APSC and had a Nikon lens mount. They abandoned this about 3years ago for mirrorless with their own lens mount (Fuji-X mount).Rumours fly around every now and then about a FF or Medium format fuji but nothing confirmed.
Dyun27: I'm very surprised by a lot of these negative comments. What's the big deal about trashing a wedding dress? The images are well-done. Obviously not everyone is going to feel the same about weddings or wedding photos. He had some fun with it. If people want to pay him to shoot them, who cares if they're not what many of you are expecting they should be? At least a pinch of original thought went into them, instead of the thousands of replicas gracing millions of wedding albums across the world. Marriage is not all bliss. Nice to see some artistic honesty at last. :D
@kreislauf:Having been on both ends of a drowning senario, I do know about these situations. Do you? There are only seconds between "happy fun time" and "oh crap I might be in trouble". Secondly, yes that particular fire photo was photoshopped but not all are:http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2013/07/17/trash-the-dress_n_3613222.html?ir=Australia
@qaz123:You've hit the nail on the head. If there wasn't risk involved then you wouldn't need to do a risk assessment or take precautions. Yes getting tangled is the main danger, and with some wedding dresses, that's about 10 meters (30ft) of fabric to get tangled in. The 2012 drowning wasn't an isolated incident. Google "trash the dress drowning" and there are quite a few. The most recent was a near drowning in May this year.
TTD photos can be done safely and with spectacular and beautiful results. I'm just saying that sometimes they're not.
They can be stunning images but #1 and #3 are clearly high risk situations and things can go horribly wrong very quickly.
It's all well and good to get images that are different to the average but there have been instances where safety measures weren't taken into account such as this example...http://www.smh.com.au/world/i-want-to-have-great-pictures-and-memories-trash-the-dress-photo-goes-wrong-as-bride-drowns-in-wedding-gown-20120826-24v69.html
GoneMirrorless: Sales down. Last time they said sales were up but quoted 'value' instead of units sold to hide the lower sales. (they were selling more A7 cameras and fewer APSC and P&S) Looks like they are still doing this. They made a smart move to mirrorless FF where there is virtually no competition, and are selling cameras and lenses at high prices for good profits. But at the same time they've been dumping APSC and P&S at low prices and somehow sales are still down."continued shift toward higher value models " - So rumors about Sony moving away form APSC seem to be true. It might another year before it is completely abandoned, but that has been the direction for two years now, and every press release and statement from management backs it.The goal is to be more profitable and moving to FF and dropping APSC (they'll keep RX) is what is working.
I also think your claims that APSC is dead is a bit of a stretch (if that's what you're trying to say). Fuji's profits for their Imaging division has trippled compared to the same quarter last year thanks to the X-series cameras and lenses (APSC) and Instax cameras and film (polaroid-like cameras). I'm sure Olympas and Panasonic are also doing well with their micro four thirds cameras though I haven't looked at their financial reports. It's the point and shoot camera's that are dying a slow death, replaced by smart phones with cameras.
GDB: I am a bit confused. Will this adapter work with EOS lenses (knowing that no electronic connection will be made and the lens will be manual focus). Also, if I have, say, a 15mm f3.5 EOS lens, what will the new focal length and aperture be?
There are other manufacturers that make lenses in EOS EF mount. Some of them are manual focus and have aperture rings like the Samyang lenses and many others. The lens turbo with an EF mount would work perfectly well with these.
ProfHankD: Reminds me of my 135mm f/1.8 Spiratone... but this is much longer and a little wider... kinda as expected for an f/1.4. The only catch is that I rarely use my 135mm f/1.8 because it is a little awkward to handle and my f/2.8 and f/2.5 135mm lenses aren't. In sum, this is even more special-purpose than my f/1.8.
"They will be brought out on feast days and holidays and used to frighten little children."
The funniest comment I've read all week :D
this lens makes the 5D look like an EOS-M :D
Frank_BR: Think this lens as a 300mm F2.8 with a Speed Booster built into.
the 135 f/1.4 covers a full frame image circle. Speed boosters/lens turbo reduces the ff image circle to apsc size.For your idea to work, zhong yi would have had to make a 300/2.8 for medium format then put a lens turbo behind it ;)
They also go by the Mitakon brand name. They're mostly know for their very fast manual lenses like the 50 f/0.95 as well as their focal reducer (the lens turbo) for mirrorless cameras. This is a gear site...you really need to read more ;)
paulfulper: For those who are complaining that 12mp is not enough number ,remember that Canon's ME20F-SH achieved the highest low light sensitivity by decreasing the mps and increasing pixels size , ,and for most purposes 12mp is more than enough , I much prefer the Sony A7 Sll
I agree. If someone thinks 12mp of the A7S isn't enough then buy the A7 and the A7R models which go upto 42mp for the A7R markII. Incidentally, I had a look at the studio comparison tool of the mark I versions of these cameras and obviously the A7R has the best resolution at low ISO but that resolution advantage is quickly lost once you start increasing ISO. By ISO 6400 the A7S had an advantage where the detail of the A7R was starting to be lost in blotchy noise reduction. And the higher the ISO went, the more obvious the difference.I'm looking forward to seeing the studio comparison for the mark II
bakhtyar kurdi: I know this is like religion, no logic will help, but I ask photographers to do a simple thing, download the picture of the flag that has no shadow, then open photoshop, then file, open as, camera raw Now move the exposure slide all the way to the right, you will see clearly that the flag was been selected,then pasted as a perfect rectangle shape, then they darkened the extra areas or brushed or whatever to blend it to the rest of the picture, but unfortunately they forgot to make shadow for the flag on the earth(studio or moon) , and don't forget, this is after 2 million times of editing so that they don't leave any signs of mistakes,so how do you want me to accept the rest of their lies?The flag has been added later to another picture that also been faked in studio .
@ Francis CarverBy your reasoning, all the Shuttle missions were faked as well becasue NASA WERE sending people into near earth orbit unil 2011 when they decommissioned the last shuttle.
bakhtyar: I suggest you watch the Mythbusters episode on debunking the moon landing conspiracies. Pay particular attention to what happens to shadows on uneven terrain.