I learned, as well as most, what the zone system was many years ago. Not saying I ever mastered it, but that isn't really the point. The zone system is somewhat like the stick shift on a car. Useful, but not for everyone. Film is still out there, but even though I spent 5 decades with film and only 1 decade with digital, I cannot argue that one is better than the other as it is like apples and oranges. I think the crossover, using the zone system concept, with digital is a challenge in itself because of the terms and icons used on cameras, such as pictures of mountains, etc.
The other point is the hostility and crassness shown such as the post by By Mrrowe8 (1 day ago). Sorry, but I really cannot see how language and comments such as that can further the cause of a site that should be about photography and photographers. It should be flagged. Are there any moderators on this site?
I think this is fascinating and no doubt will go somewhere. My guess it will find its way to the NYPD surveillance people the next time there is a demonstration in NY. Will it make me want to buy one...no, probably not. When you start out with a Leica C and your heros are Henri Cartier-Bresson, Edward Weston, Steichen, it is hard to abandon substance for a lipstick tube. But, I think for many newbies taking pictures, and I say taking pictures, not photography, it will be wonderful. I'll stick with my Nikons and Canons.
randalusa: THAT is considred an EXCELLENT response??? It's kaka. The photographer deducts RENT and nearly everything else on the planet from the $50,000 earned in four months to justify charging $2500 for shooting a wedding!!
You don't get to deduct rent because EVERYBODY has a housing cost. it is not intrinsic to wedding photographers, dopey.
Then the photographer wasted $400 month on a leased vehicle. My 1995 Villager costs ZERO per month and gets me around just fine, including a sunroof, digital gauges, leather seats and more. The insurance is just about nothing because given the small worth of the car I only buy liability.
Enough already. Whoever called the response excellent is living in dreamland. I am a photographer, having worked for a newspaper, an insurance company and done freelance.
But making $50,000 in four months is a LOT, given 8 more months to earn money). Our angry "insulted" photographer is being a twit. Just admit gouging because you can, and get on with your day, Nikki.
Totally agree with you. The photographer is living in la la land. One of those new age lease everything, corporate minded types. The woman should be able to find a photographer that is good and for a decent price. As for the comment on Indonesia, if people keep pricing themselves out of the country, maybe that isn't a bad idea.
Totally agree with Appleford. Been in photography for 6 decades and have had many systems. Never considered the OM a contender that would develop against Nikon and Canon, but it certainly could have with the right management. Not a bad camera, but my beef is with the retro stying. Not very attractive. It is sort of like a stylized version of OM to show off the worst. The Pen thing was much better. I'm more impressed when a company takes things that worked for their older things and incorporate them into the new. So far, not many companies are pandering to the finer points of photography. If they were, I woudn't be looking at 20 different scene categories on the menu. The only thing they can do for me is tell me what those things do to depth of field, preference of shutter, etc., to make the camera useful. If people do not know what shutter speed to shoot at, or what depth of field is, maybe they should try some other endeaver.
filipe brandao: I really don't understand why dpreview is clinging on to a marketing catch word ("mirrorless") instead of promoting a more clear classification of cameras. Classifying these cameras as "mirrorless" is the same as saying a pencil is a inkless pen. Its confusing and forsakes a hole history of photography in which most of the cameras didn't have mirrors in their system. One should ask why isn't leica m9 included in this group. Cameras have always been classified by how they allow the photographer to view/focus on the subject and their format. Any effort in this direction would help to clear the marketing confusion in which we roam.
After reading your comment, and going back a long way... to rollfilm in a folding camera, and all the way up til now, I noticed you didn't put forth a better option. I think that mirrorless basically wins by default...in other words..for a lack of something better. They all have interchangeable lenses, and aside from that we have to look at the finder/lack of finder, and when all is said and done, mirrorless pretty much sums it up. P.S. doesn't really matter. As I said in other comment, the finder is the issue for me.
JeffPhotalk: Hi all expert I'm a newbie to this forum. I find it funny why do people can talking about sensor size ? Can anyone tell me why ?
Not a clue.
The message by By HDaRt (Dec 20, 2011 at 12:08:36 GMT) about the round up being an attempt at something or another....just want to say that the review by dpreview, and all their reviews are good. Been at this thing for decades and this is about the best site I have ever run into. If anyone feels that someone is making an attempt to steer something in one direction or another, that would be the camera companies. If there are cameras out there that you think are lame, lacking, or whatever, you can thank the marketing people at the corp. level and maybe you should direct your comments to them, in a civil tone. The whole idea of a forum is to share ideas, and for the most part, I think that is what we have here. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!P.S. One question. The picture of the fellow holding the camera up to his face like one would shoot, say, a Leica M2...is there a viewfinder on that thing?
Been at this since 1950. Once commenter said he didn't understand the small sensor interchangeable lens thing, something like that. I don't understand the commitment to a type of camera that does not have a viewfinder. I know that some or at least one of these has an electronic finder, but I don't really count that. Been through the folding camera with 620 film, the rangefinder with lenses (Leica, Nikon, Nicca), the twin lens and the single lens reflex, the view camera and all of these had a finder of one type or another that promoted a creative feel to the shooting. This is personal preference I am giving here. I think one thing that is lost from film camera experience to digital camera experience is the trial and error of old timers. You have to ask yourself if you want to commit to a SYSTEM! As for me, I would prefer two cameras. The Canon G series and a good SLR. Then you have about everything covered. A camera and lens for all situations.
Looks like a nice camera, but am a bit baffled at the forum comments for a camera that is not out yet. The only reason I'm posting is to say that the body, from what is shown is more reminiscent of the Leica rangefinder, and that is nice. Eager to see the specs, reviews, etc.