Zenza R: Only limitation of this camera is the little control over DOF... For now, there is nothing to do about it :/
Why not provide a continuously variable curved sensor which changes shape with the focal length? Then you can have both. (not that such a beast exists on this [small] scale, yet)
JordanAT: Hassleblad's two core strengths, mechanical reliability and optics, are likely gone. Mechanical reliability on the level of the film cameras from 40 years ago are lost on the modern camera. By combining the film and body into one unit, you have created a disposable camera. Whether the life is 1 year of 5 years is irrelevant when compared to a product which previously could be expected to have a 20 year (or longer) useful life in a pro shop. If you have to change your body to upgrade your "film," the utility of old hardware diminishes much more rapidly.
As for optics, even if there are any optical engineers left at H it means they're probably woefully behind in creating the massively complex aspherical element design which modern sensors demand for sharp images. Poorly focused "art lenses" will always have their place, but to go forward with world-leading designs will require rebuilding the entire lens line from scratch. And I'm not sure there's enough alligator skin in HK to do that.
@Conrad567 - then they're not really a core competency of Hassy any more and they would have to ramp up from scratch, as I indicated.
As for sharpness, I would require a MF lens to be every bit as sharp as a FF lens.
As for a lens being less sharp - that's ridiculous. I expect a MF to have 4x the number of pixels (24x36 vs 60x60 area), which would mean needing to be just as sharp as the sharpest FF. If you make a MF camera produce images no sharper than a FF for the same finished photo size, then all you really have is (uselessly*) shallow DOF as an advantage over FF, but still carry the cost and weight penalties.
*I say useless as there have been exceedingly few times when I've thought when shooting FF, "boy, I wish I could go faster than f/1.4 - there's just too much that's in focus."
jhinkey: Step 1: Admit you have a problemStep 2: Close the Italian design officeStep 3: Fire whomever hatched such a plan and whomever supported itStep 4: Figure out what kind of Med. Format products you can sell to the masses through innovation & strategic partnershipsStep 5: Have lots of patience, 'cause it's gonna take a long time to right the Hassy ship back onto course
I would love to own a lightweight medium format system, but it's always been out of reach $$-wise.
I wouldn't hold your breath for a MF Hassy that's affordable. Ever. Might as well keep waiting for Porche to make a $25k sports car.
Hassleblad's two core strengths, mechanical reliability and optics, are likely gone. Mechanical reliability on the level of the film cameras from 40 years ago are lost on the modern camera. By combining the film and body into one unit, you have created a disposable camera. Whether the life is 1 year of 5 years is irrelevant when compared to a product which previously could be expected to have a 20 year (or longer) useful life in a pro shop. If you have to change your body to upgrade your "film," the utility of old hardware diminishes much more rapidly.
fmian: Supply and demand.There would literally be thousands of photographers out there who are willing to shoot Taylor Swift for free and give up their rights. It's not totally the clients fault if photographers themselves (as an industry) have been undervaluing themselves. Where one disagrees and declines to shoot, another 5 will pop up and offer themselves up to be eaten.In contrast, there is only one Taylor Swift.
Welcome to the world of music. There are literally tens of thousands of musicians out there who are willing to perform for free and give up their rights. They do it every day.
The question to as is: Would Annie Leibovitz shoot Taylor Swift under these terms?
jhinkey: Sorry, no sympathy to the photographer. Don't like it, don't sign the contract.Don't like these kind of contracts, form a union and boycott Ms. Swift, but don't whine.What happened between Apple/Swift has no relation to the disagreement that this photographer has with Swift. He's just using the Apple/Swift coverage to promote his unhappiness with the contract he signed.
Actually, this is EXACTLY what TS did. She didn't like the contract with Apple, so she didn't sign. Except that she also made a media storm over the injustice of Apple's contract.
Which is what this guy did. Goose/gander.
That's not to say that Apple was right (they weren't, and it proves that the content management companies - ASCAP/BMI and the labels weren't acting the best interests of their artists), but TS basically is pulling the same trick that Apple tried, and she thinks it's okay when she's on the other side of the negotiating table.
TS is the Donald Trump of musicians. Rich, famous, and enough money that she feels she doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. And, honestly, she doesn't because of her position. And she mimics the Donald by throwing it in your face whenever she feels like it.
buginarug: I worked as a news photographer for several decades for The Associated Press. I shot many concerts and was repeatedly presented with such contracts. I refused to sign every time. Each time the performers management backed down. There was no question that I would just walk away. I had no control of who or how my photographs would be used by AP members. What Taylor Swift and others are doing is wrong. They want the publicity and their cake. They can't have both. Sorry. If it is a question of using someone's likeness to sell a commercial product for profit there are already rights laws about that. There is no need for this sign to shoot nonsense.
Then it becomes a work for hire case and the law changes significantly.
Neez: In taylors defense, they spend millions putting a tour together, with the set, the makeup, costumes, lighting effects and the models(taylor), and you think you can just waltz in and have full rights to any pictures you take in the venue????
I don't think it's hipocritical at all, don't expect to take pictures and make money off of them without either compensation or approval. I imagine if you're going to sell a print for a local newspaper for $100 they don't care and will approve. But if you sell an image for thousands, they'll probably want their cut which is fair.
What apple was doing was different, they weren't going to pay anything and offer artists work up for free. Just to further apple's business off the hard work of others. That's not fair at all.
Two things: 1) why does the cost matter ($100 news image or a $10,000 art print?) The cost of her producing the show doesn't change, nor should her percentage of the sale.2) if I read the contract correctly, she retains perpetual (though non-exclusive) rights to all images. Saying that he can sell his work elsewhere is like saying that Apple deciding to *never* pay royalties on streaming would be okay because Taylor could just get royalties by streaming directly or having other services like Spotify and Pandora to get royalties.
Lapkonium: FireWire 800? What is it, 1999 BC?
FW800 is still a$$-backwards. The nominal capacity of a FW800 9 pin cable is 7W over a 12.8v, unregulated bus, though the cable itself may be rated for 1.5A at up to 30V.
FW mattered when operations were entirely processor bound. It may (may) still make a difference if you were foolish enough to connect this to a military or space rated processor (which is probably no further advanced than the first Pentium models ), but any custom solution - and it will be custom - would have more processing than necessary.
Finally, 800Mb is going to be useless for real time image capture at even 40MP and 14bit depth. You're looking at 280Mb per image at 2:1 on-camera compression with the smallest image size, and 3360Mb for a 60MP/8 cam array. "real time" is essentially meaningless if you're getting 1 frame every 4 seconds.
RichRMA: The grotesque obsession with "self" continues in the current culture...
Are you angry about people's narcissism, or about the fact that fewer and fewer people are hiring photographers to feed their narcissistic tendencies?
The livelihood of many pro photogs is wholly dependent on the general narcissism of the population, and of self-interested people looking to capture what they look like in print.
JordanAT: First, as a G3 owner, I'm pleased that LG did not follow Samsung and HTC in putting bra straps on the back of their phone so they could look like Apple.
This is a nice upgrade and I hope it does well. The G3s camera was enough to allow me to leave the iOS world. (That's not why I left, but I delayed switching until I could get a phone with a decent camera)
If they would add a biometric sensor for security and figure out how to curb the device's lust for energy that would easily make it the best large-format device. (Well, that and factory root capability) Those two hardware quirks are probably the only two drawbacks/missing items on the G3 imho.
Knock code is pretty dicey, and very limited. I was excited about it until I found out it's really just an area thing and not a pattern option (although a percussive rif* to open the open the phone would get old, too). As for wearables, I just ditched my watch 3 months ago and am not keen on going back to one; I don't use a BT headset because I've never found one that sounds better, and is more reliable, than the phone itself. Nor do I want any other "jewelry" to wear.
Though, tbh, it's really not about unlocking the phone (though that's nice). I want an integrated password management system that's uniform across all applications which allows the biometric to activate as a master for all keys. I'm not holding my breath, either for Google to implement it or for the carriers/mfrs to include it in their builds.
*we'd all use shave and a haircut, anyway, so that would defeat the security, right?
joe6pack: I just wish they make the phone smaller.
Even with Steve dead and his minimalist requirements, Apple can't include an SD card slot without completely destroying their sandbox concept which makes the phones work seamlessly. Removable storage means active curation of information in the phone, which means dynamically verified music, movie, and other media in the itunes master database, as well as sorting and verifying where licensed/purchased content is allowed to reside. IOW, nothing on the media side of the phone would work, and nothing could be stored on the SD card. And that doesn't even touch on the performance aspects of external vs internal memory and the lack of control they would have over the ability to stream high-rate content.
They work one way, and one way only. It's why they're simple to operate, and that's a benefit to the vast majority of users. And, no, they wouldn't sell 2x as many. Many people who want SD cards want more control in general...and that's not Apple's style.
First, as a G3 owner, I'm pleased that LG did not follow Samsung and HTC in putting bra straps on the back of their phone so they could look like Apple.
Did anyone else shudder at the thought of the amount of ink used to print the image in the marketing shot? With OEM ink that could be more than the GDP of a small country. Two if you included a cleaning cycle before the print.
I love it - a €110 printer that takes a €100 battery pack - The battery specs are the same as a $20 R/C battery pack (22.2V/1200mah).
Big feature misses: a screen smaller than your camera, and no way to print from a typical smartphone. Kudos for getting the cost of the unit down, but while I'm sure that any sort of wireless/NFC would have made the cost go up, it seems like a pretty big miss for mainstream use.
This strikes me as the kind of equipment that should probably be sold for $15-20, with $50-100 add on modules for wireless and battery, and all the money made from the print cartridges.
tom1234567: If you don't buy the S/lens no point in buying the camera.the other lens which are not S/ don't get good reviews.
I have not read a good review on any of the cheaper Lens for the NX1 in other words there CRAP
I would buy the camera but the S/lens are far to expensive,have to wait 6mths until the price drops or Pentax brings out something better than K3
This is my issue with all the ILCs - the expense of stock and interfaces drives the cameras with lens(es) to unrealistic costs for all but the hard core (or well heeled) amateurs, as compared to non-ILC.
A photography copyright should not extend to the "idea" of the shot. If he wanted protection for that, he should have trademarked the image concept.
samfan: Seems like a solid case. Photographer creates an image (not just pushes the button, but directs the action).
Nike likes the image, licenses it, then makes pretty much the same photo with the same player. I don't think the intend was to rip off the photog, they probably wanted to enhance the image for the logo. But still, it's "we want the same just a tad better".
Question is, why wait 30 years, with Nike of all things. Was the photog in a coma? Unless he couldn't afford to pay the copyright or court fees (which may be prohibitive, admittedly), he had no reason to 3 decades. Business probably isn't going well.
Tungsten Nordstein: Nike's is a logo. They're not using a reshot photo, they're using a b&w drawn logo. They may have been inspired by the original photo and produced an intermediate photo in the process, but it's no longer a photo. Much as I personally dislike Nike, the copyright claim seems a bit thin.
So, if they could find any instance of another shot, similar in content, predating this image in any art form, they could claim that his content was not original and therefore not copyrightable? Say, something like this: http://cdn.graphicsfactory.com/clip-art/image_files/image/9/763269-dancer4.gif, but obviously predating the original it would be okay? At what point is the photograph always a pose and a concept which is give patent- or trademark-like protections without legal backing just be cause the courts feel sorry for some guy?
Anastigmat: If I were the judge, I would dismiss the lawsuit because Nike did not use the original photo without paying the photographer. They shot a similar photo. Does that mean that a similar photo shot by anyone, if it resembles an earlier photo, would be guilty of copyright infringement? Let's say, if a director shoots a scene similar to that of Marilyn Monroe having her skirt being blown up by wind, would that violate the copyright of the original movie? What if no one had any idea a similar but earlier photo existed. What if, for example, I shoot a particular photo of a famous bridge like the Brooklyn Bridge or Golden Gate, and it resembles, by chance, someone else's photo of the same bridge? Then am I guilty of copyright infringement even if I have never seen the other photo and were not attempting to imitate it?
I think there's a danger in here. Copyright is generally strict in it's language. You don't need to know you're violating, or even intend to infringe, a copyright to be guilty of copyright infringment. However, this gets into "intent" - a photo of a bridge in the same location and light only infringes if there was intent to reproduce another's work. It definitely gets slippery.