Mssimo: 70-300mm 3.5-5.6 is usually a "kit" lens but this one has a high pricetag. I wonder how good it is.
The non-L Canon 70-300 has both IS and internal autofocus, of course, and for half the price. It remains to be seen how the Sony lens compares in terms of quality, one can only hope it will be better. Canon's 50mm 1.8 is half the price too.
It's great that Sony is plugging some of the glaring holes in their lens line-up, but the thought of paying double the price of the equivalent glass from other manufacturers has kept me away from the system so far.
Jim Evidon: Back in the good old days of rocket research, we used to rely on a high fps rate camera called a GSAP to study rocket engine firings. It's total running time was a matter of seconds. It cost a fortune then.
Now there may be one for less than $700? What possible use can an amateurphotographer have for such a device once he has taken a picture of a hummingbird in flight or a bullet shattering a light bulb? It's a marvelous achievement in price vs. performance, but it's long term use to the average photographer will be in bragging rights only.
Someone said he'd pick one up in a heart beat. And do what with it? Do you have any idea how quickly it will fill a 32GB card at 18.500 fps @ 2560 x 2048 pixels per image? I would imagine we are talking in terms of seconds.
It has a profound scientific future and I cheer for the inventor, but aside from that who in amateur photography needs it? Who will want one is another matter.
Back in the good old days, we used to rely on a camera called a box Brownie to take pictures. It cost a fortune then.
Now there may be cameras for less than $200? What possible use can an amateur have for a device that captures light to create an image?
For a moment I misread that as "Canon launches $55 flash trigger". I nearly had a heart attack.
That's too bad, if correct. That shutter noise is a sales killer for the A7/r.
I think you'll find it says "HEY OVER HERE!!! LOOK AT MY TINY EXPENSIVE CAMERA!!!"
JWest: How come they can cram 2560 x 1440 affordably into a phone, when I can't get my hands on a decent quality monitor any bigger then 1920 x 1080 without spending a small fortune?
And you failed to mention that these "reasonably affordable" 4K monitors are all TN panels and thus pretty worthless for serious work.
How come they can cram 2560 x 1440 affordably into a phone, when I can't get my hands on a decent quality monitor any bigger then 1920 x 1080 without spending a small fortune?
tecnoworld: It would be nice to control the Axis360 with an android device, instead of the 250$ controller...
Sadly Android devices aren't equipped with the ability to send control pulses to stepper motors.
It is a real shame there's no way to hook up to the controller via USB though. It seems counter-intuitive in this day and age, when pretty much everyone has a smartphone or tablet with them everywhere, not to use this ideal device for user input but to go with an an old-school LCD instead.
Wolfgang Fieger: 1 + 3 is superfluous if you know that zooming can always be done with the mouse wheel! Absolutely no need for these shortcuts.
Tip 1 is an alternative way of zooming that some people might find more convenient. Tip 3 says right there, it "works for temporarily changing to any tool, not just zoom". Did you even read the article before you criticised it?
wkay: This is prattle of the dead. Useless.
The author is dead?!
lorenzo de medici: As an amateur photographer who won't be selling anything by any method, I have some outsider thoughts with nothing to gain or lose. The professional photography that results from a direct transaction between the client and the photographer won't appear there or on any other similar site. Video is replacing still photography. Print publications are going to disappear, and internet based news, entertainment, or advertising requires video. The sales of stock photos aren't based on absolute quality or specificity, which the professional photographer offers directly to the client. I think they're based on more generic criteria, and there are millions of photographs already out there that meet generic criteria. So they have rightly concluded that the supply will exceed the demand, and this is all they need to pay. Any business would do the same.
Interesting thoughts, but I don't believe for a moment that video is replacing stills photography just because of the internet. Plenty of people want to scan a new story quickly, and don't have the patience to watch video, or are reading in an environment where the video isn't an option anyway.
David0X: Why are people hung up about this "Oh, it must be Full Frame to be pro" crap?
35mm is totally arbitrary - based on the movie film , and remember, it used to Be called "miniature format" because it was so small. Roll film was small too. Quarter Plate was small before that... jeeze. Why was Half Plate called "Half Plate"? See if you can guess.
Unless you have an SLR (optical viewfinder limited by sensor size - no, not Fuji X) or a whole bunch of legacy glass (Nikon, Canon yes, Fuji X no) then there is no reason to bang on about "Full Frame" being pro.
Want a big sensor? Get a Phase One for goodness' sake.
Just as full-frame is an arbitrary size, not some magical point where suddenly you're a pro, exactly the same thing can be said about APS-C, or any other sensor size. Just because ASP-C is the sweet spot for you, doesn't mean it is for everyone.
Some people want something smaller than a DSLR, so m4/3 is the sweet spot. For others, it has to be pocketable, therefore a compact. Still others can't be bothered to carry a camera at all, and consider their cellphone quite good enough. For others, they need the low-light performance and DOF control that you can only get with full frame.
This whole backlash against full-frame is just silly. You choose the tools you need to get the job done.
gohunter: By far the best Photoshop tip I can give is to buy Lightroom. It will save you many, many hours. When I used to do wedding photography, Lightroom was a joy to use, with many hundreds of shots cropped, shadows lifted, etc. in an hour or two. In Photoshop, that used to take me many hours. I got some of my life back!
Of course there is one key factor. Concentrate on getting composition, exposure, etc. right before you click the shutter! That is something that a great many people forget to do. Then it costs them hours in Photoshop correcting things, because they should have been standing somewhere different, or had the camera set differently in the first place. One of the advantages of being brought up on film is that you learned to do that instinctively!
I couldn't agree more. For everyday uses, Lightroom is definitely the way to go. I still have to drop into Photoshop every now and again for heavy editing of a particularly important shot, but these occasions are pretty rare these days.
Wow, if even full frame used to be considered too small, I guess I need at least full frame - anything less must be *way* too small!
Seriously though, what point are you making? The bigger the sensor, the more light it collects. End of story. Full frame is an arbitrary point on the size scale, sure. So is APS-C or m4/3. If you're making out that size doesn't matter at all, just pop over to Connect and join everyone shooting with their cellphone.
Great to see Samsung getting the recognition they deserve. Their NX system ticks all the major boxes - a great quality APS-C sensor, fantastic ergonomics, and a remarkable range of glass. It's always been mystifying to me that they don't get a lot more attention.
brownie314: Any guess on price for the pro zoom? I am guessing $1200. Maybe more. Still, looks nice. Wish CaNikon would make a more modern fast aps-c zoom.
In this relatively compact size, to fit NX mount without the extra bulk of an adaptor?
mister_roboto: I'm not a Samsung camera user, but I'm a fan- I like an underdog... well... minus the fact they're the largest consumer electronics manufacturer in the world- their camera division is pretty under-dog like.
Only in the amount of publicity and recognition they get. Perhaps it's their marketing department which is the underdog. They certainly make fantastic cameras and glass.
straylightrun: You really should of combined the a7 and a7r as one option.
Yes, they're different cameras. Yes, it's misleading that having two such similar cameras on the poll splits the vote. No, there's no easy solution.