#30. It’s hard to tell the difference between a mobile, digital and film print (up to A3). Hmmm, are you absolutely sure about that one, in particular A3 size? Unless it's a bad printer or a poor eyesight.
"In the coming days and weeks, we'll be working with all editorial employees to train and outfit you as much as possible to produce the content we need." - OK, so if the CS-T laid off photographers as redundant, in no time they won't have to pay the remaining lot a cent of redundancy package as they will all get fired for 'incompetency'. That's how it works at (still) my workplace... And poor suckers will have to take this task as directed by their management (until the last day). I can visualise what's it like being there at the moment - the work 'morale' is on its highest point. And everybody already feels sorry for themselves apart from the stupid ones...I'm generally happy with the local newspaper delivered every Wednesday for free in our letterboxes: worth what I paid for. They might use freelance guy but at least he is a PHOTOGRAPHER.
tabloid: All very nice...but its done to a jpg.It would be much nicer if all this could be done to a raw image, and then once corrected (in raw) converted to a jpg as a final finished image.
I wish there was a 'Photoshop Raw' with all the same menus that the ordinary photoshop has for jpg manipulation.
What you are wishing for has a name: CNX2. You start there and finish in Photoshop....at least I do it that way.
ZorSy: "We were impressed by the phone's low light capabilities while shooting some samples at Nokia's launch event in London. We managed to get a recognizable image in a set-piece shot where both an iPhone 4S and a Canon 6D with Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC lens had problems.". Hmmm, how do we take this? 6D with a fast lens is easily outperformed by a phone camera? Comparing phones to phones is fine, this comparison is bold (and rather brave) statement IMO...
Thanks Lars, that's why I actually pointed this out: without some technical background in reporting, it may sound a bit confusing. In short, combined FL+aperture/sensor size (AF DOF)+OS+ISO works well at low light....I think it's reasonable to expect that OS would gain its effectiveness the smaller the sensor/optics becomes, which matters for static low light scenes and handheld.
"We were impressed by the phone's low light capabilities while shooting some samples at Nokia's launch event in London. We managed to get a recognizable image in a set-piece shot where both an iPhone 4S and a Canon 6D with Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC lens had problems.". Hmmm, how do we take this? 6D with a fast lens is easily outperformed by a phone camera? Comparing phones to phones is fine, this comparison is bold (and rather brave) statement IMO...
ZorSy: It's all good and great, but 5 inch screens are rather to be counted as small tablets than mobile phones - one hand operation is close to impossible (at least I know it is not on 6 in tablet and on 4 in Xperia Arc feels just about right for my not so small hands). "Pocketability" is as well out of window and the jacket pockets will have to grow in size (attention, fashion people). Lastly, 13MP for a camera phone is stupid overkill.
Richard, the stacked CMOS and its performance is yet to be seen (in some review here, I guess). My comment about pixel count is purely related what majority of mobile phone photography today is for, which is social media utilising very low MP count to start with. So "more is better" (even if it is in this case) is pushing consumers around with numbers, even if they need just those 2MP. I have not noticed significant increase in data allowance (at least where I am) even on premium plans, so majority of phone camera users are still pretty sparse when selecting what image size (and quality) are the photos they upload via G3/G4 connection. Until that changes significantly, the sheer MP count still matters. So let's wait for the reviews and leave reading sales brochures aside. cheers
It's all good and great, but 5 inch screens are rather to be counted as small tablets than mobile phones - one hand operation is close to impossible (at least I know it is not on 6 in tablet and on 4 in Xperia Arc feels just about right for my not so small hands). "Pocketability" is as well out of window and the jacket pockets will have to grow in size (attention, fashion people). Lastly, 13MP for a camera phone is stupid overkill.
MiLei: I hate to see these lenses. I want them to Full Frame cameras also.
hate them to exist or what? There are few offerings for FF in range 28-200/300, but combined with even more demanding sensors the compromise becomes more obvious than on DX.
SunnyFlorida: 3 Super zooms in a row???
so people can compare and pick one - DSLR cameras are replacing "superzoom" ones so I find DPR decision to compare the lot quite reasonable. These lenses are heavily compromised, without question. But for a large number of people traveling (light ), having 11-18+18-2xx kit for snapshots may be just right. Tamron used to have what was called "ultimate travel kit" - it seems they are sticking with that idea.
Very useful review for anyone thinking of getting one of these lenses. When I bought Sigma 18-200 OS HSM years ago, there was no review to be found anywhere. That lens had a few very serious problems at some focal lengths - this one seems to have inherited some. The best example is looking at distortion changing the focal length, starting at 18mm and going up. At about 22-25mm, it has a "jump" from barrel to pincushion. I no longer have this lens, but remember anything photographed around this length looked very weird (the best word to describe without samples). I later had a Tamron and comparing the two, Sigma was much better, both mechanically and optically (with exceptions as above). I no longer have any superzoom lenses - but they have their practical value on holidays, capturing moments and memories and for the next overseas holiday I could even get one of these (again), who knows...the whole life thing is a compromise, isn't it?
Dan Tong: A truly creative image. It's great to have the story of how it was done. I also enjoyed his comment on how it reflects the difference between the Powered (or Powerful) and the Powerless.
The more I look at this image, the more I appreciate it the angle of view, so dependent on the height, the framing angle (focal length & distance), the color tone, etc. Clearly you will not find an image like this on microstock : )
Iwan Baan is one photographer who, based on this example of his work, well deserves his success.
And in that light (or partial blackout) there is no need to make a political statement as written; “What really struck me, if you look at the image on the left, you see the Goldman Sachs building and new World Trade Center,” said Baan. “These two buildings are brightly lit. And then the rest of New York looks literally kind of powerless. In a way, it shows also what’s wrong with the country in this moment.”Whatever is wrong with the country has nothing to do with the fact a large city was struck with a blasting natural disaster - and no government on Earth could do anything about it. It is a great photo, but that's it.
I am puzzled over the "window" under the flash - somehow think whoever designed this thing was looking at F3HP prism and thought how awesome it would be to marry V1 and HP prism. It looks boxy, no question - but on product shots like this Nikon should have included the actual photo of real person holding it. Alone as it is, the hump dominates the image, quite the same as if EP or NEX would look with their optional EVF (worse even and still either EVF or flash, not both). From the practical point of view, still better having it fixed on the camera than a loose accessory in the pocket. Either way, something is in the air designers breathe these days....
Picasa was good and Google+ made it even better, in particular album preview layout. As not very online socially active (I got real life), I don't like Google pushing "circles" and still invite people via email notification - I'm obsolete, I know....But - slideshow, size and maintaining quality are on the plus side.
TAPCAM - touch or tapping as a method of taking photos, it's got A for either Android or application, cam to indicate it's not a phone (and has no "i" in it so Aplle can't claim the patent theft). Or just T&S - tap and shoot.
Since the QLD floods, the water there has produced some strange effects on some people. The author of this "review" should seek medical help. But, they do offer iPhone Photography Course through their WEB site, which tells a whole lot more.....So iPhone is finally at the level with for example Xperia Arc from 2011? Or I'm missing something here what I should be excited about (in hotogrpahjy terms)?
If this tripod is as steady as my tent (using the same system for frame), thanks but not! Plus inability to adjust the length to accommodate uneven surface...
I bet the box this thing come packed in will be equally "exciting" ....correct me if I'm wrong - but these dials, are they made out of toothpaste lids or I just imagine it?
Carl Sanders: Would agree with first comment by Great Island, regardless of analogy, will be sticking to the manufacturers, re weather seal and quality of feel. To spend £2,500 on a camera and then purchase third party lens or accessories that may compromise the product does not make much sense. Each to their own though!
My wife is trailing Autodesk AutoCad LT 13 and getting ready to pay $1700 for the licence. Should she rather get the cracked copy? Because knock-off is nothing but cracked copy. It sure is cheaper than OEM and "we would make the most of our money". Or how would you feel if someone take your photo and crop few pixels on each side claiming it being his own? I know where you are coming from but think about consequences of stealing "intellectual properties". They will bite your back sooner than you think. Let Pixel make a camera (and a grip for it), if they are so smart....
ZorSy: I'm not sure where this kind of reviews published on DPR are taking this site to: I don't work for or with Nikon, nor have D800 for that matter. There have been grips and 3rd party accessory for cameras before, never "reviewed" in this fashion. It was part of discussions and comments about the stuff one can buy on e-bay, for good or bad (none has to tell us it's cheaper than OEM stuff, we know that anyway). Why did DPR pick to this way so of the sudden is a bit of mystery. Independent reviewers can go the way they want, without question - following the "line of money". But why with D800 grip? I'm sure the number of MB-D10 clones and variants sold over years for D80/90 is plain vast compared to the number of D800's out there - yet never even remotely mentioned, virtually non-existent. Hmm..
Yes right! And Pixel2012 is a "valuable DPR poster" too. In other words, it's now OK to take someone's photo, push through Instagram and sell it cheap as a "knock off photo". You could, of course, get heavily overpriced original author's photo - but why bother when knock-off would do?
All those lenses in question are unique by design (optical, mechanical, aesthetic). This is plain knock-off in every last bit (apart from cheaper materials). As other poster on another forum said - photographers are so sensitive about copyrights and use of their photographs but quickly forger about others intellectual rights (in this case Nikon). DPR joins to support the steal of the same. The next step - 3rd party inks for printers? May be legal - but is it moral? Or that does not matter anymore...