shaocaholica: I have to say I'm not a fan of links to summaries from the main page instead of direct links to articles. The main page entries already have a summary. If I click on a link from the main page, that means I want to read the full article, not another summary.
I've said that a number of times and sent feedback, but it has been ignored.They do that in a number of places where a link appears direct yet takes you to a repeat page effectively and you have to click another link to get to your destination.The other really annoying aspect is differing behaviours: some of these links take you to a new page and some open a new tab/window. Really, REALLY frustrating!
You have discovered (and laid before everyone) that it is the state of mind more than anything else which impacts upon the initial picture.However, that 'freedom' is entirely relative and the limitations of such devices soon shackle what initially would seem so liberating.
Of course, as you also point out, the more capable but entirely 'obvious' kit can provide their own handicap in terms of portability and the reaction of the subjects.
Ultimately, there is no right and wrong. It is better to have any camera than none and it is better to have the small unobtrusive camera where a full DSLR would prevent the shot.
Neither would make a cent of difference if you didn't have the eye, though, and there is no denying your skill in that regard!
For heaven's sake do samples need such comments?
It would seem that opinons of them vary from being fabulous to downright awful, yet all the while 'my' opinion of samples should not have the remotest effect on 'your' decision to buy (and vice versa).
I get the distinct impression it is more about a combination of 'fanboys' and ego: praising or castigating the camera simply because of the manufacturer, and being derogatory of the pictures because 'I'm a fabulous and knowledgeable photographer who would do so much better...' !!!
I don't know about the 'voting thumbs', I think DPR should bin the comments section!
Looking at the opposing views about whether such reviews are merited, I wonder if DPReview could carry out some research (no idea where to start, sorry!) as to the nature of photography, not from the point of the capture device but with regard to the final display. Also, to take into account the average time of display.
In other words, has photography changed from being prints in frames and magazines etc., to 'Facebook' galleries and has the lifespan of any image gone from decades to mere hours in some cases?
Furthermore, what percentage of pictures ever get seen by anyone other than those few who view it on the LCD screen immediately after being taken?
It might make for an interesting piece...
Just go with it!
You'll never please all of the people all of the time and you appear to have put a lot of time and effort into this, so why waste it?
The only other suggestion is to agree with the point about a thread/flat view toggle. It is clear there are two polar views (I'm a threaded man myself), so you would alienate one camp if it wasn't available.
Put in a simple toggle (space bar?) and it would be good to go.
aardvark7: You couldn't make that £5000 could you? I mean, you were British once...
This 'ragtag bunch' have been owned, lock stock and barrel, by Amazon for some long while now, so $5000 is small change!
You couldn't make that £5000 could you? I mean, you were British once...
I hope Mr. Britton did not use a Leica to take that portrait of Mr. Shulz...That is one seriously bad photograph!
Despite the nay-sayers, that had Sony dipping out of the market after a few years, I think they are playing the long game and looking to completely dominate within a decade.
Nikon and Canon must be more than a little concerned!
paulbysea: Reckon they are releasing this so it is ready for when NASA go to Mars. They will probably be the only people who will be able to afford it.
Kapanak, write out a hundred lines!
"I must not repeat myself""I must not repeat myself"...
Esa Tuunanen: Good to see company standing behind their product correcting its problems.But we should also remember why we're in this situation in the first place...
Corporations like using consumers as beta testers in any chance they get and sell unfinished products hoping there's more brand/fashion blinded fans than those who notice "cracks under shiny paint&waxing."It sure isn't in interests of consumers if this becomes more common so we should discourage makers from selling half ready products and maybe fixing its issues some day.
I'm sure no one would accept half working car which would need fixing to be able to drive at highway speed.
I think you've hit the nail on the head, especially as some of the flaws we see in 'finished' products are so immediately obvious one can't help wondering why they weren't addressed on day one of testing, let alone after almost deafening criticism!
The X1 has received great acclaim, but imagine just how blown away people would have been if Fuji had taken just a little more time to sort out these teething troubles first.
Cogburn: Samsung, Google, and Apple can Shove their collective bidding power up their collective bum-holes... They don't want one bit of Kodak's photographic heritage... they just want ammunition to litigate and needle each other over their crappy smart-phones, the likes of which they intend to dominate the consumer photography market. Happy little consumers, snapping away with their smart phones... all the while the mothership is collecting gps data on where the photo's are taken so they can sell you an ad for laser hair reduction as you walk by the new "Hair-Off- While-you Wait" Kiosk in your favorite mall... or worse!!
Not quite the words I'd have chosen, but very lucid and completely on the button I fear!
It's strange how we have lived through the most extraordinary of times and now face the most worrying.
Technology has changed and will continue to change the world beyond recognition and it's not a world I think I will enjoy. Perhaps it is good that I am past the majority of years so maybe wave it goodbye before it gets too unpleasant...??
This is a modern-day Minolta A1/A2/A200 with a worse lens!!
I know there are still people who remember those Minoltas (and use them, including me) with passion and many often said that they had everything except the best sensor.
Why someone couldn't have taken that ball and run with it beats me!Indeed, this has the same size sensor so it should have been a piece of cake.
Hats off to Pentax for at least tip-toeing down the same path, but if only for that decent fast lens...
aardvark7: Pretentious nonsense and most likely you'd get arrested and put on the sex offenders register for the one shown here...
See if you can sign up with your local primary school.
I believe they do classes in reading and comprehension, as you are in serious need of a refresher course...
Do you guys do it deliberately????
I'm entirely relaxed about it, but unless you hadn't noticed, lift a camera in the direction of a young person in swimwear these days and you are looked on as some kind of pervert.
We need every parent to give permission for pictures to be taken of a school play, or sports day. Not so long ago a national newsreader was reported to the police because she had some prints done of her children in the bath.
Of course, if some of you still don't understand this elementary point, no amount of hammering on your thick skulls will change it...
Truly the oddest and most pointless reply.
If you had sense you would have realised that:
1. I think the work is pretentious nonsense2. I was making an oblique observation that taking pictures of girls in swimsuits at pools is the sort of thing that gets 'hysterical moralists' attacking photographers without any justification.It's outrageous that it happens, but it does; far too often.
But you'd have realised that, wouldn't you...?
Pretentious nonsense and most likely you'd get arrested and put on the sex offenders register for the one shown here...
aardvark7: With regard to aesthetic merits, each to his own and one can't argue.As to success, that goes hand in hand with individual taste too.
However, the essence of this article seems to have been missed by all but one who commented.
The author talks of perserverance and illustrates that by mentioning the number of visits to a site. To me, this is not perserverance, but rather making use of the opportunity.
99.9% of all photographers will not have the luxury to make such trips, even if they had the desire. It may be too expensive or they have other calls on their time. It is simply not an option and the only way they get 'the shot' is by lucky chance of being there at the appropriate time in the first place.
Any time the subject comes up as to the most important thing in photography, I always say 'Opportunity' and this article demonstrates exactly that.
Give most the opportunity and even a basic camera and there would be bucketloads of quality shots. Most simply don't get the chance.
Despite that I have never suggested anyone is forced to do anything (???) I would ask:
If you have spent years learning your trade, will this article help?
If you don't have the time, will this article help?
And if you don't have the intelligence to appreciate what is necessary, will this article help?
I say again, this article only reinforces my position that for much of good photography, opportunity is key (not planning or perserverence as you can do neither without the opportunity) and opportunity, in this particular case, is the realm only of the professional landscape photographer or the very wealthy.
I too think that the location is irrelevant. However, my point remains that such time and endeavour is a luxury very few can afford.
If it was my job to be a landscape photographer, as it is for the author, not hurricane or firestorm would keep me away. But it isn't, so I rarely have any opportunity, and that applies to almost all of us.
We simply don't have the wherewithal to plan such shots, nor to keep improving on them should they not be to our satisfaction, even if that is on our doorstep!
I do agree with the intent of the article, for the most part, but I feel it is a little naive (even patronising) to be preaching to those who instinctively realise it to be so, would love to be in that position, yet will never get the chance.
I'm not sure why it is such a hard point to get across, so I'll try again:
I 'AM' one of those who want to take their time, paint the perfect picture, visit a place as often as necessary...but I can't!!!!
I don't have the money or the free time (by some huge degree in both regards!!).
It is not about eye, intention, perserverence, equipment or luck. It is about the simple realities of life. For whatever reason, I am in the same position as 99.999999999% of the population of this world and do not have the opportunity to do as the author of the article. Pure and simple.
Certainly, if an opportunity presents itself I will try to make the most of it and it may well be that, even if I did, my shots would not be as acceptable, but that is completely beside the point.
In some respects, it is why I find such articles rather depressing, as they seem to imply that to get the shot you absolutely need to do what is not an option, thereby rendering the advice rather pointless.