ormyatomic: Users of the New Tamron SP 15-30mm good news for you guys..
There is a filter system for you new Tammy:http://lucroit.com/SHOP/product.php?id_product=21
I hope you find it useful ;)
Very good to know. A 165mm filter-holder.
Absolutely the buyer should be provided with a disassembly guide for all cameras which do not allow direct access to the sensor. Why? So you can clean dust off the sensor. What, is there a dust problem with fixed lenses?! Sure could be. Here's an example pertaining to the RX100 II: http://steven-pam.tumblr.com/post/63141455133/rx100-mk-ii-impressions, "I started to see SENSOR DUST on my images, especially at smaller apertures. Yes, I had been on a beach walk, but I had clean hands and never put the camera down, sat down, kicked up sand, or anything that would even remotely constitute abusive or careless handling of the camera. If it’s that susceptible to sensor dust, it’s totally not going to work as a take-everywhere camera. At least with a DSLR you can clean your sensor. Sending the camera away for cleaning every time I go for a beach walk is not going to work!"
Ayoh: Looking at the optical diagram, the housing seems overly large for the element size. Also I think the classic older angled Zeiss body style is much more appealing this new strange funnel shape all the new Zeiss lenses have
Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz of Lens Rentals sure aren't intimidated by the complexity of modern lenses.
Hat tip to Ed Ingold.
I'm an old trooper -- names like Distagon, Biogon, Sonnar, Tessar, and Planar -- anything ending in -on or -ar is music to my ears. But not Goldar, Superon, Masteron, or Crinjar. ...I'm getting deranged now.
Ca. $1500! That's cheap! For a Zeiss. Are they coming to their marketing senses? Will Leitz follow?
Yes, I'm not liking the funnel shape, nor the unfathomable bird names. One gets the idea that Zeiss might be a little deranged.
Oh, by the way, I read DPR pages at 150% magnification, because at 100%, the sans-serif type is rendered awfully feeble, scrawny, gaunt and skeletal.
justmeMN: (joke) Every time I ask "which drone is powerful enough to carry a pressure cooker", someone from Homeland Security shows up at my door. :-)
Don't say irty-day om-bay if you don't want a platoon of Empire Storm Troopers camping out in your bedroom.
Change pitches bring out the pom-pom me-too streak in us all. Does anyone really think that the upshot will be, "Weeell, after viewing the feedback, we feel that the proposed format falls short, and we're going to just forget about the whole thing"?
By the way, I do my best work at 3 A.M.
Pat Cullinan Jr: Can anyone tell me what difference, if any, there is between the Lumix DMC-GX85, the Lumix DMC-GX80, and the Lumix DMC-GX7 Mark II.
Thank you very much.
Can anyone tell me what difference, if any, there is between the Lumix DMC-GX85, the Lumix DMC-GX80, and the Lumix DMC-GX7 Mark II.
Change is bad.
Richard Ettinger: image quality is horrible. how was this footage processed?
Too much red.
brazzy: DO NOT FLY DRONES ABOVE CROWDS. NEVER.I do not know about FAA rules, as I don't live in the US, but this is the first unwritten requirement that every operator should have in his mind.Mr. Johnson did something very good by going at dawn on Friday to take his footage, then something very wrong by flying above people on Saturday afternoon. He has been unlucky he couldn't get what he wanted on the very first time, but hey, this happens to all landscape photographers.I am not against drone photography and I appreciate his work. I fly my Phantom 4 in Tokyo area and I get the same smooth videos - it works just great. But it's just too dangerous, you never know what may happen: Phantom 4 is reliable but the unexpected is always behind the corner.I do hope that watching this beautiful video and picture won't stimulate other people to do the same. Dpreview should be careful about promoting this kind of footage.DO NOT FLY DRONES ABOVE CROWDS.
I will never place people at risk by flying a drone over them. The risk is inescapable AND UNJUSTIFIABLE.
Act responsibly. Eliminate unnecessary risk.
If you CARE about your fellow human beings, you will NEVER fly a drone over people. It's a matter of simple caring, of simple responsibility.
Andrew Smallman of Camera Ergonomics has written an outstanding analytical and pragmatic treatment of the shutter-shock problem. Browse to http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.com/2015/08/panasonic-lumix-g7-review-part-2.html.
Pat Cullinan Jr: I beg your indulgence, but Imakefoto4U is right. Many of the sample photos would be great in an art show, but we need more pedestrian shots "demonstrating what that sensor is capable of." Please, please eschew the art photos. We are serious people looking for red meat.
The equivalence theorizing put forward on this site amounts to just plain incorrect physics. They could have settled the matter by consulting with a technical rep from Fujifilm or Nikon, etc. Maybe they did, and discreetly avoided the topic thereafter, for all I know. At all events, the crank science, joined with the notoriously boorish character of the commentary, and other shortcomings, have finally turned me away.
The well is dry.
And it's not funny.
Thank you very much for the thoughtful post, and admirably put.
Everyday photos aren't that a propos either. Phil Askey could take everyday photos that were technically useful, but he was a superstar.
It's not "art" or "everyday." It's "repay our time and allegiance with what we come here looking for."
DPReview is seemingly resting on its laurels. Increasingly, I'm resorting to alternative sources, like Gordon Laing at Cameralabs. My time is valuable. I have to spend it with deliberation.
This may well be my last post.
I beg your indulgence, but Imakefoto4U is right. Many of the sample photos would be great in an art show, but we need more pedestrian shots "demonstrating what that sensor is capable of." Please, please eschew the art photos. We are serious people looking for red meat.