MikeFairbanks: What some folks call retro others call classic. I never liked the design when the original rebels came out and, like golf clubs, the trend was to make them as big and plasticy as possible. A solid 35mm camera didn't need to look pretty. The features should evolve first, and form can follow if needed.
Any serious photographer is going to pick function over form any day. The 80s saw a bad trend, in my opinion, toward plastic and poofy. Just like golf clubs.
Some things aren't retro, but classic and eternal, like hardwood floors, granite, wood and steel, and a solid, metal, 35mm camera.That said, however, I won't pay more for it based on a classic look. I'll pay for function at the best price.
But that's just me.
You CAN have both. But it takes a lot of effort. What this camera does is exaggerate "functionality" as a design statement. This is the opposite of minimalism (which can be also not good every time). This is why this camera looks like a Hummer: make a (mostly, as it was really used) city car look like a military vehicle for which no aesthetic judgment is important. This is not "retro". Take a good look at it: its edges, its overblown dials, etc. It gives "retro" a bad name. I don't remember film cameras to be so visually complicated back then. And why is that? because this camera is schizophrenic, digital and film looks intertwined. Apart form that, where's innovation here?
and... your medicine
David Hardaway: I just reviewed the sample images that Barney took with the original x100. Night and day difference. The x100 images are very good and with good color and detail. X100s is clearly not an award winning camera so why is the dpreview gold being awarded to a jpg snapshot camera that is grossly overpriced?
I owned the X100, gave it to my daughter when I received the X100S. My main rant with the X100 is that it was slow to focus. I also have an Olympus OM-D and a 5D3. The slowest is the X100S, HOWEVER, the image quality is so good, even at high ISOs (I can use it at night, outdoors, with light from poles, stores and such), that it keeps amazing me. And, I own a Retina Mac, so I can see the quality. The Olympus is also incredible for its size, but is different and hard to describe. It's quite sharp, but the Fuji has a strange combination of sharpness and "creaminess". Now I don't go out with just one camera: it's either the Olympus or the Canon AND always the Fuji. BTW, the ND filter in itself is the great bonus. I live in the Caribbean, without that filter, things would have been different.
The critics have to be able to articulate clearly their comments and I find that most of them don't prepare for it by anticipating what they'll probably be seeing, and, most importantly, try to not repeat the same critiques. In the case of art photography, the market is what decides what's good or bad, and, frankly, too much of what we see, endorsed by curators, critics, historians, and gallery owner, is very bad. Too much of it is either shock value (forced, but pretty empty once the shock is gone) or cryptic (and very hard to understand, thus, not communicating). Contemporary art is exclusive: it pretends to force people to "understand". However, this shouldn't be necessary. Originality without integrity doesn't work, but that's what they teach. A one on one should take some time and the context of the work has to be known to be able to critique.
I've been to portfolio reviews before, and I'm not sure if I would go again. The problem is not negative critiques (I, in fact, prefer them, if the person is intelligently communicating), because I'm an architect and have been a design professor, so I'm used to them, the problem is that the time allocated per person is too little. One cannot engage in a give-and-take, and most of the critics are used to saying the same things. Besides, photography in general has been experiencing a "blurring" of divisions between its genres, and the spectrum is wider every day.
Robgo2: The X100s looks like a nice camera, but it is not in the same league as the Sony RX1. Check out the somewhat sloppy "crazy comparison" that Steve Huff did on his website:
The RX1 is more expensive and out of the price range of most potential buyers, but considering what you get, it is not unreasonably priced.
That's right. The EVF gets uncannily dim in bright sunlight, and if you crank up the LCD-EVF brightness and also use the sunlight mode, it eats the battery in no time. Let's hope there's a firmware update for that. Apart from that, pictures are beautiful. Sorry for naysayers, you have to use it to believe it. I owned the X100 and liked its IQ, but so far, this one seems much better.
EduardoJB: The fact that the Alpha SLT-99 has such a low score means only two things: there's not enough people who own it, so they don't vote for it, or they prefer to vote for the cameras they own and the brands they know better, which, BTW, makes this poll very biased and not very useful. I don't own a Sony camera (I own Canon, Olympus and Fuji), but the Alpha SLT-A99 surely deserves a much higher score.
5D Mark III, 7D, Olympus OM-D M5, Fuji X100, among others. Not a Nikon, nor a Sony
The fact that the Alpha SLT-99 has such a low score means only two things: there's not enough people who own it, so they don't vote for it, or they prefer to vote for the cameras they own and the brands they know better, which, BTW, makes this poll very biased and not very useful. I don't own a Sony camera (I own Canon, Olympus and Fuji), but the Alpha SLT-A99 surely deserves a much higher score.
webneep: Merry Christmas! Great to see little Olympus do so well. I voted for the RX100 as I have one (and a D800), but the mere fact that it fits in my shirt pocket and produces stunning images makes it my favourite. The D800 is great and I love the amazing detail it captures, but it means I have to carry a heavy backpack with huge lenses to get the quality results.
Tape5, I have to guess you're being sarcastic... Right? ;-)I, in fact, don't mind the weight not because I treat it like junk, but because I appreciate the equipment - totally the opposite. If the image quality means I have to carry around a heavy camera, so be it. I own both the 5D MIII and the OM-D M5. The OM with six lenses weights about a fourth of what the 5D weights with three L lenses, so it's a matter for me to choose in what mood I'm in on a particular day, or depending on what I'm photographing. If I'm taking the heavy one, I sit down once in a while and rest, and then continue. I chose the OM as the best camera because I think it broke new ground in the 4/3 category and it's now the one to beat. The 5D and the D800 are good, of course, but how much so compared to other DSLR's?
wlachan: Must be a new trick Canon have planned all along. Instead of R&D a new camera, Canon just limited the capability of the 7D from the beginning, then extended its life by releasing its full potential a few years later.
I don't mean to be offensive, but I think your theory is highly unlikely. Even though it is well known that the technology being offered to the consumer is way behind what's already possible, trying to revive a camera that's been in the market for more than two years to make it more attractive and to sell new stock goes against the usual consumer psychology, which is to try to get the latest and newest products (5D Mark III). Going the route for a lesser model (60D or Rebel whatever) wouldn't make much sense. However, I concede that the fact that a 7D Mark II or something similar hasn't appeared yet is a bit strange.
David28: Am I missing something or is this an update just for Windows. The Mac link has no equivalent update.
Seems an odd way to issue firmware.
I connected my Mac as instructed, opened the Olympus Installer, I'm connected to a Wi-Fi network. I follow the instructions. After the first pane, the camera can not connect to the computer "Check for a network connection". Several times. Restarted Mac, changed USB port, nothing. Running Lion 10.7.4
I wonder why Walter de Silva can't create a good looking camera as this one for everybody. All things being equal, good design should be affordable, if it isn't, then it's not good design. Beautiful... Sure, but there has to be a real justification for the price one pays. Aesthetics is not the only component of good design. This is no more than make-up. And, as make-up, it's not meant to be "worn" in strenuous situations. On the other hand, obviously Leica knows this is a jewel to be kept in a safe and does not belong to the real world, but for this Leica should be ashamed of itself. It's totally superficial. Especially coming from a company that prides itself on creating time-lasting and hard working machines. Cameras are instruments for creativity and work. The value of the camera should not be more than what one can achieve with it.
This is exactly what happens when a restyling of a car model in imminent. Now with the X-Pro 1, something had to be done to keep selling the X100. Good Luck Fuji. BTW, I own an X100 and an X-10, so this is not a derogatory comment, but it seems to me that it will be harder for Fuji to sell the X100 from now on, and the lack of a 35mm (equivalent) in the three first lenses for the X-Pro seems to be part of the strategy too.
LightOnSurface: Interesting. I don't believe he actually defined "truth." Leaving that term undefined muddies the discussion. In the words of Robin Williams, "Reality. What a concept." Perceptual scientists have told us for years that senses are filtered by emotional states, other sensory cues, what we are mentally prepared to understand. There may be a hard and fast thing that is reality. We are seldom in direct touch with it. Now if the subject is intentionally manipulated presentation of physical events, the conversation becomes something entirely different. Even then, the produced image may be "real"-- again, depending on the definition of the first term.
Agree. "truth" and "real" are not necessarily synonyms. Maybe "reality" can be tested more objectively in the Physics sense, but "truth" can't. I think the very definition of Photography has to include the "real" in it, even if it's distorted, manipulated, etc. because every photograph stems from existing objects and subjects. If not, it would be another type of visual art (painting, etc). But the "truth" is another thing altogether.
ZAnton: bla bla about nothing
Yeah, nothing really new here, although I prefer not to be disrespectful. In fact, the whole issue about the "truth" is already a very old discussion theme with no definite answer, unless we all agree that there's no such thing.
Decoboy: I disagree with the first section - i.e. the cannonballs, elephant etc.
As I hear it - he is saying posing and cropping are the same thing - they ARE NOT. Same for framing and posing, the elephant gimmick is just silly, what about what was behind the camera, or maybe on the next continent/planet??Classic example of twisted logic - to excuse straight out fraudulent activity by photographers.
There is a BIG difference between a deliberate choice of framing/cropping and a deliberate physical interference in what is in the actual scene displayed - be it by 'posing' cannonballs, or deleting/inserting objects afterwards.
Changing objects, faking scenes, passing off re-enactments as the original is cheating and fraud and no amount of 'nothing is real' or "all pictures lie" blather excuses a cheater.So a photo (i.e. a chosen field of view) can't tell the whole story - so how exactly does that make cheating and faking scenes OK?
Shame on him for suggesting they are the same.
I don't think he's saying it's OK or not. All he's saying is that no photograph can be regarded as part of a "truth". And I agree. What I don't agree with is that he says that language can be more "truthful" (Did I understand correctly?). In fact, I'm a bit worried that today for photograph to be considered "contemporary art", it has to NOT be the truth. Art critics, owners of galleries and museums seem to prefer "conceptual", posed, super post-processsed, etc, photographs. In this regard, what he says makes sense, even when a photo is PART of a real scene, we can't know the whole truth, so, why are these types of photos considered different than those that are manipulated-fabricated-whatever?
Who are the "Renaissance" painters of the late 19th and early 20th century painters?
OK, I'm a Canon guy... No wait, I'm a Canon, Fuji, Panasonic and soon a Sony (and have owned a Ricoh and a Lumix-Leica, an iPhone and even the LEGO camera) guy. I haven't owned a Nikon and it is not my intention to talk badly about Nikon, but, seriously, what were they thinking? Maybe this camera would be a hit in some markets... I can't know. But I just can't see the point. Do Nikon think it will sell because of the candy colors? I don't know if Canon is planning in entering in the mirrorless camera market, or if they already have a prototype, but I would say that Nikon has made it easier for them now. There should be no excuses from a company like Nikon, although from time to time big companies have had their blunders (think Microsoft). These cameras makes one think that Nikon is in dire needs for engineers, designers and even... a vision. They've fallen in the trap of originality for originality's sake.
Why in the world, what for, and who would buy one? From a design point of view, it's not practical, and as a "work of art" it better stays at home, protected, untouched and new, and maybe in a few years it could sell for more in an auction. This is made with the only purpose of selling it to people with money to spend. I appreciate Japan's lacquer craftsmanship, and own fountain pens with such finish, but I've used the pens... no big deal. But a camera? This idea of turning an instrument into a jewel is somewhat perplexing, and so much so coming from a manufacturer with a good reputation and history. And after all Japan's gone through recently, it seems a bit insensitive.
EduardoJB: I find very annoying that one can't focus (in AF mode) objects closer than (according to the manual) 28" unless Macro mode is not activated. Even though the manual says that it is possible but it would take more time, in my experience it just doesn't work well. I've tried it and maybe two out of twenty times the green rectangle lights up, but even then the photo is not focused (and I'm using f/5.6). Macro mode is essential for it to focus right. Can this be fixed with a firmware update or is it mechanically (or electronically) impossible? Is this a design compromise?
And this is why, I presume, Leica had to come up with such a complicated solution with their "dual range" lens for film cameras and prefers not to have an EVF in the digital M's?