My next purchase will be not a lens but probably something like RX100 which will replace D300+midrange zoom as a family walk-around solution. D300 or its successor will be reserved for things like sprots, macro, ultra wideangle, etc.
Canon should fire its camera designer if they even have one...
They probably decided to make it in Russia because Zenit's equipment is about from the same era as the original Petzval lens.
VadymA: I think by the time they get to production Petzval effect will be in every PP plug-in like Topaz, Nik, etc... And after looking at some examples on the web, I don't think I like that effect at all; I find it rather distracting to be honest.
Ironically, those are examples that I didn't like. It might be very subjective, but the spinning effect makes me rather "dizzy" or "sea-sick"; almost forcing me to look away from the image. I think the examples in the video are MUCH more subtle; to the point that I even didn't understand what was it all about. But images on the web are either overdone or simply this effect is not for everyone.
I think by the time they get to production Petzval effect will be in every PP plug-in like Topaz, Nik, etc... And after looking at some examples on the web, I don't think I like that effect at all; I find it rather distracting to be honest.
Hasselblad version of BEAUTY IN DISGUISEChapter 1: LunarChapter 2: Stellar
If you are thinking about investing in Sony RX100 but afraid of it being stolen, buy Hasselblad version! Its stellar "do-it-yourself" appearance will keep those thieves at bay guaranteed!
mpgxsvcd: I bet this announcement hits 500 comments really quickly.
And I bet there will be not a single complain about lack of a viewfinder :)))
Kinematic Digit: Did Hasselblad hire Kodak's management team?
More likely they formed a joint venture with IKEA; another sweedish manufacturer...
Looks like a perfect design for a .... decorative cigarette lighter ;)
Does it come with a lens cover? ;)
I think I have DPRAS - DPR Adddiction Syndrome; come to site waaaay more often than necessary.
Truelight: A generation of kids are growing up who will have no baby albums, no printed photos, and will be lucky if they even have any pictures at all to look back on because their parents only took smartphone photos and uploaded them to Facebook. In 20 years (probably less) they will be gone forever. Even shoul their parents have been smart enough to save the images to some storage medium, they will be poor, low resolution, and unsuitable for any serious use. How sad!
This is true for every camera, not just smartphones. When screen resolution will hit 100MP+, every photo from today will look poor and low rez (even if it was taken with D800).
VadymA: Nowadays the price should be no more than $1.99/month with occasional promo offers of $0.99 and a free monthly trial.
Scrup: I would love working for peanuts if I get millions of peanuts a month. Don't you think that at $1.99/month they might get ten times bigger customer base? I think it's quite possible.GrayBal: I am no saying the entire CS should be 1.99/month; but maybe this should be a starting point with the ability to buy adds-on for extra. Maybe that's what they will do eventually; which only proves my point.
Nowadays the price should be no more than $1.99/month with occasional promo offers of $0.99 and a free monthly trial.
This thing looks more like it was made by IKEA than Hasselblad.
Amazing! Would be even more cool if they add it to Google glasses or something; then one could change viewing ange by simply turning his/her head. That would be one sweet ride; at high speed might feel better than a rollercoaster.
This twisted cheerleading of smart phones is really annoying. The only things that made this photo worthy NYT's front page were the Subject and the Skills and Status of a Photographer.
Sure the technology is making it easier for the masses to sing without voice, play music without knowing notes, make pictures without understanding light and composition. But without true skills and talent the outcome will always look comical, grotesque, amateurish, cheap, fake, 3rd grade-ish, etc, etc.
That's why I find such articles really annoying. They give too much credit to technology without any analysis of real factors of success of certain photographs.
Yes!!! I think this will be a cool birthday present for my 7 year old daughter this year.
Shouldn't the title really be " Another professional photographer joined Apple marketing team"?