The same person that was over-editing his RAWs will now continue to do so, and just copy over the metadata from the JPG. As far as real people are concerned, Reuter's new stipulation just complicates things - not everyone shoots *just* for Reuters. Lightroom will now need a "Reuters mode" where the JPEG is used instead of the RAW for making the small changes that are still allowed. Reminds me of when Getty had that "approved cameras" list which was complete BS.
Edgar_in_Indy: Let's hope they're replacing it with a version that has IBIS, as the NX1 should have had.
Yes, matander, google it and read my post again. The overheating affects A7 models without IBIS, hence IBIS is not the cause. Can't believe nobody upvoted that - it's elementary logic.
Horshack: It's been over 24 hours and still no official word from Samsung dispelling the rumor? It's not a good sign when the most popular camera review site asks you if you're exiting the camera business and you don't answer back after a full business day.
Peiasdf: They can survive a few days customers holding back until the new product is announced. If you haven't yet bought the product and aren't by this message panicked into buying it, you're probably not going to run off in a hurry to get a CaSoNikon. You'll wait a few days to see what happens first. So the impact on business is minimal IF they have a follow-on product in the pipeline.
Nice to see some good Pentaxian work here - normally you only see it on pentaxforums. :)
JustDavid: Samples here:
It's sad that they don't shoot at f/3.5 - obviously because some pinbrain is going to come along and say it's "a little soft wide open" and it will affect sales even though the lens might be as good as one can make it.
The overheating apparently affected A7 models without IBIS.
Rather suggests the rumour of a replacement is true. They wouldn't pre-empt an official announcement of a new product because of a silly rumour about discontinuation of a previous one.
Leandros S: I was rather looking forward to their 300mm lens.
Oh, I'm not believing it yet. But the fact remains that I'd like to see what that lens can do.
I was rather looking forward to their 300mm lens.
I wonder how extensive a blacklist of keywords you'd need to avoid upsetting the PC crowd, and how that affects the usefulness of this feature. Otoh, maybe they didn't take the Flickr lesson on board...
SnappyUK: But... they had this technology in 1998. Don't you all remember that documentary "Enemy of the State" where such cameras were obviously installed in lingerie shops?
No - enhance?
ttran88: So where are the canon's ILC? Are they too expensive? Or they don't qualify to be recommended?
In fact, they make a MILC around 500 - the M10.
"An early version of the roundup mistakenly included the Pentax K-S2, but after reviewing its MSRP, we have moved it to the forthcoming 'ILC's $500-800' roundup. "
Makes no sense to me - at all!
robbo d: Scary thing is weight..... k3 is already slightly heavier than a D750 body. Add battery grip, high quality glass and flash X2 when doing weddings ..... i hope its not too much of a tank.Might have to add a gym membership.!!!Pentax k3/k5 are small in form but theyre little heavy suckers ..... so if barney thinks it looks bulkier than D750 ... hmmmm
It's the new fashion at Sony Photography Review - insinuate all other cameras are bulky. See Leica SL.
wolfie: Interesting to see the positive enthusiasm for more size and weight as an advantage over mirrorless ...reminds me of how dinosaurs (dino-slrs) failed while pesty little mammals took over every niche they occupied. But hey if you want to persist with a viewing system that only existed because of film, your welcome to the size and weight penalty - which says nothing at all about about supposed better image quality.I think between Ricoh & Pentax they could have done something unique in mirrorless, maybe in a few years 😣
You mean it reminds you of how mammals used to forage in the night 'cause during the daytime they'd get eaten?
Martin Datzinger: Mirrorless is oh-so-much lighter than SLR, yeah right. Compare this lens to Leica's own 28-90mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical Vario-Elmarit-R: The SLR lens is 4cm shorter and 400g lighter.
I'm not batting for the mirrorless team at all. However, there can be other reasons for size differences than flange distance, and the comparison you propose has you losing one stop of light at the wide end with the Nikon system - your choice, obviously, but it's not comparing apples with apples.
In terms of size and weight of mirrorless, you can only minimise that so much before you get visible shutter shock when using a mechanical shutter. Personally, I like having something substantial in my hands, and I'm not ready to throw away the OVF.
Others have suggested it's because the model is a rather small person. I've often felt that focus rings have become rather marginalised - thin and with little throw. This one at least has a substantial focus ring, by the looks of it.
If it's a camera that interests you, it's a good idea to hold one in your hands rather than make a judgement on a few photographs at a Sony review site.
Rob Sims: Just out of interest, how many different mounts does Leica now have? Quickly I count five different ones:1. M39 (screw mount)2. M3. R bayonet 4. T 5. SL
Both the M39 and M-mount can be adapted to the T-mount and SL-mount (or other mirrorless m43/e-mount...etc) right? But are the the T and SL incompatible with each other?
I understood the article as saying T and SL are identical and just called L mount now. You forgot S mount, though.
The added image stabilisation alone probably accounts for the weight difference, and many will appreciate the extra 4mm at the wide end. We've seen a lot of huge lenses recently, from a range of manufacturers. Maybe this is the cusp of that trend, but would you sacrifice IQ? CA control, stabilisation, vignetting, edge sharpness?
It's about the same size as a Nikon D750.