rjjr: I'm very interested in seeing how the 90mm macro compares to my Canon 100L IS macro (with adapter) on my A6000.
Regardingthe pricing: Both of these lenses are priced about the same (90mm is $50 more) but add the cost of the adapter to use the Canon on the A6000 and the 90mm winds up costing less.
Oops, my mistake the price of the 90 is 999 Euros, not dollars, which puts a different spin on it. Sorry for any confusion.
At current conversion rates that puts the price of the 90mm about $130 more than the 100L IS and the adapter I selected. Still, not so bad especially if the 90 performs better than the the adapted 100 in regards to AF speed, focus accuracy and stabilization.
If a more expensive adapter is selected for the 100, the 90 is a couple of hundred less.
Walt Schwab: So Sony's into making coffee mugs now... what a laugh.How about spending your time on production of REAL lenses instead of empty promises.
Getting close to dumping Sony
I have a Canon 24-105 coffee cup.
I'm very interested in seeing how the 90mm macro compares to my Canon 100L IS macro (with adapter) on my A6000.
mpgxsvcd: The astronomy community would be very interested in this sensor.
Not to mention law enforcement, the military and other government agencies.
rjjr: Who holds the copyright on the photos when a camera is set up in a forest and the shutter is triggered by a motion detector?
Would the EXIF notation be valid in the monkey issue?
Who holds the copyright on the photos when a camera is set up in a forest and the shutter is triggered by a motion detector?
Hugo808: Bet I could mimic this in Lightroom. Just gimme five minutes....
No photograph is "real"
Don Karner: On shots of the little girl, seems like the hair is always out of focus and even the eyes mostly. Did the camera just miss the focus or was that intentional?Most of the shots seem a touch soft.
I was wondering about the same thing.
andy816896: As far as I can tell you you can buy a better spec'd 100d for about the same money these days so what's the point...?
A little over a month ago I did just that. No regrets.
Biological_Viewfinder: It's a design-fail. No matter which way you pull it out of a bag, something is going to be snagging. It looks awkward.While I appreciate the innovation, this still leaves them behind.
It looks like you can't put it in a small bag.
rjjr: I voted with my wallet and picked up the only DSLR body introduced this year having the IQ I prefer that would work well for my job with the lenses I already own (without an adapter) and is the size and weight I can easily cart around at a price I can afford to pay.
I voted with my wallet and picked up the only DSLR body introduced this year having the IQ I prefer that would work well for my job with the lenses I already own (without an adapter) and is the size and weight I can easily cart around at a price I can afford to pay.
(unknown member): Very disappointing. No performance improvements and no additional features or improvements to existing tools that I that I can see.
Aren't feature updates restricted to CC now?
Ahh....the bad old days.
I used a lot of that stuff but Canon instead of Nikon. I still use my F-1s, AE-1s and Canonet at times as well as Pentax and Mamiya 645s but I lost the disc camera. Still, my favorite picture is one I took with the Disc camera.
nightshadow1: When I went to my CS6 (as directed with the info contained here in the Adobe press release) and clicked on "Help" "updates"... it keeps showing me that my "...software is all up to date..." which I (we) know is incorrect because it has the old ACR. And after "talking" to Adobe for 30 min... they said callback in 2 hours so a "tech support" person can help... Another great customer support program from Adobe... It took them 30 minutes ) "we apologize for your inconvenience" to discover that they didn't have the answer to the question... so call back later and start over again... Typical.
Just updated my ACR. No issues.
acidic: Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots).
Also, the studio comparison tool for this camera is jacked up. Move it around the image and the zooms are not the same crop as other cameras.
Sexy, but no thanks. For this price, I'd expect Superb sharpness all the way into each of the four corner pixels.
Acidic wrote: "Wow, the corner sharpness sucks bad on this camera (based on the studio shots)."
I noticed that too.
ilya82: Got mine yestersday. The first thing I can say -for me this camera is a reincarnation of the legendary 5D :) Pictures has the same charm as 5D had.Very happy!
Ak pinxit wrote: "what is the charm of 5D ? I'm not being cynic but curious"
I can only describe it as an aesthetically pleasing quality I find in many examples of 5D (version 1) images I've seen. YMMV
Ilya82 said: "Pictures has the same charm as 5D had."
I was thinking the same thing.
rjjr: I think of some older film cameras as functional works of art that can be used to make art, but not so much with today's offerings.
@marike6, I appreciate them for the inner workings, the external housing design and the functionality. But the inner workings is the part I find most intriguing about the machine itself.
marike6 posted:"it makes little difference what year it was created or what is on the inside of the case."
What's going on inside the case is actually what I'm more interested in.