Photo Pete: There's nothing like viewing your holiday snaps and knowing that sizeable chunks of those memorable views have been completely invented by software:-)
Gary, you've got that right. Look at shots people have from the 70's, and the horrible quality of instamatic cameras in the 80's. Newer technology and Photoshop have done consumer photographers a big favor I say.
Lloyd709: I bet all those stuck in the mud staying with CS6 are starting to feel just a little bit jealous now!!!! Anyone guess what waterfall that is?
I think most "stuck in the mud" with CS6 could pay the monthly fee if they wanted. Many of us choose not to. Speaking for myself, there's nothing in CC that I view as a "must have" or even as something that makes me feel compelled to become a subscriber.
jorgemtrevino: I cannot but wonder who *really* needs 100MP. What size of print will benefit from that (perhaps a spectacular road ad?) but those are already being done with less that 30MP. I shot MF (and 4x5") at a time, but later found that I seldom printed no larger than 11x14 (no walls or friend who would hang them), thus a Leica M or a Nikon F*** did the job perfectly. Nowadays, a "FX" camera covers all that I can possibly need (as an amateur). Do wedding, product or fine art photographers really expect 100MP will get them better images? Doubtful. IMHO, it's overkill. Same as a film 8x10" camera. In any case, way beyond my needs --and budget. Get me a better compact! :)
I don't get what's so hard to visually digest when it comes to the usefulness of 100 or even 300+mp (when available). It's not about making billboard size prints- I can do that with 4mp.
It's about a print from a 6x7 doesn't look like what comes from my *film* Nikon or Pentax, and that's where MF (medium format) digital is headed. It's about the inevitable fabrication of large enough sensors that give a true-to-life 6x4.5, 6x7, or 6x9 "look". It's about small detail looking better.
It's about effectively luging an 8x10 view camera with me to Yosemite, in a Pentax 645 or Hasselblad form factor. It's about the difference in aspect ratio; not having to crop my Canon's long end down-to-taste. It's about being able to shoot wider, and still have the latitude to crop to a common- size frame, without having to give much thought... try that with a compact camera, compared to 100mp, then print 20x30in common for many homes that have hanging paintings & photographic "art" on the wall.
I quoted him on DPP less than 48 hours ago. His presence and site were commonly regarded as mainstays in photography... He was appreciated by many, and he will be missed. Solace to his friends and family around the world. Rest easy Michael...
nicolaiecostel: I was expecting this announcement right after the Profoto one. Now it might be too little, too late, and without TTL or HSS.
Making great quality products isn't enough to ensure you're at the top.
Bulk predicated on dimensions only. Both seem pretty comparable.
Profoto B1Length x diameter:Body only: 12.2 x 5.12 (310 x 130 mm)With 5/8" (16 mm) stand adapter: 12.2 x 6.69" (310 x 170 mm)6.61 lb (3.0 kg) Including battery
BroncolorHead: 14 x 5.1 x 7.1" (36 x 13 x 18 cm)Battery: 3.3 x 4.3 x 2.2" (8.5 x 11 x 5.5 cm)Without Battery: 8.2 lb (3.7 kg)Battery: 1.3 lb (0.6 kg)
TriezeA72: Won't be long and DSLRs will be a sinking ship
fallacious reasoning abound.
1. There is no such thing as the "right" exposure. The reality is that in photography, people tend to like various parts of a scene exposed differently; we do that using the darkroom or software.
2. With my "eyeballs", I find an 80mp 40x60in image of a bee's face a much better visual experience than looking at a 12mp image of the same printed at the same size or smaller. Size matters. It matters when you're selling work too.
3. "capable for 'fine art' and large prints". Anything can be used for Fine Art. Let's be clear; there isn't a cell phone on the planet to date, that will reproduce sculpture or printed/painted pieces like an 80mp back will. The difference can still, today, be easily discerned.
4. The difference between large format film and 35mm film isn't a big deal if you're looking at a 5x7in print. Let's go 40x60in after cropping like we do in the real world... then get back to me. Crop to 8x10 and there's a difference easy to see.:)
renault5: Well done Pentax / Ricoh, shows not every manufacturer has given up thinking. I wonder if this means a 645Z replacement is imminent..
I doubt it since Pentax needs to work on stepping up its 645 lens game instead of replacing the Z. It would be very interesting to see what price Pentax would assign to a 100mp 645 though. But for the goodness sakes Pentax, do something about that ratty-behind dismal low sync speed on the 645 with leaf lenses please. a 55mm II and 90mm II (both f2.8)and an upgraded 120mm f/4 with modern coatings would be a great place to start. Tilt-shift? Oh... don't let me get ahead of myself... :/
That said, Pentax has brought forth some wonderful products over the last few years to include the digital 645. Awesome job Pentax!
noflashplease: I have to disagree with the use of the term "flagship" for the Nikon D500.
noflashplease, is actually correct. In conversation, if I ask which camera is Nikon's "flagship" most people would say the D5. Canon? The 1Dx2. Pentax, the K-1. .. the reason the 645 wouldn't be mentioned is because it's an entirely different format. So you'd say the above then add:
"Pentax also makes an entirely different format camera called the 645z" and go from there.
If someone asks about Ferrari's "flagship", you don't mention the F-1 variety, etc.. ;)
cdembrey: Does Flagship stand for "a camera I wouldn't except as a gift??"
Don't you use neither before using nor ? ((((chuckle))))I'm assuming nor is not, and not is spelled with a "t" You guy are killing me with tha spelling nonesinse...
Gesture: Slides don't make sense?
But one nice thing. I can buy 3 Pentax K-1s for the cost of a Canon EOS01D X Mark II and have money left over for a lens.
That's a fallacy that people often use. Spray-n-pray they say, but that's not what's usually going on. What usually happens in that you wait for the decisive moment that's going to take place in the next 1.5 seconds, so you hold the shutter button down for that period only. What? Do you think even with decades of experience you can anticipate when someone is going to blink when they're hitting a ball, throwing flowers, or when a few strands of hair or droplets of water is going to cover their eyes?
Knowing how to use technology w/in the realm of common sense is key. I'm not advocating using frame rate like a "movie camera". But the bottom line is that millions of great time-less photographs have been missed because of slow frame rate alone. There have been so many photos trashed because hair was in the way or a ball, grass, dirt, water, etc., was blocking a face, when if the shot was taken 1/500th of a second later... THAT'S what technology is all about :) :)
@Gesture... and at the K-1's frame rate, how many times would you have to shoot a client or model over and over and over again just to get the shot what you want while paying the assistants, the hair/makeup girl, and location, boat, or other equipment/prop hourly rental?Multiply that by how many shoots you do per annum. Sometimes you have to spend money to save money.There's a reason why many would opt for the 1dx2.
That said, the K-1 on paper at least is one of the best dslrs that I've ever seen come down the pipe! If Pentax keeps this up over the upcoming years, with the flagship K-1 and the 645 series... things are going to get very, very, interesting indeed!
I never buy with the intention or even consideration of selling. My film bodies (though not used as much) are worth more when I use them today, than if I was to sell. Same for my old dslr Nikon/Canon. I can (and do) still use it even though it's 2005 era tech. These are also the cameras that you let the kids/grandkids learn with. ;)
I upgrade cameras like I upgrade computers... rarely ever. If it does the job, I use it. When it's old, if it can still perform a function, I keep it.
Will cell phone like technology replace todays cameras to include medium and large format? Yes... though most of us probably won't be alive to see it ;)
Jeremy Park: I wonder why spend so much effort looking at the latitude of pushing images more than a stop? If you are shooting images more than a stop off correct exposure then the user is the issue, not the camera's ability to bring out low noise images from poorly exposed images.
"correct exposure"... of what part of the scene again?Thankfully this isn't 1965 and "correct exposure" takes a more relative meaning and a backseat to photographers and other artists being able to use technology in such a way that it yields the wanted results; as opposed to "correct exposure" giving producing unrecoverable blown whites.
People paying you don't generally care how you got your results, just as long as you get the desired results. That's the bottom line. DR matters, frame rate matters, and resolution matters. All, or a combination thereof can be invaluable.
justmeMN: Girly Men can't handle a camera that's this big. They have to use mirrorless cameras. :-)
Goodmeme, I second that 100%. I can't think of a camera from any other company that I'd rather shoot over a pro Nikon/Canon body. There's just too much other stuff that I find appealing. Even going from a pro body to the smaller bodies like the D810 or 5D3 can be a wee bit frustrating at first. I prefer shooting the larger bodies so much better as well. I don't think I'll go for another small-body after using the 5D2 (which has been good to me).
Mike FL: "the lens was awarded one of the top three worst lenses of 2015 !" by other popular site.
It is, take a look, this thing is not only noticeably worse than Panasonic TZ100 which has the same spec even Panasonic TZ100's lens is much smaller, but also noticeably worse than Panasonic old P&S LX7 and NF1.
Take a look, and look closely the text.
Canon is well known for sub par sensor, but LENS?
People didn't take their Canon's back because despite the antiquated sensor, the camera offered advantages and an over all better fit for those respective users that other manufacturers couldn't match. So what if people want up-to-date sensor tech when they're spending $3000-$7000 for a camera?
As far as post processing goes-- most work that leads to getting paid will be manipulated whether you're shooting a film or digital device... and a good sensor helps reduce any requisite post work.
Leonp: The background music tells me this is an advertorial of a groundbreaking product that will totally change the market and that the video is made by a student in something like Pruduct Design and Inventions for his bachelors degree. All the rest of the video definetly will be ok since it's made by Dpreview, no offense, but I only got to 27 seconds.
QuantumPhysics: By the way, medium format is not dead by any means.
Not even remotely close (to being dead); if prices keep falling MF will become the new professional standard for most things that aren't moving fast, and in time, even that will change with better technology. The Z is practically as fast as a Canon 5D2 and that's unheard of in MF. However MF languished for years and manufacturers really need to step it up. I think Pentax has had a hand in shaking the market. If Pentax (Richoh) dives in with both feet, prices across the board will fall fast.
I don't need the cheesy music, but as far as the rest of the video, I'm not watching a camera vid. for the purpose of witnessing a slick production, I just want basic information which this video did a decent job of providing. Perhaps your requirements are far haughtier, but I think most people are aligned with my sentiment... I'd rather spend a time watching something "informative" as opposed to beautifully slick but providing only luke-warm content even if professionally done by pricey-Avid Technology (R)-toting-geniuses; etc..
The vid was a mere quick-n-dirty look at a new camera. It didn't need to be, and people didn't need to waste their time making it "slick".
Abbas Rafey: With price tag of this camera I can build an empire of cameras with superb glasses and I won't miss any thing from large print to a high flash sync to whatsoever this cam can get.
tbcass, the implication is that a 100mp MF sensor doesn't offer much of a "image quality" advantage over a good 35mm digital bodies. The fact of the matter is if you show me a macro of a Bee's face taken with a current 24mp body and the exact same scene taken with a current 100mp body, I consider the "better defined detail" gleaned from the 100mp Hasselblad or Phase more pleasing and "better" than what can be had with a 24mp body. Does that translate into a better "quality image" to me? Yes it does, and that's predicated on size/detail alone, not mentioning other advantages.
Same with shooting a high school band. The photos shot with a 35mm camera look like crud compared to some old geezer getting up on a ladder and shooting a crusty, old, rickety, rag-tag view camera.
all things equal; size adds quality.
Is that worth$10-15k in my opinion? Yes! So much so that if I shot landscapes or made my money shooting macro work, I wouldn't even consider a smaller sensor or film size.