I think HDR is far over done in most instances and I loathe HDR in realty photography. I've seen enough glowing furniture and wood flooring to make myself gag and my eyes tire. The sooner HDR falls out of favor, the sooner I can get back to looking at properties without getting a headache.
I've noticed more than one company that advertises vacation properties, forbid submissions that are un-life like. Sad that they have to spell it out, just so some people can get a clue that a room that looks so surreal that no one would be surprised if a unicorn walk at any given moment = too darn much HDR.
arpikusz: I think we (hobby photographers) are in need of something like a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L for $1200, much more then a $2700 zoom lens. :(
I couldn't agree with GlobalGuy more. There's 101 ways to get to 300mm and 300mm is generally still too short; leaving people longing for more reach, reaching for a teleconverter or both.
I think if Nikon had invested serious time into making a stellar 300-500mm f4 (for pros) and a stellar 400mm f4 or f5.6 (for everyone), I think such would've done far more for Nikon shooters as opposed to a new pricey 80-400 and a relatively short reaching 200-400 f/4 that isn't anything to write home about over the version that it replaced.
Well now isn't that grand. A 41mp-ratty quality cell phone camera of all things. I should just fall all over myself. What I want to know is what will most people do with a ratty 41mp cell phone photograph?
Let me know when there's a 10mp cell phone camera that produces photographs on par with a Nikon D3s or Canon 5DII, all the way up to say, 52,000 ISO.
... at least that would have me raising my brow as opposed to yawning.
Hopefully the days of having to don a teleconverter to any super telephoto lens are coming to a close. I think it's ridiculous in this day and time. I hope the next iterations of 3,4,5,6, and 800mm lenses (Canon) will have the TC built in.
Stopping to remove or don a TC gets old.
Poweruser: 12.000 Euro Canon... are you serious? A lens at a price of an entry level automobile?
Prices are relative. If you want to play the game, then you've to pay the price. Heck, a new Cessna 182 is $500,000 U.S., on the photography front, high quality power packs are more expensive than this lens... and this lens darn sure isn't the entry price of any vehicle that many people would remotely consider purchasing anyway, which brings us back to square one. What's "expensive" is relative.
People in Kenya probably think people are crazy for paying $2k for an 85mm lens too... but what does that have anything to do with anything?
StevenE: Canon 300 2.8 IS II + teleconverters: smaller, lighter, sharper, cheaper
The 300 also has less reach on-the-fly, and no zoom. I'd take (and spend money) on this new lens hands down before the 300 f/2.8.; the lens would make a great fashion/glamour/on-location portrait lens.
dstate1: It has been a long, hard slide for Hasselblad...from makers of the V series down to high end camera case peddlers...they cant be too proud of their corporate tragectory at this stage.
What comes next can only boggle the mind: Hasselblad track shoes? Potato chips?
Some kind of cross marketing with David Hasselhof and Elizabeth Hasselbeck would be brilliant.
I was disappointed in what Hasselblad did with the V series over the years; equating to "not a darn thing". Too expensive for most photographers to consider, and too behind the times for most photographers who could easily afford it yet wanted a modern medium format solution.
1. The camera (per Hasselblad rep) hadn't been updated for over a decade.
2. Relatively few people are interested in shooting costly, grainy, PITA, MF film today.
3. The digital solution was ridiculously expensive... especially when you throw in the fact that you'd have to do everything manually + hand metering.---------------
I think if Hasselblad would've rebuffed the 503CW, smoother long lasting, modern mirror box, good electronics w/ a great *manual focus* confirmation system, for $10,000 or so years ago, they would've had a system that many photographers would've considered... especially if they also sold the upgrades as an "upgrade" kit to existing 500 series owners.
Hassy becoming a "has been" ;)
Robert Schambach: Buying this camera is god's way of saying that you have too much money...
Money is like good looks and good sense. You can never have "too much".
Kodachrome200: The problem is it is all reproduction work of copyrighted pieces. There fore no one can publish or display them publicly. What would be the point.
Think like a business person. If you had a Piccaso slide (use your imagination) it would be worth something, because someone out there would pay just to have it in their collection whether it's displayed or not. How much would that one slide be worth? How much would it be worth 3 generations from now?
I wouldn't pay $5 for the stuff, but you get my point ;)
Peiasdf: I am sure someone will take it in now that it is in the NYTimes. That said, most of SOHO art scene is just trendiness, not art.
Obviously scores of people find artistic value in it whether you or I like it or not. Bottom line... it's art. I've seen stuff from the great painters that I thought was worse than what my kids have doodled.Either way- it's all art irrespective of your opinion of it.
Shamael: One has to tell me first to what and to whom that will serve. If the card breaks, you throw the 2 partitions away. If one gets corrupted, the corrupted sector is mirrored, thus both will not work. If the card gets lost, both partitions are lost. So, is there anything we don't know here? I do not ask "that I know" since I think that we all ask the same question. On the other side, CF gets more and more replaced by SD, what is a bargain since you can fit 25 SD cards in a matchbox. Now, if they could make a CF body with 2 sd cards in slots, mirrored, that would make sense.
@plevyadophy absolutely not. I'm just talking about having four card slots; two CF and two SD. Via menu, the photographer can mirror one or both CF slots, or use them as overflow cards. That would be so much better to me.
I agree with Shamael- I'd much rather have a CF camera that has additional SD card slots (mirrored... or not via menu option). I would feel much more comfy with that option, and it would prove more useful to me.
Boerseuntjie: More pictures a day are taken with the iphone than any other camera, just look at Flickr stats and the apple commercials say so ;)So you can see why she made this statement...It's clear Flickr is not for the pro photographer
... but most reasonably intelligent adults know what she meant.
People getting their under garments all bunched up over such a trite (but true-in-context) statement. What's amazingly sad is the number of photographers that haven't awakened from dreaming and can't understand that what she said (within context) is exactly correct.
Just like there aren't any professional cobblers today r-e-l-a-t-i-v-e-l-y speaking, even though using our common sense we know that there are individuals that still professionally make shoes on their own. . . but using our common sense, we understand what is meant within the context being spoken.
The number of professional photographers generating specialized work that cannot be easily and readily recreated in volume by the general public has been drastically reduced since digital photography became a mainstay. General photography is easily generated by the public today for cheap, and is why general photography in most locales is not *generally* as profitable as once was.
Too many people devoid of common sense.
clicstudio: As a professional photographer who solely shoots women, I find fashion images to portrait not a Fantasy, but a fake reality.The cover reads "Hot Summer" but then you see a desaturated, anorexic, pale, wet haired model with 2 pounds of eye makeup and a black swimsuit who looks like she just drowned and came back to life...Summer and hot are supposed to be vibrant and happy... The opposite of this cover. Why does fashion photography have to be aboutMaking women look like androids? If the editor wants to put some fat into this girl, why not hire a normal looking model instead?Retouching is part of my everyday life as well. I love creating the fantasy of the perfect woman, but always adding to their own femininity and beauty. This cover, photoshopped or not, is, in my humble opinion, sad and lifeless.
Thin models sell. Average sized models do not appeal to the typical (fashion) target audience. Also, what the model has on would not look as good on a *non* lithe-sized model, just like many pull over "stretchy" or tube dresses look horrible on very thin models.
I find the cover (like most fashion ads) boring, but unlike most fashion ads- I don't find this cover to be ridiculous.
I couldn't care less if she had photoshopped 50lb of lard onto the girl- far too many important things in life to worry about as opposed to some mag slathering poundage onto some model via software.
kkchiu215: For the past three years, I used my 400mm f/4 DO IS telephoto with 1.4x tele plus to make up 560mm f/5.6 to capture flying house swallow. All photographs of the flying birds came out sharp and clear, all because of the extreme light weight of the Dwflaxtive Pptics design and fast aperture to freeze the fast motion of the small body size swallow.But the 200-400mm 2x zoom ratio seems to be not enough although the optical material and coating is very good. I will say this lens is suitable for portrait or fashion photography more then wild life.I am looking for a 500 to 600 mm f/4 Defractive Optics telephoto lens? Since it is not possible to capture small flying object with a tripot, you have to hand hold the lens and came together and swing your entire body try to follow the bird moment because they fly in three dimensions.
I think you are very correct. The lens is really too short for wildlife photography unless you're shooting large subject relatively close to your location, but horribly short for small birds at a distance if you're wanting to come close to filling the frame- the 500, 600 and 800mm primes are for that type of work.
This is an excellent lens for portraiture/fashion as you stated, which is something many people do not think about. It is also an excellent lens (on paper anyway) for large outdoor social or political events as well as street photography in areas where the photographer wants to be as discrete as possible.
The practical uses for the lens are endless, and I think the shortsightedness of many photographers is due to not having a use for the lens, or not having enough experience that enables them to think of the many areas on photography that can readily benefit from such a lens.
pbrad: Seems like an awful lot of judgemental comments about a piece of equipment that nobody has gotten their hands on yet. Yes the price may be a bit of a shocker (it was for me), BUT, if you are a truly a professional sports photographer (or wildlife photographer) and you get thousands for a really good shot for publication, this lens is a no-brainer if it will help you get "the shot". The inclusion of the built-in teleconverter is a great addition for those situations where extra reach will give you "the shot" and you can do it in one second instead of grabbing your teleconverter, taking the lens off the camera, attaching the converter, then putting the lens back on the camera, then recomposing and refocussing and taking the shot. By then the touchdown would be made and the extra point would be kicked. That is the type of situation this lens is made for. I will withhold my opinion until good old dp tells us whether it is up to snuff.
What I find amazing is how many people are honestly shocked at the price in the first place. What on earth did people think the price was going to be for a lens that sits between the 600mm and 400mm primes, and offers the convenience of a zoom and built in teleconverter/extender?
Richt2000: Nice lens, Price is a joke!
One could say that about all the super telephoto lens prices across all brands.Let's look at the pricing realistically... this new lens costs just under $12k USD. That places the lens between the 600mm and 500mm f/4 lenses.
You get the benefit of a zoom, constant speed aperture, and built in teleconverter that extends your reach 140mm or the "angle of view" (for those who like to be overly technical) of 336mm on a 1.6x sensor.
While I miss the old Canon super telephoto lens prices, it is hard for me to consider the pricing of this lens a "joke" relative to the pricing assigned to Canon's current supertele lineup.
If you designed this lens yourself, at what price would YOU sell the lens?
snowboarder: For me it's very simple - I have to pay way morefor something I don't own anymore. I'm not given any choice.
JamesInCA... that's ridiculous. If you have a subscription and end your subscription, you still have access to your files and can do whatever you want with your files. Gimp, old versions of PS, lightroom, aperture, Corel Painter, and the list goes on.
Adobe isn't forcing you to do anything- stop being so dramatic ;)
Dale Garman: " Adobe offers a Photoshop CC-only subscription for $19.99 per month with an annual commitment"
This move is an unbelievable price increase for those of us who have been loyal customers and upgraded over the years as each release came out. When I look back in Oct 2008 I upgrade photoshop portion for $180 and again in June for 210 which took me to Jan 2013 when I again upgraded to CS6. So measuring between 2008 and the last upgrade was about 50 months of use for $390 which averages out to about about $8 per month. This means my cost would be 2 1/2 times what I have been paying. What vendor thinks they can get by with that kind of price increase?
The original cost does not factor into my decision because I have already invested that. I'm not hostile to a cloud method of verifying license, am open to subscription at significantly reduced price , but I am hostile to this kind of rip off of their loyal customer base. What vendor gets to impose these kinds of price increases?
Question: " What vendor gets to impose these kinds of price increases?"
Answer: Any vender that can get away with it and increase short and long term profits by doing so. Even if only short term profits increase enough to positively affect something unrelated to PS could make it worth it also. Business 101 stuff.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review