owenleve: seriously. people watch someone open a box? are there no more cat videos or something?
(((chuckle))) So I'm not the only one after all who doesn't get the whole "unboxing" thing. So ridiculous. I just want to see the camera; looking at a box that reads D4s with packing peanuts on top just doesn't do anything for me.
Worse is on youtube where people sssslllllooowwwwlllyyy open the box as if they're about to reveal a 1,00,000 carrot, professionally cut white diamond.
It's a camera in a box people. So what. Just rip the packaging off and use it and give us a well-written user's opinion ;)
Shunda77: You gotta laugh at people suggesting 16mp is not enough, like blind little lambs following fast in the marketing departments wake.Run little lambs, there's a paddock full of megapixels just up ahead.....
Having spent years shooting a Nikon pro 4mp body (D2hs), which I still occasionally use, and 12mp Nikons + Canon 5D2, it is plain as day to me that 16 measly mp is NOT enough for large print work on smooth substrate that doesn't give canvas-like latitude. I was VERY unimpressed with 16mp for large print work back from Canon 1Ds II. Even 20mp is nice, but isn't close to being "ideal" for large, colour, artistic renditions for many photographers- and 16mp is puny for large landscape work, irrespective of the camera's format (35mm based system or MF digital back).
Fact is that some people actually use a lot of res, and many more people aren't affected by the lack of it. I remember when people opined that 12mp was "overkill" which was nuts to anyone with a brain in their… head… who wanted to print 20x30 and northward, especially after cropping to the client's taste.
For those looking for a MF substitute, the D4s isn't even remotely close to being the "it" camera.
fenceSitter: "50 Mpixel CMOS sensor with almost twice the physical size of the largest 35 mm DSLR sensor."
On which planet are 1.67 "almost 2"?
"50 Mpixel CMOS sensor with almost twice the physical size of the largest 35 mm DSLR sensor. On which planet are 1.67 "almost 2"?."
Let's see…. if you won 1.67 million dollars on this planet; the reality is that you won only $330k shy of $2.0 million bucks… on this planet ;)
SDPharm: Here's my question: take an identical scene with this new Hassy and a Nikon D800, process them to the best one can, then print each to a reasonable size, say, 5 ft wide. Then hang them in a gallery with controlled lighting. Will I be able to tell which one is which when viewing them from a comfortable viewing distance of 3-5 ft?
It's not just about the resolution with MF cameras/digital backs, it's also about how much more of the scene is in your viewfinder and resulting photograph. Take a wide angle shot in your bathroom at home with a FF camera from nikon/canon… now from the same vantage point, take a shot using a MF camera and you'll realize that using a relatively cheap MF body like the HD31 series (crop) you get more subject matter in each shot than using a smaller sensor camera… couple that with higher sync speed when using strobes during daylight hours, etc., and you'll quickly see how MF comes into its own.
misolo: "sensor with almost twice the physical size of the largest 35 mm DSLR sensor"Hasselblad math: 1.67=2
1.67 is for all practical purposes 1.7, which is indeed "almost" 2. Regardless of petty semantics, the bottom line is that the new CMOS back is still noticeably larger than a measly 26x36 'ish, full frame 5d2 sensor in practice, but not as wide/large as an old P65 digital back (about 41x55) in practice.
All considered, I'd rather have a 50'ish mp, FF, pro body Canon with excellent video features, wifi, gps, and other goodies for under $8k… lenses that don't cost $4k or more each, and the ability to use lenses well over 300mm, and a bevy of specialty lenses.
Medium format better do better than CMOS and 6400 iso at $30k.(yawn).
jon404: I'm out of touch. Could someone tell me why, in this digital age, we need detachable backs? Don't you just swap out memory cards? Or, do these backs include a hard drive -- and , if so, do you actually need one... with the high-capacity memory cards that are available now?
My question is just the opposite… I wonder why, in this digital age, manufacturers (Nikon/Canon) haven't made swappable sensor units as opposed to us having to buy camera bodies and add to landfills… oh wait, I remember now, more money selling an entire new body even if you just want nothing but the updated sensor ;)
RStyga: A new brick on the block. I can't see this DSLR having much marketing success outside the professional photographer's community.
I prefer the brick bodies compared to the tiny bodies that don't offer the same functionality. I got used to the Nikon pro bodies and when I got a 5d2 (canon), it didn't, and still doesn't feel as good in my hands, nor is it as easy for me to do things (custom wht balance, flash comp, bracketing, etc). All quicker and easily accessible on the pro bodies.
Jake64: I am going to make predictions: 24 MP sensor, either more focus points ,more cross type or both. Slight body modifications, faster FPS.
I would say expect 16mp, a deeper buffer, maybe a FPS speed bump that will be more academic than mind-blowing, perhaps new processing engine (like they did with the D2hs) and a host of other internal electronic tweeks that don't involve the photographer.
Look at the D70/D70s, D300/D300s, D2h/D2hs, D2x/D2xs and D3/D3s comparisons and you'll get an idea what to expect unless Nikon goes "off the reservation" and surprises everyone... ((chuckle))... don't hold your breath on that note.
I think usually the "s" models are cameras that benefit new buyers buying into that particular model number for the first time, the most.
One thing for sure, just seeing a new pro body from either of the big two will be something neat/interesting to peek and poke over and read all about.... Someone go wake Canon up, the more products/lenses to read about the better ;)
Josh152: Sorry but I have to say there is so much good info on flash photography for free online, especially the basics, that to pay $57 for a video like this is just foolish. Simply go on you tube and search for Mark Wallace and you'll find a bunch of good stuff.
That's like saying there's so much good information on bleeding your brakes on your motorcar, that it doesn't make sense to pay a mechanic (which for many people that is true). . . However, for many others who don't fancy scooting all over the internet to find what they want, they're quite content in buying a book that fits their personal needs.
I think reading the booklet that came with your flash, buying a pocket wizard and experimenting is one of the best (and quickest) ways to learn about your flash on/off camera... but many people aren't like me (or you) and may find Fro's book worth their time. So? Good for them, and good for Fro.
kimchiflower: I used to watch his videos, but after some of his 1-hour clips, I started to realise he could really do with editing his disposable teen humour chit-chat down.
Besides, who pays for online info these days?
"Besides, who pays for online info these days?"
Many corporations and individuals wanting specific training at a faster pace do... as well as the hundreds of thousands of people paying thousands of dollars in tuition to take for-credit online courses from national universities.
saralecaire: Only good for entertainment to watch on YouTube. Once you scratch the surface you'll realize that he doesn't have any real insights on photography technique, style or artistic creativity. Just a bunch of his personal opinionated ideas on things that are more often than not, plain senseless. Just like a pushy salesman.
"... doesn't have any real insights on photography technique, style or artistic creativity..." That's just ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to think that a professional photography instructor at ABC Art School, has the corner market on "insight" and or "creativity".
The bottom line is that we can all learn from another photographer, whether that photographer has been shooting for a lifetime or 3 months. The fact of the matter is that a lot of relative newbies are making it in photography when many self purported "wiser, more experienced, more skilled, etc.." photographers are failing in their pursuits.
I look at it this way- Either "Fro" is making money or he isn't... and by the looks of things, he's at least positioning himself to reap a profit w/out a day job outside of photography, which is more than many "professional" photographers can say. If many photographers spent as much time on their own projects as they do bashing others, they'd actually make a profit ;)
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 ;)