47872Mike: I would love to understand the point of such a lens.
Hmmm ... it's the best performing 85mm lens to fit our DSLR's. The BEST. And it costs more, of course - the best of something is always priced to what the market will bear. So some of us will buy it, as we want the best 85mm lens on the planet. And you will not.
Biowizard: Kudos to the ESA - grabbing all the interesting space headlines this summer!
Yeah, but here in the USA we have Obamacare!Seriously, I'd like to see NASA's budget go up; perhaps something we can check on our tax returns: "Send $10/100/1000 to NASA? Y/N"
The Name is Bond: Gimmickry, not photography.
In the same way that Ansel Adams' stuff was gimmickry, as it also didn't reflect what was captured by his cameras.
Bernard Carns: Interesting points of view.
But the images are really flat.
Where's the dynamic range?
These are the poorest quality images I've ever seen National Geographic endorse.
Maybe National Graphic has become the drone....er zombie....
But, again, the points of view are somewhat interesting.
I wanna see the picture of the eagle chasing the guy on the ground controlling the drone...
Generally speaking, you cannot tell the actual dynamic range of the scene in an image from looking at a monitor or print (unless it contains, say, the sun, the moon, and some stars, all properly exposed!)In terms of "flatness", it could be your monitor; they're OK for me. Save one and up the contrast if it pleases you.
Ken Phillips: I have used a mirror with a "window" sash pattern and real curtains taped on the thing for indoor portraits, 'cuz the light coming through the window is never quite right (or, like me, your studio has no windows!)
I needed a much sharper projection; the image of the window was part and parcel of the shot (a girl sitting on a bed reading a book.)
I have used a mirror with a "window" sash pattern and real curtains taped on the thing for indoor portraits, 'cuz the light coming through the window is never quite right (or, like me, your studio has no windows!)
Zoron: 2014 is transition year to 4K, and this is the last chance for Nikon to milk money from 1080p, in 2016 when D900 is released with 4K.....D810 will be obsolete..
I have a 39" Seiki Quad HD television that I use as my monitor, so I'm 4K ready. For $500, you just gotta have one. Slower data rate due to the ancient version of HDMI it uses (limits QHD to 30 FPS) but as I am cinema-oriented, I'm good with that. Darned good monitor for ancient eyes, as well.
peevee1: Huh. 2014 and no built-in WiFi, when every point and shoot has it already?!
And they still continue to play games. 5 fps at 36 mpix means that sensor and processor are able to produce 7.2 (not 6) fps at 1.2x and 11.2 fps (not 7) at DX crop. Artificial limits on a $3200 camera. Huh.
Actually, it's likely that the entire sensor may need to be read for each frame - a finite time; and at one point you'll run into the physical limitations of the moving hardware. The only time you save is from not processing the entire frame.
The ultimate setup: Curved tri-layer sensor (RGB layers) that will also take care of chromatic aberration without special correction. Very, very simple lenses (essentially a monochromatic camera at that point, times three!)
vroy: This is very useful for morons that wouldn't protect their costly lenses by filters.
I've never used a filter unless I needed it to alter what was hitting the film or sensor. I have damaged exactly one lens (out of hundreds!) in 40+ years, and that I did by tossing it! Filters not necessary for an image capture may do nothing, may hurt the image, but they cannot help the image.Otherwise, which filter would you recommend for my Canon 600mm F4L? I think it needs to be 170mm or so in diameter.
Cheng Bao: Since when digital photography review drops 'digital' from name?
Funny you say that. In the late 1980's my father (a professional photographer / film maker) urged me to "go digital". Back then, it meant some sort of rather unobtainable scanning system, and grotesquely expensive software! I've scanned all of my 4x5's ... much more convenient for printing, and no "spotting" of prints needed.A scanning back on that little plastic camera would be much more fun.
peevee1: Now, the billionaires ask to lower taxes on them, put more tax load on middle class and poor people. Seems like they have way too much money as it is. :)
The wealthy subsidize everyone with a taxable income under $110,000.00 as it is. Give us a break.
racketman: Amazon will be hoping the appeal by the FAA is unsuccessful assuming they intend to go ahead with their drone delivery service.
In the US, one cannot fly a plane closer than 1000 feet above an inhabited area (unless landing or taking off). I actually hope to see some regulation relating to flying drones over private property; the 1000 foot rule would work well enough.
tinternaut: Only 6MP digital files from a medium format film scan?
Well, that's all you get without an upcharge!
Langusta: Unnecessary complication I guess; just one more thing that can break down and that costs extra money...right software can do same trick just fine and most people (who can afford such camera) probably already have it.
Actually, you want to quash moiré at the source ... software has no clue as to what image created the values on a given spot on the sensor. Of course, if you are diffraction limited, you no longer need an AA filter (you've effectively got one!)Personally, I'd rather have it "in or out" selectable (flip up like the mirror?) than have several more layers in front of the sensor.
wlad: there's a whole paragraph about "speed" and it does not have the most important information - average transfer speed.Which would be a pathetic 1MB/s at most.
I have an Eye-fi connect x2 card that has been gathering dust for the last 2 years.
Not useless for me; I used an earlier, slower version to transfer small jpegs to a 24" monitor during events (with software to display the latest files for a few seconds, or until a new picture arrived.) Got a crowd around monitor quickly! Downloaded the RAW files via adapter, later. I've also used the quicker, later version.That's really the only use I'd ever have for WiFi, until they get to full power wireless N with real speeds. I no longer do events, so I gave mine away.
There are many branding restrictions out there for all sorts of products. You can have a Jones Honda dealership, for example, but your Accura dealership must have a location or something other than a proper name: Accura of Cincinnati."Insta", however, has been used a lot in the past relating to photography. Everyone had a Kodak Instamatic or two in the family!
In 1990(!) I purchased a Canon RC250 "Xapshot", a still video camera (which I have to this day!) It used a tiny lead-acid battery, and recorded analog images to a 2" special floppy disk. One could view the output on a television, or use a "capture board" in their computer to save a digital copy. I chose the latter (replaced with a "Snappy" years later.)In 2001 I bought a 3mp Kodak fixed-focal-length digital camera, which was nearly as good as film for simple snapshots. Still have that, of course!I was certainly ahead of the curve in digitizing stuff, what with scanners and a capture board, but I didn't really switch over until 2002, when the Canon EOS-1Dinosaur came out. $5400, plus a grand for a couple of microdisks! I still have one of those in my collection.
YouDidntDidYou: Ah OK so shooting live view for photography the Canon EOS 70D's focus performance is just as good as the Panasonic L10 (which has full tilt and swivel LCD) from 2008 hmmm....
The Panasonic has a smaller chip and fewer pixels making up the video, both of which will "hide" some focus issues. But I haven't read here that the L10 has "just as good" performance, have you? Gonna bet it doesn't, in the real world.
I wonder if they can take separate readings from each of the dual pixels to increase dynamic range?