Right at the sweet spot with reasonable resolution (for full frame), low noise and fast shooting speeds. Should be on a lot of people's Xmas list.
They seem to be following Canon with the JPEG processing. A soft image with strong halos. One problem I see is a stepping pattern (aliasing) along certain diagonals and along areas of some of the round objects. Shooting raw is the way to go.
I also have issues with the quality of the lens. It is not producing the border quality I'd expect from a camera in this class.
Limited edition doesn't work because the term has been badly abused in the marketplace. It has been used on just about everything including food items!
Probably stems from those silly "limited edition" prints that people would spend just as much money on. They were essentially glorified posters and peddled as investment art. These days most are worth pennies on the dollar.
munro harrap: It is just a machine, a box that took a few important photographs, but apparently not the "earthrise" series. Here they are still used by students in college.But there were no black lenses, and I believe that as nobody in a helmet could focus accurately enough, the images were made using 50mm f4 Distagon lenses, and the machines were Hasselblad ELs with 70mm film magazines -because you could not change the film outside either.
I have not ever seen a photograph of this model in use in space, but the lens is not original as it is black, and it is missing its viewfinder attachment ( they had made special ones for helmeted folk).
I can remember these things as I was so thrilled at the time and we had the official heavily illustrated books from the States in the house as soon as they became available.
I venture to propose it is a fake
I don't think that it is fake. As to it being a just a box, well yes it is, but the Mona Lisa is just a wooden panel with paint on it. Probably worth a couple bucks at a garage sale if it weren't known the world over.
Marty4650: What you are witnessing is a fundamental change in the market.
Obviously, not enough people were paying for Microsoft cloud storage, and their sales for Office 365 weren't going well, so they decided to give you one product for free if you would buy the other.
This is very much like the cell phone companies giving you "unlimited minutes" to entice you to buy more data bandwidth from them.
Microsoft's real problem is people like me who are still using Office 2003 and happy with it. After 25 years of MS Office, there aren't that many improvements needed. My 11 year old copy works just fine.
Incidentally, the same exact thing will happen to Adobe. At some point people will get sick and tired of monthly subscription fees and find a copy of CS5 or CS6 instead.
MS laid off a very large number of employees. They are still a large company that sell a lot of product but unless they come up with a "killer app" they are no longer a growing company.
Lots of businesses depend on MS software and OS because a lot of applications only run on the platform. Don't expect them to be going away anytime soon.
Apple seems to be the king of the hill these days, but eventually, someone else will take over.
Simon97: Microsoft is looking like a whipped dog these days. As for MS Office,Open Office Org forever.
I run a small materials fabrication business and find Open office more than adequate for my needs. I have spreadsheets set up for invoicing and handling the complex calculations of material use for quotes. No need to send hard earned money off for the MS "rentware".
Every dog has his day. MS had theirs. The rapidly changing tech market has left many companies stirring in its wake including MS. They are trying to keep revenue incoming, but the monthly subscription scheme is a poor way to do it. Many people have voiced their disagreement to what is essentially month to month renting software. Adobe should have learned.
Microsoft is looking like a whipped dog these days. As for MS Office,Open Office Org forever.
I love the dramatic sky in the first shot. It is what makes it for me. I just don't like the crooked horizon. It is something I see in many of my own shots and drives me crazy why I can't hold the camera straight!
Raw at 1600 looks like Canon has made some improvement in noise performance. It is small, but along with more pixels it is evident. My favorite APS-C sensor is the Sony 16mp. I kind of wish they'd improve upon it rather than go with more pixels. Still waiting to see how the Sony 20mp sensor looks on this test scene.
I expect the camera will be reviewed as a group of entry level SLRs as before. The K500 is history and the K50 seems to be discounted for discontinuation as well. Apparently, this is the Pentax entry model. I don't get the pricing. It is $200 too high.
D1N0: Another camera that will never get a full review on dpreview. Not a single camera with the sony 20mp aps-c sensor has been reviewed yet by dpreview.
Agree. Would like to see this 20mp sensor compared in their studio scene. Although the Sony 24mp APS-C sensor gives 8mp more than the well regarded 16mp sensor, it gives up a stop worth of noise performance. I'd estimate that this 20mp sensor is a good compromise between resolution and noise.
I never could come to terms with Canon's JPEGs that have rather intense sharpening halos around contrasting edges. Best to shoot raw. Something might be up with the lens as the upper right area is sharp but the other three corners have an issue. Hopefully not another Canon decentered lens lottery.
Panasonic does JPEGs really well. They are sharp yet don't have the thick sharpening halos like certain other brands. They should stand up to large size prints for those who don't want to deal with raw.
The 4/3rds sensor does struggle a bit when the ISO is turned up but other than that, it is good stuff.
Despite its lower pixel count, at ISO 1600 the LX100's images don't turn to mush. Look at the text on the grey background. The LX100 stays legible while the Canon and Sony have become mushy. Megapixel race anyone?
I don't care for Canon's soft approach with very strong sharpening halos. The LX100 has more "snap".
Nick Pisani: Nicolas's pictures are fantastic and kudo's to him. But in addition to his photo equipment. I would be very interested in his bicycle and how he either carried his equipment on the bike or if he may have mounted the camera to his bike occasionally. Again Nicolas your pictures just fire up the desire to go out and create! Thank you!
He did mention in the article how he carried the cameras and computer, but not about the bike. He flies to a lot of locations, so interesting how he would procure a bike.
Marty4650: Sony is pretty much the "Anti-Canikon" because they innovate constantly while the big two sit on their laurels and take very few risks. There is nothing bold or innovative about tweaking out another digital Rebel model every ten months, or making minor improvements to last year's Nikon DSLRs.
Because of this, Sony is all over the map, supporting various systems and lens mounts. It can be pretty expensive for them, and it can make it harder for them to be profitable. But they are the only company that has the potential to replace one (or even both) of the big two in the future.
Canon and Nikon have had the most popular (by a good margin) SLR systems for a few decades now. Look in any sports, news or nature photographer's bag and you will likely see one of these two brands. Being leaders in the pro arena is great for selling "lesser" camera models to amateurs. These two companies must be careful not to introduce a new system that could cannibalize sales their current flagship systems.
Pic #10 That's some expensive filter ring dent!
These lenses will cost you deep in the purse. You shall have the better of them and I shall have the worst.
WTF, where this weeks WTD?