AndroC: Refer to http://www.superheadz.com/digitalharinezumi/ to see how to do this very nicely, with great style and class. [Not an advertisement, just pointing to a certain lack of originality on the part of Holga.]
So are Canon, Nikon, and Pentax being unoriginal by making DSLRs? Are the other ILC manufacturers unoriginal by making mirrorless cameras?
It's not about the idea. It's about the implementation. The Digital Harinezumi has an absolutely terrible reputation for reliability -- reports are that if it happens to work when you unpack it, you'll be lucky if it's still working a month later. It's also a very different packaging aesthetic, gives very different-looking results, and it's only 3 megapixels.
The main competition for a digital Holga is the smart-phone. They're a lot more practical, and a lot more flexible. But one doesn't buy a Holga for practicality, one buys it for fun.
Just being picky: I think when Holga says, "original optics" they mean "new optics, for this camera," not "the optics from our original cameras," so the optics can't be "known for" anything. Aside from the absurdity of fitting a 60mm lens on a tiny sensor, and the fact that the classic optics are plastic and this one is claimed to be glass, the sun-flare in their second "Holga Optics" sample picture strongly suggests this is not the single-element meniscus design that's been Holga's staple. I'm certain this is all-new, purpose-built optics.
I think Holga also overstates the "vivid colors" -- it's the Minitar-1 lens on the Lomo that's famous for high contrast and high saturation. The sample pictures they provided from the Digital Holga certainly don't impress with saturation.
I had to chuckle at the lettering on the front of the lens: "Holga Optical Lens". I'm waiting to see what non-optical lenses they come out with.
Other than the form factor and aesthetics, I'm not sure I know where they're trying to go with this. Holga already sells lens kits for a wide variety of ILC cameras -- I have a full set for my Canon DSLR.
Well, okay, this one's f/2.8 and f/8.0, according to Holga, who've claimed f/8 for just about all of their medium-format film cameras and ILC lenses but never actually delivered anything that fast. Why haven't they? Because the Holga 60mm lens can't focus anywhere close to infinity, and being single-element (meniscus) it unavoidably has significant longitudinal chromatic aberration. For both reasons, a large depth of focus is needed in order to get sharp (Holga-sharp, anyway) images, and that means keeping it stopped way down. The "f/8" Holga lens for my DSLR is actually about f/25. I bought another and modified it to f/8; what happened can be found in my article here on DPR: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3776957225/modifying-a-holga-dslr-lens-to-really-be-f8
zsedcft: Why is everybody not using wordpress? I understand the appeal of zenfolio etc. because you can just create a site and they will deal with selling your pictures and handling your clients, but simple portfolio sites look much better with a simple wordpress theme.
You can get a good theme for $50, Hosting for about $4 a month (or less) and your domain for about $10 a year. Once you get a little more advanced, you can add a shopping cart using woocommerce and link it to your paypal account for free. The option are pretty much limitless when you get into plugins. Wordpress.com can even host your site if you don't want to get too technical.
IMHO, if you want to be a pro photographer you pretty much need to know how to run a website. It really isn't too difficult once you get the hang of it, either. The sites on photographers.pro look extremely amateur. You can browse live sample wordpress websites at themeforest to see the difference. Just type "photography" into the search bar there.
The problem that I have with WordPress is security. It's probably the #1 target for website hackers, because it's so widely used and so full of security holes. The themes and addons are often even worse.
Android got the same update.
There are also changes in the Flickr web site.
D Bowcut: My T6s sensor is fine. Camera purchased 04/26.
Imaging Resource now says they're fairly confident that the problem isn't one that will show up later, such as adhesive deterioration could. The evidence seems to point rather strongly to problems during the vapor deposition of the dichroic IR-reflective (hot mirror) coating on the back of the first Low Pass Filter — that would be the one that's mounted in the ultrasonic dustshaker.
Zenza R: I come here to read all potential negative comments.. Not satisfied,will come back tomorrow! I am curious which one is worse, the last lensbaby 50 mm or this one :)
I suspect you're not familiar with the Minitar-1. I'd love to see the MTF curves on it, because it produces strong contrast and, consequently, saturated color images. The results can be quite striking, and (at least according to official legend) that look was what led the Lomography company to be formed in the first place.
Interesting. With the short register of the M-mount (28 mm), this is essentially a non-SLR lens. Leica aside, that means mirrorless. Any of the popular mirrorless mounts should be able to use this lens with an adapter.
What's interesting is that Lomography is dyed-in-the-wool film-oriented, but this lens is mainly of use on digital camera bodies.
Just a Photographer: Canon 5D mark I was Canon's best sensor in the digital age.
After that they rested their laurels.Their newest 52MP sensor is nothing more then a pumped up APC-S sensor and lacks DR compared to the Sony 36MP sensor that already dates back to 2012.
Still people buy into Canon because of their brand name and large lens lineup.
Well... the sensor on the original 5D was probably the first big sensor-manufacturing fail for Canon. Some number of the early units had problems where the ITO coating for the dichroic mirror was improperly bonded and would start coming off, presumably triggered by sensor cleaning although I doubt that was ever determined to be the cause. (The 5D's sensor was the first Canon sensor with the ITO coating on the outside of the stack.)
As far as I can tell, Canon never acknowledged the problem, but it caused great consternation among purveyors of sensor-cleaning products.
Doug Pardee: This article leaves me wondering... why? What does Camu offer that I can't readily find among the zillion other Android camera apps already out there?
The impression I get from poking around elsewhere on the Web is that Camu got some good press on iPhone. Most of the excitement there seems to be about the User Interface, in particular that it's well suited to one-handed operation.
I probably shouldn't, but I'll throw out some opinion.
Maybe it isn't a fair judgment, but my impression is that DPReview Connect's perspective on mobile photography is iPhone-centric. There's certainly an attempt to be balanced, but when what one knows is mostly iPhone, well... an iPhone app being made available to Android users probably seems to be sufficient story in itself.
But as an Android user, my opinion is that an iPhone app becoming available to Android isn't news in itself. What matters to me is what that app adds to the Android photo-app world.
It seems to me that DPReview Connect still doesn't have enough familiarity with the Android photo-app world to provide that information. I'd really like to see more Android expertise being displayed at Connect.
Perhaps I should be a bit more direct in my comments. They'd be easier to follow that way. :-)
There are new camera apps coming out every day, or so it seems. Virtually all of them are free, or have free versions or free trials. But trying them all is an exhausting task.
I don't expect a "full review" of these apps — after all, if I personally don't have time to check them out, I don't expect DPReview to — but it'd be nice to know at least what makes a particular app newsworthy.
After playing with Camu for Android, I come up with "live collage" as being its one and only unusual feature.
Alas, as Menneisyys reported, there are some notable drawbacks to Camu. Well, of course it's not for serious snapshooters. But that aside, the slightly reduced resolution (12 Mpix on my 13 Mpix G2) is bizarre, and the absence of EXIF (and no location data) is a serious problem for a lot of us. One of my photos doesn't even have the preview image in the EXIF.
This article leaves me wondering... why? What does Camu offer that I can't readily find among the zillion other Android camera apps already out there?
lbpix: I'm amazed that so many folk are all fired up about a simple statistic. Flickr didn't say iPhones are better than cameras, just that they have had more uploads from them - a simple fact. My Nikon takes far better quality photos than my iPhone but it isn't always in my pocket.
Minor correction. Flickr didn't say they had more uploads from iPhones, they had uploads from more iPhone *users*. They aren't counting the total number of uploads, just the number of users who uploaded at least one photo during the week.
Doesn't change your point, though.
iAPX: Would be interesting to know the proportion of cameras related to users, not the proportion of cameras related to posted pictures.
On the other end, I would like to see this result (cameras by posted pictures) weighted by number of view of each picture; even a ratio of number of view per posted picture per camera;
There are interesting metrics that could give us more insight into who is owning what on flickr, and which cameras generates pictures more interesting on flickr.
The numbers are, according to Flickr, related to users and not to posted pictures. (That was noted in this article, too.) They only count a camera once per user, not once per uploaded picture.
There is the caveat, of course, that it's for *active* users. If you don't upload any photos from one of your cameras that week, that camera isn't counted for that week. Which strikes me as being more useful than simple camera ownership.
I have to wonder about the copyright notice, though. A quickie look around the Web suggests that the originals probably would have been under Crown Copyright for 125 years after they were created. That would end in 1987, so today they would be out of copyright. But since they (presumably) weren't previously published — exhibition doesn't count as publication — the owner would retain Publication Rights for 25 years after first publication. Not copyright, but publication rights.
Anyone have better insight into the legal status of these?
PPierre: I think the 7th one is amazingly well thought: good atmosphere, good story, and a topic we never talk about/feel ashamed to talk about though it exists and is quite common. I like this kind of photos !
Am I the only one who gets more than a bit of Crewdson's "Beneath the Roses" vibe from #7?
Registering Trunx now does not "secure yourself free unlimited cloud storage for life." That was a misinterpretation by TNW.
What Trunx is offering is that all photos and videos uploaded by the end of September will be stored free for life. From what Trunx has said, it sounds to me like you could replace those photos and videos with other content later; that basically however much storage you're using on September 30 is how much storage you'll have for free for life.
No indication yet as to what charges will apply to photos and videos uploaded starting in October. The official statement is, "the cost for the unlimited account will be inexpensive and very competitive, especially when compared to other cloud services."
Combatmedic870: This device will also get an SD card slot. So thats pretty exciting! for me its either this or the Sony Z2. Which ever one makes it to the states faster!
BTW, the camera is 5MP("Ultra pixels"). I dont know what the 2nd one is though.
Starting with KitKat, the SD card slot is a lot less useful, because apps can't write to it except for their own app-specific folder. Which also means that a file manager can't copy files onto it except into the file manager's own specific folder.
With KitKat, the external SD card is mainly of value for importing files that you've loaded up elsewhere, because apps aren't restricted on *reading* the card.
Doug Pardee: Doesn't work on my LG Lucid. It forces the resolution to a setting that the camera doesn't support (3072x1728 on a 2560x1920 sensor), resulting in an image that's just a bunch of lines. Since VSCO provides no controls, there's no way to reset the resolution to anything that works.
I just upgraded to the LG G2, and I'm now a believer. With a top-notch phone, VSCO Cam really delivers. With a low-end phone, not so much.
To each their own, but personally, I can't imagine doing serious editing on an uncalibrated screen. I do use my phone quite a bit for casual editing, but there are some great free apps for that, and I don't see any reason to pay for Lightroom.
If it lets you synchronize your phone photos into your Lightroom catalog, that could be useful for some folks. Well, except that the current Lightroom crowd seems to enjoy sneering at phone cameras as being unworthy, so maybe not now.
Maybe with the raw-shooting phones that are always "coming soon." But again, editing on an uncalibrated screen?