I seem to remember Canon used to make a 1200mm F8 Fluorite telephoto at one time. I used to shoot in the 90's with a Sigma 1000mm F8 APO AF lens.
Bart7D: Weren't these ant already (in)famous for eating their way through a Leaf camera back...?
Not sure a moat would work. Doesn't work for driver (army or legionary) ants as they are known to use leaves as rafts. Pretty sure Leaf-Cutter ants can do that also as I seem to remember seeing something like that in Central America a few decades ago when shooting there.
PeaceKeeper: Sony is SO 3 weeks ago... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3526514/Forget-smart-glasses-Samsung-patents-contact-lenses-built-camera-projects-images-directly-eye.html
Get with the times, Sony.
The Sony is more capable than either the Samsung or the Google.
They practice T&L right over my place most days of the week here in WV. Nice photo.
marc petzold: It sounds to me like Nikon wants to say "hello, we're still here, and now developing the D4S sucessor D5 atm, please stay calm and seated!"
Jokes aside, i think Sony really hits some nerves into the Nikon Managment, and Nikon seems to be surprised about all the Sony buzz lately, especially with their A7R II.
This announcement is the so-called pre-emptive strike perfected by IBM in their mainframe days. Announce a new super model, don't give any particulars so speculation gets rife, and then fence sitters will hold back from switching until you actually get it out which could be as long as a year and with their current equipment from you they will likely not switch.
Most of the camera division profit of any company is made on the quantity sales of smaller sensor cameras. In ratios of 20:1 or more. FF cameras, especially pro ones are designed to do 2 things, give the pros what they want and get their cameras out to events where people can see the name so they will remember that when they go to buy an APS-C camera. Companies don't care what happens to those customers after they buy their camera and 2 kit lenses because hardly 1 in 10 go on to a bigger and better camera (based on studies) (read as FF or whatever you prefer). But to keep that 10% that will go farther they need a total system from top to bottom (in this case a new pro FF) even if that customer goes no farther than say a D750. They make more on lenses than cameras anyway.
papa natas: AWESOME...!!
You are correct, sir, my mistake, they were 4-strokes, but like I said the engine was a stressed frame member. The Kawasakis were 350cc two stroke singles so I assumed the Aermachis were also.
Technically this might not be true to the Challenge because the "mechanic" has racing leathers on so he is likely the owner and rider of the motorcycle in question and is his own mechanic. While he may be a motorcycle mechanic its more likely he is retired. Might even be somebody I ran against in the 70's but can't tell thru the facial hair.
No front down tube because the engine is a stressed member of the frame. Think of it as a single cylinder two stroke Ducati and you will be close. Aermachi made planes and other things during WWII and after the war got into making motorcycles for several decades.
Its an Aermachi 350 setup for roadracing (vintage). They had a deal with H-D so that the team roadracers like Cal Rayburn had a bike to use in the 250cc roadraces back in the late 60's to late 70's (250cc Twins and 350cc singles, two-stroke).The Kawasaki team riders like Yvon Duhamel used to use a converted Kaw Bighorn 350cc dirt bike as their roadracing platform until the radical Kaw KR-250 rotary twin came out. One way to tell it is current vintage racer is the transponder attached to the left front fork. Those did not come out till the 90's. Note also the monster front drum brake, as those were phased out in the early 70s (when I raced). My first race bike was an ex-factory Kawasaki 500 GP bike and it had an even larger drum brake on the front than that 350, until I converted it to dual disk brakes.
Its hardly poisonous to humans at all, not even in the top 20 world-wide. Still a nice photo.
bladerunner6: These are lovely photos but they are not astrophotography. Astrophotography is about "astronomical objects" and these are really night landscapes.
And I agree with another poster, that this article is so misguided is the fault of DPReview, not the photographer featured in the article.
What would be a useful article is comparing the 810A to similarly priced (or less expensive) systems using different gear such as a telescope with some sort of tracking system or a Pentax K-3 with its built in Astrotracer.
That sort of article would be useful. And my guess is that they might well show that the Nikon system is not the best bang for the buck. This article just shows some lovely shots that are not astrophotography and have nothing to do with the feature set of this particular camera.
Having done astrophotography since I was in JHS in 1962, I agree this is not really astrophotography although he uses some of the same techniques. Mostly known as nightscapes. The same thing could have been done with the old Canon 20Da or the newer 60Da as long as you are willing to stitch exposures together or use a Sigma 8-16. I think the photos are very well shot and composed.The word "astro" is from the Greek astron which means star. The term "nightscapes" means any combination of earth and sky shot at night were both are represented and shot at landscape perspectives. If he had shot the Milky Way without the earth in the photo then it would more clearly represent astrophotography.
Mssimo: Also a good one: TFA-01: Pocket 'Pod
SpecificationsLeg Material: AluminumNumber of Leg Sections: 1Load Capacity: 100 lb / 45kg -------- AWESOME LOAD CAPACITYPlatform Diameter: 1.3" / 34mmHeight Fully Splayed (to top of platform): 1.7" / 44mmDiameter Fully Splayed: 11.1" / 28.1cmFolded Length with Stud: 6" / 14.5cmWeight: 5.1 oz / 146g ------ Only 146 Grams
$98 does not sound so bad considering I already have a Joby Ballhead X on my Clik Elite photo backpack.
GodSpeaks: Film cameras?Did I miss a memo, or something?
Dang! And I sold my Maxxum 9 when I went digital. I just knew I should have kept it around for another decade or two.
Igor Adamovic: Image stabilization in this Sony is very nice thing to have. If you pair it with Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 without VC you have very professional gear for weddings cheaply. I do not see drawback to buying this translucent mirror digital SLR, but only if you already do not have bunch of lenses with image stabilization from Nikon or Canon.
All Sony DSLRs or SLTs have IBIS because Minolta was the first company to make it work all the way back to their first DSLR the 7D. And you can use ILIS lenses on IBIS cameras as long as you turn one or the other off. Sometimes one is better than the other. Obviously if you own Canon or Nikon lenses of any type you won't be buying this camera. Unless you want to go dual system.
AlexisH: One more thing you don't need with a mirrorless camera. Although I guess they could still finely tune auto focus to account for focus shifting.
If your mirrorless camera has interchangeable lenses you still need to clean the sensor. Not sure why you added that trailing off sentence.
Peiasdf: There is a lot of repetition in Pentax's line up. There are 11 primes covering the 30-55mm range, 6 standard zooms from 16mm-50/85/135, etc. I'd imagine Nikon and Canon might be the same but either company sold ten times more cameras than Pentax.
It was designed and built before they started weather sealing lenses. It means they may or may not come out with a later weather-sealed version.
nerd2: One fun fact - guess who made the first FF DSLR? It's Contax.
While the Pentax ME-F was the first AF SLR they were not the first successful one, which was the Minolta 7000 in 1985. Everything up to then, including Canon's T80 was a basically half-a** solution.
What do you mean by "still going strong". Contax was finally owned by Kyocera and they stopped producing Contax cameras back in 2006.