I have the 610; I like it, it's given me better colors and is capable of shooting at about two stops higher ISO than my old D700. But the autofocus is a weak mess. It simply stops below a certain level, and even in moderately dim lighting it's failing to lock or making errors, which at the music events I photograph most often has put me back to manual bracketing and guessing.
I have some money coming in January and decided to get the 750; the main selling point is the -3 EV autofocus potential, which I've seen demonstrated. I wish it was a little cheaper and had a higher frame rate, but everything else is the camera I need.
We pay taxes for our parks in the US, we should be able to publish and use photos from them. I'd see a permit only being necessary for a large production like a movie or commercial shoot--mainly because of the potential to disrupt daily activities in the park and so they would know what is happening.
And what if you're camping only interceding snapshots and happen to get a once in a lifetime shot of an aurora or a sunset? Well since you didn't get a permit you can't sell it or license it.
Photos would bring more attention to the parks and help people become aware of them. This is counterproductive. It reminds me of this one small town airplane museum that no one had ever heard of, yet they put up such a handwringing conniption fit about me taking photos there and possibly ruining their business I decided to never publish them. They're still obscure and only local people even know the place exists.
Sounds like the used market is going to have a lot of D600's for people who know how to clean their sensor.
Interesting; I won't be getting one because it would cost as much as my car to change over from my Nikon DSLR's to one of these and have similar capabilities. I'm very curious how it does in low light, and other thing I how well the EVF displays in those conditions. Mirrorless cameras seem to be pushed on us as the next great thing, but any shooting I do absolutely has to have an EVF as in bright daylight an LCD screen is almost useless, while in dim light it's a distraction. Focus peaking an an on screen display are all interesting, but if the EVF in a dark nightclub only shows a murky and static filled view then I'll stick with a DSLR.
Most likely my replacement for my aging D700 will be a D610, as I'll never have the funds for a D4 and a D800 is more like the "D700x." My needs are a fast frame rate and high ISO capability as I do a lot of shooting in low light place like nightclubs and outdoor events. Unless I get a bargain on a near new D3/D3s only the D610 is in my budget.
I heard all about the D600 shutter throwing oil; yes that was a problem, but it's not like a V8 truck with a 24 quart oil pan. Nikon would have been better with it's PR to admit there was a problem, but after the D2H shutter and it's problems this as fart as I was concerned is minor, not enough to jump ship and get a new body system and set of lenses.
The market for this looks to be people with a Red camera or something similar, who would be recording in the field and need portability and durability. Honestly this would last me about 7-10 photo shoots before filling up; for a still camera it could practically replace any internal memory, just wary of relying entirely on one card.
Kinematic Digit: I wonder how many people would complain if you could use a new Nikon D800E, Nikon D4, Canon 1Dx or a Canon 5Dmk3 for $19 a month and then after a year decided to return it?
Well it's hardware for one thing, which wears and degrades over time, and no one is offering that. So to get a brand new top of the line camera and use it as I please for a year and then return it for another spending just $228 would be a steal. Software that doesn't wear, and that would require paying forever until the next upgrade that may not be worth the effort is another matter altogether.
As long as Photoshop Elements is still available as a buy it and use it product that will pretty much take care of my Photoshop needs, which are average consumer/prosumer uses. I never got any of the Creative Suites because I simply couldn't afford them.
A subscription arrangement is bad all around--you never stop paying, well after you've paid what it would have cost to buy it outright, and if you're like me $50 is a tank and a half of gas or groceries for a week.
They would have been better off charging a small flat fee for Photoshop and then more for modules/add-ons/filters; letting people buy what they want and can afford.
As it is the only thing worse I can think of is metering the product so you pay by how much or often you do something with it.....I hope I just didn't give them some more bad ideas....
Pretty cool lens, the Thorium would really only be harmful if you were holding it up to your eye day in and day out if it were an eyepiece or eyeglasses, and it does yellow over time. However, I have heard of at least one person taking a "thoriated" lens through an airport and it set off the silent radiation alarm--a couple of very concerned security guards showed up and wanted to ask him a few questions; I never found out if he was still able to take the lens on board the plane or not.
JackM: Um, yes, great photos, but please remember the whole thing is contrived. He said it himself, homelessness by choice. So keep in mind that the photos that at first stir up emotions similar to Afghan Girl, photos seemingly of poor victims of circumstance, are actually snapshots of people on vacation.
Well, I think Bob and Madeinlisboa should read the Guardian article the photographer is nterviewed in. This was mostly a teenage rite of passage thing to do for a few years and then either go back to their old lives or do something else. If they had choices to do that then they had choices in even getting on the trains in the first place. So it looks cool, but don't have any sympathy for whatever hardship they faced as it was just another variation of "slumming it."
I think it was Thom Hogan who put it best, don't consider what you can do with a new camera, but what you can't do with your current camera.
None of these really fit the bill; I'm primarily a Nikon user, but the D800 is more like the D800x (high resolution) than a standard full frame. The Canon is only out because I have all my money in Nikon lenses, if I had the money and lenses I'd go for one.
The Olympus--well, if people on a forum decided to vote their favorite camera up in a contest that will be forgotten in a few days, the more the merrier. Am I intrigued by the OMD? Yes, the same as the Fuji X series and the Sony SLT series. Am I $1,000 intrigued to go out and buy one? No. Too many gotchas--from the high FPS but a shallow buffer to the selection of lenses.
In the end, I'm still going with my ties for best camera, my combo D300s/D700 daily shooters.
Not surprising, nor is this really news as it's been mentioned for a few years now. Part of it is the rise of Instagram and other cool looking but useless apps; the rest is simple convenience. At this point the only real saving grace for compact cameras will be those of us who don't want our cameras tied to a mobile data plan.
Huh. Well, the initial objection I had to the "1" series is the J1 didn't have an EVF, and both it and the V1 were too expensive. I've pretty much accepted mirrorless is the new "wave of the future" but can't do serious shooting without an eye level finder of some kind. There's the problem with seeing the display in bright sunlight, and it being a distraction in dim lighting--and I can judge how things will look in a real life image better than an electronic display regardless. So now......well, it's smaller than a comparable SLR, will likely cost more than the baseline DSLR models, and not perform as well. Go figure.
Interesting idea. I used to think I would like a Bridge/Rangefinder camera but after years of shooting all of them I'm wedded to a DSLR. So here goes:
D700/800 in size--I have big hands and am tired of tiny cameras. Fill the extra space with a longer life battery.
Full frame sensor, clean shots at ISO 12,800 and continuous 10FPS.
Slide out cutoff filter for shooting infrared.
Tons of F4 style external controls.
A "Take the <BLEEP> shot" override mode that if you have it turned on will focus to a set range, meter whatever it sees, and go. I've lost too many snap shots on a searching autofocus.
So pretty much I'd like a Nikon D4 or so with IR capability, more external controls, and a fast snap shot capability. Hey, at least it's doable.
1. Jonathan Ives is a great designer
2. I don't care how my camera looks, only how it functions.
3. This is mainly a naming/branding exercise.
4. Rich/luxury items these days are usually bog standard equipment coated in gold, veneered in exotic wood, or studded with jewels. It's old style luxury mixed with modern technology and never works well. Give me a luxury camera that is truly different; flawless f/1.2 lenses, 20FPS frame rate, something that is a technical achievement. Not a name and an appearance.
Interesting, I was thinking not that long ago the manufacturers should come out with something like this to compete with smartphones. It's not what a serious photographer would use, but has the capability to download and use all the apps people love these days, in the irony they use digital processing to make their photos look as bad as a Holga with expired film. Go figure. The specs and Android version are probably to keep the price low enough people will buy it. It would help tremendously if it had cellular service--which would also have involved contracts with phone carriers and who knows what else, although the subsidized price would have allowed a higher end model to be released. I have no plans to buy one of these, but am curious how the general public will react to it.
Actually I like the photo--as an artistic expression It's not good photojournalism as it doesn't really capture what the viewer saw when they were there.
Something to consider--why aren't we using cellphone cameras already? Because everything from compacts to SLR's have more control, optical zoom, and more capability. Cellphones are great for snapshots but not much else--and snapshots is what most people take.
Why are they so popular? Convenient, ready to use, and glitzy apps. So is the future going to be cellphone cameras or regular cameras with an operating system to handle these apps and Wi-Fi or 3G capability?
A few random thoughts:
Doesn't do much good for those of us who shoot raw.
Enabling a remote shutdown of the camera may be a bad idea; if the thief suddenly has it stop working they really would only be caught if they took it to a dealer and the dealer scanned and reported the serial number. Otherwise most thieves with a "free" camera would likely just junk it.
A built in GPS in the camera body (which can be used for photo location anyways) that can be triggered remotely seems the best option. Register when you buy it, call the manufacturer to report it stolen, camera is located. Much better than using pictures that were taken weeks or months ago, and trying to tie those to a person who may no longer have the camera.