Shamael: By the way, launch price with the new 14-42 lens is 680$. Sony will have a big smile for this one then.
The GF6 has WiFi, nicer menus, more and better controls, including a more useful touch screen. The NEX-3N & lens are smaller, lighter, cheaper, have more useful photography modes and features, have a better zoom range, a powered zoom, a bigger, better sensor, and costs a hundred dollars less. If this were the same price as the Sony the fight would be interesting. Buyers at this price point don't often buy a whole bunch of lenses, so that advantage of MFT doesn't matter much. In any case, a big upgrade for the previously pathetic GF line. Back to its glory days, even? Makes me wonder if there is any need for a GX1 replacement, unless they move it way upscale, with a built-in evf to compete better with the NEX-6. I hope so as I like MFT and we need a stronger lineup from Panasonic or it is doomed.
gl2k: Fence image (DSC_0127) shows that there is pretty much DOF. More than I would like to see. I credit this to the APS-C sensor and f2.8 aperture.Most of the sample images could be taken with any P&S as well. If this camera style is what I like I would rather buy a V1. Dirt cheap and gives me the same shooting experience.
Not comparable, really, except that Nikon makes both. The V1 sensor is smaller, and the camera is bigger, has a nice electronic viewfinder, and offers impressive speed. The A gives you a bigger sensor in a smaller body. I really do like my V1, and the low price I paid, but this clearly offers more potential image quality.
Chuck Lantz: I have a background in limited edition prints. Not photos, but graphics, and the legal principal is the same. If I do an edition of one image using one type of printmaking, for example a plate etching, I can then legally do an entirely new - and legal - edition using serigraphy, stone litho, or whatever, still using the same image.
As someone else has commented, I could even do another edition of the same image, but using different colors or paper, and again, it would legally be a separate and unique edition.
The key is in how each edition is described by the artist. So, "An edition of 100 plate-etching images on d'Arches cold-pressed paper" would be legally unique from "100 plate-etched images on DFK Rives paper" , even if the images were identical.
Buyers of expensive art are not idiots, usually. Even if they are, it's not the artist's responsibility to educate them on the details of the art world. It's no secret that there are often multiple editions of prints. If the artist makes misrepresentations, sue him. And maybe lose, if he didn't make specific promises not to reissue that image in another form.
afterswish1: I think the artist was just biting the hand that fed out of pure greed. In my opinion Sobel was right despite what the ruling said.
Fair enough, he should have got a contract. It's pretty clear that 'limited edition' implies more copies will not be made whenever the artist feels like it though.
Clear to you, but not in the art world, where multiple editions of some kinds of print are common. The world of 20th century prints is so messy many collectors will have nothing to do with it (partly because of all the fakes), but a real Chagall print can still be worth thousands, even though he authorized massive numbers and they are late, uninteresting examples of his work from long after his brief period of importance. They're valuable because some people will still pay good money for them, even though they're far less significant and no more attractive than this photograph. At least it makes me smile.
Binone: When you purchase a limited edition of any art - be it photograph or painting, unless it's the original, it will have a number: x of y, where "y" is the total number of prints, or lithographs, etc. that are going to be produced. The value of any one is very much dependent on how many are produced. I have to agree with the collector here. The artist, in effect, increased y and that results in a decrease in the value of any one of the copies.
My other issue is: Holy Crap!!! I'd have thrown that shot away. Like another poster wrote - where's my kid's old bike.. If I had exhibited that photo at a club where I have competed, at a minimum, I'd have been criticized for the little bit of a car that's on the right. I see a lot of photos that are truly remarkable works of art. But, $250k for this??? I must be getting old.
I'd be surprised if it is overturned. Artists have been making various editions of works of art forever. Collectors may have taken comfort in x/xx in pencil, but barring a detailed contract between artist and original purchaser, what does 'limited edition' mean? Not much. High-end dealers will henceforth require their artists to agree to detailed contracts limiting future reproduction. Collectors will know what they're buying and selling and all will be well. Yawn.
Cal22: No judge can decide whether new prints decrease the value of older ones. It's the market! Of course, the exorbitant high prices for photographs (and for so many other things, by the way) might be ridiculous. But these prices have nothing to do with photographic or artistic value. The higher the price the more significance is being put into the collector's item - and in the collector himself. It's the input of humans imagination.In the 70s and 80s, when I saw Egglestone's photographs (among them the kid's bike) I was interested but didn't attach great importance to them. My view hasn't changed since then. I wonder if photography regarded as art will be good or bad.
It may be judged rare and valuable (or only semi-rare) without being judged very good at all. People collect (and pay a lot of money for) much less pleasing objects than this. Or it may be judged a good example of a particular movement, a point in time in artistic taste. Very few people love stiff medieval depictions of saints, but they are still valued as representative of their time and its tastes. This photo is a good example of avant-garde taste, circa 1970.
PhotoKhan: Seeing things like this popping-up is a bit like reading that story about Phil Bronstein entering a Komodo dragon enclosure, taking his shoes off to reveal white rat look-alike white socks to an animal with a brain size slightly larger than a walnut and then being surprised to find himself with a bleeding foot trapped in the creature's mouth.
You forgot the interesting part, that the backstage zoo tour was a birthday treat from Bronstein's wife, Sharon Stone. That's exactly what I'd expect for my birthday present from Sharon Stone - a giant lizard eating half of my foot. Komodo dragons also have filthy mouths and their bites often cause nasty infections. Maybe we can send a Komodo dragon after the head of this photo printing service. He is adding so much to our culture.
soloryb: Without a hip belt for proper support with heavy loads this thing is not for prolonged equipment hauling. Also, the worst place you can attach a tripod to a pack is on the back, where it's far enough away from your center of gravity to pull you backwards.
Mike, thanks for giving us your take on how well it works in real life. I won't be buying one soon, but it's nice to know what's available.
windmillgolfer: This looks likes a strong and high capacity backpack but the price seems very high. I guess if you've invested $1,000s on kit then this would be appropriate for the 1% of your time you might have this lot with you. Meanwhile, I'll just keep the LX5, mini-tripod, 18mm LWA52 and EVF1 in my jacket pockets :-)
Cheap and common are bad? Are you a Leica owner? If not, I'm sure they'd love you as a customer.
Cheap means an item costs little. That is good. Common means there are many of them, suggesting they have attractive properties or meet the needs of many. All other things equal, I prefer cheap and common to expensive and uncommon.
Light Shaft looks terrible, super cheesy, but Motion Shot is a nice effect familiar from TV sports. I don't shoot action, but if I did, that would be a nice option.
MichelBB: What about the 80 percent of the world camera users who do not use ounces and inches ?
In theory and officially they're metric, but in practice many in the UK actually use a mix of old and new. People are still giving their weight in stones, and distances are not uncommonly measured in miles.
Valiant Thor: I was hoping for a nice small M43 Canon with the ability to use all the M43 Lumix and Olympus lenses, and with a new sensor. I have Nikon, Olympus, and Lumix and would love to get into a nice compact Canon body but what a boring release this is.
I was hoping for a Ferrari shopping cart (oh, wait, there probably is one.) Canon already has the barest beginnings of a mirrorless system and has no reason to abandon it (yet). I would have loved to have seen other camera makers buy into Micro 4/3, but they've all decided to go their own ways. Just as they did with dslrs in years past.
Cooperation is not natural for these very competitive companies. Even Olympus and Panasonic have done things differently enough in their MFT bodies and lenses to discourage mixing and matching. Canon would have been even less likely to stay within the standard.
Michael Barker: Heckle me all you want folks, I'm gonna say it anyway:
*Camera of the Year*
And yes, one of the biggest reasons is that it is a Canon.
No, that's silly. By the end of the year there will be plenty of other Canon models to choose from if they want to give it to Canon. Maybe even something other than a shrunken retread.
Cool shot. Doesn't matter that others could replicate the shot (though I doubt it's as easy as it looks) as much as his conception of the shot, and working that idea through to a cover-worthy shot. That's what makes him a high-level pro, that he can deliver, and on time. He had one opportunity to get the shot and delivered.
Seems like rather a lot for what it is, but it does look handy. Maybe I'll just attach, Velcro loops to the foot of a spare Gorillapod. That should be useful, too, though tougher o get a rigid mount than this. I do love Gorillapods.
akophoto: I teach the same method all the time. Have done for last three years.Adding a sky is cheating in my eyes as the scene never existed. The correct use for this method is for blending bracketed exposures when the cameras dynamic range cannot expose a whole scene. For example a sunrise.
Artistry is cheating. Good to know. Thousands of years of artistic output is no better than fraud. I have a degree in cheating from a major university.
As long as the purpose is the making of attractive images and not the recording of a place and time, you can do whatever works best. I'm not too fond of this particular image because it isn't all that special. There's nothing wrong with the original sky and the improvement does not do much to improve it.
Pati Feroolz: dpreview should really do something about this 520 pixel wide pictures. i use the site at 150% magnification put pictures look terrible.
I've been thinking about a project of just what I can see from my windows. OK, I'm lucky. I live in the middle of San Francisco and have views in three directions, all somewhat interesting. But I can remember life in the burbs and there were always interesting sights.
marike6: When shooting "minutes from your home" means dramatic cliffs in Loop Head, Ireland, then yes, I suppose you don't need to travel to far and exotic lands for find interesting subjects. If you live near the Long Island Sound in NY, or some New England town, say New London, CT, I'd say the work of making compelling landscapes "in your own backyard" gets dramatically more difficult.
Where the author lives looks like paradise for a landscape photographer, you could literally shoot the same scene in different seasons, with different light, treatments, and focal lengths, and you'd never run out compelling things to shoot.
Beautiful images, and interesting article. Bravo, and thanks very much.
Many photographers have done terrific work in rundown neighborhoods and small towns. Uniform newish suburbia is more challenging, but small towns are endlessly fascinating.
Some of us read the comments. A buffoon calling "boring" will be noticed. Wish I hadn't because the article, and the photographs, are excellent. I live in a photogenic locale and this gives me some ideas.
jmmgarza: How 'bout 9 minutes?
You mean the cat didn't write the book? I really like that picture, but the cat does steal it. It probably accompanied a lightweight feature so there wasn't any journalistic significance in the photo, so no big deal that the cat is so prominent.