This is nice, and if the price quickly drops, like previous G models, it will be a massive bargain. Instead of a sweet deal, which it is already. I only had a few quibbles with the G5, and this addressed all of them. I know people love the OM-D E-M5, but this offers more features for a lot less money, and even bests the NEX-6 in some ways. OK, the sensor isn't quite up to Sony standards, but it isn't far behind anymore. I do wish Panasonic would dump the clunky faux-dslr styling for something cleaner, but that's about the only remaining problem. If I were shopping this would be hard to resist.
Mssimo: Very creative but am I the only one that thinks the internals look like a bomb?
People ship electronics all the time and nobody blows them up. On x-ray this is just some kind of camera. Or scientific instrument. Or high school science project. Shippers do not have people minutely examining packages or the price of shipping would be astronomical. They can detect explosives with more sophisticated equipment that wouldn't get upset over a circuit board and some components. They're looking for the stuff that blows up.
Mescalamba: Guess we will see it in next Nikon 1? :)
No, I don't think it's the same, though it likely shares a great deal. If they can combine this with the exiting Nikon 1 hybrid autofocus capability, it will be a great sensor, at least for video. The problem with the existing Aptina chips has been inadequate dynamic range. The sensors are full of clever technology (a true global shutter, a lot of processing right on the sensor, pdaf af that works), but without better image quality the Nikon 1 remains an incomplete camera.
My V1 is a lot of fun to shoot with because it is so fast and accurate, but I regularly run into the sensor's limits. Maybe this new chip will offer other improvements, too. I hope so, because for a still camera that was already speedy, the announced improvements aren't what was needed. I don't shoot video, though I've been impressed with just how good the existing Nikon 1 models are at video, given the limited press they get. The V3 could be a real GH3 competitor, or a lot more.
kaiser soze: Too much confusion surrounding the EVF resolution. When I first skimmed the review, I could swear that I read them saying that it is a field-sequential display. Unless I was dreaming, they realized this was a bogus inference, and edited the text. They now say that they "know" it has resolution of 853x500 pixels. How? Panasonic claims 1.7 million dot equivalent. Display resolution is ordinarily spec'd as full-color pixels. Dot-equivalent is compliant, albeit counting full-color pixels that are virtual owing to time-sharing. An OLED with 1.7 million dot equivalent has 1.7 million full-color pixels (full time). It is stated as "dot equivalent" only to facilitate comparison with field-sequential LCD displays. The improvement in resolution, compared GH2, is less than 15%, which is not significant IMHO. The advantage of OLED is blacker black, and thus vastly improved dynamic range. This advantage is significant. Too bad about the hue being off, but I wonder if it occurs in all situations.
I don't know what to make of Panasonic's claims, but other past displays have made 'equivalence' claims, like PenTile. I wouldn't be surprised if this display uses a matrix something like that, with more green than red or blue dots. It does give the appearance of greater resolution and could explain the unfortunate shifting of the display towards the green.
Kikl: These pictures are staged. The prize was not rewarded for "Breaking News Photography" unless you regard staged news as real news. Sorry to be so blunt. But, this must be said.
Thanks, Amadou, for the reminder of what they face. One doesn't even have a regular job. He's been covering dangerous situations without any certainty of getting paid. That image of his is quite something.
I feel a bit bad that photojournalists rarely get awards for anything but covering conflicts, as plenty of excellent work is done safe at home, but the guys putting themselves in the middle of war zones do have compelling subject matter and capture incredibly powerful images, so the awards were earned the hardest way imaginable. Good work, all.
SRT201: The apps are cool and the bridge lighting is amazing.
It is amusing that this bridge display is in the state most active in it's quest to save it's citizens from themselves. CA police practically have carte-blanche ticketing "distracted" drivers. They clearly hadn't considered the "public good" when designing such a distracting bridge lighting system. :-)
PS - The Pentax K-01 has these time-lapse features built right in if you want some high quality time lapse videos.
The lights are mounted on the outside of the cables pointing towards San Francisco. They aren't visible to drivers on the bridge.
kff: sw which that allowed would be built in the camera ... it is about fantasy camera's makers :)
I guess we'll just need a new generation of macro lenses with proper modern focusing. No doubt it will happen, as the advantages for macro shooters are so great and plenty of other lenses have fast, precise focus motors.
Timmbits: " it’s better to change the focal point by moving the lens physically back and forth rather than using the focus ring"
I am curious as to how to do this...
I'm imagining my camera on a tripod, and I have to move it by a fraction of a millimeter... how does that work?
With all the motors and electronics in some modern lenses, it would be easy enough for a company to design a macro lens that automatically incremented the focus over a series of exposures. I know some cameras have limited focus bracketing, but do any of them shoot a long sequence easily? Something to ask for.
steveh0607: What he does is actually a traffic safety hazard. Other drivers could be temporarily blinded by the light and hit something or someone. This guy needs to rethink what he's doing.
If he's in the right lane, crawling along, his lights won't be blinding other drivers. They're aimed to the side, not towards traffic. Too bad they're such ugly photos. How they were taken is the most interesting thing about them.
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.
Nukunukoo: 24MP is definitely the threshold for Crop Sensors. The next tech will involve BSI and Stacking to gain >20% more on the large-sensor photosite area. And when that happens, I hope they stay at this resolution and focus more on pixel quality, even for just a while. Considering that Stacked Sensors will allow the read electronics to be faster and more resistant to noise, we would hopefully see the end of those pesky high ISO shadow noise banding!
Stacking will be a huge change in sensor technology. BSI is fairly irrelevant for photosites this big (or even half as big). The color splitting technology Panasonic has in the works (I have to assume others are also working along those lines) may prove to have most of the advantages of stacked photosites without the complexity. I can't wait to see the first cameras using that technology.
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.