JDThomas: "JK doesn't have a booth at the show, but we visited them in a hotel suite..."
Pssst. Hey kid, wanna see some top quality camera gear? Meet me in the back alley behind the Rio Hotel. I'll cut you in on a good deal.
If it's reverse engineered, it was done in record time. No, I don't think that happened. What more likely is they heard such a product was being developed and decided to build a competitor. That's a long ways from reverse engineering.
gerard boulanger: To really penetrate the market, a more reasonable zoom (28-60) with good IQ, not too much noise until ISO 1600 and a 1/4000th shutter speed would be needed.Those extreme zooms will be perceived as gadgets very quickly
Having said that, I like the concept.
Patent infringement from Kodak here? Sony QX...
No, I think this lens is perfect for this camera. It covers the most useful focal lengths without swapping. Starting wider is a very good thing that is starting to become common (probably because of Sony's compact 16-50mm kit lens) The slowness at the long end is a bit of a worry, but I guess I'd rather have the extra length, even if it is slow. The telezoom also looks rather nice. I wonder who is making the lenses for them (unlikely they're doing it themselves) because they don't closely resemble any existing MFT lenses. My guess is Olympus, which would be a good thing for both companies. But it could be almost anyone.
JDThomas: The most interesting thing about this announcement is the collapsible kit lens. Nikon is taking a page from the Leica book with this.
I'd like to see this feature on a higher end FX lens like a collapsible 16-35 f/4.
Maybe Leica originated the idea, but Nikon has no need to copy anyone for this lenses. The Nikon 1 zooms are collapsible (not just the standard zoom, but also thw tele and wide angle zooms.) The release button even looks similar.
Jacques Cornell: Note to DPR - The slideshow stops at slide 8: everything after that just jumps to a page on the Sony Store. Bleah!
Yup, still doing it on Chrome to me. The entire lower part of the page, incuding the area where the navigation buttons are, sends me to the Sony store. I got around it by editing rhe URL, but it would be nice if it were fixed. I suspect it's something at your end as Chrome is othwrwise behaving correctly.
expressivecanvas: Finally... a viewfinder! That alone is worth rewarding Panasonic with a sale!
Sarcasm? What did Panssonic do to deserve this? They offer three MFT models with vfs and only one without (not counting the GX1). This isn't OLYMPUS where everything is an optional add-on. Panasonic has been good about offering vfs. What's surprising is that it's a field-sequential unit when the cheaper G6 finally dropped that technology for OLED. If the refresh rate can be made high enough. Field sequential could work well, but this seems just a little better, not a major breakthrough. The lack of a mic input is unforgivable. They just end up steering video customers to the cheaper G6 (if they find the GH3 too dear.) It would have cost them hardly anything to include it.
beavertown: Canon and Nikon should start professional grade mirrorless/mirrorless size cameras and lenses or they will die in 10 years' time.
Well designed mirrorless systems do, poorly designed ones don't. The issues are very much the same. I have a Nikon V1, very thoughtfully designed for a glasses wearer as the eyepoint lets me see the whole screen and it has a diopter adjustment of sufficient range. Many EVF designs are bad for glasses (Sony NEX among the worst). Some Fujis stupidly omitted the diopter adjustment. This is still a relatively new market. They're making mistakes that were made (and solved) in the slr world years ago. In this case they should have done better since the problem is no different.
CameraLabTester: Of course Aptina will blurt out whatever spin will give it advantage.
Sales wise, Ad wise, Awarness wise.
Before these "Aptina articles" on DPR, did you know they ever existed?
Well, yes, I did. They make the very interesting, advanced sensors for the Nikon 1 cameras. Aptina included so much processing right on the sensor that Nikon was able to build an electronically simpler camera around it. If they can improve the dynamic range a bit and get the pdaf working in lower light than currently, this will be a lovely sensor. Supposedly next generation Aptina sensors have 4k video and other goodies.
AlanG: I think this design of a mirrorless camera with a built in viewfinder (yes I know this is not the first) is the trend for many "serious" cameras for the foreseeable future. The new Canon sensor based type PD AF combined with better EVFs may make DSLRs obsolete before long.
This won't be a problem forever. It won't be too long before true global sensors are available that read the data super fast. Then mechanical shutters will mostly disappear.
BeaniePic: Great looking camera. Just would never use the images that Panasonic produce. Noise issues at medium ISO, bad colour reproduction just to start. Pana are trying, but have a way to go to give me what I need. Also DSLR will never go. CSC sales have reduced 2nd to DSC's. DSLR's are still going strong...
You know this how? Every generation of Panasonic has been an improvement on the one before. The image quality a couple of years ago was poor, with off colors, especially skin tones, and lots of ugly chroma noise. But this is a very different sensor. Even the G6/GF6 are nothing like the G3 and before.
Charles C Lloyd: I would be very proud to make such fine images. My only issue is that the tiny people on the horizon are distracting. Are these pictures about the waterfall, or the tiny people?
There is a long artistic tradition of including people in majestic landscapes, both to show scale and to contrast puny humanity with vast, powerful nature. Once we got so we could thoroughly wreck/control nature, that contrast didn't work so well. They are still useful for showing scale.
lmtfa: The bridge builders, then and now, must have testicles the size of bowling balls.
I don't much like that image (though I know what you mean). Bowling balls would be very much in the way. At least now the safety standards are much higher.
Sean65: Note how, in spite of all our advancements in photography, the photos from 1935 are so much better. The framing, depth and clarity are all way more engaging.
Stackpole's father, Ralph Stackpole, was a once prominent painter best known for his work on WPA murals. Peter grew up surrounded by art and artists. Fewer people studied art seriously then than do now, and being exposed to it daily has always been the ideal way to learn. I met Peter Stackpole once, 30 years ago, in conjunction with the restoration of a mural by his father, of whom he was very proud. Seemed a delightful man.
erichK: Where are the other eight? I'm bracing myself for them. If the rest are like these two, most especially the first, then it shows that, sadly, that the pretentious world of art speculators is the last place to look for meaningful feedback.
BTW, the Rhine is likely the most important river in Germany and runs through most of it. It has inspired some of ther greatest literature and music ever written. I grew up on its shores, and can assure anyone interested that it is much more attractive and interesting than this pompous monstrosity of an image and artifact would suggest.
UPDATE: Have found the other eight, following the link, and whiler noting that a couple of them are esthetically more pleasing, still cannot fathom why they should command the prices they to do, orders of magnitude higher than what some incomparably better images from the like of Sebastiao Salgado, W. Eugene Smith, Ansel Adams etc. have sold for.
We live in a world that commodifies everything and values nothing.
Rarity also determines value. Gursky and Sherman are selling one-of-a-kind or at least very limited numbers of these works. Older photographers sold much larger numbers, often as many as they could sell. An Ansel Adams, however beloved, with hundreds or thousands of copies won't sell for as much as a huge, unique Gursky. If you added up all the money spent buying Adams prints each year it would dwarf the amount spent on Gursky.
raducdz: I read the comments around here and realize more and more that there aren't many artists around,but too many "photographers",and many of them rather ignorant with no aesthetic sense.I see Andreas Gursky's image is making some noise...can't imagine why.I finished an art college and majored in art photography,and he was given to us as example of a great artist with an original great style and technique I have to say Gursky's image is impecable. Supeb geometry, superb minimalistic scene, and probably a huge and superb print! I think people call it boring because there's no kitschy bird flying, dog running or kid playing, or something you "great photographers in your spare time" like to see. Every image speaks to a person, and while some of your images only speak to you, their images speak to people who are willing to pay huge amounts of money for them.They ARE better than us,that is why they do better than us in photography.What we can do,is analyze,learn and respect.
I don't understand 'merely aesthetic'. What else does it need? Narrative content? Not required, now or ever. The one thing that is absolutely required is aesthetic value. Tastes in which change, though really good art of whatever period still stimulates the eye and brain.
David Kieltyka: I suspect Gursky is a cynic laughing derisively all the way to the bank. But then I don't know the guy...
Sherman had one good idea early on with her Untitled Film Stills. I like some of 'em. IMO she hasn't done anything remotely as good since.
What I think of the art world's fawning over Richard Prince's re-photographs can't be fully expressed without me getting kicked off DPR. ;-) But Prince's approach...I'm not against re-purposing at all.
Steichen's photo is fine. I like it. "Billy The Kid" has historical merit and, of course, outlaw chic.
Wall's staged montage...think of it as a painting rather than a photo. IMO it doesn't really belong in this list. I think "photos" should be less conceptual and more observational.
I find the Wall a bit ridiculous. Impressive in scale and technically well done, but the subject is just too silly. Real war photos have plenty of power. Staged ones, not so much. The Prince seems overvalued, but it is fun. Repurposing has a long history, but I don't think he adds much of interest. A good eye is not enough. Sherman does seem to have been repeating herself for years, but they can still shock. If that's enough, she's got it.
Tom Nokin: It is shocking to read how ignorant so many commentators are. Of course the most expensive photos were expeted to be art. What did you expect baby eyes and hawaian sunsets?Gursky has provided very powerful artistic interpretations. One should check out his photos and read something about the artist before posting ignorant postings.
The Billy the Kid picture is valued for its scarcity, not as art, but the other nine seem to be legitimately artistic. I'd quibble with the inclusion of the Gilbert and George because it's not a photograph, but a piece of art made up of photos, most modified in some way. I would likewise disqualify Hockney's photo collages (awesome as they might be.) If I had to pick one, it might well be the G&G, as I love their work, but I really like the Gursky of the 99 cent store, and the Steichen is both lovely and a nice representative of the tastes of a century ago. Cindy Sherman I respect, but they creep me out.
Beat Traveller: Psycholinguistics discovers review bombing.
Reminds me of the time a med student 'discovered' calculus.
It is a study of who is contributing these reviews. I don't think they're making any claims about discovering anything new, just figuring out which people are contributing most of these negative reviews. Mildly interesting.
Yanko Kitanov: I always thought that PHOTOGRAPHY is about story, idea, message, composition and of course quality and color....here we see a manifesto of the combination - digital filter(cross-process/B&W/Artificial artifacts and noise) and collage...I miss the idea, message and composition of almost all snapshots in this set.
Why did you think that? Photography isn't an inherently narrative medium. It can do a lot more than tell stories, just as painting and music can. The kid is doing fun stuff that's well beyond what most adults ever do. It's not yet consistent in style nor is it perfectly executed, but it's very good, nonetheless.
harrygilbert: What I'd like to see is a 3D printer with the ability to input a holographic image, and create a tangible output. Then every home and museum could have inexpensive copies of the finest sculpture from throughout history.
You could design and 'print' the Venus de Milo with arms of your choosing. Maybe have her cradling a football. Isn't technology grand?
samhain: I know this will probably fall on deaf ears, but:
I ask anyone who's intrested in these cameras to resist buying them- and instead send an email/Facebook/Twitter message to Sony- let them know that excluding a Viewfinder in a camera is NOT ok. They're doing this to save money & increase the profit margin(and not pass the savings on to the customer). These are cameras, not cellphones. It's not ok.It's only a matter of time before other camera manufacturers look at what Sony is doing and say- " If Sony can get away with it, we can too). Think it won't happen? Wait and see...
If you need a vf, just don't buy one. Simple as that. Sony will get the message, and the people who are OK without a built-in vf can continue to buy this camera. Not every camera needs to be the same.