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.
attomole: What a pile of crapIm holding out for the purple fade camo edition with the strawberry pentaprism and gold accented highlights.
Just move along to the K-50 aisle. You can have that one in crushed strawberry and antique gold. Or whatever they call those particular shades. Good little camera, too. If Pentax has figured out how to let people buy their cameras in their school colors, good for them. Some of the combinations are garish, but others seem quite nice.
rb59020: Ordered mine in black from B&H this afternoon as it is @ $399.00
From the artical:■Excellent image quality in JPEG and Raw■Fast autofocus■10fps full-res burst mode■1cm Macro mode allows extreme closeups■Raw files contain a lot of extra detail in both highlights and shadows■Dedicated Movie record button■Built-in sensor-shift and pixel-track shake reduction
But still just a "74"?
Must of been the missing hot shoe. :-(
The lack of a hot shoe isn't minor. I also wish they had kept the control ring around the lens. It's an incredibly convenient location. At least they gave it a proper rear control dial instead of relying on a ring around the directional pad. Those never work well.
tecnoworld: of course, none of the samsung nx cameras has been taken into consideration, in your article. They are all APS-C (20Mp), have a great IQ (top in class) and offer a lot of functions. Besides the NX lenses are among the best around.
The nx1000 is now a bargain, selling for less than 300$ with the kit lens. The nx20 is again quite cheap for what it is, offering a nice EVF (650$)The nx300 is a gorgeous camera, for me the best mirrorless camera with no EVF; it has the best IQ, ultra-fast hybrid focus, focus peaking, very fast operations, touch screen for touch to shoot and touch to focus and many more. All for a price of about 750$.
Till when such big sites won't consider this line, also the users won't know about its existence and how good it is.
I guess if he can sneak in a body-only OM-D E-M5, the XE-1 could have been included, but I think neither should have been. Let's have them as typically sold, with lens.
Gesture: Rip Van Winkle says, shouldn't $700 be able to buy a good DSLSR or Compact System camera.
Huh? Well, yes.
CameraLabTester: The DSLR range with the MOST number of lenses available for it will always win, no matter how much over $1000 the price will be.
If you're a pro with broad needs, it matters, but why would a pro spending the thousands on lenses be buying from this list? He wouldn't, unless the body happened to meet his needs (probably on clearance.) This is a list for enthusiasts with moderate budgets. Most brands offer the handful of basic lenses I'd ever likely own.
Adrian Van: These are the article writer's choices, and possibly based also on dpreviews reviews overall to date. However, my vote for "best bang for the buck", would be EPL5 which for nearly HALF the price of the OMD delivers virtually equal image quality in most lighting, and enough controls to satisfy a lot of people (also it is bit more compact body than OMD in size).
For an OMD you get more features and worth it to many, but not everyone needs these extras, as the EPL5 is very capable anyway! And it is lens choices that make the difference.
And the E-PM2 offers the same image quality and access to the same lenses for even less. They're all differentiated by features. You decide how much the fancy IS and build quality are worth (to get you to the E-P5), and then the evf.
Rainer2022: Of cause these are the writer's choices.
It's apparent he took at least one cam from every important brand. (Did I forget a brand?)
Maybe two canons and two panasonics were taken because many people own those brands.
Today, most new cams are worth their money. I feel happy there is the choice between so much of them. Everybody gets the cam which is made for him / his needs. Of cause, there are different opinions, what is good for someone. You can write your own opinion, but don't blame the writer for his choice, please. Don't take the world so serious. Photography is just a hobby for most of us, no need to make yourself miserable with it.
If you have invested in glass from one brand, you have to choose your next cam from the same supplier; like it or not - so the fact, there is one cam chosen from each brand was a good decision.
If you really see a very good cam and you are not convinced with your system (me canon-owner thinks of 18MPIX APS-C) just switch :-)
Panasonic is pretty far down in sales, well below Nikon and Sony. Given that the different brands offer various features and have varying strengths, spreading around the attention does make some sense. Cameras have reached such a high degree of competence that I'd have a hard time coming up with ten bad cameras. Value strikes me as what varies the most, with some cameras seeming overpriced compared to others.
Create Dont Imitate: The end of the AA filter... finally.
I'll take the AA filter, please. The reduction in resolution is minor.