plastique2: Camera no gripPropeller no shipA season to skip
By the way, this was supposed to be a haiku. When I saw the camera I got "inspired" right away. Yet as a Westerner or European (as opposed to a Japanese) I had to add some rhime into the "poem", couldn't resist it, especially when there is no grip, so the camera can slip in the middle of a trip ...
But seriously, who would want to have a grip without a camera?
Reply to Greynerd:"unsuitable for ownership of the brand" - I understand that. But I don't understand this: "There must be someone on the staff good at this sort of thing".So tell us: for which brand are you suitable for as an owner? And are there any brands you are unsuitable for?
Camera no gripPropeller no shipA season to skip
Greynerd: I wonder how many people who complain about the appearance of this camera go out and buy a really unfashionable car design. Looks sell just about everything.Looks are very much a thing of the moment and retro is in at present.I am sure you will find posts by many of the people, whilst criticising the trendy camera's looks, boasting about the flashy noisy sports car they cruise around in.I suppose for some with cameras now it is fashionable to just be unfashionable and utilitarian. It will not last of course.
Buying cars just for their looks is known to me. It is an expensive and odd hobby, oops, sorry, not hobby, but a way of life. This logic is definitely entering, well, no, has definitely already entered the world of photographic cameras too. And the image quality on dpreview of photos which are depicting photographic products has dropped below the level of "even" photo microsites. So again, this whole industry is not necessarily going towards a better image quality but towards a better photographic experience. Have I passed the test with the last part of the last sentence? Better photographic experience?!?! Crampy hands?! Retro this and retro that!I wonder what a retro hammer would look like? Or a fashionable retro chainsaw?
plastique2: A camera without a hand grip is like the proverbial american paper bag without a carrying handle: it's supposed to look cool - until it drops down or you get cramps in your arms (or hand(s)).A camera with a swivel monitor is as practical as a door knob compared to a door handle - especially when you have to open the door while carrying handleless paper bags hugging them with your arms.But it looks cool! Man, does it look cool!The cameras keep getting prettier. The pixel count keeps outrunning the actual image quality.
And about dropping the camera: I don't have to drop a camera because it doesn't have a grip - but because it is a camera, an expensive and delicate tool which I don't want to destroy but which I want to use with as much ease as is possible through the application of human ingenuity and not to look at it with idolatrous awe and being prepared to convince myself that it has to be that way when it doesn't have to be that way.
Why then do some cameras have a grip at all? According to that logic a grip has no function and no grip does have a function: to look cool! I should say c'mon!About the swiwel monitor - I obviously was not entirely clear: I very much do like to have a monitor I can look at from an angle - but there is no real advantage in a swiwel monitor for a camera that is a photo camera in the first place and not a video camera. Unless you enjoy watching yourself while doinmg selfies and unless you enjoy doing unnecessary extra moves with the monitor and thus also enhancing the risk of damaging it, not to speak that the tilted swiweled (or whatever it is called in English) monitor at the side of my hand is not practical as straight below the EVF and out of the way of my hand(s).But I really thought I'm gonna get some replies about the paper bags and the door knobs - would be fun to see whether this comparison did strike a chord.
A camera without a hand grip is like the proverbial american paper bag without a carrying handle: it's supposed to look cool - until it drops down or you get cramps in your arms (or hand(s)).A camera with a swivel monitor is as practical as a door knob compared to a door handle - especially when you have to open the door while carrying handleless paper bags hugging them with your arms.But it looks cool! Man, does it look cool!The cameras keep getting prettier. The pixel count keeps outrunning the actual image quality.
Tears come into my eyes reading about this marvelous device for I have no use for it since I have abandoned all my apple hardware (well, except my imac which i'm using with windows installed).
For the apple protectors: whatever you say in response to so called apple bashing like "this can be done on apple devices too" - well, yes, but on non-apple devices it can be done with much less hassle and without workarounds. Example: i plug in my android phone to my pc, i open in any file manager of my liking the phone's drive letter OR device name (both is available) and start copying and whatever else is needed. Please notice: the mentioned steps are THE ONLY necessary steps. No WinSongs or iTunes or any other jumbomumbo-no-other-can-do-it-miracle-software-or-super-duper-in-between-device is necessary. That's what the apple protectors always forget to mention.
When hacked, apple stuff is quite cool. So what the heck, let's hack it ;)
He Leute, lasst euch nicht verappeln ;)
I own now an A3000 for some ten days. I am very satisfied with the image quality and with the shape of the camera and the ergonomics. I really don't understand the previous post by Neodp. I don't share his/her experience. And yet there is a thing that keeps nagging and annoying me more and more. This here is now intended for the engineers from SONY to read, maybe to respond, and just, just maybe to do something. I'll put it in a sarcastic form:What is the benefit of shooting in RAW + JPEG without having the option to shoot just in RAW ? I would like to know it so I can enjoy fully the benefits of this most likely very wisely implemented restriction in the A3000 too! Please tell us! OR FIX IT!For years now I am shooting only in RAW with all my cameras. I don't need the in-camera jpegs. Does that make me a bad person, dear SONY?!
Michel J: @ plastique2
The whole 38 millions accounts was hacked by the N$A through Adobe itself?
I don't understand, thanks to explain to me. ;-)
Did I say or write "The whole 38 millions accounts was hacked by the N$A through Adobe itself?" No, I didn't. So what exactly do you not understand?
No need to panic. All this was hacked by NSA and CIA and who not else a long time before. So they maybe know who hacked Adobe now ;)
Excellent work! This gets very close to how I see scenes like these with my eyes. I would love to see these images in a higher resolution so that I can "delve" into all these details.
Jogger: i really dont understand all the pandering over the retro design.. who cares what it looks like as long as its not offensive.
oh boy, of course i care how it looks like if it looks like as it looks like just to look like as it looks like and therefore has no grip and i get cramps from holding it even after a short time - so what does that that look like? soon we'll have cameras without a shutter button - but you'll have to lick the touch screen to release the shutter, sorry, not the touch screen but the lick screen, that would be fancieee
Could you please list me some cameras looking like a fisher price toy? (although i have no clue what a fisher priced toy is in the first place)
plastique2: Like all the other PEN cameras and many other similarly designed cameras by Sony, Pentax, etc. - a fine piece of engineering - but NOT as a photographic tool should look like! Simple as that. Pretty camera? Maybe. A matter of taste. Ergonomic camera? Surely not. As so many cameras recently. I hate that. Who needs a pretty camera anyway? Any camera that would have an outstanding performance and would be easy to hold and easy to handle would be pretty because of that. Everybody would want to have it. But these new (ehm, old retro whatever design) cigarette box cameras are a hurdle to serious photographic work, amateur or pro ...When will this 'who makes the camera with the smallest grip and the most invisible viewfinder' craze end?
And yes, maybe the E-P5's images are shaky because it is difficult to hold it steady without a viewfinder pressed against the face to hold it even steadier ... it's meant to be a joke, but maybe it isn't so far from the truth ...
At the moment I have only two Olympus cameras, E-620 and PEN PL1. I have had and used most of the main camera models of all camera makers. I know what I am talking about. I have nothing against good design. But the design has to be ergonomical, otherwise what is the point of a photographic tool? Yes, a tool. You are happy with the OM-D. I would be too. It is much more ergonomical than the E-P5 and that's the model here in discussion. The new OLY which is about to come is even more ergonomical. Yet it is not am OLY PEN. Why did we have to go through the PEN phase with exceptionally good image quality, but with show off design of the camera body? That's what I'm talking about. And you go on being happy. By the way, herd followers are those who are prepared to use and praise a product even if it is clearly impractical in one or another way, just because it is fancy, modern, rare, designed by somebody famous, etc.So do you understand what I am saying?
Like all the other PEN cameras and many other similarly designed cameras by Sony, Pentax, etc. - a fine piece of engineering - but NOT as a photographic tool should look like! Simple as that. Pretty camera? Maybe. A matter of taste. Ergonomic camera? Surely not. As so many cameras recently. I hate that. Who needs a pretty camera anyway? Any camera that would have an outstanding performance and would be easy to hold and easy to handle would be pretty because of that. Everybody would want to have it. But these new (ehm, old retro whatever design) cigarette box cameras are a hurdle to serious photographic work, amateur or pro ...When will this 'who makes the camera with the smallest grip and the most invisible viewfinder' craze end?
As if Sony were reading my mind: the superior NEX image quality in a NORMAL PHOTOGRAPHIC CAMERA BODY ! Finally. Unfortunately the lenses of the alpha system don't fit. Hopefully there will be a solution to that, or at least a series of really usable NEX E-mount lenses.What I like with Sony is they are experimenting around. What I don't like: they produce something fantastic like the DSC-R1 and then completely drop the concept.
And so the metabones speed booster isn't that fast after all - although it increases the speed without any doubt! What?!?!?!
It is really about time to change the term used in the English speaking photography community for the capability of a lense to let through more or less light. The term "speed" is absolutely misleading. We from non-english speaking countries have to endure the torture of reading photography related material translated from English by people who have no clue about photography.
This can look like this (my attempt to make an impression of what we actually have to read in our language - because someone translated literally something he didn't understand what it's about - but then who can blame them given the English text):
"This lens is very fast, although it isn't fast at all."
When we say in our language that a lens is fast, it always relates to it's ability to perform any kind of mechanical operation in a short time period. Yet when we wan't to address it's quality of light gathering, we use two words, the translation would be: "light power". Doesn't that make more sense?!