audiobomber: The photographer should have explained perspective to the apes when he handed over the camera. The wide angle closeups make them look silly.
Wikipedia should not hide behind the law. They are not subject to any one country's laws, so they should be guided by ethics. The photographer owns the photos. It was his camera, he brought the photos to the world, he owns them.
That perspective is part of the charm of the photo in this case.
Also, the crested black macaque took the photos, so the crested black macaque is the photographer and the author of these photos. It doesn't matter who "brought the photos to the world". If you didn't take them, you do not own the copyright (unless you use a time-lapse function or something, setting beforehand a definite schedule by which the photos will be taken).
Lights: Ok. I was once a doubter of the Equivalence thinking (as I think were many). But it is more than thinking. As a simple proof. Take a Legacy (I don't like that term so I usually say manual) lens. Put it on an APS-C or M43 camera, but with a Metabpnes Speed Booster and presto you gain an F-Stop or so. Why is that? Go figure. There are other reasons to use certain cameras, ergonomics, live view functionality, blah, blah. Lots of reasons one person may like one, and another another. But why do you gain an F stop, putting a 35mm lens on a smaller format with a Speed booster?...it ain't magic. (and yes you are changing the FOV to more so, but not quite represent the 35mm lens field of view) At least that's how I think about it.Wow this is an active topic ;-)
Look at Page 2: Equivalence of Total Light. Look at that first graphic. It shows the light cones of full frame and APS-C. Move your cursor over the box below the graphic that says APS-C. Do you see how the light cone is smaller? What the Speed Booster does is shrink that light cone from the full frame one into the light cone of the APS-C one, thus giving the smaller sensor as much light as the full frame one would get.
khongja: Sony is going overboard with this model.Already the resale market has plummet so low to half the value in Asia.Sometimes men has this weakness for hypes and Sony marketing FEATURES get the better of us.....
You should not buy a camera, especially a compact camera, for the resale value. You should buy it because it's a good tool to take pictures. More models and low resale values are GOOD because that means more people can get nice stuff. Wealthy people can get a model with more features, and less wealthy people can afford a used camera. Don't try to stop innovation just because you want an extra hundred bucks for your used stuff!
harvestmedia1: Can anyone help me to find a suitable lens for my Nikon camera? I use the camera mainly for video and looking for a wide angle lens which is good in low light with VR option and also which can cover wide area in focus. I already have a 18-105 lens.Thanks in advance.
I don't own a Nikon DSLR, and I've only done a bit of research. But this might be one idea. It is the "AF-S DX NIKKOR16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR". That will get you wider than the 18mm you currently have, while still being able to zoom in quite a bit. Its aperture is nothing special, but I wasn't able to find anything better from Nikon. Tamron might have something, though.
A lens that I will probably get is the yet-to-be-released Tamron 16-300mm lens, which will get you wider and more telephoto. It should also have vibration reduction.
If you don't mind starting at 18mm (like your current lens) and have a short zoom range and no VR, but instead have a wide constant aperture, then the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 ART lens might be good.
PK24X36NOW: False: "the camera has all the elements implied by the term 'DSLR.'"
Nope! It's missing the "Reflex" part. It's name is therefore moronic in more than one respect. It's mirror is not "translucent" (as you pointed out) AND it is not a "Reflex" camera.
I guess they should call it "DSLST" for Digital Single Lens Semi-Transparent...
Or maybe they should just make DSLRs again, and then they could call them what they are.
@PK24X36NOW "You can focus the camera manually, right? Where is the "reflex" function being employed then?"
You do know that when you take a picture with an SLR, that the mirror is completely out of the way and not reflecting the image, right? So if an SLR is a camera that always employs a "reflex" function, then an SLR is not an SLR, according to your own words.
theprehistorian: Are there any decent lenses for these things? I have recollections of most of the standard primes being a bit below par compared with similar from Canikon...
Try the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. It's second only to the Zeiss Otus in image quality (but cheaper and has autofocus, thus making it a better buy for most people), and better than anything Canon or Nikon have at that focal length (although this lens is also for those systems).
FujLiver: Sony is leading the pack, no doubtand I say that as a Nikon shooter (although the sensor heart is Sony somewhat ;)
@HowaboutRAW: FujLiver didn't say what camera he had, so if he says that its "sensor heart is Sony", I'd take him at his word, unless he says he has a camera that doesn't have a Sony sensor, in which case only then I would correct him. So far, there is nothing to correct. And saying that his comment "ignores the fact" of such and such also doesn't make sense, because that is readily apparent. It's like if someone says, "I have a tattoo on my right arm." and you say, "That ignores the fact that you have another arm and two legs that don't have tattoos." Basically, you are commenting for no reason and have no real point at all.
rfsIII: Could someone explain how the output from this camera will be this different from the output from the new Panasonic 4K camera? Isn't that 4:2:2 as well?
My main question is which camera's video will stand up better to grading (color correction/color timing)?
I'm no expert on video, but I think that the Panasonic's bitrate is higher, but it is also a micro 4/3 camera while the Sony has a lower bitrate but is full frame. That is what I believe to be the case, anyway. If that is so, I believe that grading might be ever so finer on the Panasonic, but you are giving up full frame features such as extra light sensitivity and selective focus (assuming they both have comparable lenses for their systems mounted on them).
OttoVonChriek: I've never liked the Dx format much; it has always seemed to me to be a compromise between not being particularly small and not achieving top quality.
I think it would be a wonderful idea if Nikon were to concentrate their mirrorless lineup on CX and a (yet to come) mirrorless FX format.
Maybe this is what they are doing. And maybe they don't want to make their road map clear.
Well, as far as I know, DX cameras are Nikon's best sellers, so I think that getting away from DX would be suicide for them. Of course, for mirrorless cameras, they should have started with DX, but it's hard to start over, so yeah, bringing out FX mirrorless cameras would be the best bet. But the DX format is really what most buyers are into.
This looks to be a very nice camera!
forpetessake: And now a trivia question: name at least one superzoom lens that isn't a cr@p.
@forpetessake: Is that enough, or should we go on?
Anirut J: For me, this lens would be a heaven-sent. I do a lot of photo-journalism type of work where it's all about military exercise actions, moving in from far away and suddenly running into confine space. Everything gets so dynamic. I don't have all that time to change the lens. (I've done a lot of lens changing while running with the troops.) I've lost a lot of photo opportunities because of lens change, let alone dust getting onto the sensor.
I know full well that the IQ will be so-so, if not out right bad. But, hey, there's no such thing as a free lunch. We'll have to sacrifice something for something.
But ... what about Pentax mount? Will there be any? Or, will Pentax get Tamron to do a re-badged? Keeping fingers crossed.
Yabokkie, just admit that sometimes, it can be easier to take one camera and a very versatile (yet not super-sharp) lens. Finding such a situation should not be so mind-boggling.
How this revolutionary camera can get an 80% to the D600's 87%, I have no idea. Somehow, I think that oil splashes show up on RAW files, too. Sure, maybe it was reviewed before that debacle, but then why not change the score? OK, let's instead compare the A7 to the D610. The D610 has more buttons and JPEG might be better. But the A7 is the smallest full-frame digital camera in the world, and is (along with the A7r) the only true full-frame digital "mirrorless" camera. Shouldn't that count for something? It's like if someone invents a hoverboard that only gets 1 kilometer or 1 mile per charge...so you give a much higher score to a regular skateboard. It doesn't make sense to me.
So far, everything sounds fantastic. Its abilities on paper beat all rivals. I will definitely get this if it's as good in real life as it sounds and if the price is reasonable. Judging from the 18-35mm 1.8 (which I believe should cost more than this), I have high hopes.
Madaboutpix: Wow, those specs and first impressions sure sound auspicious! Still shooting my trusty old K-7, I suspect that now it's about time to stop skipping upgrades and start some serious saving-up for a K-3 body. I may have to wait, perhaps for years to come, but finally I hope I will get one of these. It may not make me a better photographer, yet I'm definitely itching for this tool.
As for all the fretting about the Ricoh logo below the K-3's LCD, the recent announcements, both in the camera and the lens department, make me fairly hopeful about the future of the K-mount system. Pentax's new owners may be best known for their photocopiers, but they strike me as people who care about photography. And yes, as such, they might actually be kind of proud to display their company name on a Pentax-branded body ...
@teeb: I think by "copier", they mean actual "photocopiers".
Biowizard: Beautiful camera - lousy English ...
"and no FEWER than 1000 prototype parts."
@Stollen1234: So Leica is like the Qur'an, huh?
Good ol' Marc Newson...the man who shouldn't have a job but somehow still does!
new boyz: welcome back to the game, canon.
New Boyz is right. Canon is coming "back into the game". Canons were losing their edge. Their sensors were old and reused, and there was nothing new from them that others hadn't done before. Of course, sales will continue because people think Canon is the best, even if it's slipping.
It's sort of like the United States. It's still far and away the most powerful nation on earth. However, it has been slipping recently, so if it were rejuvenated, we could rightly say "Welcome back" to America.
Francis Carver: "Photographers can also remotely use Live View mode, as well as review and rate their images."
Well, the way I read this... you can only watch remotely what you shoot in LiveView while taking stills, not video. Otherwise they would not have specified that PHOTOGRAPHERS can use LiveView instead of everyone, including those shooting video clips, right?
Amazed still that as far as Canon goes, the maximum frame rate in 1080p is still only at a lamentable 30fps mximum refresh rate, whereas others have been delivering 1080p60 enabled digital cameras for years. This practice on the part of Canon is getting to be rather numbing, really. No idea what the video recording bitrate is, either.
Too bad about cheapening this 70D by having a 3-inch touchscreen on it. The OVF will not work at all in video mode, and then if you want to use a simple LCD VF so you do not have to hold the camera away from your body and squint at the screen, you cannot use the touchscreen feature, either. Ouch!
T3 is spot on.
I wonder why people complain about touchscreens. Unless it takes up the whole back (which is only the case with one or just a few cameras) and you like physical buttons, you still have the choice to use the touchscreen or the physical buttons. The touchscreen only gives you more features...and in almost every case, you can also turn it off if you want. Is going into the menu and turning off the touchscreen such a huge hassle?
Cane: There's a whole lot of people posting on here about a camera they have never touched who have more opinion than brains.
This is a fantastic camera to use. Great photos, great quality, and believe it or not, you can actually take pictures without a viewfinder!
Oh, and for those that think they are creative types, yet think cameras should only be black, I've got news for you. You aren't.
And to those who have used it (not bought it, but used it) and still think it's crap, what do you have to say?