Stefan Sobol: Using the DJI Phantom 2 (or anything like it) to take real estate pictures is currently illegal in the US even if you have permission from the property owner. The use of "drones" for commercial purposes (i.e. in exchange for compensation) is illegal. This law applies to hobbyist aircraft as well. If you give the images away you might be ok, but then the Phantom will not be paid for in 4 shoots.
However, it is perfectly legal to hover a big helicopter over the poor neighbor's house so you can take some pictures and you can charge whatever you want for them.
Interesting. But as I tell my kids, nothing is wrong unless you get caught, and I wonder if anyone polices this sort of activity.
Good for them. People who want a pocket sized camera that's full frame will find this has always been possible with this antiquated technology.
SulfurousBeast: Anyone think "made in china" LX100 is a dampener or even a deal breaker? Sort of this premium compact losing its cachet? Wonder where the Typ109 is made, dont want a made in China Leica, that's me though... But guess a lot of you out there thnking along the same lines...?
Last time I checked, wages in China were just slightly lower than in Japan. So that explains why manufacturers are eager to build in China. What it doesn't explain is why these cost savings aren't passed along to the consumer.
There is also the politically incorrect assumption that Japanese culture embraces perfection in a way the Chinese don't. That's a bit of a stretch but if you had a choice between equivalent Japanese and Chinese cars, which would you take?
Really nice and he obviously has a great rapport with people.
ThomasSwitzerland: Ken Rockwell has just published snapshots on the D750 with the 20mm f/1.8.
To me this represents outstanding journalistic quality in time and precision. Why cannot the so much larger <dpreview> deliver?
Fortunately, I think the camera is capable of much better images than Ken's super saturated hand-held shots. The shot of Radio City is impressively blurry at the edges, especially on the right--wow. Not sure how the master manged this with a 20mm lens.
Samuel Dilworth: Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Why does no-one make a sophisticated camera today?
Camera-phones have mopped up the non-enthusiasts. The mad boom of selling SLRs by feature count to people who used one feature – full auto – is over. Soon the boom of bigger and better sensors will be over.
What remains is an unmet need to focus on quality, simplicity, and usability.
In this discussion about LX100 fluff features:
… NameFinder said:
“I think, the LX100 with its retro outer layout of direct dials heads in that direction. Now, if the inner layout would follow, freed of gadgets and clutter, we would have a classical photo camera.”
Although I think “retro” is misused here, he/she makes a great point. Where is this camera?
The wild enthusiasm over Nikon’s Pure Photography campaign validates the concept, though the baroque Df was an insult to it.
I think the problem is electronics. When cameras were mechanical, or mostly mechanical, adding features meant a lot of work and finding a place for another button.
Now that the camera industry has become a small part of the consumer electronics business it's easy to add useless features and they require just one more button press or combinations of button presses.
The next time some fan goes nuts over a game changer like the Df and Pure Photography, they would do well to remember that here, we have 1500 posts and it hasn't cost Canon a dime.
justmeMN: Canon estimates that, this year, they will sell 9.5 million compact cameras, and 7.0 million DSLRs.
Not bad, for a company that does everything wrong, and that everyone hates. :-)
T3 makes a good point about large companies depending on interia to keep them profitable. But then, T3 says think for yourself; don't buy something just because the manufacturer is big.
This is great reasoning but does not take into account other important factors like the quality and number of lenses available, the quality and number of lenses the person already has, the availability of rental equipment, whether the manufacturer is typically easy to deal with, etc. Not to mention, if cost is an issue, does the company give good value for money.
Innovation is great. Look at Windows, which just keeps getting better. But there are lots of reasons why people keep buying Nikon and Canon.
tarsus: Of course the LCD on the Canon GX7 does not tilt for anything other than selfies, that will be in version 2. Of course there is no EVF, that will be in version 3. After which you will have spent $2,100 on a compact camera. Note the progression of the RX series. You will have spent $2,400 to get the camera you want. The Canon G1X series is now at $1600 and counting. The next version with an EVF will put buyers at $2400. Of course the LCD on the Panasonic LX100 doesn't tilt because, well, you get the idea. I know they have to make money to stay in business, but my goodness we are seriously manipulated into spending a lot of money that I feel does not justify what you ultimately get. Smart marketing,? yes. Good for consumers,? no. By the time you get the LX100 you want, you will have spent $2700 for the tilt screen and a slightly longer lens. My only concession is the G1X bought used to shoot silently on quiet venues. Not one more step up from me.
Who is forcing you to buy these things if they are not what you want?
shutterbud: So, to test the new semi-pro sports camera which has been anticipated for yers, you go out on a sunny day and take portraits and landscape shots?Pointless gallery, almost certainly designed to side-step the fact that the sensor is substandard compared to modern alternatives.Can DPR please get their act together?
I think shutterbud is mostly correct. jpg galleries would be useful anywhere except DPR, where people are only interested in the absolute best a new camera is capable of. Nothing wrong with jpgs, and giants like Ken Rockwell prefer them over uncompressed data, but they're still jpgs.
As far as I can tell, the only practical use for DxO data is so that the owner of the product that scores 91 instead of 87 can tell himself he's got the best, even if the difference isn't readily visible. I own a lot of Canon and some Nikon and readily admit the Nikon sensors are better. But the differences in images are much smaller than the differences in DxO ratings. If this wasn't the case, nobody would be using Canon.
Fantastic idea, Roger! Other than paying extra for the box that came with the item, which sounds more like a KEH thing, this is a great service.
Instead of buying a new item that's probably ok but might not be, rent one, test it to your satisfaction and buy it at a used price. I wish this had been available when I bought my 14 Rokinon, where I went through four to get a really good one.
This was inevitable. Everything else is automatic so why not? The next thing will be a true program mode. Just set it to "wedding", "landscape", "portrait", "over saturated for Flickr", "HDR max" and so on.
You push the button (if you insist.) We do the rest.
peevee1: Oh come on! What does that have to do with digital photography?
You might as well ask what does digital photography have to do with photography. I enjoy looking at charts as much as the next person and software that's too difficult to use is even more fun. But sometimes we lose sight of the end product.
PhotoKhan: This is SO funny...
Brands are so embroiled in competing at any cost that they actually end up cannibalizing their own line-ups most probably, because in glorious corporate tradition, groups of persons inside are more busy taking care of their own "clout" then actually looking for the company interests....and then comes a photography site diligently and engagingly trying to make sense of it all by deeply analyzing (mostly) non-existing differences.
It isn't funny, but you're partly right because those people trying to create sometimes imaginary differentiation, have bosses too. And they have bosses too, especially in giant companies like Sony or Fuji.
bernardly: With all the profits Canon is making from its camera division and considering the vast resources of the company, one would think Canon would do the right thing for its loyal customers and support all RAW enabled cameras in DPP version 4.x. It does not seem to be forthcoming though. Even the newly released 7Dmkll and G7X get support only in DPP version 3.x with the old & crusty user interface. This is marketing Balkanisation at its worst.
Considering the price, I can excuse them not supporting cameras that haven't even been shipped yet.
Assuming the appeal of Chromebooks is the low price, when they figure a way to make Photoshop work on a $400 Chromebook as well as it works on a MacBook, they'll have something.
I knew this reminded me of something. Nikon has a "boutique" catalog in Japan with lots of this stuff. Since it's Japan-only, quantities are small and most or all of it isn't even made by Nikon.
My first Photokina in 1980, I worked two booths because one company paid for my air and another for hotel. I was too busy to see everything but there was real excitement because photography was photography, video was too expensive and electronics meant Walkman.
All these years later, everything good is still expensive but instead of buying a Linhof and keeping it 25 years or a Nikon for 10, manufacturers expect you to upgrade or even switch every year or two. And instead of getting a mechanical jewel that's like a fine watch, now you get an electronic watch.
For now, technology has overtaken itself. Current cameras aren't just more than adequate--they have to compete with other electronic toys while we wait for pocket-sized video cameras with such high resolution you can shoot continuously and pick the best frame. In fact, the computer will tell you which frame is the best.
If Leica came up with this, it would be called a ripoff and snapped up quickly.
If Apple did it, there would be a video with Jony Ives, with that pained expression of his, explaining this revolutionary new concept.
But since it's Canon, they probably had too many white bodies and somebody figured, what the hell, this could be a good way to unload them.
Michael Piziak: I get the feeling that an entire industry is slowly dying before our eyes.
Evolving into what? It started with "You push the button, we do the rest" so that part was covered pretty early.